Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/21/2003 9:13:08 PM EDT
In light of recent Marine Corps combat experience, perhaps we should re-think all the components necessary to construct a "Designated Marksman Rifle/Special Purpose Rifle"...

First and foremost, I question the need for a free-floating handguard...The reason for this is is the range requirement: according to that after-action report on Lightfighter's, AVERAGE range for SNIPER RIFLES was only 300m, with max shot taken at 600m...so, I think DMR/SPR rifles will be used for no longer shooting than that, and most probably 200m average and 500m max...if you don't use a bipod,barrel flex should not be a problem...

As for scopes, the 3-9x or 10x tube scopes are more than needed for these ranges...I nominate the ACOG for the job...

What else is needed? Since we have saved some weight, I think an H-bar is in order...if you want to save some more, flute it, but perhaps even the Government profile 20" might suffice...as for me, I hate seeing the front sight ghost image, so a detachable or foldable front sight would be a good idea, along with a BUIS...

I have just put together such an AR. Bushmaster chassis with 20" fluted H-bar, PRI folding front and 600m BUIS, TA-11 ACOG, CAV Arms stock set in Green...I am still undecided if I should keep the standard plastic handguards or add on an M5 RAS...that would add 300 plus bucks, and the only thing to put on it would perhaps be a Harris bipod, but I'm not sure one is needed for a DMR/SPR...

There you go, relativly light and not too expensive...It seems that the Marine Corps agrees with me in general...they seem to be ready to jettison the M-14 based DMR in favor for a standard M-16A4 with TA-31 ACOG, M-5 RAS, and Harris bi-pod...

Once I take my AR to the range I will post my results...
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 9:35:59 PM EDT
I agree. If your talking 500 to 600 meters max under real world conditions (fear, adreniline, less than ideal rest etc.) I don't think a non-free flaoted barrel is going to be the limiting factor in practiacal accuracy. For most non-sniper trained personel minute of man is the best that can be hoped for and a free floated barrel is not crucial. As far as the H-bar goes I doubt it is that crucial either, but if I had to pick between 8oz of extra barrel weight or 16 oz of sir, I'd pick the H-bar. The main things I think help me with med-long range shooting are a good optic (4 or 3.5xACOG is the minimum) ang a good trigger. I think if you want more performance you need to step up to a bigger caliber that will have better terminal effects at longer ranges and you need to train more than most of us have the time or money to do.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 9:54:02 PM EDT
I agree. The next step up would be an 7.62 AR-10 type weapon; a free-floating handguard would be a good idea on this...but I would call this gun a full "sniper rifle", NOT a DMR/SPR: expensive, heavy and ammo/magazines not standard within squad...
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:13:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 11:14:08 PM EDT by DevL]
Free floated fore arms allow you to add or remove things like the PEQ2 and not change the point of impact and since future M4s will be free floated I think not free floating a DMR/SPR would be a pretty stupid and counter productive idea. Also the roles these rifles play is a precision rifle. A TA31 or TA11 is a general purpose optic for ALL rifles not just a DMR/SPR so why not have better optics suited to the task of a DMR/SPR? I think the current SPR is just fine as is. In fact I cant think of any way in which I would change it.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 4:11:17 AM EDT
guess what I am saying is that all those guys running ariund with 12 pound 223s still have 223s. DevL did you get my IM about the fat boy?
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 5:31:48 AM EDT
They guys who field the SPR have a great deal of autonomy as far ast the equipment they use and they seem to like the 2 versions they are getting. MSTN, says they like the new Leupold scope. It has a little less magnifcation than the 3.5-10X40mm.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 6:54:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 7:21:57 AM EDT
WHERE ARE THE PICTURES!? [:D]
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 8:35:39 AM EDT
"AVERAGE range for SNIPER RIFLES was only 300m, with max shot taken at 600m...so, I think DMR/SPR rifles will be used for no longer shooting than that, and most probably 200m average and 500m max...if you don't use a bipod,barrel flex should not be a problem..." At ranges under 300meters our regular infantrymen can take care of it. THe premise for the post is all wrong. The purpose is for the platoon to have at it's disposal a rifle that can take out the enemy at a range exceeding all other weapons at it's disposal except designated sniper rifles. Remember in Vietnam some Army snipers got kills at 75yds with the M-14 but that doesn't mean that they would have been better off with a 150yd max range. I think you are debating an issue involving compromising the rifle's abilities to save money. (I reccomend we cut the airforce budget on PR bombs like the 25,000lb bomb before we limit the small budget on SPR's.) [b]If you want a cheap SPR take a E2 20" and put an ACOG on it[/b]
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 9:22:14 AM EDT
Posted by Wes...
KAC GAS BLOCK/FLIP UP FRONT SIGHT... NEW MODEL, [i]NOT AVAILABLE COMMERCIALLY[/i]
View Quote
Might that change in the near future???
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 9:42:48 AM EDT
I agree with DevL... a special purpose rifle should have things making it adapted for what it does. Put me a 600M, and I MUCH prefer a 10X optic... no doubt. Going away from a free floated configuration is nonsense... why would you NOT want ANY rifle free floated? Especially if you can come up with similar weights. You argument seems to be one of weight/cost issues... which we arent talking about making this a standard infantry rifle. It is, by definition... an SPR.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 12:56:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/22/2003 1:14:41 PM EDT by themao]
Originally Posted By StormSurge: In light of recent Marine Corps combat experience, perhaps we should re-think all the components necessary to construct a "Designated Marksman Rifle/Special Purpose Rifle"... First and foremost, I question the need for a free-floating handguard...The reason for this is is the range requirement: according to that after-action report on Lightfighter's, AVERAGE range for SNIPER RIFLES was only 300m, with max shot taken at 600m...so, I think DMR/SPR rifles will be used for no longer shooting than that, and most probably 200m average and 500m max...if you don't use a bipod,barrel flex should not be a problem... As for scopes, the 3-9x or 10x tube scopes are more than needed for these ranges...I nominate the ACOG for the job... What else is needed? Since we have saved some weight, I think an H-bar is in order...if you want to save some more, flute it, but perhaps even the Government profile 20" might suffice...as for me, I hate seeing the front sight ghost image, so a detachable or foldable front sight would be a good idea, along with a BUIS... I have just put together such an AR. Bushmaster chassis with 20" fluted H-bar, PRI folding front and 600m BUIS, TA-11 ACOG, CAV Arms stock set in Green...I am still undecided if I should keep the standard plastic handguards or add on an M5 RAS...that would add 300 plus bucks, and the only thing to put on it would perhaps be a Harris bipod, but I'm not sure one is needed for a DMR/SPR... There you go, relativly light and not too expensive...It seems that the Marine Corps agrees with me in general...they seem to be ready to jettison the M-14 based DMR in favor for a standard M-16A4 with TA-31 ACOG, M-5 RAS, and Harris bi-pod... Once I take my AR to the range I will post my results...
View Quote
[armchair commando] So basically, you propose using a M-16A4 (with a ACOG, RAS, bi-pod) in place of the SPR as a DMR like the Israelis use. I'm not anti-free floating though. Our guys have shit they need to mount and free floating is an improvment in accuracy to say the least. It's a welcomed accessroy. I like the SIR in my hands over the normal M4 or M-16 plastic handguards any day. The thing is, I don't think the SPR is meant to be a DMR necessarily, not at the squad level like in the Marines or Army. This is a "SPECIAL PURPOSE" rifle for spec ops guys who can take out stuff at 600 yards and beyond. Have we seen any SPRs in Marine or Army platoons yet? I don't know, you tell me. [/armchair commando] Hell, they don't even use the M-16A4 necessarily. They like the M4 from Colt with no RAS: [img]http://www.isayeret.com/photos/weapon_check.jpg[/img] Here's your proposal I assume: [img]http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/m16a2-3.gif[/img] [url]http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m4/m4a1dm.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 1:25:34 PM EDT
Stormsurge Freefloating - I used to say why, but more and more data I have been able to see - plus what I have then extrapolated leads me to belive this is the best bet. 1) Increase reliability and lifespan Less load on the barrel allow for it to remain true - both bolt and bolt extnesion have increase strain when they are out of alignment. 2) Maintaince of Zero with addtion of accessories - beats zeroing everytime that damn M203 goes on and off. 3) Additional accuracy - sure M855 is 3MOA ammo, but the 77gr Mk262 Mod0 and Mod 1 stuff is first rate. Secondly the rolese of the DMR and SAM... DMR is more of a platoon asset the SAM for the squad. The SAM allows for a squad to acquire and deliver precise fire onto tgts past the rnage of he rifleman - or in OOTW's more control of fire to limit the potential of injury or death to non tgt type folk. The DMR serves a similar role but in a larger scale at the platoon (it can also serve as a spotters etc.) weapon.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 3:17:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/22/2003 3:51:12 PM EDT by inkaybee]
I don't know anything about military tactics at the squad level or any other level for that matter, so if somebody tells me I'm full of shit it won't surprise or offend me. I still say a big old heavy 5.56 is still a 5.56. And even with the best ammo available 5.56 seems to loose alot of potency out past 250 or 300 meters. 300 meters is close enough that less well trained shooters can still make hits with basic rifles (M4s and A4s) especially when those basic rifles have magnified optics (like acogs). So a Designated Marksman with an SPR is still only leathal at the same range as the rest of the squad -- He just has a little more accuracy. Instead, I say give the Designated Marksman a .300 Win Mag (or something similar) then give the rest of the squad a plain vanilla M4 or A4 with a general purpose optic like the TA31. Then every body is good out to 300 meters and marginally good out to 500 or 600. Then the designated Marksman is truly that -- he is deadly out to 1000 yrds.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 4:12:07 PM EDT
5.56mm SPR's have gotten kills out past 700m. .300 Win is not a good mil cartridge, (due a search on sniper country and you can see what has been hashed out over and over again) Up here in the GWN we have gone to the .338LM is a standard sniper round and the spotter/observer is to be equipt with the winner of the MRS (Marksman Rifle System) which was originally a SAM type rifle - but now is going to be a 7.62mm AR-10T or SR-25 Mk11 Mod0 type gun. I think the USMC have done it right but that is just IMHO -Kevin
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 4:41:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/22/2003 4:59:28 PM EDT by inkaybee]
[b]posted by Kevin "SPR's have gotten kills out past 700m."[/b] I don't doubt it, but aren't there other rifles in other calibers that weigh about as much as an SPR and cost about as much that will do it with more consistancy? What does the SPR do that a full on sniper rifle won't do? As for .300 win mag -- I have only shot one once, I don't know shit about them. (I hunt with a 7mm mag that was given to me) Are they undesirable because they are belted? Anyway my point was not to advocate a specific sniper round or platform for that matter. I just think that the SPR platform out performs the round for which it is chambered. Thats all. I know I'm talking out of school so I'll sit back and learn now. Kris
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 5:06:19 PM EDT
Kris, My own thoughts is that at the squad/section/team level the comonality of ammo is nice, as you can swap mags very easily etc. The SPR is not all that much $ compared to a 7.62mm Gas Gun. When you attempt to get into more specialized sniper rifles - you get into a differnet role entirely. Rifle sections/squad have specific roles - as do platoons. If the section or platoon requires sniper they are attached from Battalion (US Mech units have intergral snipers at the platoon level). The sniper is an asset that is not to be squandered --> as a result a sharpshooter or a DM can be employed in some situations were the snipers many talents are not necessary, and can better be employed elsewhere. At the squad platoon level it is easier to have a soldier who is an above average marksman and equip him with an accuraized weapon - that however has a similar profile to standard wpns so he is not a distinctive tgt himself. The sniper observers can then be better utitlized to fufill intelligence gathering and overwatch duties etc that they are uniquely suited for - not acting as overqualified infantry advancing to contact. Due to the number of rounds fired in sniper courses and trg, the .300 is not a good choice for the barrel has a limited life, and the greater increase in recoil is not worth the added balistics over the 7.62. -Kevin
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 5:53:30 PM EDT
Three things to remember: #1: This is not necessarily MY idea...like I said, the Marine Corps is considering this configuration in light of recent combat experience (YOU can go tell them they're wrong!); I happened to come to the same conclusion nearly a year ago... #2: This will be a SQUAD level asset; which means MANY will be required....hence the concern with saving money (which also concerns some of us out here!)... #3: Re-examine the range usage data...the weapon typically WILL NOT BE USED for shots more than 300 meters...a 10x scope would be overkill! And fragile too compared with an ACOG...
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 6:35:42 PM EDT
Storm, Heck I know we jawed about this before 1) This is from a specific point of an AAR as it applies to one Marine unit - another has a different idea about the SAM. Hence the East Coast/ West Coast comments. 2) The additional cost of components; a)Difference in $ of the FF RAS or URX compared to the M5RAS - very little b)Optic price: TA31F vs Leupold TS30A2 (no real difference between the two in cost) it is not a 10x Scope anyway c) Fixed Front Sight GAS Block versus KAC Flip up (yes) d) Barrel Cost Kriegr versus FNMI 1:7 (yup - there it is) So for an extra $500'ish one rifle shoots 1/2 MOA the other one does 1-2 MOA. 3) Ranges - heck the USMC can hit alot further with irons than 300m. The Leupold duty scopes are very durable - while they are not ACOG's per say I doubt you will get any trouble from them. I think the writer of this particualr AAR was limited in scope - I would much rather have a SAM or DMR in A'stan than an M16A4 (with its crappy trigger - burst sucks remember) and ACOG. ********************** Now for my specific comments - comign from an Army that has optics on msot of its weapons - at the squad/section level I still want to have 1 shooter with a 8-10x scope (TS30 1-8 IIRC and M3LR 3.5-10). It gives a lot of standoff - even if it just for tgt recognition over the 4x scopes. YMMV -Kevin
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 9:48:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 9:20:15 AM EDT
I've been seeing the terms DMR, SPR, SAM, etc. thrown around here and I've never really seen a definition of their role. I know DMR is Designated Marksman Rifle, SPR is Special Purpose Rifle, and SAM is Squad Advanced Marksman, but how are they used? And it's been too long since Miltary Organization in college...how big is a platoon? A squad?
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 9:57:36 AM EDT
The SPR/Mk12 is a USASOC item - it has no scale of issue outside that entity. The Squad/Section is a 8-12 man entity (dependant upon organization) run by a Sr/Staff NCO The Platoon is 3-4 Squad/Sections and HQ element (again dependant upon Org) typically between 30-45 pers. Commanded by a 2lt/Lt (or Capt in our [CF] Abn units). This is how I see a CF Light Inf section decked out ideally My view of the Infantry section light weapon related Sgt - Carbine w/ TA31F ACOG PEQ2A, Surefire M962SU, M203A1, BR Tuote Reflex T8 Suppressor Pte/Cpl - Carbine w/ EOtech 552, PAC-4C, Surefire M962SU, M203A1, BR Tuote Reflex T8 Suppressor Pte/Cpl - as above, no M203 but AT-4 SRAAW Pte/Cpl - C9 w/ EOTech 552, PEQ2A, Surefire M962SU, BR Tuote Reflex T8 Suppressor Pte/Cpl - Carbine w/ EOtech 552, PAC-4C, Surefire M962SU, M203A1, BR Tuote Reflex T8 Suppressor Pte/Cpl - as above, no M203 but AT-4 SRAAW M/Cpl -Carbine w/ TA31F ACOG PEQ2A, Surefire M962SU, M203A1, BR Tuote Reflex T8 Suppressor Pte/Cpl - C9 w/ EOTech 552, PEQ2A, Surefire M962SU, BR Tuote Reflex T8 Suppressor Cpl - 20" MRS, Leupold TS30A2, PEQ2A, Surefire M962SU, BR Tuote Reflex T8 Suppressor Pte/Cpl - Carbine w/ EOtech 552, PAC-4C, Surefire M962SU, BR Tuote Reflex T8 Suppressor, AT-4 SRAAW Carbine 16" Midlength Carbine 1:7 bbl KAC URX handguard (freefloat) C9 w/ KAC M249 RAS MRS 20" Kreiger or Douglas 1:7 SS Match bbl KAC URX (rifle) FF handguard Quite simplely I think that all troops should have access to NV and visible lights. -Kevin
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 12:16:05 PM EDT
Also, the accuracy of an upgraded rifle is not just for increased range. There are plenty of close but relatively small targets in urban warfare. Maybe the DMR can make a hostage rescue shot, or return fire on a sniper. Any device, modification, or enhancement that puts more rounds on moving, dimly lit, tiny targets and fewer rounds into surrounding "less hostiles" and property is a good thing, within reason. Saves ammo, saves lives, ours and the non-targets. Traditionally, that has been training. But the US Armed Forces have always seemed to have an emphasis on accurate rifles. Might a scope and free floated handguard might do more for the practical accuracy of a soldier in the field than the A2 stock and A2 sights did? :) I would definately agree that the DMR is for a different application than an SPR or SAM or especially the sniper team Spotter's Rifles. IIRC, the Marines issued 3-9x Redfield scopes on standard M16A2s to the best marksmen in each squad for use in Grenada and Panama.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 5:58:36 PM EDT
I think Mike_L pointed out the REAL problem here: just what the heck is a "DMR", "SPR", etc.? Or why the M-4/M-16A4 debate? And where were the exhaustive reports before the 14.5 inch barrel was fielded? This equipment argument exists because of practicle experimentation by field units...nice, yes, but our forces have been introducing new weapons and equipment with very little empirical data or other documentable feedback. What we really should be asking ourself is why our research organizations and training establishments have failed so badly in equipping the troops with what they need! All of these "lessons learned" EVERY TIME we send men into combat...THAT IS JUST WRONG! These "lessons" should have been turned up BEFORE we sent men into fire... We need to rethink our doctrine, test it, then reorganize and re-equip, if neccessary...How long has the M-16 been in the inventory? And just now we are getting things we need (like optics)? Has the System finally woken up to the fact that a properly equipped Infantry force is just as important as a fighter jet?
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 9:09:10 PM EDT
I stole this from RickB a former 18B and now a civilian instructor at SOTIC in Bragg.
My two cents on a few things from past posts. The 6.8 is a joke and is being faught by all with a grain of common sense. The round is NOT for the M4 but the SPR. The 77gr is working fine and the ONLY problem is NOT the 5.56 but the bullet being used. Everyone can bemoan the state of logistics but it is a fact of life that the more "choices" put into the system, the more it screws up. The look right now is to get rid of the light/fast round and go to the 77gr. It has worked fine and gets a high lethality score by our guys in the field. Then again they use something called shot placement and have not been seduced by the siren call of the new "technology whiz bang" tomake up for poor shot placement and and the chronic use of full auto when it is definately not needed. The 6.8, again, introduces a non standard round into the mix and when you run out of ammo no one in your area can "give you and assist" as they are shooting something else. Those 7 to 12 lb clubs are a pain, been there done that, not interested in ever repeating that stupidity. The need for new rounds that go further and kill faster. Nope, the .308 works fine for 99.9% of the shooting done by snipers and DMs. Crap, if we had changed calibers everytime a new "hot" round came out we would be knee deep, NO, waist deep in ammo. Why use a round that is a step up in only a few of the ranges a sniper is called upon to engage? I have heard the stories from A'stan and Iraq. I also know the vast majority of shots were made at much closer ranges. Oh they never make the news as they are not spectacular enough. But again the average engagement range was 450 to 500 meters, with many much closer. One of our guys whacked 18 at less then 300 with a SPR and a suppressor. Yep, really needed that "special bullet". While I agree that a larger caliber is needed for the sniper in certain circumstances, the idea of a mass change over is bad. Everyone has heard the horror stories of keeping a 7.62mm M40A1/2 up in the Marine Corps. Well imagine a weapon that burns the barrel twice as fast. No, becareful of what you wish for as it may come true and then you will have weapons that burn out, can't have maintenance performed on them often enough, and you, the shooter, finds out on the ground wiht a burned barrel and weapon that won't hit Jacks**t.
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 3:24:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2003 3:54:43 AM EDT by KMFDM]
Ok here is my bit. The SPR from what I recall was designed not as a true sniper rifle but first as a upper reciever option only SPR's original meaning was Special Purpose Reciever (as if most of you probably know that already) to be able to bolt on top of an M4 in the need for something to shoot further or even if necessary to be used as a automatic rifle not necessarily in lieu of the saw but perhaps as a augmentation or for any other reason that a individual may need. Then by the time it was issued it had become a whole system good or ill and it has performed well from the guys I have talked to. Is it the end all be all no (for some people a belt fed 40mm grenade launcher with a rail system, IR/vis. light laser, NOD, thermal imaging, smart lazer guidedance and heat seeking technology that could fit in the palm of your hand and have an effective range of infinity and ability to defeat any tank or aircraft from any angle or aspect and to boot have the ammo weigh less than 1 grain still would not be enough for some people). I would guess some sniper teams use them as an augmentation to the standard rifle, some might use them exclusively while others may not opt to use it at all-what it is-is just another tool in the bag that can be tailored to the mission needs. Also the above SOTIC instructor does have some points: some may be valid some bunko. IMHO think it is still probably a bit too early to throw stones at any EXPIREMENTAL cartridge because it is probably not just intended for the SPR. Remember we went to Viet-Nam with 5 different main cartridges in the system and one of them was expiremental. The special forces were some of the first to use and recieve the 5.56mm cartridge alongside the big army usage of the 7.62mm-was it a major headache-well we would'nt be using the 5.56mm now if it was huh???? If we shot down all new cartridges we still would be using flint-lock rifles and touting the B.S. of the " our average riflemans ability to shoot so much better than his enemy who uses one of those fancy AK's that wastes all that ammunition but still seems to win the battle for them while our forces HEROICALLY fight retrograde actions". Yes I agree with him in that we cannot jump on the bandwagon every time a new idea comes along-but it is the best I have seen in a long time and yes the 77gn bullet does kill a bit better than the green tip is nice and good. For snipers who have excellent training and good optics and probably the ability to make a good target ID the 5.56mm 77gn is probably the heat, hell some could probably do it with a rubber band and a BB. But if it is for the average operator and the operator has more comfort and with the 6.8mm as an added bit it increases the margin on an faster incapacitating wound that he had to snap off in a hurry in crappy conditions and is still able to carry enough ammo to complete the mission-I am all for it.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 6:45:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2003 6:55:08 AM EDT by KevinB]
All I did is quote what Rick wrote... It was not to disparage the 6.8's performance - from all I have seen from that it looks to be an excellent cartridge. Rick posted this on Snipercountry, I was attempting to point out with this that 7.62mm is doing what is needed for the sniper role, and the 77gr 5.56mm is doing very well as well in the SPR's. Do I question whether we need the 6.8 over the others yes - my concern is like several others about logistics - a certain Col once explained to me about conflicts - amateurs talk tactics expoerts talk logistics... However I am going ask him to expand on his commnets if it can be amplified on...
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 8:49:37 AM EDT
Kevin: He is welcome to his opinion as everyone else is, but I think that he does not know the whole story and he is saying what he has heard not what is out there. That is all, sometimes it raises my hackles a bit. No flame intended towards him or yourself (If he is who I think he is he is a good guy and a very excellent shot). Like I said awhile back one day the info on the cartridge will become available to the public and a few people might wish they had not said what they had good or ill (perhaps even myself: ya never know)only time will tell-because I am also curious as hell myself on the matter of the mystery cartridge.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 11:11:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2003 11:12:35 AM EDT by KevinB]
Mark IM sent... To further muddy the waters... [url]http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000723.html[/url]
Great question, and one that burns my ass, too! There really is no place for an SPR in NSW, at least no operators asked for one. But before I get into all that- the MK 11 is used both as a main sniper weapon and a spotter's weapon depending on the mission. Now for the dirt: A limited number of SPR's are coming to the Teams, however (want them or not). They are not there, as of yet. The Mk 11 is in use, though, and we desperately need to get more of them! Currently, there are not enough to assign one to each operational SEAL sniper. The SPR is an abortion in my opinion (shared by every other SEAL sniper I know and work with). It is the answer to a question that was never asked by us. The Teams designed a 16 inch uper M4, dubbed the Recon rifle, and after working the bugs out of the components and ammunition turned the info over to the SOPMOD project managers at NSWC (Crane, IN) in order for Crane to make a specific quantity to outfit a wider number of SEAL snipers. The idea behind the "recon rifle" was to outfit SEAL snipers on recon missions with an M4 that had a little bit better reach and lethality in the event that your recon op suddenly turned into a "target of opportunity" mission. Instead of using the recipe, as is, "someone" funnelled money and influence from Army SOF into the project. What came out was exactly what the Teams did not want- a 20", fully automatic 5.56mm "sniper(?)" weapon. Thus, the "SPR" was born(notice that Crane didn't give much credit to Mark Westrom of Armalite, here.). SEALs consider the Mk 11 (SR-25) to be the only 20" gun needed. During joint testing the mixed SOF operators complained about the length and the final SPR is now suppose to be 18". To this date, we (SEAL Team, that is) still do not have the gun we designed and asked for. What's the leson here? Apparently the tail can still wag the dog from time to time...and no one seems to get fired, fined or jailed when it does. As usual, the guys in the Teams just take it in the shorts and soldier on. Hope this answers your question. Frogman
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 11:29:45 AM EDT
Muddied waters indeed! The SEALS are not Infantry. It is the PBI who I am worried about...and IMHO they DO nead a couple of DMR's per squad, using 5.56 (albeit maybe in 77gr); and in this role a 20" barrel is called for...
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 12:14:44 PM EDT
PBI - poor bastard infantry? The Mk12/SPR is a USASOC item. The Mk11 and other SR-25 variants are USASOC The USMC has the M25'ish DMR, and the SAM - they are the only 'conventional' force The US Army issues the M24 sniper rifle, while the USMC the M40A1 - both based on the Rem700.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 12:28:10 PM EDT
Ok, so what is wrong with outfitting the designated marksman with a M14 and a 10 inch AR for close in work. I guess it should all boil down to specific mission planning. At least make the option available
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 3:34:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2003 3:39:32 PM EDT by DevL]
Accurized M14 requires constant bedding. M14 + Optics = no cheek weld. If you get a special stock with raised cheek weld the irons cant be used. Two weapons are WAY two heavy. No commonality of ammo. (This is the biggest advantage to the SPR IMHO) Having the choice of a 10" barreled CQB upper, a 14.5" M4 upper and an 18" SPR upper is IMHO a great thing. They all use the same mags and ammo and you can tailor the weapons issued to help you get the best mix into action. If you want a sniper rifle for LONG range then get a real sniper rifle. I would rather see an M16 based .308 like the SR25/AR10 get the kinks worked out and put into action as a semi auto precision platform before a new caliber for the rest of the rifles. A new caliber would have to be a LOT better than the 77 grain ammo to make it a worthwhile change. Which would be more difficult in the long run? Adopting a new bullet in 5.56 acros the board and getting our NATO allies to adopt it too. Or changing calibers and having a completely new caliber for all our NATO allies and redisgning weapons too?
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 6:55:21 PM EDT
That sucks the SEALs can't get their 16" suppressed M4. That downright peeves me to be quite honest about it, but it highlights what you face when you're dealing with the federal government and not the private sector. I'm suprised though that Crane or whatever federal agency has control over what guns the SEALs can buy, etc. All they should have to do is call up Troy Industries or MSTN to build their darn uppers for them direct. It would be more cost effective anyway than spending money on a whole new rifle when only maybe 100 or so uppers were requested.
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 1:17:40 PM EDT
All due respect to the SEALs, but griping about 1.5 inches of barrel (14.5" vs. 16")is PURE stupidity. NO meaningfull statistical differance at all... DevL is absolutly right in stating that a perfected 7.62 AR (AR-10/SR-25) is the way to go for true "sniper" work, while a 5.56 will suffice for the "designated marksman" in each squad... And right, Kevin, only the "high speed" units and the Corps currently have the fancy stuff; what I am saying is ALL infantry units need the improved gear... So here's how I see it: Poor Bloody Infantry SQUAD LEVEL "regular grunt": 14.5" 5.56 with M68 Aimpoint "designated marksman": 20" 5.56 with ACOG PLATOON LEVEL "sniper": 24" 7.62 with 10X scope High Speed Units: "CQB": 10" 5.56 And, anything else they need...
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 1:52:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/25/2003 1:53:53 PM EDT by KevinB]
Storm Actually the 16" gives a fair amount of increase performance with both the M855 and Mk262. I agree that [u]all[/u] units need a balance of capabilities.
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 6:48:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 7:25:59 PM EDT
Hey, Wes (I am a Wes too!), how do you weigh in (pun intended) on the "Free-floating handguard" issue"? For "squad designated marksman"-type use...It seems that the weight has GOT to start adding up if you tack all that stuff on: Heavy barrel, Scope, Free-floating handguard, bipod... The heavy barrel and scope, of course...but is the free-float HG worth the weight? Or even the bipod...when I was in the Corps ('83-'87), the issue sniper rifle was not usually issued with a bipod... And could you please fill me in on the specs for the Corp's SAM...
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 8:06:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/26/2003 8:09:52 PM EDT by MSTN]
Top Top