Re-enter the Battle Rifle?

[KevinB]

Ack, but at a cost of more recoil which may be more acceptable in a sniper role but not the best thing for a sharpshooter who may have to fire rapid rate.

Don't get the wrong idea here, I still agree with 99% of what you're saying  ;D

Okay I see your thoughts.
 
The 5.56mm improced loads do not increase recoil, in fact the 70gr Black-Hilsl loaded Brown-Tip has slightly less than M855, and decreased cyclic rate as well.

Some of the 7.62mm rounds, like the Hornady SuperPerformance are inded increased recoil.
I took an excerpt from a poster on M4Carbine.net with two of our guns using this.

A 16" SR25 EMC with a good modern load like the Hornady 168gr TAP Amax will get you to 800 yards very consistently - provided you know what you're doing (mostly reading wind). You won't be winning any F-Class matches with a 16" gun, but you can ring steel at 800 all day long.

I have both the 16" EMC and the 20" EMR. The Hornady load above sees about a 90fps boost out of the longer barrel. More MV is always good, but 90fps is, IMHO, not worth buying another rifle for...

The real reason I got the EMR is to experiment with Hornady's new 178gr Superformance round. The Superformance is very hard to shoot out of a 16" gun -- recoil is very sharp and it does not group all that well.

This round is HOT: 2684fps out of my 20" tube at 900' ASL, 70degF -- an easy 1000 yard load. Some have experienced popped primers, even using a bolt gun. It remains to be determined if this is a pressure problem or an ammo manufacturing problem. I have not experienced any popped primers over 50 rounds, but I will continue to treat this round as experimental in my EMR until I can gather more data.

The Hornady 155gr 8087C is not like the 178 SuperPerformance, and I really don't know a lot about its longer range performance, just its in close (300m and in) work, and the terminal performance in Ballistic Gell.

The biggest problem when you step out of M118LR is it is the only ammo in 7.62mm that has both a specified chamber and port pressure, to which the guns have been set (at least our SR-25's).
  When you play with either of those, you can dramtically affect the bolt carrier velocity, and that effect reliability as the extractor and ejector are desgined to operate withing a certain parameter.

Now those parameters are farily generous, as we can use several different ammunition both suppressed and unsuppressed.  But we do have over 100,000 rds of M118LR that have been fired on US Army acceptance and endurance guns that are analysed to the nth degree and fired in a controlled environment, and everything is inspected and tested at given periods.

several of our Foreign customers use their own ammuntions, and we have delivered a lot of systems without complaints of function.

But my concerns with the "Super Performance" ammunition is that it may result in decreased reliability, and increased system wear.  If an entity was to specific the use of that ammuntion, we would test it very thoroughly.

 

[SeanNewman]

But my concerns with the "Super Performance" ammunition is that it may result in decreased reliability, and increased system wear.  If an entity was to specific the use of that ammuntion, we would test it very thoroughly.

Great reply and lots learned for me, thank you.

That last part is going to raise some eyebrows though because as you know the DM/Sharpshooter is going to be firing a lot of rounds because he's a soldier first so for our purposes we'd prefer the AK mentality than Match mentality if given the choice.

 

[HItorMiss]

Pet

Explain to me why you would prefer lots of rounds and maybe some hit vice small use of rounds much greater hits. It seems to me I would use my LMG/GPMGs to pin while my DM sighted and made the kill instead of just pumping lots of rounds and hoping.

I would think the DM should be using match grade for his DM rifle and of course he would have his normal rifle with regular ball ammo for those close in nasty fire fights.

 

[SeanNewman]

BM,

My comments were in context to a sniper, not a soldier.

I have said many times exactly what you just did in the first part my push to get the Sharpshooter program started: It is better to have less rounds fired that actually kill people than it is to have more rounds that keep their heads down (if that).

Your second statement is wrong though in your assumption that he will have two primary weapons.  His sharpshooter rifle is his one and only primary weapon.  He is not a mini-sniper-light with a bolt-action sniper rifle, he will be a soldier who does section attacks and CQB with his rifle just like everyone else, but also be able to hit farther out when required.

 

[HItorMiss]

Alright I am tracking.

So you are thinking like an AR10 for the DM,which can fill both roles. Though in a Mech senario you could have (and it was done on 3-06) a sniper rifle per Platoon in the DMs LAV. When the long shot was needed out popped the long barrel Boom and off they went.

 

[SeanNewman]

BM,

The deficiency has been noted by just about every deployed BG, but using different methods.  The core problem is that there is no precision weapon past the doctrinal 400m of a C7 (which in my opinion is actually a lot less in realistic [non-range] conditions).  If you saw a bad guy at 600m you could only hit him with a mortar, machinegun, or predator which is unacceptabl

Some have bought off the shelf weapons like the AR10, some have upgraded some C7s or gone with C7CTs, and others have had snipers attached to the companies to shadow them.

All of these are piecemeal solutions and in some cases counter-productive.  Having a sniper trained up to that qualification and then under-employing him as a sharpshooter is a waste of a resource because he is not using 90% of his skill set.  It is much better to take a soldier who scores well on his PWTs, give him some enhanced training (think two-week course) and a better rifle, and off he goes.

The OrBat hasn't changed, and everything else is still the same, but now the section has more capability and firepower than it did before.

This is nothing new at all for the armies of the world.  The US (both Army and USMC using differnt tools) and UK have already bought on, and Russia has been doing it for several decades.

As for the specific weapon that will be chosen, that is not my call to make.  My arcs are to draft the Infantry School's recommendations for what a certain system should be able to do, and then I'm drafting up the actual course itself. 

As per Infidel 6's posts above, KAC does make some really great systems that have won some significant comparison tests in the past, but that doesn't automatically mean that's what we'll take.  As always, procurement is an evil medusa with many heads and they all have their own motivations for choosing something.

 

[HItorMiss]

It is much better to take a soldier who scores well on his PWTs, give him some enhanced training (think two-week course) and a better rifle, and off he goes.

The OrBat hasn't changed, and everything else is still the same, but now the section has more capability and firepower than it did before.

This is exactualy the approach done by TF 3-06 BG it was not a sniper in the Platoon it was a Platoon member with the highest PWT score who had access to the Old C3.

 

[SeanNewman]

...had access to the Old C3.

Conceptually yes (best conventional shooter), but in practice no (reference C3).

Nothing at all wrong with the Parker Hale in its intended role, but it would be impossible for a bolt-action rifle to meet the requirements of a sharpshooter rifle in this context.

It will either be a 5.56 or 7.62 semi-auto rifle that looks generally similar to a C7/AR10, that much I can promise you.

The C3 is exactly what I mean with one of those band-aid solutions to the problem to meet the deficiency of reliably hitting something 300-600 (and killing it vice scaring it).  Yes it can do that, but it is not the best solution to have one guy carrying two rifles when there are plenty of good weapons available now that can do both.

What you will see in the next couple years is a very different PWT system that will better identify long-range shooters.

 

[Dissident]

Petamocto, if the sharpshooter program comes out, who will get it? Combat arms only, or will field MPs/close support trades get a chance at it too?

 

[dapaterson]

As always, procurement is an evil medusa with many heads and they all have their own motivations for choosing something.

Procurement is actually quite simple.  Define the requirements.  Be able to justify the requirements.  Release requirements to industry and see what they can offer.

It's when people try to game the system that things go wrong and get delayed.

For something of relatively small dollar value (and a few hundred rifles would fall into that category) it's relatively painless.  Major Crown Projects are where the additional complexities come in.


That being said, there is supposed to be a small arms replacement project at some point to look at what comes next after the C7; that may trip up any effort to introduce a new small arms system.  But that's internal DND bureaucracy, not procurement.

 

[HItorMiss]

Petamocto, if the sharpshooter program comes out, who will get it? Combat arms only, or will field MPs/close support trades get a chance at it too?

Honestly I would think only combat arms and likely like the Sniper course only Infantry. I believe it would comes down to things like other trades do not do the current PWT3 unless you are attached to an Cbt Arms unit and really having your Sig op or attached MP as a DM would really just be waste of time as they already have a specialized role to fill.

Sure it would be jammy and cool and yes the vast majority of jammy cool things goes to Cbt Arms but that's just the way it goes sometimes.

 

[Dissident]

BM, I get that and I mostly agree.

Talking to the guys (MP buddies) that went on TF1-08 I really get the impression that a DM would have been usefull enough that it would have warranted its presence. They did have infantry attached or were attached to infantry types, so the capability could have been provided through them as necessary.

I am thinking it would have been useful on foot patrols along with the ANP or out at the PSS instead of letting loose with the C6/.50 into a village.

 

[Greymatters]

Sure it would be jammy and cool and yes the vast majority of jammy cool things goes to Cbt Arms but that's just the way it goes sometimes.

Thats the 'perk' side of being in combat arms...   

 

[SeanNewman]

I am thinking it would have been useful...instead of letting loose with the C6/.50 into a village.

And that is reason number one.  We have a lot of weapons with area effects but not precision effects (the infantry definition of precision is killing one person, not like the sniper definition of precision which more pinpoint).

DAPaterson,

Agreed that the theory of procurement is simple, but the practice is quite different.  There are sorts of examples of the 100% solution already existing, but we settle for the 50% solution built in Canada (we are not alone in this, UK has had even worse luck with it).

Dissident,

Infantry is obviously the prime user group but that by no means excludes it from other trades who may also operate dismounted.  There is a case to be made for every platoon-sized element carrying at least one as a pers weapon but that choice will be made above me.  Some in LFDTS are pushing for Army complete, but I will keep everyone informed as things are finalized.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Reproduced from the CTV.CA website...all normal provisions apply....

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100521/us-rifles-afghanistan-100521/20100521?hub=World

It seemed to be....related....to the current discussion.

I've not entered an opinion in here because I'm "just a range guy."  My input is....well....perhaps not as operationally experienced or oriented as that of others here whom I will defer to as local experts.

NS

I found this quote from the above link "These are important considerations in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are frequently attacked by insurgents using ... sharpshooter's rifles, which are all chambered for a full-powered cartridge which dates back to the 1890s," said Paul Cornish, curator of firearms at the Imperial War Museum in London.' " Is this true? Are the Taliban still using older weapons like the Lee-Enfield and Mausers. I'm also curious about the statement that the Muj who defeated the Russians were also armed with Lee-Enfields and Mausers. Any pictures I saw of Afghan insurgents showed them armed with AK-47s. So my question to you guys who have been over there, "Are these statements true?"

 

[SeanNewman]

"Are these statements true?"

The answer is more "yes" than "no", because they are not at all standardized like we are.

I won't get into a detailed "Enemy Situation" here, but on extremely general terms there are "enemy" we face over there with dozens of different levels of motivation and capabilities.  While it is more complex than the Tier 1 (full-time insurgent fighter) and Tier 2 (part time farmer/fighter) scenario, that is a good place to start.

With a broad brush, yes the well-organized insurgents (and ANA for that matter) typically use the stereotypical AK + RPG combo, but vintage firearms like those you listed above are actually more common overall in the country.  While it is prohibited to openly carry firearms in Kandahar (lest Thor's bolts of lighting [Hellfires] strike you from above), a typical Afghan family compound will still have a few simple rifles for personal protection, just like farmers pretty much anywhere in the world.  Now take that Tier 2 example above when the guy normally farms but gets paid a couple hundred bucks to join in a few ambushes, and then you start to see more of a mix.

 

[Illegio]

Petamocto,

Do you see a common rifle being used to meet the demands of a designated marksman rifle and a semi-automatic sniper weapon? Perhaps different sights, ala the S&Bs on the SASW to keep commonality with the C-14/15s vice something different for the DMRs?

 

[SeanNewman]

Illegio,

You are obviously a person "in the know" to be asking such a question  :nod:, and the answer is very much so "yes", both my peer OIC Sniper and myself want to see a shared platform for their planned Short-Range rifle and our Sharpshooter rifle because there is a lot of overlap in what is being asked for.

I am not a sniper nor am I in charge of anything sniper related, but I do know their intent in the Cell is to narrow it down to short (SASS), medium (T-wolf) and long (McM).

The matter of the optic is also valid as the Sharpshooter must look generally the same as the rest of the troops, which means no massive uuber scope on his rifle where as the snipers can do what they want.

Everyone understands the importance of commonality where it makes sense though, and if 7.62 is chosen for the sharpshooter platform then it would take someone truly retarded to make a decision to have two different 7.62 semi-auto rifles in the system (keep in mind that AR10s are not really part of the system like C3s are). 

There are more than enough rifles in this family to choose from and there is bound to be one that could meet the needs of both a SR-SASS (accurate) and a Sharpshooter (lighter, durable, etc).

 

[KevinB]

I thought I had posted a well thoughout commmentary while stuck in Japan, but alas the internet monster seems to have eaten it.

I think the three group Sniper rifle Arms Room (I'm back to that ) is the ideal method.

The USMC recently adopted our (KAC) M110 SASS as their REPR (Rapid Engagement Precision Rifle), and will be joining the US Army on the M24E Contract (Multi-Caliber Bolt gun system .308 for trg, and .300WM/.338LM for Operations) and they have the SASR (Semi-Auto Sniper Rifle - Barrett M82A1) similar to how the US Army has the M107 (Barrett).

I think the CF made much better choices on the .50 (The Barrett is a great anti-material rifle, but its NOT a sniper rifle).  And I think the C3A1 as a Sniper Trainer - not that it was planned that way intitially - will work better than beating up the Primary gun in trg with a different barrel option).


If your going to a 7.62mm SharpShooter System (or Marksman Rifle System as the 2002 thought) which I think is the way to go at the Section/Squad level, then having the same system with just an optical change seems to me to the be the logical road, as your SharpShooter (which I will no doubt cause all sorts of problems when it gets abreviated to SS, so I will use DM) really only needs to learn more longer range shooting skills to use the same scope as the SASS equipped Sniper, and it merges the supply chain for both systems (which having to do spare parts lists for customers I cringe when different systems that are not fully interchangeable are involved).  However there are areas where the SASS and DM may diverge, and a somewhat different system is needed)

However I find it interesting that the USMC (which is probably the closest mindset and MTO&E wise to the CF of the US military entities) chose the Crane (USNSWC Crane, the SOF ground weapons people) built Mk12 Mod1 (18" barrel 5.56mm and Suppressor) over a 7.62mm system.  However they like the US Army are currently investigating a 16" 7.62mm DM type system  ;D


I would suggest the DM role is just for Infantry within the Land Element.

Swerving horribly out of my lane
Down in the US (I would usually say down here, but being in Singapore right now that just don't make sense) the Military Police, both US Army (SRT) and USAF Security Forces (SF in accronym only...) have DM elements for both CONUS LE work and OCONUS deployment. 
Having said that, I don't see any role for the CF MP's to have this, as there are NO roles that they would need it, especially since the one role they had a claim (EP/PSD whatever they call it now) is now ALL-ARMS (and really if you need a Counter-Sniper capability for a Embassy/whatever your best actually getting a real CF Inf/SOF sniper for that role.
Armored Recce and Engineer elements could most likely make a case for the DM, but given the plug and play TF system, is another role that could be filled by a 031 (or is it officially 00010 now?) attached to them.

The only real argument for non 031 employment is by the NBP teams, and since they are stuck in the 80's with their MP-5's I don't see 7.62mm employment going anywhere, even though the 140gr Black-Hills RRLP is made for that sort of niche.
(I have 30min before my alarm tells me to wake up here so I am probably not the most coherant at this point so ignore or disagree with me, and I won't be too offended)

 

[SeanNewman]

I6,

As usual, almost entirely agreed with a few exceptions.

1.  Yes the C3 has ended up as a quasi trg rifle, but their Cell is trying to get rid of a training rifle.  Your point is valid about not using out your primary shooters, but that can be mitigated somewhat with rotation and only sending your best ones overseas when real lives are on the line.  Also, if their short-range rifle and the Sharpshooter rifle (agreed the SS short form will never be used) end up being the same platform then the procurement will be massive so potentially they would get the first ones and pass them on to the unwashed conventional infantry masses.  All that to say, I am not OIC Sniper but I know his intent and it's not to have a trg rifle.

2.  As discussed, calibre is not my call.  More to follow on our proposed September shoots (I'll write you at work).

3.  Any non-infantry use is out of my lanes as well, really.  While the Infantry School is the COE for SA in the CF, even being the OIC I do not feel confident enough in my knowledge of other trades (MPs, etc) to say whether or not they would have any use for it.  The employment concept I see is the best shot per section simply having that rifle as his pers weapon the same way another guy has a C9 or a C7+M203.  No OrBat changes, and the weapon is treated just like the C9 in the section where if the gunner goes down someone would be expected to swap to bring that firepower on the objective.  For that reason, the closer that it is mechanically to a C7 the better so someone only qualified C7 could pick it up and rock it. 

That brings up a bit of a different note though that we realized when manning the section, and we're pretty much at the point where almost nobody but the commanders have just a C7 anymore because of the C9s, M203s, and now this.  Unless we drop one of the M203s because of the CASWs, every soldier is going to be a support weapon.