the be to end all

[jraney]

2 questions and please nobody get offended i do not want to shoot anybody just animals.
1 question what makes the .308 the sniper caliber?
why does the military use it instead of the 6br for example?
2nd question is there a be all to end all of the cartridges of today? what i mean if anybody is wondering is , is there an absolute do all cartridge, not just capable but efficient in all aspects. I really do not think so, but that is just my oppinion.
would really like to see what everyone else thinks.

thanks j

 

[jonbearman]

I am sure the armed forces use the .308 because it is still considered nato and it will shoot through adobe huts in Iraq and a do-all is a toss up between the .30-06 and the.308.It will kill anything on our continent and are inherently accurate.

 

[15Tango]

1 question what makes the .308 the sniper caliber?
why does the military use it instead of the 6br for example?

I don't see the .308 as a sniper caliber at all, it's a decent hunting cartridge but it has limited range. At 800 yards even a .243 with 105s beats the .308 not only on wind and drop but also energy.

To my knowledge they use it because of compatibility. The military uses a pretty slim choice of standardized calibers. Switching over to the .300 Win. Mag. is the opposite direction they need to be going in my opinion. To get a 30 caliber up to equal speeds of that of a 6.5 or 7MM's BC it takes a hell of a lot of recoil. If they went to something like the 284 Winchester they'd have less recoil, which would aid in accuracy and they'd be giving up nothing in terms of barrel life to the .300 WM and potentially would be delivering more energy and they'd have more margin for error in the 7MM's bullet's BC. To match a 180 VLD in .30 caliber you've got to get into the 220 grain class bullets, good luck getting that up to 2900+ FPS in a .300 WM, even if you do the recoil's double.

I think it'd be smart and take minimal reworking to switch over to the .260 from the .308, the 260 outperforms the .308 by quite a margin and at nearly half the recoil. I suppose that'd happen about the same time as them switching over the M16 to 6.5 Grendel or something - in other words, probably never.

Maybe they'll rethink their decision after some cases get stuck in the field after head separation.

Wayne

 

[fdshuster]

308 is an excellent ctg., up to approx. 800 yds. They are finding out that with the really long range shots involved in Iraq & Afganistan it is lacking. It's my understanding that Remington is presently doing a military contract upgrading the M24 to one with a modular aluminum stock, chambered in 300 Winchester Magnum. A large number of these new rifles have already been delivered and are being put to good use. And, of course, the 50 calibers are still being used. ps: I'm not debating what is a better cartridge, just relating what I've been told about the 300 Win. Magnum.

 

[Rustystud]

Two thoughts for you:

1. Military Intelegence

2. NATO compliance This means we (America) have to comply with the wishes of the English, French, and Germans. We could be shooting the 303 British, 8mm Mauser or just wave white flags.

The Dutch, Greeks, Sweeds and Turks all had 6.5s.
Later in the war the Germans has 7mms.

Food for thought the 308/7.62 Nato is a dam fine infantry round.

Nat Lambeth

 

[fdshuster]

Could not help but laugh at the "white flag/ French" line!

 

[Laurie]

To my knowledge they use it because of compatibility. [Wayne]

Logistical compatability is crucial in military decision making - hence sniper rifles chambered as 7.62mm rather than the tighter .308 Win. At the end of the day, if the specified sniper ammo has run out and you're not able to resupply, the rifle can still be fired with any old 7.62mm on hand.

The Holy Grail for military planners is the 'one-shot hit at 800 metres' so far as sniping goes in recent years. That's a huge step forward from WW2, Korea and the post-war period, where a head shot at 300M was regarded as very good and most WW2 German kit couldn't reliably achieve it. 7.62 / 155gn or 175gn is pushed at 800M - the USMC regard the M119LR as 'falling off a cliff' beyond that range.

In practice, the number of times that shots can be taken at a true 1,000yd or metres in combat theatres is very small, largely through blocked sight-lines. The Middle East is a likely exception to the rule given the scarce vegetation and greater likelihood of being able to shoot over long open spaces. Many of the past so-called 1,000yd shots in times before cheap rangefinders became available are reckoned to have involved rather short steps - a bit like many 500yd deer kills in the past! Snipers who want to stay alive will often pass up a very long shot too if they have moved out into the opposition's territory - what benefit is there in taking the shot, missing, and stirring up a hornet's nest of enemy activity when you've got to withdraw unseen unless you want an artillery or mortar strike brought down on your head. You can shoot the best cartridge in the world ballistically, but 1,000yd is a still long way when it's a single no-sighter shot. Afghanistan may be a bit different again as it's 'asymmetric warfare' - the other side hasn't usually got artillery and certainly hasn't got fighter-bombers to retaliate with - as a western army will nowadays once a sniper is detected.

Our (British Army and Royal Marines) snipers have almost entirely switched to their .338 Lapua Magnum Accuracy International rifles in Afghanistan to make their longer shots more effective. This is a far superior anti-personnel cartridge to .300 Win Mag as well as 7.62mm in this sort of terrain, especially when coupled to rangefinder use. The US military authorities are opposed to the use of .338LM on the basis of 'sound signature'. This says that you might as well put a flag out saying 'sniping specialist present' when you use such a cartridge. This was how US troops knew they had a proper NVA sniper shooting at them in Vietnam - specialist snipers used Mosin-Nagant M1891/30 rifles with the 7.62X54R cartridge, nuisance Viet-Cong 'snipers' had SKS and AK rifles firing the little 7.62X39mm M43, and the two had a quite different signature to those on the receiving end. As noted, it doesn't matter that much if at all in Afghanistan thanks to the other side's lack of heavy weaponry and total lack of air power.

To my mind, what is much more of an issue than specialist sniper kit is 'sharpshooting' at rifle squad or platoon level which has been woefully inadequate in western armies for decades. That is, the general inability to hit anything smaller than a barndoor with the issue 5.56mm rifle at anything beyond 200M. The old Soviet Red Army recognised this with literally thousands of SVD 'Dragunov' rifles issued to troopers who showed innate shooting skills, on the basis of a sniper rifle to every 8 or 10 riflemen, and this continues in the Russian and Eastern European armies. These guys can make reliable hits out to 500-600M and you don't need to expend thousands of .50 Cal machinegun rounds or fire a $50,000 Javelin missile to take out a single machinegun or mortar position if you can't get arty onto the target. The US has recognised the deficiency in recent years with its Squad Designated Marksmanship program and M110 KAC 7.62 SASS rifle. Our guys have resisted asccurate shooting skills for years and won't support civilian accuracy shooting on PC grounds and have paid the price for it - they've finally woken up and bought 440 (wow - all of 440!) L129A1 'Sharpshooter' rifles from the Lewis Machine Tool Co. in the USA, semi-auto 7.62mm semi-sniper rifles like the Dragunov and US M110 to fill the gap.

Laurie,
York, England

 

[bozo699]

Could not help but laugh at the "white flag/ French" line!

Double Dido for me
Wayne

 

[bozo699]

Laurie,
You will get no argument from me on the awesome fire power and accuracy of the .338 Lapua. Isn't it one of your men that has the longest to date sniper shot with a .338 Lapua topped with a S&B 5-25x56PMII ?
Wayne.

 

[15Tango]

I wouldn't want to ruck with a .338 platform. I've done it with the M16 and that was bad enough.

Wayne

 

[Kenny474]

I have no say in the .308 sniper round.

But we do have a "do-it-all" round and have for over 100 years, the 30-06. It can be down-loaded better than most rounds it's size, it can shoot bullets from 100-240grs effectively, and has and will kill anything that walks the earth. Including African game, as it did in years past before the required minimums were established in many African countries.

Nothing touches it's versatility. Yes, there are better rounds for certain purposes, but none that will do nearly as much in so many different ways. It can be a varmint round, medium game round, big game round, all with just switching bullet weight. Not much else can do this as effectively as the 30-06 can and does.

If you could only have one rifle to do everything, you would be well armed with a 30-06 with a 1-10 twist.

Kenny

 

[bozo699]

I wouldn't want to ruck with a .338 platform. I've done it with the M16 and that was bad enough.

Wayne

Wayne,
That's what high quality stocks and muzzle brakes are for
The other Wayne.

 

[40X Guy]

Carlos Hathcock dragged his Win. 70 30-06 thru thick and thin. It darn sure did the job for him. I believe he gravitated to a Rem 700 in .308 near end of his tour?

Frank

 

[15Tango]

That's what high quality stocks and muzzle brakes are for

That only does so much. According to the Wiki article, that British AWM is over 15 Lbs, double that of the M24 or M16. It makes me wonder if the Brits somehow treat it as crew served or something to try and divide up that weight somehow.

Even with the M16 after about mile 8 it starts to suck pretty bad and the M16A2 is well balanced with its pencil barrel - the more barrel weight out front makes it hard on your support arm after that long and cramps start. Every ounce starts to matter after that long and I can't imagine trying to carry a 15 lbs rig around like that. Heck, most people out at the firing line we see have a hard time with getting their rifles from the car to the line let alone double digit ruck marches with full IBA W/plates, ACH, assault packs etc.

When I got home after handling that M16 I couldn't believe how heavy my high-power rifle AR15 with HBAR 20" barrel was - the difference in barrel weight alone was enough to make me wonder how bad it would suck carrying that vs the M16 with the thin barrel.

They probably would have been better off going with the .30-06 instead of the .300WM - the .30-06 probably has better inherent accuracy (no belt, not so over-bore) and it does a fine job with heavy bullets and it's probably a bit more efficient and it doesn't give much up to the .300WM in terms of range. It's an old dog and not a fancy magnum but with today's technology in bullets and powder Old Yeller seems to be learning some new tricks. German S. seems to like it.

Wayne

 

[nhm16]

2. NATO compliance This means we (America) have to comply with the wishes of the English, French, and Germans. We could be shooting the 303 British, 8mm Mauser or just wave white flags.

To be fair, we were the ones who shoved the 7.62x51 cartridge down NATO's throat. In fact it was adopted over a competing and arguably superior British 7mm round (.280 British, which looks suspiciously like a modern short magnum).

 

[Steve Blair]

This American Rifleman article about Iraq sniping supports the points Laurie made. Most shots were well within the range of 7.62 NATO.

http://www.americanrifleman.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=2080&cid=3

 

[Laurie]

That only does so much. According to the Wiki article, that British AWM is over 15 Lbs, double that of the M24 or M16. It makes me wonder if the Brits somehow treat it as crew served or something to try and divide up that weight somehow.

Wayne,

these guys, especially the Marines, are all built like brick built sh*thouses! They laugh at carrying 15lb rifles. They go on seven mile cross-country runs with 60lbs on their backs for fun.

Seriously, the L115 is employed by a single man, although like US snipers they work as two-man teams. I couldn't carry one of these things around all day, not even when I was young and reasonably fit, but they can.

 

[Kenny474]

I think the 5.56 in the short barreled M4 is more of an issue than our sniper weaponry is at this point. The 5.56 doesn't have enough velocity from such a short barrel to provide the tumbling and fragmentation required to stop an enemy at even moderate ranges. It was designed to work with the M16 which has a much longer barrel and produces much more velocity. At this higher velocity, the FMJ bullets used will tumble and break up, causing a severe wound. The same round at M4 velocity just punches straight through, doing little to stop an enemy, especially a drugged up suicide bomber or similar threat.

The M-16/M-4/AR-15 platform is a great platform for many reasons, one being it is modular and complete barreled uppers are easily swapped out. This would make it very simple to provide our troops with a more capable round, such as 6mmAR, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8SPC or anything else that actually puts a sizable hole in something and has decent ballistics. But for some reason the US acts as though it's impossible to swap out the upper for something more efficient.

Another option would be to adopt an AR-10 system to designated marksmen (like they have done with the SASS in certain areas) but chamber it in a 6.5mm round that has a 1000-1200 yard range. If our troops had a 6.5mm round with a 600-800yd range and the designated marksmen had a 6.5mm round with a 1000-1200 yd range, imagine how effective they could be as a whole! Then combine them with our snipers, equipped with a 7mm magnum round of some sort shooting a high BC 180gr bullet, and they could have some serious effect on the battlefield.
Though I think the 300WM in the new platforms that are being used by each leg of service is a step in the right direction. Regardless if there is something "better", the 300WM has more reach than the 7.62 NATO, which will help our troops make longer shots and also stay farther from the enemy as well. If it helps keep even one soldier safe, then the swap was worth it. And with extended range, it should help keep many of our boys safe.

The Russian SVD rifle chambered in 7.62x54R has been very effective when used in this manner, and I have heard from friends in the service that US troops have even used them to extend their range in Afghanistan over what is possible with the 5.56. I have even seen a picture of my friend's squad where the designated marksmen were actually carrying M1A's from Springfield Armory so they could extend their range. (I don't know much about it, so I can't explain it) My buddies that have been there say that some of the troops are using whatever they can to extend their range, whether it's the squad buying M1A's or borrowing SVD's from other countries.

I don;t care what we use honestly. I just think we need a better round for our troops than the 5.56. The snipers, while very important, are much smaller in numbers than the rest of our ground forces. We need to give our ground forces more reach and stopping power as it will have much more impact than any upgrade in the sniper round we make.

Kenny

 

[Laurie]

Kenny,

I couldn't agree more. While the .223R is a great little sporting and target round, and while it proved very effective in Vietnam's short-range firefights (with 20" barrel M16s, as you note), it's been a poor choice as the primary NATO smallarms round.

But of course, the whole western military philosophy of recent years says that 'individual' smallarms don't matter, likewise the individual infantryman's marksmanship skills. Battles and wars will be won by armoured vehicles, missiles, super-sophisticated computer controlled artillery fire, even more sophisticated aircraft etc, etc. That's fine when you fight a similarly equipped nation with the same military mindset - read the Soviet Union, or even Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Shame that the war we're fighting today is against people with a different mindset, very different tactics and equipment, and at least some of the wars we're likely to fight in the future will be against people closer to the Taliban than to the Red Army assaulting the Fulda Gap in northern Europe.

It means our military have to be able to fight lots of different kinds of wars, not just a single one. Nothing new - the Victorians could be fighting a sophisticated power one year and natives armed with spears and muskets the next. Suddenly some of these present and future wars need efficient smallarms and soldiers who can shoot well again. I reckon the US Army has got at least some of this message and seems to be able to provide the resources needed in weapons and training, like all the M14s, optical sights, M110s etc that have been deployed, and the training that John Plaister refers to. I'm not 100% sure if they've really got the messaeg 100% yet - the obsession the US Army (but not the Marines) has with the M4 carbine and now the new 'green' M855A1 that is massively nose-heavy which makes it difficult to see how it'll tumble on hitting the bad guys don't look like brilliant decisions.

The Brits? No chance. Even if our senior officers and politicians understand it, and I'm not sure they do, there's no question of having enough time, men and money to make the major changes needed. The last Labour government did its level best to run our forces into the ground through massive overstretch allied to lack of funds; the new government is broke and can't fund anything now, military or otherwise. Back at the sharp end, the SA80 series rifle has all the drawbacks of the M16 (ie 5.56mm calibre), but is nothing like as reliable in harsh environments despite costing a fortune in post manufacture troubleshooting by Germany's Heckler & Koch, and yet nobody seems able to do anything about it. I despair! The only good news is that the penpushers and beancounters in our Ministry of Defence (we have only two uniformed service personnel for every MoD civil servant would you believe?) who wanted to withdraw the .50 cal M2 and 7.62mm L7A1 GP Machinegun on ammunition logistical grounds making us 100% reliant on the 5.56 were defeated, allegedly by a near mutiny in the Parachure Regiment whose men declined to deploy to Kosovo 10 years ago if their 7.62mm GPMGs didn't go with them.

 

[Kenny474]

Laurie,

I am sorry to hear of the troubles your country seems to have, and I can sympathize with you, as I feel my country is also being run into the ground in many ways.

I agree we are fighting a very different war than many others in recent history as well. This is a ground war fought by men with rifles and it will be won by men with rifles or not at all. In these circumstances, it is only logical, as well as ethical, to equip or men with the absolute best weaponry we can provide. I don't feel we should ask anyone to put their life on the line and then equip them with mediocre weaponry. How is that fair or just when we have so much better to offer? If the politicians in Washington were forced to go fight, they would want the best of the best to try to keep their sorry behinds alive. But they worry more about money and politics than the lives of these young men.

I say if we ask these men to risk their lives so we can have ours and the freedom they protect and allow us to keep, then we need to do whatever possible to give them the absolute best weapons to use to protect themselves. It's only just to do so. But instead we (the politicians) ask them to "save us" and expect them to do so with inadequate weapons based on 1960's technology. Great way to say thanks for risking their lives for us.

Kenny