I'll slip in a few comments here.
First, platform. A good shot must come from a stable platform. A helicopter or a small boat does not provide a stable platform. Shots/hits from either would be considered lucky. A Small boat would also be to low to provide good spotting, or targeting. A support rifle/shooter/spotter should be setup on the "mother" ship, somewhere close to the command position so that positive control can be exercised, and so that information gleaned through the scope by the shooter/spotter can be passed quickly to command for decision making. Also, should a "SHOOT" decision be made, the word would quickly get to the shooter.
Second, composition. The Army has for decades used a Spotter/Sniper pair. The two are inseperable, and depend on each other during a shoot. The more important position, believe it or not, is the spotter. Any dummy can pull a trigger. Only a good spotter can effectively call wind, call fall of shot, watch sworl, mark followup targets, communicate. The spotter makes the team several times more effective than just the shooter on his own would be.
I would suggest that teams of Spotters/Shooters be trained, and deployed with units that are going on boarding operations, and when they are done, that the teams be returned to Halifax to train and maintain their abilities.
Third, training. The shooter and spotter need to be essentially interchangeable, since spending more than about 20 minutes peering through a scope will start to cause eye-strain. The fact that there is not currently a program in place to train the bridge marksmen on ships is deplorable. Many of them only fire their rifles over the side at the water, and the rifles have never been taken to a range to be properly zeroed. The futility of this present situation should be reasonably obvious to anyone who's ever tried shooting at long ranges.
Fourth, present support. The .50 M2 QCB is capable of precise fire, as demonstrated in various conflicts (such as Vietnam) where they have been scoped, and used as long range sniping weapons. The shipboard mountings however, are not stable, and are not particulary well suited to accurate fire. I have observed .50 teams unable to hit a weather baloon at less than 300 meters. The boarding party would probably be in more danger from the .50's fire than helped by it.
Fifth, suitable caliber. There is much debate on suitable calibers for sniping rifles, however, the 7.62mm is probably more suitable than the .338. The .338 is BIG, HEAVY, EXPENSIVE, and the wear that it puts on a barrel is massive. .338's have a tendancy to require barrel replacement at around 5000 rounds. The cost of the rounds is high, so training would be limited, and the recoil would preclude fast followup shots, unless the shooter was extremely experienced at recoil management.
The .338 is being considered for adoption in order to provide a medium range SWS for use between 800m and 1200m. (Although capable of longer shots, that's the distance defined in the specs.) Most boardings take place at a distance of less than 500m, and in fact, less than 300. The extra range is not necessary for this application. The additional penetration would be good, but at what cost to the effectiveness of the shooter? I do not personally believe that the .338's extra penetration would be very beneficial.
In 7.62mm, there is a wealth of corporate knowledge in the use and performance of the cartridge, as well as there being many different types of rounds available (AP, SLAP, Tracer, Ball, Match, etc) as well as the variety of firearms capable of firing the round is important to consider. The recoil of a 7.62mm rifle is very manageable, allowing much faster followup shots should they be necessary. The existance of semi-auto 7.62mm rifles makes this even better.
The 7.62mm round is capable of effective fire out to 800m, and at normal boarding ranges, it is a very effective round.
Sixth, rifle. The use of a crew served platform or other such system is a good idea, however, there is a limit to what can be easily procured and placed on a ship. There are already 7.62mm rifles in the system, along with the support for them in the Army.
The rifle I would suggest would be an AR-10T or SR-25 type rifle. This type of rifle is currently in use with some units, and are capable of effective aimed fire, with quick followup. The optics rails are Return to Zero, so the scope can be removed, and replaced with a Night Vision optic allowing night surveillance. This rifle is also very similar to the current issue C-7, allowing quicker cross-training, and there is some parts compatibility, however.
I would recommend against using a .50 cal rifle system, since again, we have to deal with the substantial recoil, and the cost of ammunition and training. (There are training limits placed on the number of rounds that may be fired with a .50 rifle in a day.)
However, for all of this to become reality, the navy would have to recognize the limitations of the current system, and many consider it to be adequate.
Unfortunately, the impetus to change this view would likely be a boarding gone wrong, and the fallout of that would be a re-vamping of the current support system for the boarding parties.
There are shooters in the Navy, mostly within the Shooting Teams (MARLANT CST and NCR CST) that have experience shooting at long ranges as NavalSniper points out. I have a medal for winning a 600m Sniper match at CFSAC a few years back, NavalSniper was my spotter...we know a bit about long range shooting.
I for one would hope that before something happens to a boarding party, the Navy finds a better means of protecting them than a .50 and an unzeroed C-7.
NavyShooter
