PDA

View Full Version : "Precision Rifle" is pretty much an ill-defined concept



wild_wild_wes
03-18-12, 00:11
If highly experienced specialist units who perform exacting missions employ what are essentially rack-grade rifles (albeit with very capable optics) in the long-range role, then perhaps we need to re-think what a "precision rifle" is...

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/227/mk20.jpg

http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/United%20States%20Spec%20Ops/d0275fda.jpg

http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/United%20States%20Spec%20Ops/08aa0fee.jpg

http://h9.abload.de/img/seal3cgl6.png

bp7178
03-18-12, 00:43
That kind of makes a lot of assumptions about the content of three photographs.

If that is actually a .mil type guy...

The big problem with agencies and institutions etc is procurement. Sometimes you have to run what you can get and/or are issued.

I hate our issued pistols. Just because it's on my side that shouldn't be taken as a statement of capability.

I look at those pics and I see a guy who made the best with what he could get.

wild_wild_wes
03-18-12, 01:34
^ Those are three different guys.

Plus, the HK416 with standard 14.5" CM barrel is the new "Recce".

So, perhaps the needed practical "mission" accuracy is capable of being obtained without a specialized barrel that adds weight and cost.

bp7178
03-18-12, 01:53
It's hard to talk about cost when mentioning HK firearms in the same sentence. ;)

I thought the first and last one and the middle two were the same.

That looks like the F1 Nightforce...there are a bunch of over run mil versions for sale. I wish I had the scratch for one...

broylz
03-18-12, 02:10
a great shooter with a crappy rifle is still more dangerous than a crappy shooter with a great grifle

anthony1
03-18-12, 02:45
I agree somewhat, I have targets out to 1.5 mile and I've shot with everything from custom guns to regular hunting rifles.

It is possible to hit man sized targets out really far with just hunting rifles as long as the scopes capable enough. Its definitely easier with a true long range precision rig though.

If you just wanna bang steel out at distance it doesn't matter that much. But for a military rifles where first shots are a lot more important I'd want them to have the best they can get.

ICANHITHIMMAN
03-18-12, 08:08
The general rule of thumb that everyone seems to ignore is the optics shold cost more than the rifle or at least equal to. I think we have all seen it time and time again JOE TACTICAL spend 2k on his super bolt gun and puts a 400$ optic on it. When what they should have done is spent 2k on an optic and 400$ on a gun.

This guy has it figured out

QuietShootr
03-18-12, 08:50
What I see is a SCAR being used to its potential. We all get wrapped around the axle about extreme accuracy in our precision rifles, Lord knows I'm as guilty as anyone, but a rifle that will shoot 1 MOA with just about everything you stuff in it, is dead-nuts reliable, and doesn't weigh a shit-ton will do the job (whether that job is sniping, DMR work or whatever) about every time.

sinister
03-18-12, 10:21
MISSION drives the tool.

In the old days everything was based around an outer perimeter and an inner perimeter where shooters executed surgical actions on the objective. The most dramatic advances in equipment supported the close-quarters battle (guns, ammo, lights, sights, armor, etc.).

A decade of war shooting at (or losing) real people has given us advances for outer perimeter troops and for general, non-specific combat. Nature hates a vacuum. If there's a REQUIREMENT to reach out farther to protect the force (either as a security element or as overwatch to help close with and destroy, or to kill squirters and runners) guys will innovate and improvise (whether specialist forces or Big Army -- despite policy to otherwise not alter base-issued equipment and weapons).

If it's stupid but works it ain't stupid. Smart commanders reinforce success. Some will merely turn a blind eye and not stand in the way. Others will finance and initiate change.

Those who evolve and progress succeed. The trick with OIF and OEF draw-downs is not to lose what we've learned and have to re-learn in blood.

wild_wild_wes
03-18-12, 12:11
The past decade has seen many innovations in rifle configurations, and yes its worrisome to think about this practical knowledge being lost.

Will a smaller force support the many weapons varients we now have? Or will Standardization cause some specialized varients to be withdrawn?

In the precision rifle field, I'm interested in watching the evoultion of the M110. The latest movement seems to be to go toward a 16" version with telescoping stock, but would all rifles eventually be modified to that standard? A longer barrel has its advantages, as does a buttstock adjustable for pull length and comb height.

In view of my first post, would the 16" "precision" version really be needed? Lower weight is a major consideration for the "upgraded" M110 carbine, but a standard-weight barrel version would be lighter still. So, what about issuing a 7.62 battle rifle with 16" barrel and telestock, and a 7.62 precision rifle with longer, heavier barrel and adjustable buttstock? The 16" could be used as battle rifle, or precision carbine, as needed (the pics in the OP show one in the precision role). Or just go with a 16" precision version for all uses?

I've found lots of pics with M110 types fitted with PRS stocks. Here is another.
http://i41.tinypic.com/2drw5tv.jpg

It seems there is a real need. The PRS is heavy though, and as said above the main consideration to the 16" is minimal length and weight . So, this leads me to the two-varient battle rifle/precision rifle system outined above.

sinister
03-18-12, 21:19
The US line infantry sniper will get a 7.62mm autoloader for 90% of the targets he will see in the forseeable future.

Some time within the next ten years (insh'Allah) he will get a bolt action .338 Lapua Magnum to kill any hostile target wearing Level IV hard body armor plates. The .338 will make a 1,000 yard hit as routine as a 7.62 hit at 800, with the capability to reach 1500 meters for a good to very good shot, and 2,000 Meters for an exceptional rifleman.

Many have learned the utility and potential of rack-grade rifles with good optics, capable ammunition, and decent, directly applicable and relevant training.

The risk we run (for the Big Army) is loss of knowledge, proficiency, and interest as peace doesn't necessarily break out, but political "Peace dividends" look more attractive to politicians. It is the human condition and is sure to happen. I would like to be more optimistic, but rifle marksmanship will always take back seat to whatever gets people (both officers and NCOs) promoted.

How many field grade and General Officers were Distinguished Riflemen and Pistol Shots going into WWII? Back then it was considered manly to know how to shoot well. How many are there now (Active, Reserve, and National Guard -- of all Services)? Stand back and ask yourself how many G.O.s today play golf -- politically correct and accessible on ANY US military base or post.

The Good Idea Fairy is a whore.

The good news is there will always be small coteries of guys who will push the edge. Usually they'll be in small, quirky units not thought well of by "The Mainstream Army."

QuietShootr
03-18-12, 21:50
The US line infantry sniper will get a 7.62mm autoloader for 90% of the targets he will see in the forseeable future.

Some time within the next ten years (insh'Allah) he will get a bolt action .338 Lapua Magnum to kill any hostile target wearing Level IV hard body armor plates. The .338 will make a 1,000 yard hit as routine as a 7.62 hit at 800, with the capability to reach 1500 meters for a good to very good shot, and 2,000 Meters for an exceptional rifleman.

Many have learned the utility and potential of rack-grade rifles with good optics, capable ammunition, and decent, directly applicable and relevant training.

The risk we run (for the Big Army) is loss of knowledge, proficiency, and interest as peace doesn't necessarily break out, but political "Peace dividends" look more attractive to politicians. It is the human condition and is sure to happen. I would like to be more optimistic, but rifle marksmanship will always take back seat to whatever gets people (both officers and NCOs) promoted.

How many field grade and General Officers were Distinguished Riflemen and Pistol Shots going into WWII? Back then it was considered manly to know how to shoot well. How many are there now (Active, Reserve, and National Guard -- of all Services)? Stand back and ask yourself how many G.O.s today play golf -- politically correct and accessible on ANY US military base or post.

The Good Idea Fairy is a whore.

The good news is there will always be small coteries of guys who will push the edge. Usually they'll be in small, quirky units not thought well of by "The Mainstream Army."

And god help the poor bastard who finds himself in a line unit with the mindset you're speaking of.

glocktogo
03-18-12, 22:11
As the late Col. Whelen foretold, "Only accurate rifles are interesting".

Most rack grade service rifles are accurate, merely needing a great optic and if possible, a great trigger to produce stellar results in the right hands. Obviously the top marksmen need a little more, but any decent shooter should be able to make routine hits out to 600 with the aforementioned gear.

Where it gets tricky is today's mixed bag environment where you might be hitting doors one minute for CQB engagements and 300+ meters the next. You can't afford to give up too much speed in order to gain the precision engagement capability, particularly considering where the most immediately lethal threat is going to be.

I've often wondered whether the 3-Gun Nation type rigs should be adapted to the battlefield. It seems those guys run hot and fast from a few feet away out to 600 or so on a frequent basis. Their results are quantifiable and reliability is necessary to put them in the winner's circle.

wild_wild_wes
03-18-12, 22:28
A while back a Ranger posted a detailed report about the SCARs issued to his unit (can't remember if I saw it on TOS, or here). They got a lot of trigger-time on them, and the interesting thing to me was that he said with the SCAR-H with 16" barrel and Spectre, guys were making regular hits at 900m on torso-sized targets, with standard ball ammo.

sinister
03-18-12, 22:50
Most units have equipment that will meet the requirement, but individual Soldiers and company grade leaders are typically clueless as to how to train and use that capability.

A young member of our Ranger Regiment, Special Forces, or Special Mission Units will typically fire more in a pre-deployment train-up than the average line infantryman will in his entire career. The difference is enlightened, trained, and resourced Noncommissioned Officers trusted to do their job training Soldiers and junior officers.

TehLlama
03-19-12, 01:32
The Good Idea Fairy is a whore.

The good news is there will always be small coteries of guys who will push the edge. Usually they'll be in small, quirky units not thought well of by "The Mainstream Army."

Quality...

Precision marksmanship is a skillset for which the training will always go out of vogue when there isn't a shooting war, and politicians can be convinced that smarter projectiles and 'smarter' diplomacy are worth more than training faceshooters.

At minimum if we can retain the ability to procure decent ammunition and good optics to the guys up front, relearning these lessons won't be as costly.

Any new rifle platform to be adopted over the next decade should be reasonably expected to fire 2MOA in rack grade configuration with match ammunition, the technology is there, and this is better than the majority of military shooters are capable of anyway.

Ghost__1
03-19-12, 02:01
Sinister has it hit on the head with this. That person has the exact rifle he wanted for his mission. If he has access to a Scar 17 i garundamntee he has access to offerings from Remington and KAC. He chose this one and I'd bet some money on it that it was his choice.



Quality...

Precision marksmanship is a skillset for which the training will always go out of vogue when there isn't a shooting war, and politicians can be convinced that smarter projectiles and 'smarter' diplomacy are worth more than training faceshooters.

At minimum if we can retain the ability to procure decent ammunition and good optics to the guys up front, relearning these lessons won't be as costly.

Any new rifle platform to be adopted over the next decade should be reasonably expected to fire 2MOA in rack grade configuration with match ammunition, the technology is there, and this is better than the majority of military shooters are capable of anyway.


The part with match ammo is a long stretch. Its already in the military's procurement system but because its so much harder to make then reg ball it will never see its way into majority of units that aren't "special". Mk 262 comes to mind. I can also understand the cost part of buying guns that can shoot better than the user. Alot of us here sont remember that most of the kids coming in have no experience in firearms before they join and have never seen one. To have a system thats easy to learn and get the basics sown is much easier and cheaper than teaching thousands to shoot. We all know that the weapon system is by far the cheapest part of training and owning and shooting an AR or anything for that matter. Ammo will always make up the most of the equation.

Now all that ammo to teach someone to shoot a peice of precision is very costly ammo wise. Ive seen guys take 60 rounds to standard zero. Which is in part why the min requirment to go to Army sniper school is shoot expert three times in a row. I'm sure some remember here before the war on terror where it was hard to get pens let alone ammo. Blank or otherwise. Ive heard about the bang bang yell for training.

They used to do a M4 zero or group 7 out of 10 rounds in an inch or something along those lines to make the cut but tradoc did away with that. I believe SOTIC still has a simular system in place.

Alaskapopo
03-22-12, 02:45
If highly experienced specialist units who perform exacting missions employ what are essentially rack-grade rifles (albeit with very capable optics) in the long-range role, then perhaps we need to re-think what a "precision rifle" is...



]

I agree.
I was taking a basic precision sniper class for law enforcement back in 2007 put on and taught by the Anchorage Police Department SWAT team. One thing I brought up was that in Law Enforcement at the time our rifles emulated military rifles which had a different requirments from us. Their rifles were very accuracy and heavy made for shooting their intended targets from as far away as possible it seemed. While our mission generally had an average shot of 55 yards. With the longest recorded shot being a bit over 400 yards. (New York Central park) I said we should be using lighter rifles with qood optics say in the 2.5 to 10 range or perhaps less. The accuracy standard should go from .5 moa to 1.5 moa. The rifles should be lighter and easier to actually deploy and use in real life. Its funny because last year I saw a friend of mine who works for them and he was issued a Stoner SR-25 with what looked to be a 18 inch or maybe 16 inch medium contour fluted barrel. It was a lot lighter gun than they used to use.
I recently started using this as my patrol/jack of all trades rifle for the rural department I work at.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Semi%20Auto%20rifles/SCAR17setupforpatrol.jpg
Its a bit heavy but not unmanagable as a patrol rifle but I have the ability to use it as a precision rifle if I need to. The worst situation we have had where a precision rifle would have come in handy was several years back when a person went into a national park and was taking pot shots at people with a handgun. Fortunately he was drunk and was taking shots well past his ability to hit. He was over 200 yards from where we ended up being able to see where he was at. No one at the time had magnified optics on their rifles. Fortunately no one was killed and he was talked out by dispatch over the phone.
Pat

jenrick
04-15-12, 23:31
Historically "sniper" rifles had a standard of accuracy that we would find in a "rack" rifle today. The Enfield No. 4 T (SMLE sniper variant) "involved placing 7 out of 7 shots within a 5 inch diameter at 200 yards & 6 out of 7 shots into a 10 inch diameter at 400yards." That works out to around 2.5 MOA. The hyper precise sub .5 MOA rifles that exist today are great if you're engaging out past 1000yds or need to make ultra precise shoots closer, but by and large they are FAR more accurate then most shooters.

Modern rifles will hold accuracy that is combat acceptable out to the ability of the shooter most of the time. About two weeks ago I attended a class that had us shooting out to 500 yds with our carbines. 12x12 chest plates with an EOTech was quiet doable, even using 55gr FMJ practice ammo (out of a 16" DD). A quality barrel combined with a decent trigger and some shooting ability makes engagements out to "DMR" territory quiet achievable. Adding a quality optic to help with target location, identification, and possibly hold overs simplifies the issue even more (the hardest part for me at 500 yds was finding the dang plate, and a consistent spot to hold around it).

-Jenrick