View Full Version : Army Begins Search for Compact Sniper Rifle
http://kitup.military.com/2012/08/army-begins-search-compact-sniper.html?ESRC=dod_A.nl
1. Operation: Semi-automatic
2. Caliber: Compatible with 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges
3. Accuracy: Capable of 0.60″ AMR at 100m or better with match ammunition.
4. Size: Overall length shall be reduced using a shorter barrel and/or collapsible buttstock. Maximum overall assembled length of the rifle shall be not greater than 36 inches with the stock at its shortest position and no sound suppressor mounted.
5. Weight: Weight shall be no more than 9.0 lb for the unloaded rifle without optics and accessories.
6. Grip: A modular, adjustable pistol grip.
7. Trigger: A non-adjustable match style trigger.
8. Hand guard: A fore-end that includes a fixed 12 o’ clock rail with configurable 3, 6, and 9 o’ clock rails.
9. Sound suppressor: A muzzle mounted, detachable sound suppressor.
10. Muzzle device: A compensator/muzzle break compatible with the sound suppressor.
11. Bipod: Tool-less detachment featuring cant and pan/track capability.
12. Day optic: An Army specified variable power day optic and compatible rings.
13. Back up sights: Iron sights offset 45 deg from the DOS.
14. Sling attachment: Flush cup, quick detach sling attachment points.
15. Barrel and Receiver Life: Significant improvement from M110 requirements while enduring higher rates of fire.
mkmckinley
08-04-12, 15:19
Sounds pretty close to the original SR-25. OBRs would be nice too but I don't know how they would handle the ROF requirements. Actually they could just put a better trigger and short precision barrel on a Mk-17 and call it a day but you know it won't be that easy.
wetidlerjr
08-04-12, 15:58
LM&T .308 Modular Weapon System, 16"
LM308MWSE
LM308MWSE (http://www.lmtstore.com/308-modular-weapon-system.html)
:D
MountainRaven
08-04-12, 20:03
LM&T .308 Modular Weapon System, 16"
LM308MWSE
LM308MWSE (http://www.lmtstore.com/308-modular-weapon-system.html)
:D
Doesn't make the weight requirement.
:p
wild_wild_wes
08-04-12, 20:25
Iron BUIS? The Army is behind the curve on this.
Magic_Salad0892
08-04-12, 21:09
KAC already makes this. M110C.
wetidlerjr
08-04-12, 21:46
Doesn't make the weight requirement.
:p
I knew that but what the hell. :D
They will probably run a two year trial and not pick one, anyway.
KAC already makes this. M110C.
This. The request sounds like it was tailor-made for it. I wouldn't be surprised if they saw it and designed the request with exactly that gun in mind.
Reagans Rascals
08-04-12, 23:25
Why are they starting a new bid contract?
why doesn't the Military openly voice their concerns and issues with their current stock, and then just have the manufactures address those issues?
wild_wild_wes
08-05-12, 00:05
I don't think they need such a rifle. If, as the linked article suggests, they want to use this as a SDM, then a regular lightweight barrel rifle such as the SCAR-17 would do the job, and for less weight.
post tensioned
08-05-12, 09:40
Why are they starting a new bid contract?
why doesn't the Military openly voice their concerns and issues with their current stock, and then just have the manufactures address those issues?
According to what I've read on here, the manufacturer tried to do this via PIP, but ultimately the Army decided to do a full solicitation.
I would think KAC has a huge advantage on this one, since the components of their M110K1 (stock, BUIS, rail, barrel) had been evaluated and selected by the Army, and the fact that the K1 gun is already being fielded by CAG, MARSOC, and Rangers - if I'm not mistaken.
Reagans Rascals
08-05-12, 09:54
According to what I've read on here, the manufacturer tried to do this via PIP, but ultimately the Army decided to do a full solicitation.
I would think KAC has a huge advantage on this one, since the components of their M110K1 (stock, BUIS, rail, barrel) had been evaluated and selected by the Army, and the fact that the K1 gun is already being fielded by CAG, MARSOC, and Rangers - if I'm not mistaken.
I think CAG changed their name to ACE now if I'm not mistaken
It appears that a lot of Spec Ops are using the MK17 in the DMR role. I think that with a Geisselle Trigger and possibly a shortened MK 20 barrel it would do great.
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p226/SRT-M4/SEALswithSCARs.jpg
Reagans Rascals
08-05-12, 10:20
it just seems like the Army and other branches would benefit more from just directly asking their personnel what they specifically need and want, then just making the entire thing in-house....
Skunkworks has been such a monumental organization throughout its inception because the engineers work on the assembly floor.... the second there is an issue, they instantly reassess, redraw, retool if need be, and re-machine a new part right then and there... there is no waiting for subsidiaries to address their concerns and get back to them, if there is an issue, they notice it right as it surfaces, and fix it that day
that's how the military should work with its weapon programs, actually make them all in-house, field them with their intended units, get direct instant feedback, and fix those issues that same day, forget all of this nonsense about competitive 3rd party bidding and blah blah blah
In house production and design brought us the M1 and M14, both of which were troubled. Besides, they'd end up paying federal benefits to assembly workers. Imagine the cost!
Sounds pretty close to the original SR-25. OBRs would be nice too but I don't know how they would handle the ROF requirements. Actually they could just put a better trigger and short precision barrel on a Mk-17 and call it a day but you know it won't be that easy.
weird, the first thought that came to my mind was that it's a shoe in for the scar h that's already being used in some areas of the military.
particularly the foldable buttstock part...
Slightly modified HK G28 or MR762A1 would fit requirements (they just need to shave few oz from mass, but with inanelly heavy barrels they use it should not be hard to do). Germans actually work on something even shorter and lighter - G27K (thanks to Arctic1 for the link (http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heckler-koch.com%2Fno_cache%2Fen%2Fmilitary%2Fcompany%2Fdownloads.html%3Ftx_z7simpledownloads%255Bdownload%255D%3D392&ei=ZVUhUN7AFY2Tswbuv4GgBw&usg=AFQjCNHT8QaGKQRaRfJtC0_GQzFNHrY_4g))
lwrkeysfisher
08-08-12, 06:45
Why are they starting a new bid contract?
why doesn't the Military openly voice their concerns and issues with their current stock, and then just have the manufactures address those issues?
I see two possible explanations to this.
Technical changes to contracts can open the door for losing bidders on the original contract to contest the original contract---usually does not change anything but it's a pain in the azz and absorbs the KO's time. This is a much cleaner approach, and ensures everyone gets a fair shot at the new contract given the "new" requirements.
Another thing I noticed this year was that the SR25 (M110) contract was unfunded in the NDAA; mods are hard to make with no current year funding on the contract. All current purchases in the pipeline were seemingly purchased with '11 dollars. So this might also be driving a resource proposal to get the funds needed (internally or externally) to make a technical change.
First point is the OP cite says this is a sources sought solicitation. Meaning the Army wants to know if any manufacturer (or how many) can, or is interested in, producing a rifle to meet the specs outlined. A decision to issue a request for proposal (RFP), which includes detailed specs, and goes to the bid process, may be made subsequently. There are a lot of reasons for issuing a 'sources sought' - I couldn't begin to guess what theirs are.
Second point is they are considering an entirely new system - not mods to something already in inventory. Again, I have no idea of the rationale... but it could be used as a basis for comparison with mods to existing weaponry (??). Or innumerable other reasons.
Third, the government cannot, by statute, take on work that can be accomplished by the private sector (e.g., manufacturing rifles). Part of a law passed by Congress in the 70s (I think). There are exceptions, called "inherently governmental" functions... but making firearms doesn't fit the criterion.
Fourth, if a request for proposal (request for bids) is issued, it will be with tightly tailored specs developed with the input and considerations of users - soldiers. Bidders will be asked to provide prototypes, which will be extensively tested -- by some of those soldiers.
Fifth - competition is the heart and soul of acquiring and fielding new systems, and doing so as cost effectively as possible. The belief that our soldiers gets the best equipment money can buy is a myth - they get the best the US can afford. Since this is usually the best of any military in the world, it works out.
Finally - I am happy as I can be with my new Colt 6920!!
[QUOTE=montrala;1364945]Slightly modified HK G28 or MR762A1 would fit requirements (they just need to shave few oz from mass, but with inanelly heavy barrels they use it should not be hard to do). Germans actually work on something even shorter and lighter - G27K [QUOTE]
Montrala, do you know why they use a steel receiver for the G28? Changing to aluminum would drop some serious weight.
Montrala, do you know why they use a steel receiver for the G28? Changing to aluminum would drop some serious weight.
German Army tested MR308 rifle as G28 candidate, due to unlined (only nitrided) barrel for better accuracy. But then they requested chrome lined bore. To bring accuracy back HK decided to make stronger stiffer upper receiver - from steel.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.