U.S. Army's New Sniper Rifle?

[Ccrider]

The video was insightful. Good to know that this set up is the best of the best. For those that have not watched the video, the purpose for the 20 inch barrel is for use on ranges not rates for more horsepower or longer range shooting. Makes sense. Also, the guy that played the major role in coordinating and specking this rifle is obviously top notch and has vast on the ground experience. Does not seem like they missed anything in designing this platform.

 

[Kurz]

Just so nobody gets the idea that I was bangin on their new toy , I was only questioning the poor decision on the 20" barrel for the .308 set-up . And I totally agree that at least 26" would have been preferable to 20" . Though it always seems very apparent to those of us with "Field Experience" , that the people making these decisions have little , to none . At least ; if a Shooter in the field happened to have his weapon set up for the .308 , and situation happened that a 800 - 1,000 yard shot was needed , you ain't gonna take that shot with a 20" barrel , knowing your 1 shot "HIT" probability was not going to be very high . My first two years of TR were shot with a 26" barrel , and though I could get decent scores at 1,000 , I fully grasped the limitations of a 26" barrel at that distance . So let's not go down that 20" barrels are great , road .

Here are a couple of videos for you to watch. Words don't convince like a short but accurate video sometimes.

We shot both the 18" .308 Win. barrels and the 20" .308 Win. barrels in field-type competitions, sometimes with the suppressor and sometimes without. The ammunition ranged from reloaded using both the 155 gr. bullets and the better 175 gr. bullets to commercially loaded brands using the 175 gr. bullets. Misses at the 1,000 yard range were shooter's error not the fault of the rifle or the ammunition.

The 18" rifles benefit from using a suppressor which does not exceed 24" to 26" in field conditions. FTR constraints do not come into play when you're shooting under battlefield conditions. The shorter, handier .308 Win. barrel is better suited to the missions necessitating closer contact ranges than the bigger cartridges used at the decidedly longer ranges. We're not discussing scores shot at paper targets but at enemy soldiers who shoot back.

 

[D-4297]

We have a different point of view on short barreled rifles . Interesting that your "testing" was done with 155 and 175gr bullets . The best available to me when I formed my opinion on short barrels , in the Central Highlands was the issued L/R round w/a 168 SMK . And my target was a NVA Officer . Not a F-class target , and we all know how absolutely wonderful the 168 SMK were for a Sniper round beyond about 750 mtrs . And a shorter barrel did not improve the situation . Please allow me the courtesy of having a opinion contrary to the current "Tacti-cool" ideology . I earned it , the hard way .

 

[Texas10]

A guy who worked for Barrett showed up at the local range with one of these about a year ago or so. He uses it for shooting PRS competition and was heading off the next day for a meet. I got a good look at it and yea, it's well beyond my budget but then it was shooting about 1/2 moa with factory ammo, so what's not to like about that?

HIs had 3 barrels, 338LM, 300 win, and 6.5 CM as I recall, and according to him it takes about 5 min to change barrels and bolt heads. The two are paired for correct headspace and each are sold as a kit. Pretty neat, I thought.

I put one on my Christmas list, just in case my wife wins the lottery....LOL

 

[hoz53]

A guy who worked for Barrett showed up at the local range with one of these about a year ago or so. He uses it for shooting PRS competition and was heading off the next day for a meet. I got a good look at it and yea, it's well beyond my budget but then it was shooting about 1/2 moa with factory ammo, so what's not to like about that?

HIs had 3 barrels, 338LM, 300 win, and 6.5 CM as I recall, and according to him it takes about 5 min to change barrels and bolt heads. The two are paired for correct headspace and each are sold as a kit. Pretty neat, I thought.

I put one on my Christmas list, just in case my wife wins the lottery....LOL

interesting --I wonder how they handle the zero

 

[Straightshooter1]

interesting --I wonder how they handle the zero

If you look view this video starting at 19:05, it should answer your question there:

 

[hoz53]

If you look view this video starting at 19:05, it should answer your question there:

thanks

 

[Bamban]

We have a different point of view on short barreled rifles . Interesting that your "testing" was done with 155 and 175gr bullets . The best available to me when I formed my opinion on short barrels , in the Central Highlands was the issued L/R round w/a 168 SMK . And my target was a NVA Officer . Not a F-class target , and we all know how absolutely wonderful the 168 SMK were for a Sniper round beyond about 750 mtrs . And a shorter barrel did not improve the situation . Please allow me the courtesy of having a opinion contrary to the current "Tacti-cool" ideology . I earned it , the hard way .

For my education, what year were you in the Central Highlands when the ammo with 168s were issued? Were they the M852s?

I have shot a ton of M852s in competition (in fact I still have a couple of cans left), my recollection it wasn't until very early 80s before they were available. If the 168s were issued in SEA during the war I would love to hear the story. Would make a nice history lesson.

 

[Kurz]

Please allow me the courtesy of having a opinion contrary to the current "Tacti-cool" ideology . I earned it , the hard way .

My thoughts were not meant to be disparaging in any case or point. I am grateful for your service and thank you for the efforts you made on our behalf.

Of course you're entitled to express whatever opinions you hold. I did not say otherwise. What I did point out is that the 18" or 20" rifle barrels supplied with this kit had a definitive use and it is not limited to the area of the world where your experiences took place.

Opinions vary, that's what still makes America great.

Once again, thank you.

Have a great day!

 

[rijndael]

we all know how absolutely wonderful the 168 SMK were for a Sniper round beyond about 750 mtrs .

For those that aren't familiar:

 

[Bamban]

For those that aren't familiar:

View attachment 1247086

Seen the sideways imprint a couple of times on Viale at Camp Perry coming from a M14.

 

[DaveTooley]

My guess is Remington was not their first choice anyway.

Remington had the contract in a previous solicitation. PSRII When it came time for first article submission they wouldn't meet the accuracy requirement. There was a way forward for Remington. SOCOM was willing to pay for Bartlein barrels and I was going to do the chamber work as I already had a proven track record with that system. The rest is history as they say.
Myself and AI were within a whisker of getting the M2010 away from Remington when they screwed it up at the start. Just imagine a trued 700 with a custom bolt, Bartlein barrel dropped into an AI chassis. Poor mans MK13. Sort of.

 

[D-4297]

For my education, what year were you in the Central Highlands when the ammo with 168s were issued? Were they the M852s?

I have shot a ton of M852s in competition (in fact I still have a couple of cans left), my recollection it wasn't until very early 80s before they were available. If the 168s were issued in SEA during the war I would love to hear the story. Would make a nice history lesson.

Okay . Here is what I found out regarding all of the "Official" Sniper ammo used during the Vietnam War . You have to be aware that some munitions used were Un-officially "issued" , used , and "It never happened" . Because then , just as now , there was a "Political" component involved , along with the International Rules of Engagement .

Initial Issue : 7.62 x 51 Special Ball : ( NATO ) 147gr. Discontinued ...Ineffective . Various Mfg.

Standard Issue Sniper Ammo : M-118 "Special Ball" . 173gr Bullet . Various manufacturers . Mostly L.C.

Other "Issue" Sniper Ammo : M-118 "Special Ball" - LR . 168gr. Bullet . Manufacturer Unknown ( Hmmm )
No data available regarding manufacturer of this round . But consensus is that this round carried the 168gr SMK . Under the Geneva Convention and International Rules of Land Warfare , the SMK was "deemed" to be illegal due to having a HP nose , later to be "Legalized" in Court . So ; It was there , but it wasn't there .

The M-852 round was developed by the Navy and Federal Cartridge in the late 70's , early 80's . And it is currently known as the Federal Gold Medal Match round . And early rounds carried the 168gr SMK .

Anybody that served in the Nam knows that things were done there that were not always within the rules , so why does anyone think ammo for a Sniper would be any different ? My Dad sent me Hand-loads that were one hell-of-a lot more accurate than anything I was ever issued . Did I know what bullet was in them? No ! Did I freakin care ? Not only No ...But Hell NO ! And the thought they might be "Illegal" never entered my mind . They worked . Gave us more range and better accuracy . My "IN-country" was 69 - 71 .

 

[Bamban]

Okay . Here is what I found out regarding all of the "Official" Sniper ammo used during the Vietnam War . You have to be aware that some munitions used were Un-officially "issued" , used , and "It never happened" . Because then , just as now , there was a "Political" component involved , along with the International Rules of Engagement .

Initial Issue : 7.62 x 51 Special Ball : ( NATO ) 147gr. Discontinued ...Ineffective . Various Mfg.

Standard Issue Sniper Ammo : M-118 "Special Ball" . 173gr Bullet . Various manufacturers . Mostly L.C.

Other "Issue" Sniper Ammo : M-118 "Special Ball" - LR . 168gr. Bullet . Manufacturer Unknown ( Hmmm )
No data available regarding manufacturer of this round . But consensus is that this round carried the 168gr SMK . Under the Geneva Convention and International Rules of Land Warfare , the SMK was "deemed" to be illegal due to having a HP nose , later to be "Legalized" in Court . So ; It was there , but it wasn't there .

The M-852 round was developed by the Navy and Federal Cartridge in the late 70's , early 80's . And it is currently known as the Federal Gold Medal Match round . And early rounds carried the 168gr SMK .

Anybody that served in the Nam knows that things were done there that were not always within the rules , so why does anyone think ammo for a Sniper would be any different ? My Dad sent me Hand-loads that were one hell-of-a lot more accurate than anything I was ever issued . Did I know what bullet was in them? No ! Did I freakin care ? Not only No ...But Hell NO ! And the thought they might be "Illegal" never entered my mind . They worked . Gave us more range and better accuracy . My "IN-country" was 69 - 71 .

Never heard of Special Ball with 147 nor the Special Ball with 168s.

I have a can 1964 XM118 with 173s, a couple of cans white box and a couple more brown box, and Special Ball. They all have 173s. If there were Special Ball with 168s, that is a new one on me. All my LR M118 have 175 SMKs. You must be talking about all of them super sikrit ammo with 168s floating around in-country. Definitely way above my pay grade to know. Thank you for the education.

God bless the snipers and the cooks in the military. The latter is more like my league. Thank you for your service.

 

[D-4297]

Yup . Like I posted . There was "Legal" , and there was "LEGAL". Sure you know the phrase ....Ask me no questions , and I'll tell ya no lies . Or ; I wasn't there , I didn't do it , and you ain't got no pictures . Cause "THIS" never happened . Be well . And WELCOME HOME !

 

[Conaso]

Trump could have had them made for $8.000

Joe Salt

You forgot to include the price of using Trump's name and likeness on the weapon, accessories, etc. It's not free, you know! And if there is a new pistol in .45 caliber, that has to be licensed... and the ammunition...

 

[Joe Salt]

You forgot to include the price of using Trump's name and likeness on the weapon, accessories, etc. It's not free, you know! And if there is a new pistol in .45 caliber, that has to be licensed... and the ammunition...

You must be a Democrat, Do you know how many better shooting rifles I could have for $18 K!

Joe Salt

 

[Conaso]

You missed the point... "Trump" rifles... licensing fee... Oh! "Democrat," were you trying to be insulting?

 

[Joe Salt]

If the shoe fits YES. Who in there right mind would pay that much for one rifle. Oh sorry you can change calibers. That's the problem with most of you guys if it's expensive it's got to shoot. Good Luck

Joe Salt

 

[mauser284]

I learned to shoot at Ft. Benning Ga. 1982-1988. So when I went off to college in 1993 the my first rifle that I purchased myself was in 300 Win Mag and I purchased a Dillion 550B in 1995 and went right to 190gr. bullets.

If not for pencil pushing desk jockeys our young men would have had a much better rifle than they had had it not been forced to use the inferior 7.62 NATO. The AMU was using 30-338 when I was a kid for crying out loud. Who do you think taught me to shoot? So the idea of a heavy weight 30 or 338 was not a new idea. Back then no one did proprietary cartridges often and when someone did people would wildcat the heck out of it. Not like today were every year Hornady, Nosler and Weatherby, Remington, Browning,Sig etc....all drop new cartridges on the market hoping something sticks!

So shooters knew what they wanted but often had to make due with what could be bought and made to work.

Often really good cartridges fail to catch on and really stupid ones stick like glue!

The Reminton .260 which is just a 308 Win case necked down to 6.5mm did not catch on and it should have. Instead we got the stupid to exist 6.5CM caught on like a house on fire! The 338 RUM was a fantastic cartridge and the 338 Edge fantastic neither really caught on but the absolutely stupid to exist 338LM again caught on like a house on fire! The 338NM will become super popular because our Army is adopting it but otherwise not super popular in most circles. .284 Win should be insanely popular but it is not and brass is hard to get. I do not think any company that mass produces rifles chambers any in it. I do not count small fry like Kimber or NULA and the like.

The only thing worse than the fickle American gun buyer is the US Military Procurement System! It is truly like the blind leading the blind. 40 years after you know what you want, designed for it and it is now kind of obsolete might you get it! Once in a blue moon you actual get something current but not often!

I find it absolutely comical that we have gone from M1 Garand to M14 to M16 to M4 and now back to the M14 with a silencer on it! LOL

The 6.8mm projectile they chose is comically stupid and would be far better in heavier 6.5mm!

I worry that F-T/R will require you to use 6.8x51 and if that is the case I will not shoot F T/R ever again. I will not honor an idiot or make someone rich over a cartridge as stupid as the 6.8x51 on principal alone even in the all brass form.

Now the 2 part brass would be great to play around with getting the performance of the 300 Win Mag and 33 Win Mag and other non-proprietary cartridges a new lease on life with higher pressures for use in standard length actions chambered in older cartridges and short action cartridges! Imagine a 200gr. SMK leaving a 29 inch barrel at 3300fps from a 300 Win Mag! Now that would be cool!