Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 6/3/2003 11:31:48 PM EDT
Over at Tactical Forums "Frogman" talks about a special Navy Seal alternative to the SPR:

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.


http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000723.html

Any specifications known??

Regards

Cato
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 6:22:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 8:20:53 AM EDT
Thanks for the input! How did the barrel look? Is it a real M4 profile?
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 9:04:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MSTN: 16" FULL LENGTH GAS SYSTEM (!?!)
View Quote
So, they put the front site post/gas system at the end of the 16" barrel with just a flash suppressor hanging off the end... sort of like the "dissipator"? Alex
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 9:22:20 AM EDT
So they are using 16" barrel FFed with A2 FS? Doesn't using A2 FS degrade accuracy a bit and cancel the advantage gained by using FF barrel? They could use Vortex/Phantom, but it would be really long!
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 9:59:15 AM EDT
The advantage from free floating is distinct from the accuracy penalty from from using a flash hider. A flash hider does not take away the fact that adding or removing components does not change POI and does not have anything to do with the ways free floating can improve accuracy. A free floated barrel with a flash hider will be more accurate than a non free floated barrel with just a crowned muzzle. Also I dont see why an A2 would be used when the KAC flash hider can be used instead which would allow the use of a suppressor.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 10:37:39 AM EDT
Ok, WHY do the SEALS not like the SPR when everyone else does? Is it a case of Not Invented Here syndrome or something else?
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 11:28:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 1:33:39 PM EDT
I would argue the SEAL mission being any different. SF teams do the same basic stuff, but I think the SEALS, and most every other special team are involved in everything possible for job security. Why else did you see SEALS in Stan and Iraq? No slam again them, everyone is doing it. If you want the funding you need to prove you have been busy.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 1:34:45 PM EDT
a 20 inch gas system on a 16 inch barrel seems like it would be awfull unreliable. There would be almost no dwell time. Pressure would be lost out of the muzzel before the action could cycle. Thats why the bushmaster disipator uses a 16 inch gas system.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 2:40:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/4/2003 2:41:33 PM EDT by SULACO2]
16" barrel: more reach? Full length gas system: More reliability? Free floated barrel? Wouldn't a Mid-Length w/ a #58 be an interesting bid to that particular MEANS statement. Wes?
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 4:04:52 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 4:50:39 PM EDT
Troy I learn something new everyday.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 5:02:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Ok, WHY do the SEALS not like the SPR when everyone else does? Is it a case of Not Invented Here syndrome or something else?
View Quote
NIH is part of it...but it is also they really didn't get what they asked for either. BUT, someone in their command decided to go grovelling to Army SOF asking for money and in-development concepts. Go figure that the system sent back to them was different than they asked for! Welcome to the world of Officers with MBA's instead of Service Academy grads.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 7:44:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stickman: I would argue the SEAL mission being any different. SF teams do the same basic stuff, but I think the SEALS, and most every other special team are involved in everything possible for job security. Why else did you see SEALS in Stan and Iraq? No slam again them, everyone is doing it. If you want the funding you need to prove you have been busy.
View Quote
SEAL missions are very different from most others, as are Delta missions, etc. They dont exactly get to choose where they go and what missions they go on. They go where they are told.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 9:11:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/5/2003 9:13:41 AM EDT by Va_Dinger]
How does a SEAL mission differ from a U.S. Army SF operation that is "sea/water insertion". Like has been said before they basically do the same thing. Except U.S. Army SF also train foreign militaries and work as advisers, hence their language training. U.S. Army SF have fully qualified scuba members. U.S. Army Delta/CAG even has their "boat" troops, that are of coarse fully scuba qualified.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 9:12:04 AM EDT
Hawkeye, I agree that the concept is different, but the missions all of the teams are doing is very similar. This isn't taking shots at any of the guys, tehy are all good at what they do. It is all politics and job security.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 1:03:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 2:48:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy:
Originally Posted By Va_Dinger: How does a SEAL mission differ from a U.S. Army SF operation that is "sea/water insertion".
View Quote
There's a huge difference between Army SF, who primarily do ground missions on a combination of urban and rural terrain, and a SEAL mission which might involve taking down a ship, aircraft, or oil rig. Fighting on those platforms is very difficult due to the very tight spaces, tons of hiding places, and so forth. And remember, they often don't even start their "fighting" until after a long trip over (or in) the water. Plus, the SEALs typically deploy in smaller numbers than Army SF. -Troy
View Quote
[thinking]
Plus, the SEALs typically deploy in smaller numbers than Army SF.
View Quote
[thinking][thinking]
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 5:01:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/5/2003 5:15:21 PM EDT by Va_Dinger]
Thank you, "Hawkeye" for the sarcastic light bulbs. Nice touch, but unappreciated. Have you ever noticed the three flashes on a U.S. Army Special Forces patch? It has three flashes for a reason, one for each type of insertion (Land, Air, and SEA). The U.S. Army has a very nice dive/scuba school in Key West, Florida. Now obviously, if I was planning a oil rig "take down". The first organization I would use is the U.S. Navy SEALS. A highly trained and professional organization. Water born insertion is their specialty. Putting aside the insertion issue, how does fighting on a oil rig or ship differ from a MOUT battle in a factory or multi-storied building for example (tight spaces, hiding spaces, room clearing, ETC.)? The "SEALS typically deploy in smaller numbers than Army SF" comment baffles me. Yes, the basic Army SF ODA or "A-team" structure is 12 operators. But, these teams are certainly capable and often do break down into four man fighting patrols or smaller if the mission requires. I'm not taking anything away from either organization, but both are capable of and often do perform the same missions. Except of coarse the Army SF training/adviser mission.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 5:41:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 6:35:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Va_Dinger: Thank you, "Hawkeye" for the sarcastic light bulbs. Nice touch, but unappreciated. Have you ever noticed the three flashes on a U.S. Army Special Forces patch? It has three flashes for a reason, one for each type of insertion (Land, Air, and SEA). The U.S. Army has a very nice dive/scuba school in Key West, Florida. Now obviously, if I was planning a oil rig "take down". The first organization I would use is the U.S. Navy SEALS. A highly trained and professional organization. Water born insertion is their specialty. Putting aside the insertion issue, how does fighting on a oil rig or ship differ from a MOUT battle in a factory or multi-storied building for example (tight spaces, hiding spaces, room clearing, ETC.)? The "SEALS typically deploy in smaller numbers than Army SF" comment baffles me. Yes, the basic Army SF ODA or "A-team" structure is 12 operators. But, these teams are certainly capable and often do break down into four man fighting patrols or smaller if the mission requires. I'm not taking anything away from either organization, but both are capable of and often do perform the same missions. Except of coarse the Army SF training/adviser mission.
View Quote
Umm, there was no sarcasm in my post. I was simply agreeing with Troy. If I had intended sarcasm, it would have been made plainly clear bu me. You shouldnt read things into something that arent there. If you dont see or understand the difference between the units, then I will leave things where they are.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 7:05:17 PM EDT
What ammo is used by the teams in this rifle, 55gr, 62gr, or......
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 7:40:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/5/2003 8:17:21 PM EDT by Va_Dinger]
Troy, you are an excellent moderator. Let me just say that I respect both yours and "Hawkeye's" opinion. I also totally agree that the SEAL teams should be given whatever weapon they desire. But, I also agree that on this subject you cannot help me. Measuring doorways does not change the fact that both organizations have very similar capabilities and for the most part perform the same missions. A typical SEAL operator(excluding DEVRGU) is no more CQB qualified than a U.S. Army SF member, with 24" wide corridors or 48".
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 7:46:13 PM EDT
What is the point of a full length gas system? It has less recoil and blowback when used with a suppressor. What I would like to know is..... how do you mount the grenade launcher to a M4 barrel with a rifle gas tube? Doesn't the tube touch the mount? ALso the rifle might only work with the suppressor attached so maybe this is why Crane shyed away? [b]Do you really need the grenade launcher on your SPR? I would say no --[/b]
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 3:07:53 AM EDT
Not if you are using HKs AG36.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 4:48:08 AM EDT
I think if you go back to the begining of this post referencing their satisfaction with their Mk 11's, you will see the issues of why a 20" SPR is not what they want or need. They want a "complimentry" system, not a 5.56 "clone". I believe that the Mk11, being in 7.62, with an efective range against humans at way over 500 meters with 1 MOA accuracy, mitigates the need for a 5.56, redundantly optimized for ranges also beyond 500 meters as well. By optimized, I mean the long 20" barrel, the weight, fixed SPR stock, etc. If what you need in a Recce rifle, when you have a few snipers in the same unit with Mk 11's supporting you, is a 5.56 that is shorter, lighter, etc., but also more accurate than an "issue" barrel. And because you don't want to give up too much lethality at 300+ ranges, sight radius with iron sights, etc., you look at 16" and 18" barrel length ballistics. And for accuracy with good grade barrels, and ammo, you look at FF Forends, etc. ColdBlue sends...
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 1:50:51 PM EDT
Sir, very good post. Thank you!
Link Posted: 6/7/2003 8:11:05 AM EDT
So yeah, I get it. Why have a gun that is as long as an SR25, with less poke. Sure you can carry more ammo, but with heavier bulleted 5.56 ammo, you don't drop much lethality by going down to a 16 inch barrel. Now the gun weighs less, is more compact, and is an entirely different tool. Duh! Why have a 18-20 inch barreled 5.56 AR when you have availability to an 20 inch barreled 7.62 AR. That would be a looks the same, feels the same, doesn't kill as well, weapon. Well obviously it wil feel slightly different, but I get the point.
Top Top