PDA

View Full Version : Designated Marksman discussion thread



Pages : [1] 2

wild_wild_wes
12-31-10, 18:50
The Designated Marksman came into his own during the GWOT; DMs are considered to be regular infantrymen who are tasked to provide precision fire out to 600m. By default, most have been armed with 5.56 AR derivatives, since that was what was available. However, the Army also issued M14s due to the 5.56 rounds' percieved lack of range and striking energy, while the Marines are fully fielding the Mk12. The Army also issues DMs everything from M4s with ACOGs to the latest mod of EBR. Several of our European allies, such as the Brits, have decided that a semi-auto 7.62 is needed for the DM role, and have adopted an AR10 varient for the task.

So, let's hear your thoughts on what a proper DM rifle should be: caliber, barrel length, optics, etc.

knoxtnshooter
12-31-10, 19:02
Talking to the guys in my company who carried the EBR in Afghanistan last year, almost all of them disliked it for one reason or another. I do not know how old/new they were. One problem with an m14 based solution is that they had to keep and maintain two rifles and the m14s rarely were taken on missions because of weight and bulk and a perceived lack of need.

Our battalion gave ours back (away?) so I'm not sure what we will replace them with, if anything.

I'd prefer something like the mk12 in an intermediate caliber. With a 1-6 power optic please.

strambo
12-31-10, 19:17
I think 1 of 2 options: either an 18" barreled AR with a DD Lite rail, A5 stock and a compact scope (ACOG to Nightforce 2.5X10X36 or something in between).

Or...

The LMT MWS with a decent optic.

I'll not mention any other caliber (besides 5.56 or 7.62) because that just isn't going to happen.

kaltesherz
12-31-10, 19:41
I was my platoon's SDM for my first 2 months or so in-country, before I was "promoted" to SAW gunner. I went to LRM (Long Range Marksmanship) school at Ft Campbell, taught by instructors from Benning, for 3 weeks of instruction covering shooting, range estimation, and target detection. Our issue rifle was an M14 "upgraded" with a Sage EBR chassis and a 7.62 ACOG. Of course I had to use a 5.56 M4 ACOG because someone managed to break our 7.62 model previously. Luckily, when I got overseas I managed to acquire a TPE (Theatre Provided Equipment) 10X fixed Leupold. I had previously privately purchased 6 M14 mags and a Harris Bipod as I was told I'd be the SDM for the entire tour and was only supplied with 3 mags and a Grip-pod. There was no supply of M118LR to be had so I had to delink belted M80 ball. It was still plenty accurate out to 600M or so, and probably could have pushed it further, but had limited range time and I was just glad to get it zeroed. The only thing else that was added was a PEQ-2A. While I loved the M14, after handling another TPE M14 with an original Walnut stock I realized just how much heavier the EBR stock was and would dream on one day having something lighter (my prayers were answered with a M249, FML). To complicate matters, we weren't allowed to take them apart to clean them because they were afraid we'd lose or damage the EBR chassis, so all my cleaning was done with a boresnake, some Q-tips, and a barber brush.

I think the Brits have it right, the LMT .308 with the right optic and training would be an ideal SDM weapon. It's accurate, reliable, and not too bulky. It is heavy, but you can't have everything, esp in 7.62x51. Plus an ACOG properly calibrated and zeroed can get hits on target fast without having to get all the training on mil-dots and worrying about DOPE, remember SDM's aren't snipers and aren't supposed to be snipers, we're grunts with a little talent and training, that's all.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u64/kaltesherz/001-2.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u64/kaltesherz/002-5.jpg

rob_s
12-31-10, 19:56
Kalte maybe you mentioned t an I missed it but were you in afganistan or Iraq?

Cameron
12-31-10, 20:06
There is really no "one" rifle that would meet the requirements for a DM. If you look at the operating envelope for extending the range of the basic assault rifle or battle rifle then I think the optic determines the capability. With a variable power optic either 5.56 or 7.62 with a barrel from 16-18" makes sense. The current offerings of 7.62 rifle is fantastic of late with the SCAR 17, LMT MWS, Knights SR25.

So a 5.56 with a free floated match barrel of 16-18", a quality variable optic from 1-8+ power, an improved trigger, or a 7.62 caliber weapon equipped the same way would easily fulfill the SDM role, obviously a supply of good OTM ammo would enable the user to get the most out of the weapon.

It is great to have so many choices.

Cameron

Turnkey11
12-31-10, 20:11
I like 3rd ID's concept from early OIF and consequently built one just like it. For what's available the M110 SASS seems perfect for the role, maybe with a different optic with less magnification.

spdldr
12-31-10, 20:26
Since it may be called upon to substitute for a LMG, I vote for the 7.62. Better range and penetration. It should be self-loading, free floated, and with a 2-7X illuminated reticle optic. It must have a bipod, but no shooting sling, only a nice wide simple carrying strap. Maximum weight, 10 pounds loaded.

The AR10 format in a high quality make would be best. This way if the DM is taken out, the rifle would be most easily used by others without training. I think the Stoner gas system gives the best accuracy.

9111B
12-31-10, 20:56
An SR-25 or Scar-H with a Leupold CQBSS 1-8x

You get the familiarity of the AR platform with the punch and distance of the 7.62 round.

And, unlike an M14 with a 3-9x it can be used in CQB.

wild_wild_wes
12-31-10, 21:16
I like 3rd ID's concept from early OIF and consequently built one just like it.

What are the specs on that?

Gutshot John
12-31-10, 21:18
Is the question in regards to what is the ideal DMR generally? What is the ideal for the mil? Or what is the ideal from a personal preference?

Based solely on the DMR class I took, I'd stick with 7.62. What might take a 5.56 4-6 shots to get on target at 600+ yards takes 2-3 shots for 7.62.

From a military perspective the M110 with Leupold 2.5-10x is pretty close to ideal.

Speaking strictly for myself I prefer a FAL with a 3-4x ACOG though the new Leupy CMR2 reticle has me very interested.

Turnkey11
12-31-10, 21:20
What are the specs on that?

Squad Designated Marksman Rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Squad_Designated_Marksman_Rifle)

My rendition...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/nf9648/Guns/DSC02460.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/nf9648/Guns/DSC04582.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/nf9648/Guns/PIC-0078.jpg

m1a_scoutguy
12-31-10, 21:53
Not in the Military myself,,but from what I have read & what I have learned from talking with my Son-In-Law,( He had 2 full all expenses paid vacation in the Beautiful MTNs Of Afghanistan),a 308/7.62 MM rifle is nice !! Whatever configuration you want is fine in my book,,,,but I would think the LMT would be a Great choice ! I have M1a's and really like the 18 Inch BBLs,,so I would imagine that in a AR Based Weapon,,that would be about perfect,,but ya could probably get away with a 16 Inch BBL. Sights would be up for grabs I guess,,,,ACOGs are awesome,,but the Fixed power could be a issue possibly,,so a quality variable scope would be probably the best choice !

wild_wild_wes
12-31-10, 21:57
Is the question in regards to what is the ideal DMR generally? What is the ideal for the mil? Or what is the ideal from a personal preference?

Based solely on the DMR class I took, I'd stick with 7.62. What might take a 5.56 4-6 shots to get on target at 600+ yards takes 2-3 shots for 7.62.

From a military perspective the M110 with Leupold 2.5-10x is pretty close to ideal.

Speaking strictly for myself I prefer a FAL with a 3-4x ACOG though the new Leupy CMR2 reticle has me very interested.

In this thread feel free to speculate on what the ancient Greeks would call the eidolon of the Designated Marksman rifle: the ideal form it should take.

kaltesherz mentioned above the fact that DM often times are not trained to the highest standards, issued appropriate ammo, given enough range time, or even the proper rifle/optic combo. In this case, perhaps a 5.56 AR with ACOG might be ideal. In fact, the Brits are issuing a 6X ACOG with their new DM rifle, and also the Aussies have just adopted the HK 417 and will use the same optic on it. Still, from my experience, the ACOG is just not good enough glass to squeeze the best performance out of a precision rifle, especially an accurate piece like the Mk12. On the other hand, a 3-9X like the M12 is usually issued with is not much good for the DM when he is functioning as a basic rifleman.

Todd.K
12-31-10, 22:58
...regular infantrymen who are tasked to provide precision fire out to 600m...
Mose people don't get this simple but limiting factor.

The SDM is not a sniper, doesn't need a sniper rifle, and doesn't have time to train like a sniper.

Pick an M4/A4 that shoots well, drop an ACOG on it and you have a weapon that is more capable than the training time available makes an average SDM. The M4 Sniper, AKA Recce would be the next step if training time and skill can be increased.
I think the MK12 is too heavy and the scope to big to do the regular infantry job, same goes for a 7.62 rifle. It would make them a liability in close or urban terrain.

sinister
12-31-10, 23:29
Most people don't get this simple but limiting factor.

The SDM is not a sniper, doesn't need a sniper rifle, and doesn't have time to train like a sniper.

Pick an M4/A4 that shoots well, drop an ACOG on it and you have a weapon that is more capable than the training time available makes an average SDM. The M4 Sniper, AKA Recce would be the next step if training time and skill can be increased.
I think the MK12 is too heavy and the scope to big to do the regular infantry job, same goes for a 7.62 rifle. It would make them a liability in close or urban terrain.

Absolutely correct.

The United States Army trains basic rifle qualification to 300 Meters. That is the common standard, and even then we suck at it.

Not all Soldiers are gun guys. In fact very, very, very few are.

This is one of three M4 carbines built at the USAMU as prototypes (one for the 82nd; one for the 101st; and one remaining at the AMU). 18-inch stainless mid-length with Geissele trigger and Daniel Defense M4-mid rail.

Occam's Razor: the simplest solution is usually the best.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6254/82ndsdmrfb7.jpg

outrider627
12-31-10, 23:46
Absolutely correct.

The United States Army trains basic rifle qualification to 300 Meters. That is the common standard, and even then we suck at it.

Not all Soldiers are gun guys. In fact very, very, very few are.

This is one of three M4 carbines built at the USAMU as prototypes (one for the 82nd; one for the 101st; and one remaining at the AMU). 18-inch stainless mid-length with Geissele trigger and Daniel Defense M4-mid rail.

Occam's Razor: the simplest solution is usually the best.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6254/82ndsdmrfb7.jpg

Cool. Is this project going anywhere or is it just a unique range toy for AMU?

sinister
01-01-11, 00:49
AMU's charter is to hot-rod and win, show it to Big Army.

Big Army's program managers are supposed to develop stuff for the Big Army -- it's what gets Colonels promoted to General. They give us stuff like thick BDUs, new PT clothes every few years, and ACU-pattern cammies.

The one in the photo was requested by the 82nd's G3 for the Division Small Arms Master Gunner.

GunnutAF
01-01-11, 01:02
I vote for a 30 caliber weapon, as the purpose is to take out a threat that can't be reached by normal firepower with authority! That M110 looks like a very good system. As was said very common type of the system to M16A2/M4's so anyone could pick it up and use it!:D

Failure2Stop
01-01-11, 01:04
I think that with proper training and equipment an auto-loading 7.62 with one of the new shiny 1-8s solution is the best of the realistically possible.
Unfortunately, to be able to take advantage of the performance increase the individual users will need training. From my experience the training will need to be about a month long, which is not likely given contemporary pre-deployment training schedules.

Lacking this dedicated specialization training, they are probably better off with a Mk12 type option. I carried a SAM-R in OIF 2, and while it was a great shooter, the 20" barrel and A2 stock severely hampered vehicle employment and enclosure clearing. It wasn't a big deal then, as most guys were dragging A4s around, but chopping 2 to 4 inches of barrel and having a collapsible/adjustable stock makes life simpler for the dude lugging it around.

Magic_Salad0892
01-01-11, 04:22
I'm a bit torn on this one.

On one hand. If you just told me I need to be able to make consistent hits out to 600m, I'd say ''**** it. Give me my KAC 11'', with a Short Dot and I'll make it work.''

But if you told me that I'm going to Afghanistan, give me a ****in' KAC SR-25 EMC, with SB (Or Leupold until the SB comes out) 1-8. That's effective 0-800. (or more, IMHO.)

Now. Let's change terms and see what happens. (In my mind.)

As the Russians call them ''Squad Snipers'' I'd assume that they'd have NO need to do CQB shooting, or anything within 90m. So I'd say give me a Mk. 12 with a 2.5-10X sight. **** it, no CQB shooting involved, I want more magnification. 100-800, or so. Stick with 5.56x45mm for ammo compatibility with friends.

For me it would be different than a ''Scout Sniper'' (I bring it up, because the Russians used to issue the Squad Sniper, and Scout Snipers the same gun - Dragunov SVD.) because in my mind ''Scout'' means you'd need to be able to go farther out. In that case..

Accuracy International bolt gun, chamber that bitch in .338 Lapua. 100-2300m or so. (I don't really know, I've never shot it.)

As for 5.56x45mm, or 7.62x51mm. I'd say it depends. If I'm only seeing 600 or so. A 14.5'' chrome lined barrel, in 5.56x45mm should be more than adequate. Take me to 800 or so. Give me a 7.62, for the better BC.

The difference in SDM, and Infantry man, is a good optic. I'm not trying for small groups at 700m.

If I am. Mk. 12 time.

My experience: Range shooting, with mine and other peoples guns, an a brief knowledge of history, along with a lot of reading.

Sorry, no .mil experience for me.

MTechnik
01-01-11, 08:41
I believe something should be said for a something like an SR-25 or similar rifle looking much more like an issued M4 than an M21 would. You really don't want DMRs attracting attention...

rob_s
01-01-11, 08:49
As someone wholly unqualified to weigh in on this discussion, it would be helpful if the participants would share whether their opinions are based on nothing more than COD Black Ops and bench time or actual operational use. The post by kaltesherz was phenomenally informative because it was properly framed in real-world experience.

wild_wild_wes
01-01-11, 09:23
I don't even have the COD experience to inform my opinion! I do have 30 years of AR bench experience, with 4 of that being in the USMC (Air Wing). So yeah it would be good for the contributers to this thread to declare their bone fides.

C-grunt
01-01-11, 10:06
I was issued the 3rd ID sdm rifle for my 2005 tour in iraq. It was accurate out to 600 meters or so and was capable of doing cqb. I'll give a more descriptive post when I get home. Typing on this phone is a pain in the ass.

GIJew766
01-01-11, 10:25
But if you told me that I'm going to Afghanistan, give me a ****in' KAC SR-25 EMC, with SB (Or Leupold until the SB comes out) 1-8. That's effective 0-800. (or more, IMHO.)

I'm surprised no one mentioned the EMC prior to this. As soon as the question was posed, this was the first thought that came to mind. While I've only handled the EMC in the fun store, I can't imagine I could find anything better suited for the role.

My time in the Fleet showed me a few things in terms of the DMs. Being attached to Marine units most of my time in, I saw and heard a lot of conflicting opinions of the M14 DMR. Some of the older guys loved it. Others hated it. What we did find was that, in the event someone was home on R&R, handing over the DMR wasn't as easy as it would have been with something like the SR-25 EMC. Same manual of arms as with the issued M4s, so transition would be a bit simpler. But then again, I was never in the DM role, so I wouldn't really know.

Slab
01-01-11, 11:30
I am just a civilian puke who tries to train as often as he can. I have a buddy who went to a DM school when he was deployed with the Stryker Brigade from Ft. Rich, and it sounded as though the training was minimal. I have to totally agree with Todd.K in that utilizing a familiar platform, and upgrading optics (ACOG) and ammo (if possible?) will allow more emphasis on shooting during the training and less on wep. fam...

While recently at CSAT I was engaging Uncle Paul's steel silhouettes from Sniper Hill out to 600 with an ACOG on top of an AR and was 100% at 500 with shots breaking around the three second mark. At 600 however, 40% while taking much longer (10 sec break times). The only issue I can think of with the ACOG is target I.D? All of the targets I've shot at with an ACOG were thoughtfully placed (think vertically not someone proned out ...) aiding in hits, I'm sure...It would seem these folks might be having to break shots rather quickly, which IMHO is where the ACOG excels…

Todd.K
01-01-11, 11:44
I was an SDM for part of my deployment, OIF2, mainly worked in Baghdad.

Training was a one or two day familiarization with the M14. It spent most of the time in the trunk and I carried my M4/ACOG.

kjdoski
01-01-11, 11:50
I've been VERY impressed with the results we've gotten so far with our Mk17s. The "modular" nature of them makes them a winning choice, IMHO. With the CQB barrel installed, and a 7.62 EoTech, they're still light (only 8-10 pounds, depending on what you hang on it) and handy enough to work inside buildings and vehicles (this is the configuration we use most often). Recoil is considerably heavier than 5.56, as is muzzle blast, but neither are beyond the limits of a moderately trained rifleman to use effectively in CQB. When we shoot the VTAC "1/2, 1/2, 1/2 Drill," most of the guys on my team have no trouble holding solid hits and making the time for 10 rounds in 2.5 seconds from the ready at 5 yards. We also have no trouble at all popping 5" balloons at the 300 yard line with the same set up...

With the standard barrel installed with ELCANs, and using the right ammunition, it's easy for my guys to lay down accurate fire to 600 meters. Further out than that, IMHO, you'd need the long barrel, and a dedicated "precision" optic.

The beauty of the SCAR, in my experience, is it can be reconfigured from the CQB role to the DMR role in 5-10 minutes. We've found that zero-shift from optics switch is basically nill with the EoTechs, and the ELCANs hold close enough for government work - though they're not as "tight" as the EoTechs...

Yes, the SCARs have warts - heat management, operating handle placement and shape/size, and the design of the ambi mag release being the three most common complaints we have - but, overall, I think it's a pretty darned good piece of kit.

Regards,

Kevin

wild_wild_wes
01-01-11, 11:59
I was issued the 3rd ID sdm rifle for my 2005 tour in iraq. It was accurate out to 600 meters or so and was capable of doing cqb. I'll give a more descriptive post when I get home. Typing on this phone is a pain in the ass.

Please do! I'd be interested to hear your opinion of the ACOG in the DM role as opposed to a 3-9X variable.

Ash Hess
01-01-11, 12:28
One of the members here, DMR, had an article published in Infantry magazine on this very subject. I am sure he will weigh in shortly.

For our SDM's we are using M16A4's with the ACOG. Last deployment, we had M14 EBR's that were used with great success. We made them the SDM's primary weapon to lessen the burden. I dont know if we will get the M14's again this deployment.
As with all else the skill is more important than the Tool. To build fundamentals, we had The Appleseed Project run a week long course for our SDM's. Appleseed is very suited for this task. Fundamentals focusing on hitting targets out to 500 yards.

The SDM is simply the long range shooter in the Squad. Basically, he has "deep" but he also has to be able to run any mission. You can not lose him as a member of the Squad.

Slab
01-01-11, 12:36
[QUOTE=kjdoski;863261]I've been VERY impressed with the results we've gotten so far with our Mk17s. The "modular" nature of them makes them a winning choice, IMHO. With the CQB barrel installed, and a 7.62 EoTech, they're still light (only 8-10 pounds, depending on what you hang on it) and handy enough to work inside buildings and vehicles (this is the configuration we use most often). Recoil is considerably heavier than 5.56, as is muzzle blast, but neither are beyond the limits of a moderately trained rifleman to use effectively in CQB. When we shoot the VTAC "1/2, 1/2, 1/2 Drill," most of the guys on my team have no trouble holding solid hits and making the time for 10 rounds in 2.5 seconds from the ready at 5 yards. We also have no trouble at all popping 5" balloons at the 300 yard line with the same set up...

With the standard barrel installed with ELCANs, and using the right ammunition, it's easy for my guys to lay down accurate fire to 600 meters. Further out than that, IMHO, you'd need the long barrel, and a dedicated "precision" optic.

The beauty of the SCAR, in my experience, is it can be reconfigured from the CQB role to the DMR role in 5-10 minutes. We've found that zero-shift from optics switch is basically nill with the EoTechs, and the ELCANs hold close enough for government work - though they're not as "tight" as the EoTechs...

Yes, the SCARs have warts - heat management, operating handle placement and shape/size, and the design of the ambi mag release being the three most common complaints we have - but, overall, I think it's a pretty darned good piece of kit.

Regards,

Kevin,

Just out of curiosity have you folks noticed any zero shift with the ELCAN when the magnification was changed? There was a PJ at the last class that had one and when the magnification was changed, there was a significant POI shift (at 100yds)...

wild_wild_wes
01-01-11, 12:55
For our SDM's we are using M16A4's with the ACOG. Last deployment, we had M14 EBR's that were used with great success.

So, what do you think of the 5.56 vs. 7.62 issue?


The SDM is simply the long range shooter in the Squad. Basically, he has "deep" but he also has to be able to run any mission. You can not lose him as a member of the Squad.

This would seem to factor in favor of the 5.56. Some posters above have advanced the desirability of the SR25/Mk11/M110 for the DM role, but it seems to me like it is too big, heavy, and distinctive to give to a regular infantryman; the SR25 EMC/Mk17 might work, however. On TOS a while back a Ranger gave a detailed evaluation of his Mk17 and its use in his unit; in training he said guys were getting hits at 900m with the standard light 16" barrel and SpecterDR combo.

Ash Hess
01-01-11, 13:33
Wes, for the 7.62 vs 5.56 debate, I have been lucky I guess because everytime I have seen hits on target with both rounds, the targets hasn't got up. I have however seen some long firefights where a lot of ammo gets expended. The M16A4 with MK262 as the primary load, can still fire green tip from a standard rifleman.
So for a Regular unit, far from the base on Patrol with minimum support, I prefer 5.56. Logistically, it makes more sense. Yes I can delink rounds from the "most casualty producing weapon" to feed my 7.62 SDM rifle. Or I can select a rifle that, in average hands, delivers the same effects, AKA removing threats, that reduces my tail.

The average Soldier with minimum training is not more effective with a bigger round. A miss is a miss. As I stated, every target I have seen hit with both rounds has ceased to be a threat. I will leave the scientific stuff for the errornet

ALCOAR
01-01-11, 13:36
Excellent reply U.S.Cavalryman.

One Shot
01-01-11, 13:42
Here's a throwback for all of you. Back in 1968 I trained with the M-14 rifle. The basic M-14 worked well out to 500 or more yards if you did your job. And many times we did not use scopes because all of us were supposed to be normal American riflemen, not limited to 300 yards like most foreign military systems believe in. Had an M-16 in Airborne AIT and for my early months in Viet Nam. The second part of my tour in Nam I got to go to Sniper School at An Khe and was issued the scoped XM-21 rifle for sniping. This rifle once everything was tuned to the high quality (National Match) ammo and the user's eyes could reach out to 900 meters and do the job. Shooting with the XM-21 out to 750 meters all day long was nothing.

My suggestion would be for a good DM rifle would be to think about a good M-14 with a scope and bi-pod mounted on it. Use high quality ammo when you can. Also get a copy of the old Sniper Manual and study that very carefully. Notice how the rifle is situated on the user's shoulder and think about why that was done that way. Can you do the same with an AR-10 or M-4? Probably not unless you come up with a new rear stock of some sort. The key is to lock into the rifle very tightly so that you become one with the rifle which is why they used the stock like that. Once you have a standard M-14 set up and properly zeroed, you should then be able to hit just about anything from zero to 600 meters with no sweat at all. Heck, sometimes you might even need to open your eyes just for the fun of it.

Oh, and the scopes we used in Nam were the 3 by 9 variable power Redfield MART or ART (Military Automatic Range Tracking or Automatic Range Tracking) scopes. The shooters and the equipment was set up for good and decent body shots. In other words, we were trying to shots on a silhouette that were inside of a box about 8.5 inches wide by about 14 inches in height. We weren't going for index card size rectangles at unrealistic distances. We wanted a good, clean center punch shot when we could get it. This was the first time I heard the phrases of "finite shooting" and "combat accuracy." Finite shooting is being able to hit the tip of a match at 25 yards and set it to burning. Combat accuracy is being able to deliver a center punch shot on target from zero to 900 meters with an XM-21 rifle and high quality ammo. In the situations you all seem to be talking about, your combat accuracy needs can be easily met with a scoped M-14 or M-1A shooting from zero to700 meters.

I would almost bet a month's pay that a good M-14/M-1A will do a better job than most AR-10 rifles or the smaller caliber .223 rifles.

Where I have a doubt is has anybody done any serious work using the 6.8 SPC rifle with high quality ammo and decent scopes? :confused: Could the 6.8 SPC be turned into something really useful for our people?

Ash Hess
01-01-11, 14:05
The Hard part is training. The Army standard is 5 of 6 rounds in a 4 Cm circle. This converts to a little over an inch and a half. Or 6 MOA. That is the minimum level of training. So even if you handed out an .5 minute gun, your shooter is only capable of hitting a target at max 400. So you test, train, and equip your better shooters. Now you have limited resources as to trained personnel. R and R takes 2-3 Soldiers out of a platoon per month.
So we hold a standard of a 4 MOA group or 1 inch at 25 from the prone. This set the standards high enough to in theory to hit a 20 inch target at 500. Then we groom for there.
Compatibility and training are more important than the rifle.

Kfgk14
01-01-11, 14:15
Switch our SPR/DMR rifles (as well as all our other rifles/carbines) over to 6.5 Grendel bullets in necked up 5.56 casings. DMR weapons ought have an A5 stock, LW-50 stainless barrel (.750 profile the whole length, dimpled for weight savings), flip up front/rear sights (MA-tech rear BUIS, rail-mounted flip up front sight), give the user his choice of optic. Rail should be a Troy TRX-E so that the operator can put accessories where he likes. Leave the pistol grip up to the operator too. LaRue-mounted Harris bipod.
Issue Pmags.
Make sure that the operator can get proper optics, NV, spare parts, and ammo.

But I'm just one guy, never been there or done that, just my opinion based on my range time.

Todd.K
01-01-11, 15:20
My suggestion would be for a good DM rifle would be to think about a good M-14 with a scope and bi-pod mounted on it.

Notice how the rifle is situated on the user's shoulder and think about why that was done that way.

That is what I kept in the trunk for the most part. Too long, too heavy, too slow with the big scope, poor scope mounts, no spare parts, no mags, no way to get a cheekweld with the original stock designed for irons. The new stocks might be better for a cheekweld but they add weight.

Coleslaw
01-01-11, 15:26
So no support for the weapon is what you are primarily saying?

knoxtnshooter
01-01-11, 15:51
As I eluded to above, never been an SDM, but I am in a line company in an infantry battalion. I have fired and fondled the old EBRs before they sent them away (probably for good).

I fully believe that the m14 solution to this problem is dead in our battalion. I dont even think our scout platoon wants them since they have the m110.

As to SDM training, they basically get a one week LRM ( long range marksmanship) class at best. But last time a bunch of e5 types went and no joes.

With over 50% of our platoon shooting ACOGs anyway, we may end up just retaining m4s with ACOGs as SDM weapons. Better training trumps a better rifle. We may not get either.

Revising my ideal that I posted earlier, I know an intermediate cartridge isnt going to happen so I'd stick with 5.56 with mk262. And being practical, let's just top an issued m4 with a variable optic and call it good.

Sry0fcr
01-01-11, 16:04
So no support for the weapon is what you are primarily saying?

This is basically what I've heard echoed from many military users.

wild_wild_wes
01-01-11, 16:08
So no support for the weapon is what you are primarily saying?

In the first part of Todd.K's reply he says: "Too long, too heavy, too slow with the big scope", so I think that is more telling.

DMR
01-01-11, 16:26
U.S.Cavalryman,

Thanks for the mention. As I'm tracking now your team will not be taking M-14 EBR's this trip, but that might change. Glad to see you guys still have the M-16A4's. Swing by the Armorers Course and they can tell you how to add the new NSN M-16 collapsible butstocks with the "H6" buffers. It's not perfect, but it still has a place.

I'm in the middle of something with the son now, but will get back later. Until then you can check out Last revision of the article here:

The Designated Marksman Equation (http://pro-patria.us/designated_marksman)

Here are the central talking points:


During the war, Soldiers and leaders have determined that a precision engagement gap exists at the small unit level, but have struggled to define what that gap is. For the purposes of discussion I will use the following definition of the Designated Marksman’s Requirements:

1. The capability to effectively place rounds into the Neck/Head Lethal Zone (4” wide x 8” high) as defined by FM 3-22.9 Chapter 7.

2. Current small unit weapons are perceived to not posses the accuracy to provide the precision engagement of the lethal zone required at 100-300 meters most commonly encountered in Iraq.

3. Many soldiers/leaders believe the current 5.56-mm weapon systems lack the accuracy to quickly index and engage targets between 300-600 meters frequently encountered in Afghanistan.

4. The requirement has emerged to engage (interspersed with non-combatants) IED operators, suicide bombers, and enemy marksmen within 300 meters that require immediate Central Nervous System (CNS) engagement, to reduce unit and non-combatant casualties.

This is my current configuration as a retiried guy as used at the Jim Smith class in Nov at Ft. Bragg:
http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab25/greygroupcommunity/Spartan%20Tactical%20Precision%20Rifle%20Nov%202010/DSC_0123.jpg
Gray Group photo

I retired from the 10th MTN in the summer of 2004 just after returning from Afghanistan. Prior to that begining in the summer of 2001 I started researching the training and material requirements for the "new" Designated Marksman concept that was in the new M-16 manual. The first step we took was purchasing one ACOG per squad in 2-10 IBCT. This was after we did a long eval of various ACOG's on T&E from Bill Taggert from Trijicon. That first purchase was for the NSN version, due to it being the "SOPMOD" version, despite our recommendation to get the TA31. Shortly after they were delivered the war started and they where put to good use and most if not all are still in service in the units which recieved them.

Between running a Infantry Co, or being the BN OPS Sgt. I never got to spend a lot of trigger time behind a ACOG, but continued to listen to my troops using them and reaching out to various sources for more info in an attempt to build a Training Support package. As a result I learned from Gunny Elder, the folks at Crane in charge of the MK-12 and the MK-14, and various others. The various marksmanship courses 10th MTN developed provided the bulk of the training to the units.

Later in Afghanistan we inherited some M-14's from the 82nd and 173rd in the fall of 2003. They came with no optics, or some 5.56 ACOGs and one or two mags. I managed to get the BN to order mags, and scope mounts from Spingfield and Leupold MK-4's to at least make them some what viable as many wanted to put them into use. I never was quite happy with them and had to lay down the law the M-14's were an either or weapon. You carried the M-14 or you carried the M-4, to many tried to carry both which was in a word foolish. At the time the M-14's major failings were size, weight and total lack of support if something broke or you needed a new mag or even an ammo pouch.

After I retired I had a preety good job supporting troops until 2006. During that time I worked on lots of soldier weapons and equipment issues for the 10th MTN. I wrote the ONS that got the M-16A4's US Cav is still using along with the on which resulted/contributed to the the M-14 EBR. Quite simply we have the EBR because a certain member of the Div Staff loved the EBR "like" rifles his IBCT had built in Iraq in 2005. Those my research and feedback was used to justify the EBR, despite me totaly not supporting that platform and some interest from the PM in making a "Lite" M-110 variant. My prefered option was for a variant of the MK-12 or the "AMU" rifles built for 3 ID. I also got to look at Ian's rifle the AMU built for the 82nd during one of the small arms ITP's at Bragg.

Enough history, I'll be back later to talk about material solutions.

Coleslaw
01-01-11, 16:45
In the first part of Todd.K's reply he says: "Too long, too heavy, too slow with the big scope", so I think that is more telling.

There you go. Two different opionions.

One guy used it in Viet Nam for the duration of his time there with full support of maintainance and parts, and weight didn't seem to be an issue.

Forty-five or so years later you have another guy preferring a bit lighter and somewhat modular and 'easier' platform. Understandable.

Funny, I don't see the usual barage of M14 haters rufuting One Shot's experience and narrative (which is very good) about combat and the gear used. I guess "the M14 is only an emotional attachment" crowd vaporized.

wild_wild_wes
01-01-11, 17:10
Well, this isn't TOS, so the M14 skeptics are prolly still here, but they have spoken their piece, and see no need for histironics.

Gutshot John
01-01-11, 17:33
As a general rule how likely are line infantry units going to have access to mk262 if using 5.56 or high end ammo if using 7.62? The SDM is barely more likely to have an appropriate amount of training let alone specialized ammo. Logistics availability needs to be a consideration.

One Shot had an excellent post but repeatedly pointed out the need for quality ammo. He was also talking about a time when there were only two available options: M16 and M14/21. More than 40 years have passed since then and there are better options out there. Weight wasn't an issue because there wasn't really an alternative. And yes having the parts/ammo to support a platform is a real issue/consideration.

The notion that an M14 skeptic is a "hater" is incorrect. I'm actually a huge lover of M1 garands, that doesn't mean I think they'd make the perfect DMR.

wild_wild_wes
01-01-11, 17:45
U.S.Cavalryman,

The Designated Marksman Equation (http://pro-patria.us/designated_marksman)



Holy crap! That was great info in the link, US Cav.

This diagram blew my mind:
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/M4_vs_MK12-1.jpg

That really puts my Brain Housing Group in overdrive....

MistWolf
01-01-11, 17:45
I love my my civilian M14. It's everything a Rifleman's Rifle should be- Tough, reliable accurate, hard hitting and responds well to personal attention. It would also make the perfect DMR rifle. As long as the perfect DMR rifle used iron sights.

Hunting rabbits is no where near in the same league as participating on the Two Way Range. But, it does teach one about making quick precise hits on fast moving, unpredictable targets at ranges from between your feet all the way out to "see that fly on that there mesa?" To do this, the sights must be fast to find and line up with the target each time the rifle is brought to the shoulder. That means a good cheek weld is a must.

Mounting a scope on an M14 equipped with a GI stock was a huge disappointment. I had no cheek weld at all. On top of that, most mounting systems have trouble maintaining zero, especially in hostile environments. (The LRB M25 receiver is one notable exception.) Most M14 stocks made to be used with optics, such as the JAE, are designed for sniper use and are heavy. When done, the M14 DMR can easily exceed 15 lbs. There may be those who disagree, but I don't want to hump a rifle weighing much more than 10 lbs.

As much as I would like to see the beloved M14 bathed in glory, it's clear to me that a Stoner AR type rifle is a more practical choice. It's lighter, has battle proven reliability, points well and is accurate. Just please don't tell the guys over on TFL I said so

Ash Hess
01-01-11, 18:27
the whole article gets the brain going. Luckily, DMR is always forthcoming with info and does his best to keep us in the Loop.

By just using that diagram, and using the Vickers 50% rule even with the M4A1, the 300-600meter window needed for the SDM is covered. While it would be nice to upgrade to a MK12 type upper the M16A4 is very well suited for my purposes.

Add in proper focus on the fundamentals, including body positions and sling use, and allowing the SDM to control his Sector and he can be very lethal in the 300-600 zone.

kaltesherz
01-01-11, 19:02
Kalte maybe you mentioned t an I missed it but were you in afganistan or Iraq?

I was in Afghanistan 2008-2009, that might be an important detail to leave out...

I forgot to mention that later on in the tour our Brigade was issued freshly refirbed M14's with the newer type EBR stock (adjustable cheek wield and length), Leupold M3A's, 7 brand new spanking mags, harris bi-pod, and a bunch of M118LR. When they showed up in country every platoon was told to pick one guy to send to Bagram to be issued the "package" and then spend 3 days in a relaxed SDM class of just shooting at various ranges from 100-800m (no target detection or range estimation). Since my section had previously sent me to SDM training stateside and I had already been on a Bagram vacation to MRAP school they sent another good shooter in the other section. When he came back to us he would switch from M4 to M14 depending on the mission, and it was usually left up to him to decide what he was going to hump.

As an SDM you're still a grunt, and there were a few times when I had to clear rooms, guard prisoners, and other tasks where the size and optic were far from desirable. While I was lucky to get 3 weeks of school taught by excellent instructors, the ideal SDM weapon needs to have a simple enough operation and optic that any squared-away trigger puller can be taught how to properly utilize it with minimal training. The ACOG isn't perfect, but it's extremely easy and fast to use for both ranging and hitting targets, and is MUCH more durable than a variable mil-dot optic. I've seen two Leupolds quickly ruined by poor handling that wouldn't have even caused a loss of zero on an ACOG.

A good SDM rifle isn't supposed to be sexy, it's supposed to be make an infantryman with minimal training effective to 600m. It's not about what would be the best rifle that YOU would shoot well in a perfect environment. It's not a range toy. It's going to be beaten to shit in the armory in garrison, let alone in theatre.

The LMT .308 would be a familiar operating system / maintenance with accuracy potential and durability. Throw a TA-11H / bipod on it and it's good to go.

Todd.K
01-01-11, 19:27
Lack of support for the M-14 was one problem. Cheekweld was another big one. The M1 was a great rifle in it's day, but had been surpassed. Same with the M-14, it's not personal or hating.

This discussion has many aspects but many are not obvious without knowing how the Infantry works. Don't overlook the fact that a good gunner can get hits out there with a 240 or 249 and Elcan as well.

Terrain dictates, sometimes a higher power scope is worth the downsides and other times an M16 gets in the way compared to the M4. There is room for variation but equipment can't give you more than the training time allows. It hurts regular training and team work if you have the SDM going to a month or more of school.

C-grunt
01-01-11, 19:35
Like I posted earlier I was issued the 3rd ID/SDM-R/AMU rifle for my 05 tour in Iraq. I had a 4x ACOG with the red chevron and ballistic drop reticle. Not sure of the model number. I was also issued a full box of M262 on top of what was given to me as a basic load.

I was able to effectively engage targets out to about 600 meters with relative ease. In combat my longest shot was just about (map measured) 400 meters +-5. We did shoot out to about 800 meters once or twice but that was a bit harder, but doable.

I like the idea of keeping it a 5.56 wepon and an AR family gun as well. Like others have stated I was still a grunt and did plenty of room clearing and basic foot patrol with the rifle. I didnt find the weapon to be much heavier than everyone elses M16A4s. Only a few had M4s.

Being in a Mech unit I was never worried about not having enough penetration through cover at distance. It wouldnt have really mattered anyways as the insurgents in our AO rarely would go toe to toe with us. In fact they only did twice. Every other time we killed some it was by luck that we were able to find them after an IED attack or maybe a quick ambush and run.

I found the M262 to work well at range, but then again we never had a problem with M855 either. They wouldnt necessarily drop DRT from a COM hit but they werent fighting either.

As far as optics I really liked my ACOG. The reason is the durability. It never lost zero during the deployment even after several IED blasts, tumbles over walls or down a hill or being thrown around in a humvee. I was also a truck gunner so it spent a bit of time in the back seat of a humvee getting banged around.

As far as training goes I really didnt get any. Myself and the other guy in my platoon were chosen because we were the "gun guys". My battalion decided to send NCOs to the week long class so they could come back and train us. Well long range shooting is exactly a skill learned through books so that didnt help us at all. My unit, while damn good at fighting, had a lot of stupid bullshit and politics when it came to how they treated E-6s and below. But thats a whole nother story.

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm229/killerchase2000/Iraq%202003/sdasda.jpg

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm229/killerchase2000/Iraq%202003/dfADFD.jpg

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm229/killerchase2000/Iraq%202003/sdadsasda.jpg

Ash Hess
01-01-11, 19:37
Todd, I agree with all. It is defiantly a balancing act. The hardest part is having the SDM on tap for all the things he needs to do. He is still part of the squad after all.

boltgun71
01-01-11, 20:49
I’ve been reading this thread with great interest and there many goods points.

For a little background I have served as a SDM in OIF 2003-2004, a Sniper in OEF 2006-2007, been through the AMU’s SDM Course in 2008, the US Army Sniper School in 2003, and several other military and civilian shooting courses. I have been employed as a SDM and Sniper myself and been in charge of coordinating, planning, and running training for SDM’s and Snipers; both informally at the CO level all the way up to formally for BN/BDE’s.

As for the ideal SDM rifle it’s a matter of personal preference and experience that can be argued amongst experts all day long. For the SDM role, where a standard grunt at squad level is expected to be proficient to engage targets between 300-600m, beyond the normal soldiers effective range, we already have rifles up to the task at hand. A standard M16A4 or M4 equipped with an ACOG is already capable enough in this role and we have plenty of them in the military already. What we don’t have in great supply though are soldiers skilled enough to use them to engage targets out to 600m. There is no secret to shooting at long range and extending the effective range of soldiers, you just have to master the basics/fundamentals of shooting. The problem is the Army as a whole sucks at this. It’s about quantity at the range, not quality. As long as everyone qualifies, that’s all that matters to big Army. Check the block and your good to go. Most soldiers aren’t given the time to properly learn, let alone master the basics to become skilled shooters. Training schedules, money, or lack of true subject matter experts, always seem to get in the way. We can issue SDM’s a 0.5 MOA rifle but if there not given to skilled shooters than it doesn’t matter. You can’t buy or issue skill. Quality equipment helps to master the fundamentals with less of a learning curve but it’s not necessary.

Lack of good standard gets in the way as well. When I went through the AMU’s SDM course in October 2008 it was essentially a 5 day familiarization course. We were given Armalite NM AR-15’s with ACOG’s, Black Hills 77gr ammo, and a Harris bipod which we fired all week long. Some time was spent shooting iron sights and using a sling for support also on the first 2 days. It was a good fun course with lots of trigger time but the problem was, at the end of the training there was no qualification or standard you had to achieve and everyone got a certificate. No matter how well or poorly you shot at the end of the week you were an AMU certified SDM.

The Armalite rifles the AMU had were nice and I did enjoy shooting them, they are also available to units for purchase to use as SDM rifles. Essentially they were just flattop NM AR-15’s with fluted 20” barrels, NM triggers, a free-float rail system, and a 4x ACOG as the primary sight.

I have personally used and trained others to use the M16A4 and M4 out to 600m and beyond and they are certainly adequate for that task. If you want to improve upon them I would recommend a free-float rail system and an improved trigger and that’s about it. Take the money you save from creating and issuing a new weapon system and spend it on training and ammo so the soldiers can become proficient with their weapons.

The MK12 and M110 are great rifles also, more than accurate enough, already in current service with support systems for them, but they are not needed. Both were designed as sniper rifles, and rightfully so are best used for that purpose. Outfitting soldiers as SDM’s with these rifles, without the proper training to fully utilize them would just be a waste of money.

I carried a M21 myself as a SDM in Iraq (I also had a M4 with ACOG depending on the mission). It was an old Winchester M14 in match configuration, with a McMillan stock, Leupold M3A, and Harris bipod. I loved it, but I don’t think it is the best choice for across the board issue to soldiers. There was a lack of support for it (at least in ‘03-04), heck I only had 3 magazines for it, and it’s an unfamiliar system for most soldiers to learn. I was already familiar with the M14/M1A prior to working for Uncle Sam so I didn’t have any issues but I have run across several other soldiers, particularly in theatre, that were issued a M14 or EBR, and had little to no training on how the system works, particularly disassembly and assembly. Keep the SDM rifle an AR variant of sorts and that won’t be an issue.

As for the 7.62 versus 5.56 debate, I will leave that to others to argue, as there are too many variables. I prefer 7.62mm myself but have seen multiple targets engaged with both. I have seen one shot from each drop targets instantly, yet I have also seen a man take three 7.62 rounds to the chest, barrel rolled with each shot, yet still get up and run away over a mountain from me. Some just have more of a will to live than others. Both calibers are legitimate lethal rounds. Just pick one, learn to shoot it accurately, and don’t stop shooting until the threat is eliminated.

Moose-Knuckle
01-01-11, 20:59
I think the Brits have it right, the LMT .308 with the right optic and training would be an ideal SDM weapon. It's accurate, reliable, and not too bulky. It is heavy, but you can't have everything, esp in 7.62x51. Plus an ACOG properly calibrated and zeroed can get hits on target fast without having to get all the training on mil-dots and worrying about DOPE, remember SDM's aren't snipers and aren't supposed to be snipers, we're grunts with a little talent and training, that's all.

The first time I saw the L129A1 I thought the same thing. I look forward to hearing the AAR's from the Brits.

ALCOAR
01-01-11, 21:13
AAR's so far have been very good with some very long range confirmed engagements using the 16" SST barrel and the 6x acog's.

JSantoro
01-01-11, 21:55
That is what I kept in the trunk for the most part. Too long, too heavy, too slow with the big scope, poor scope mounts, no spare parts, no mags, no way to get a cheekweld with the original stock designed for irons. The new stocks might be better for a cheekweld but they add weight.

Being all metal, those stocks also beat the living hell out of the shoulder of the shooter. They have no give in them, which is great for optics, but are a literal pain compared to a good synthetic or synth-bedded stock. Doesn't help, either, that some *note sarcasm follows endnote* genius decided to put the SSDS on things. That's a great sniper scope, but it's WAY too busy for a DM capability; they don't need it, they don't get the training time on it, and it's a waste of money to buy them for that role.

Somebody mentioned the Mk12 being "fully fielded," earlier. The term is being misapplied in a way that suggests that that's the go-to or common weapon. It's not, either from a sheer numbers standpoint, and because those that ARE out there are going down from lack of supply support similar to that of the M39 and other M14 variants.

"Fully fielded" actually means that every unit entity that was designated to receive some portion of the total population for a weapon or system has taken possession of it. The Mk12 program decided that X number of them would be fielded, and so X were fielded. It's not a common platform.

An aside: everybody has gotten the brief on the range specified in the blurb about the mission of the DM, but it also specifies, "high-volume precision fire out to 600m..." Things like that are the sort of thing that need to be kept in mind, because it little details like that that got the Camp Perry bolt-gun purists to shut up, otherwise that's what would be still in use.

Put a different (i.e., 1-6x or 1-8x) optic than the SSDS (or whatever the Army equivalent is) on the M110. I have yet to see anything that can keep up with that baby in either a sniper or DM role.

wild_wild_wes
01-01-11, 22:04
AAR's so far have been very good with some very long range confirmed engagements using the 16" SST barrel and the 6x acog's.

As I understand, as Mk12s get sent back for re-barreling, certain SEALs have specified a 16" barrel instead of the standard 18"; I have seen a pic of one of these in one of our recent fun discussion threads on this forum.

ALCOAR
01-01-11, 22:54
You gotta a habit of brewing up very good topics for discussion that generate good debate...IIrc your Barrel Paradigm thread discusses that subject.

I have all but abandoned the idea of running anything but a dedicated sniper rifle in a .260 rem in a barrel length over 16".

I was foolish for so many yrs. preferring the mind pondering extra 2" on a SPR over a Recce in gained velocity and what that then would translate to in real world extended range and accuracy...ultimately I came to the conclusion that not only do the extra 2" not help, they play a substantial detrimental effect to the light sniper, or sniper m4 as an overall weapon and hinder its ability to be a "light" sniper.

DocBach
01-01-11, 23:16
I went to SDM school with an M16A4 in preparation for what our Brigade thought was a deployment to OEF. I have not deployed in the SDM role, but from what I've heard from others who have, the 7.62 caliber rifles they were issued had no support, ie no mags, removing the EBR stock for maintenance was an armorer level task, poor reliability, and trouble getting anything but de-linked M80 rounds for them.

The new LMT .308 is a sexy beast, but again it would probably have the same support problems. I'd think we could easily modify the M16A4 to be better suited for the SDM role by replacing the M5 RAS with the free-floating 12.5" RIS II rail system they have in the supply system now and the fixed stock with the new A5 stock to allow better length of pull and stock weld for the user. If the M855A1 round is as awesome as the Army says it is (haven't been able to find any real information on its performance), I'd think those improvements should be sufficient for the SDM to fill his role as the guy able to hit out to 600m.

An M16A4 set up like that would be light-weight and easier to use while mounted, as well as share the same ammunition and parts with other members of the squad.

One Shot
01-02-11, 00:35
One thing I forgot to bring up about our XM-21 rifles was the fact that our upper receivers were glass-bedded to the lowers. This made the rifle into almost a whole one-piece item once the fiberglass bedding dried or firmed up. So between the shooting techniques that we had been taught, the one piece rifle, the National Match 7.62 NATO ammo, the really decent scope and so on, we became the most hated bunch of shooters that the communist could ever hate. I seriously think that a very tight one piece rifle (As in a new design concept...) could be the way to go with any new DM rifle.

When I processed out the 1st Battalion of the 173D Airborne Brigade I happened to talk to one of the M.I. guys at L.Z, Uplift. These guys were a treat because you never knew what their real ranks were and they wore some insignia on their collars so, in those days, we called them "Mister." out of respect. Any way, the guy I talked to explained about how all the kills from Army snipers were documented and that the different levels always had different numbers for each of us. Mr. "Jones" said that he happened to know that I had XX confirmed kills to my credit. What was funny was that the enemy feared American riflemen so much that they would blame us or credit us with kills that we hadn't actually made. Because of this system of blame or crediting, most Army snipers were given higher numbers that they had actually produced. If an Army sniper had 25 confirmed kills to his credit the enemy would probably credit him with all 25 or so kills but they would also tack on any other deaths or wounding of their personnel to this same sniper. The enemy pretty much had it figured which sniper was working what area and that was what they used, the area where the death enemy soldier got killed, to credit which American sniper. So, according to Mr. "Jones," a sniper who actually had 25 kills would sometimes be credited with a lot more than 25 kills by the enemy because of their fear of our snipers. So even though our people credited a sniper with 25 kills the enemy might credit the same sniper with upwards of 50 kills even though he really had not done them. Remember that, "Fear is a great motivator." and good American shooting proves it over and over. Whether it comes from a sniper or a DM doesn't matter as long as it is delivered accurately.

As to looking through a scope on an M-14/M-1A/M-21 type rifle, none of us ever had any problems using scopes with our regular type stocks. But we were not using super high powered Leupold scopes or long tubed scopes that need 350 points of support and stuff. What we used was a system involving scopes that could easily be mounted on the centerline of the top of the rifle's bore. And the mount had places it had to fit into on the side of the rifle so that the scopes (starlight or day scope) would always return to the correct zero for us. When I read about DMs and stuff, I get the idea that some people are making things much too complicated for themselves and other people.

If you guys all have your hearts set on using the updated and upgraded AR-10s, what I'm going to suggest is, "Keep it all simple." Focus on what needs to be done: going for good center-punch hits in the sternum of the bad guys. Don't make the shooting program so complicated that a NASA scientist can't figure out the ballistics of it all. Keep it simple and use common sense for all of the program. So that means don't use that old M-60 machinegun link ammo for precision work. Try to con, buy or steal.. er... "liberate" high quality or match grade ammo for use by the DMs. Also, isn't there some sort of spacer device that you can place between the lower and upper halves of these new AR-10 rifles to tighten them up and give you a more one-piece like rifle? I know that the Ar-10s out of the box are supposed to have really good accuracy but I'd bet that just like a good 1911 model pistol that all of these rifles need some expert "tuning up," right?

Good luck, guys. Keep hitting the bad guys for those of us who are now a little too old to do it ourselves.

wild_wild_wes
01-02-11, 01:03
I was foolish for so many yrs. preferring the mind pondering extra 2" on a SPR over a Recce in gained velocity and what that then would translate to in real world extended range and accuracy.


And yet my Afghan thread has not brought you around to the fact that you don't need anything over 14.5" in 5.56....

You've got to let go of that last 1.5" my friend :D

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/M4_vs_MK12.jpg

Believe :eek:

Magic_Salad0892
01-02-11, 04:57
Would you guys say that SS barrels would be okay for CQB work?

Seeing as how most DMR guns I see have them.

R0N
01-02-11, 05:05
Somebody mentioned the Mk12 being "fully fielded," earlier. The term is being misapplied in a way that suggests that that's the go-to or common weapon. It's not, either from a sheer numbers standpoint, and because those that ARE out there are going down from lack of supply support similar to that of the M39 and other M14 variants.

"Fully fielded" actually means that every unit entity that was designated to receive some portion of the total population for a weapon or system has taken possession of it. The Mk12 program decided that X number of them would be fielded, and so X were fielded. It's not a common platform.

.

Well it is fully fielded in the sense that it was an UNS for in theater usage. And X number of guns were procured to meet the requirement.

Our inability to support the weapon revolves around it not being a program of record weapon, and now there is discussion to whether it will be kept and new ones bought or will M27s just be used because it can meet the requirement to provide fire to 500-600 meters without any problem.

rob_s
01-02-11, 06:43
Turning into a great thread.

Would it be fair to say, from those that have served in this role or some variation thereof, that part of the problem of choosing the "best" tool comes from a lack of a concrete definition of the role as well as a lack or uniformity in method of training for the Soldier/Marine expected to fill that role?

boltgun71
01-02-11, 07:30
Would it be fair to say, from those that have served in this role or some variation thereof, that part of the problem of choosing the "best" tool comes from a lack of a concrete definition of the role as well as a lack or uniformity in method of training for the Soldier/Marine expected to fill that role?

There is some variation in the definition of the SDM's role that I have found but the greatest variation in SDM capability I have seen is from the lack of uniformity in training an SDM in the Army at least.

In the Army there are several paths one can take to become a SDM.

You can go to LRM (Long Range Marksman) - This used to be at least taught by the cadre at Sniper School from FT Benning. It is a couple weeks in length, and rifles were usually furnished by the unit requesting the course, typically M14’s/EBR’s, M110’s, AMU built SDM rifles, or Sniper School would loan out M24’s. This was essentially the marksmanship portion of sniper school and produced a good qualified distance shooter.

You can go to the AMU’s SDM course – It is a 5 day course using an ACOG equipped Armalite SDM rifles and Black Hills 77gr ammo. It a fun course where you fire out to 600yds, but it lacks a defined standard and qualification. Show up 5 days in a row, regardless of how well you shoot, and you leave at the end of the week with a certificate as an AMU qualified SDM. The AMU consists of fantastic shots, arguably the best in the world, but I was very disappointed at the way the SDM course was run and the quality of instruction was mediocre. Classes on ballistics/TD/RE/etc. were simple PowerPoint presentations done at a Mach10 speed.

You can go to any number of Post or Division level SDM or Advanced Marksmanship courses – These vary widely, may or may not have a defined standard or qualification, and rifles vary from M14/EBR’s to AMU SDM rifles to standard issue M16/M4’s, vast array of optics including M68’s, and with ammo ranging from M193 to M855 to Mk262. These courses can be anywhere from 2 days to 2 weeks in length.

You can go to Sniper School or have served in a Sniper Section – It’s not uncommon to find SDM’s that had attended Sniper School, whether they graduated or not, of have at least served in a sniper section become SDM’s. They have the training and knowledge from their experience to usually be a good SDM.

Or you can be selected by your Company or Battalion simply because you’re a good shot or the “gun guy”. The guy that typically shoots 40/40 on the qualification range can usually find himself in the SDM role, regardless of whether or not he has any knowledge of ballistics/TD/RE for shooting beyond 300m.


These are the majority of ways one can become an SDM in the Active Army. As you can see there are several methods, various rifles, ammo, optics, and standards. I would venture to say most SDM’s took the last route and don’t have any formal training, there just good shots on the qualification range.

Interestingly enough awhile back I looked at the SDM Course POI for the Army Reserve/National Guard held at Camp Bullis, TX. It looked to be a fantastic course 1-2 weeks in length, and had a qualification shoot you had to pass to become a certified SDM. You scores and progress were tracked through the entire course. I’m pretty sure you used a combination of iron sights and an ACOG throughout the course (and you had to qualify with both systems) but I don’t remember if it was an accurized SDM rifle or a M16A4 they used for the rifle. It looked superior in every way to the AMU’s course.

DMR
01-02-11, 07:59
boltgun71, RON, welcome to the discussion. Glad to see you here on M4carbine.


Turning into a great thread.

Would it be fair to say, from those that have served in this role or some variation thereof, that part of the problem of choosing the "best" tool comes from a lack of a concrete definition of the role as well as a lack or uniformity in method of training for the Soldier/Marine expected to fill that role?

rob_s,

You are correct. Outlining the problem statement is the first step. Much of the gear chasing is being done before anyone has proven that what they have can't complete the mission, hence the highlighted words in my earlier post percieved and believe. Once you have a good problem statement then you can start working out solutions to the problem. Bad problem statement, bad solution.

Material wise the standard issue carbine, in good condition, with a ACOG on top can out shoot most users in the Army. MK262 ammo makes hitting at longer ranges easier, the slide referanced was from a NDIA breif by the program manager. The current issue carbine comment in red was my addition to his slide. When I was researching I also found that, at the time, Lake City had two 5.56mm production lines. One with new machines and one with old ones. Ammo produced on the new machines far exceded the mil spec for accuracy and as I recall was 1-2 MOA ammo. The old line was closer to the 4 MOA mil spec. So with some 855 you could have excellent accuracy.

Issue carbine in good condition is also a important point. In that old job I took the Major responsible for small arms at the DCD to my old company arms room. The company "Small Arms Master Gunner" was there and we talked about the training programs in use at the time. Specificly that the IN BN's in the division were firing about 6,000 rounds a year in traning per M4. Much of that during quarterly CQM training events were each soldeir fired 900-1000 rounds over one to two days. We had been maintaining that training intensty for about 4-5 years at the time.

At that point we picked some weapons from one of the line platoons and looked at them. They were issued to the BN in about 1999, so were about seven years old. Most likely they had each fired upwards of 24,000 rounds, much of that hard use during CQM training. In the case of each rifle they had almost no visible rifling left in the barrels. The TACOM LAR was contacted and came by later to inspect the weapons. He informed us that the weapons were fine. They passed gauging and that visible rifling is not a inspection criteria:confused:

Going back to my problem statement:

During the war, Soldiers and leaders have determined that a precision engagement gap exists at the small unit level, but have struggled to define what that gap is. For the purposes of discussion I will use the following definition of the Designated Marksman’s Requirements:

1. The capability to effectively place rounds into the Neck/Head Lethal Zone (4” wide x 8” high) as defined by FM 3-22.9 Chapter 7.

2. Current small unit weapons are perceived to not posses the accuracy to provide the precision engagement of the lethal zone required at 100-300 meters most commonly encountered in Iraq.

3. Many soldiers/leaders believe the current 5.56-mm weapon systems lack the accuracy to quickly index and engage targets between 300-600 meters frequently encountered in Afghanistan.

4. The requirement has emerged to engage (interspersed with non-combatants) IED operators, suicide bombers, and enemy marksmen within 300 meters that require immediate Central Nervous System (CNS) engagement, to reduce unit and non-combatant casualties.

Sitting in a rest on a range a new out of the box M4 with a ACOG can meet these requirements. In the hands of a well trained soldier you can do the same with a M68 w/o magnifier. Doing that in a field enviroment gets a little more complecated.

Training is more important than any amount of gear. The gear however, to some extent also forms how the training is conducted. Thus developing the training program has to weight both factors when developing the total package.

Above is my problem statement for the training. Next is my audiance. Many people fail to appriciate the impacts of turn over on conventinal units. A few of the posters have discussed it and the impact on the training of their DM's. High turn overs means that the material portions of the answer have to be simple. The ACOG meets that requirement and thus has remained the baseline. Range estimation, ballistic hold, and improved target detection are all offered by the ACOG over the M-68 or iron sights. Adding sniper orianted optics adds training requirements which in most cases are not sustainable due to turn over of personal.

The AMU and 1st Army SDM training programs do a great job training the soldiers what their rifle is capable of, thus providing confidence in their rifles/carbines, although the argument could be made that the use of the custom guns negates some of that. Lack of a qualification standard detracts from overall value of the training. To some extent it also misses the point that first and foremost the SDM is a dynamic shooter. CQB to long range shooting can be seperated by moments. Qualification standards need to include that dynamic facet of the DM.

rob_s
01-02-11, 08:02
Great post, thank you!


This was essentially the marksmanship portion of sniper school and produced a good qualified distance shooter.

This sounds like perhaps the best way of over-simplifying and distilling down the definition of the role, no? The DM is unlikely to need the stalking, concealment, etc. training of a full-on sniper but should understand the fundamentals needed to get hits at distance?

It would seem, however, that attending such training with the actual tool(s) you intend to use would be a necessity. If you attend training with an M14 and a 10x optic but then wind up issued an M16A4 with 4x ACOG, the fundamentals stay the same but one is going to have to re-learn anything that is unique to the gun/optic/ammo, no?

boltgun71
01-02-11, 08:40
This sounds like perhaps the best way of over-simplifying and distilling down the definition of the role, no? The DM is unlikely to need the stalking, concealment, etc. training of a full-on sniper but should understand the fundamentals needed to get hits at distance?

It would seem, however, that attending such training with the actual tool(s) you intend to use would be a necessity. If you attend training with an M14 and a 10x optic but then wind up issued an M16A4 with 4x ACOG, the fundamentals stay the same but one is going to have to re-learn anything that is unique to the gun/optic/ammo, no?

Your 100% correct. The LRM course was designed for exactly that purpose. To give soldiers such as SDM's the skills for shooting at distance, give them some training in ballistics/TD/RE, but cut out the unnecessary skills such as stalking, tactics, sniper employment/organization, etc.

As for training with what you fight with, I have seen exactly the issue you describe. I have worked with units that sent their SDM's through training using M4/M16's, but knowing they will have M14's for them in country. The biggest issue with this was they wanted the shooters to rest their mags on the ground for support when firing prone with the M4/M16. This works great with that system but your not gonna do that with an M14, so when they get issued the M14 they will have to learn a new way to fire prone. I tried to encourage the use of a sling for support when firing prone, as both weapon systems will have a sling available.

DMR
01-02-11, 09:13
Training is the cart, but the rifle is the horse.

Once you have a fully developed Training Program and a Sustainment Program in place to address personel turn over you can wonder into looking at material solutions to decrease some of your training issues. There are however "rules" which units have to operate within. Those rules are there to keep you from putting junk from the internet into your rifle and reducing its reliablity, thus endangering your life.

Quality ammo is the starting point. "Good" lots of 855 or use of MK252 mean you know were the rounds are going every time you pull the trigger. I don't have any data on the new barrier blind rounds to tell about their accuracy, but I bet they are close to the "good" lots of 855. Sustainment training should include both types of ammo, for the focus on what you will actualy be using.

Consistant trigger pull is often discussed as a problem with the burst cam on the M-4/M-16 A2/A4. The Army is in the process of switching to the M-4 A1 which will address that issue, but the change will take place over a long period of time. The SSA trigger and others like the Knight unit are a step up from either of the above. They make accurate shooting easier, but the improvement is fractional. Give it to a poorly trained shooter and you will not see the gain. Within a good training program you should see slight reductiuons in training time, due to reduction of a variable.

Free floating the barrel is the next area to look at. Due to the above mentioned "rules" about the only free float rail a conventional unit is going to be able to use is the DD Omaga Rail. Here again the advantage is fractional. Your biggest gain is from reducing a variable, leading to more constant shots over a broad range of conditions.

If you are Army using M-16A4's they now have a AAL collapsible butstock availible. It uses a M-4 butstock assembly with a H-6 buffer and can be ordered by NSN and can be installed at the Armament Shop Level. It is not the VLTOR "A5" buttstock:sad:. I would consider this a manditory upgrade to A4's.

Bipods....... This is a little harder and some will disagree. The best DM bipod currently avalible is the GripPod. It has it's faults but it does the job. Once you graduate into Harris, TangoDown/VLTOR or VersaPod type bipods you are moving past the dynamic shooting envelope of the DM. The bipods snag during CASEVAC, getting in and out of vehicles, ect. They are great for shooting supported, but are not optimal once you start moving. The GripPod bridges the gap until a better bipod is made. I have a design in mind (Noveske/VLTOR give me a call) and know of at least one other company working on one.

DMR
01-02-11, 09:55
OPTICS

Alot has changed in the last few years, but the ACOG is still the base line. It is very hard to beat the combination of features in the ACOG, ballistic reticle, dual illumination, range estimation, size and weight all combine to set a high standard.

I'm currently using a Nightforce Compact NXS 2.5x10x 32mm (http://nightforceoptics.com/nightforcescopes/SCOPES_OVERVIEW/COMPACT_NXS_MODELS_/compact2_5-10x32nxs_/compact2_5-10x32nxs_.html) with the Velocity Reticle (http://nightforceoptics.com/nightforcescopes/RETICLES_OVERVIEW/RETICLES_DETAIL/VReticleInstructions.pdf). I used this for the Jim Smith course in Nov (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=66570)and also got to see some of the new Leupold varialbes. Jim gave me hell over that scope, but it worked as I spec'ed it to. One spec'ed feature that was at cross purposes with a "Presision Rifle" course was covered turrets and no zero stop. On the Nightforce NXS you can't combine those two features. Intent was to a pure DM rig that Joe wouldn't bemonkey F$%#ing with the windage and elevation in the field. It lacks the ablity to estimate range like the ACOG, but there are way to manage that with in a squad/platoon.

In Gunner Elders Limited Users Report they looked at multiple optics, era 2002-2004 or so. Without going over the whole test my take away was varibles offered improved target detection, decreased engagement times and better accuarcy. The trade off vs the ACOG is that you have to "manage the optic" more with a variable.

Dialing up or down based on the engagement is a critical skill. During Jim's class we shot positions 200 kneeling, 100 standing. Several shooters tried to stay on high power for both and repeated that when shooting from a swaying tower. the result was them fighting their wobble zone and pulling the shots. When they shot at a lower power they didn't percieve the wobble zone as much and were able to get hits. Dialing up or down based on position is not that hard a skil to learn or maintain, but does still require some thought. Also with other than FFP scopes you have to understand the ballistic holds only work at set powers.

Knowing that I didn't find it an issue. For position/snap shooting I would use the 200 zero and hold off as required. Once in a stable supported position I would dial to 10x and use the reticle lines for small/distant presicion shoots. The Nightforces windage lines also helped with holding wind as we shot several days in 10 mph winds.

Do you need a variable at the unit level? Maybe. I'd love to see the USMC's field data on the MK-12's they are using in OEF.

FYI, the Army is currently looking for a new Optic to replace the M-68 and the ACOG.

Multi Functional Optic(MFO) (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=69700)

SYSTEM DEFINITION:The MFO desired attributes:1. Target Acquisition will be maximized for CQS scenarios for a quickreaction response, as well as maximized for mid to long range engagements toensure accurate and precise small arms fire and transition between short andlong range engagements. At a minimum, the targeting range shall be inclusiveof the range of current fielded 5.56mm and 7.62mm weapon systems (M4, M16,M249, and M240).2. Minimization of Size, Weight & Power (SWaP) is highly desirable andshould be emphasized to the fullest extent possible. It is highly desiredthat the total system weight be no more than 1.5 lbs.3. Allow the Soldier to engage CQS targets by use of a clearly distinguishable point of aim w/ adjustable center illumination, to enable rapid and effective reflexive fire. The reticle, or aiming system within theoptic, shall provide the ability to estimate range that is accurate,repeatable, and minimizes training required for effective use.4. In the event of electrical power interruption (if applicable), the scope must be functional during ambient light conditions.5. The reticle, or aiming system within the optic, will have an adjustable brightness that will work with image intensified devices on the low end and in full sun brightness on the high end and will have off positions either between each intensity setting (or some other non intrusive means),allowing the Soldier to quickly go from no illumination/center dot to thedesired brightness in one motion.6. Battery life shall be a minimum of 700 hours with continuousoperation. Common batteries already in the Army inventory shall be used (i.e.AA or CR123).7. Ranging Mil or Stadia lines will be viewable at mid and high powerwithout inhibiting observation, will be usable for elevation hold overs athighest power, and shall require minimal training for operations.8. MFO shall be parallax free at 25M9. Eye relief shall be a minimum of 2.5 inches at all times and be ableto continuously adjust for intermediate eye relief.10. Fully functional in environments ranging from arid, dry desert withblowing sand to 100% humidity, jungle to salt fog, as delineated in MIL-STD-10G.11. Wear resistant, anti-glare, non-reflective matte finish.12. Flip-up subdued scope caps provided with each scope or some othersuitable protective measure.13. Fully compatible with currently fielded Image Intensified devices and thermal inline optics.14. MFO shall exhibit scratch resistant materials to exposed surfaceslenses, etc.) that minimize wear and tear during operational scenarios.15. It is desired that minimal training be required to properly zero theMFO to the weapon.

DMR
01-02-11, 10:10
5.56mm vs 7.62mm

This is a struggle. Just about everything, except one, that 5.56mm does 7.62mm does better for the DM. Discussion of other calibers is fruitless, other than for individual hobbiests. KevinB's SR-25 EMC's and Jim's Larue made shooting at 5-600 in the wind so much easier. Be it bucking the wind, spotting the trace or the splash 7.62 is easier to use than 5.56.

The trade off going to 7.62mm is support. Increased PLL loads for the BSB's, differant ammo, resupply, armour training, ect. Using the M-14 EBR greatly increases that over supporting AR based systems such as the 901, LMT, EMC or OBR. They are great in the perfect world or even the limited engagements we are currently most often in, but I would question them in places like Wanat.

DocBach
01-02-11, 11:19
Free floating the barrel is the next area to look at. Due to the above mentioned "rules" about the only free float rail a conventional unit is going to be able to use is the DD Omaga Rail. Here again the advantage is fractional. Your biggest gain is from reducing a variable, leading to more constant shots over a broad range of conditions.



When I went to SDM school one of the cadre had the Omega rails on his M16; however he said that there is no NSN for the 12.0 Omega rails, just the RIS II and some ARMS rail if I recall.

Ash Hess
01-02-11, 12:02
Another dynamic that slows the growth of the SDM is "old school" thinking. This forum and other sources, schools ETC bring knowledge to those that are looking. But to those that aren't active in this learning, it all sounds like Geardo internet shenanigans.
We all know the benefits of a free float. But the guy in charge who "always hits 40 out of 40 with his iron sights and no Fancy Gizmos" has to be sold on hard data from at least 77 sources.

"if you want all that Cool guy Stuff, go to Selection" is a term thrown around units that are resistant to change. Then a better Salesman comes along and gets the Boss to see the light and then it is Gospel.

This all plays with the role of the SDM. One unit sends one guy to this school, one to that school, one uses SDM as Mini Snipers, one just for a Title.

Todd.K
01-02-11, 12:22
I'd say anything more than an ACOG equipped M4/A4 is ignoring the training limitation right now. A unit that is able to train better could go a long ways by having the sniper section shoot a bunch of rifles with MK262 and picking the better shooting ones to be for the SDM's.

So to me bigger scopes and 7.62 is a waste without more, better, and consistent training. Turnover would be less of an issue if we kept the SDM training consistent but the goals realistic. Remember the SDM still has to kick doors and do regular grunt work. At most something like the prototype sinister posted on page one.

A Platoon level DM or two with more long range training is the next step, if the need is identified. Make something like the LRM class an ASI focused on long range shooting without the camo/recon/working alone part of the B4. Then we can look at specific long range equipment.

wild_wild_wes
01-02-11, 12:27
....first and foremost the SDM is a dynamic shooter. CQB to long range shooting can be seperated by moments....


Which would seem to put a configuration like the Mk12 outside the parameters of a true DM rifle. The Mk12/SPR might have a place in the Special Operations community, but to take in it its typical configuration and use it in the DM role (as the Marines are doing) would seem to be a mistake. Replace the low-power variable scope with an ACOG, and you would have a rifle similar to the 3rd Infantry Div. DM rifle disussed earlier in this thread. Replacing the fixed stock with a tele would also be an improvement, in terms of making the wepon more compact, given the fact that the DM will be operating as part of his squad, possibly in CQB.

It has been pointed out that a good 14.5" M4 carbine has the accuracy potential to function in the DM role, but perhaps it would be a better idea to field a dedicated 18" precision rifle, so it could be used in both the DM and SPR roles, depending how it is configured (optics, bipod, etc.).

Agree/Disagree?

R0N
01-02-11, 12:37
Which would seem to put a configuration like the Mk12 outside the parameters of a true DM rifle. The Mk12/SPR might have a place in the Special Operations community, but to take in it its typical configuration and use it in the DM role (as the Marines are doing) would seem to be a mistake. Replace the low-power variable scope with an ACOG, and you would have a rifle similar to the 3rd Infantry Div. DM rifle disussed earlier in this thread. Replacing the fixed stock with a tele would also be an improvement, in terms of making the wepon more compact, given the fact that the DM will be operating as part of his squad, possibly in CQB.

It has been pointed out that a good 14.5" M4 carbine has the accuracy potential to function in the DM role, but perhaps it would be a better idea to field a dedicated 18" precision rifle, so it could be used in both the DM and SPR roles, depending how it is configured (optics, bipod, etc.).

Agree/Disagree?

One of the reasons we kept the higher power optic for the Mk-12 had to do with the enemy knowing the limitation of the basic RCO equipped Marine. There were numerous AARs coming back from AFG (BLT 1/6 of 24 MEU and TF 2/7) from the summer of 08 about how shooters really needed the higher power optics to see and PID the enemy in order to shoot them. RCO equipped Marines could not see or PID targets because the enemy hung out at the limits of 4x sights ability to PID them.

GIJew766
01-02-11, 12:58
I'd say anything more than an ACOG equipped M4/A4 is ignoring the training limitation right now. A unit that is able to train better could go a long ways by having the sniper section shoot a bunch of rifles with MK262 and picking the better shooting ones to be for the SDM's.

So to me bigger scopes and 7.62 is a waste without more, better, and consistent training. Turnover would be less of an issue if we kept the SDM training consistent but the goals realistic. Remember the SDM still has to kick doors and do regular grunt work. At most something like the prototype sinister posted on page one.

A Platoon level DM or two with more long range training is the next step, if the need is identified. Make something like the LRM class an ASI focused on long range shooting without the camo/recon/working alone part of the B4. Then we can look at specific long range equipment.

Totally agree. As I said before, my platoon rotated DMs every few months due to R&R issues. To expect every single grunt Marine/Soldier/Sailor/Airman deployed on the ground to attend a formal training program is not only unlikely, but damn near impossible.

The TA31F riding atop the issued M4 or even the M16A4 is not exactly perfect, but it is a simple enough optic that, once zeroed, anyone given some time on the range with it will be able to score solid hits at range.

Until a training solution can be found, the unfortunate truth is that we need to train to the lowest common denominator. As I'm sure we're all horribly aware, not all in the military are gun guys, and as such we need to be prepared for the eventuality that these folks will some day be called upon to fill in as a SDM. Bigger bore rifle or "better" 5.56 rifles won't make a lick of difference in the hands of these types.

HC

wild_wild_wes
01-02-11, 13:01
One of the reasons we kept the higher power optic for the Mk-12 had to do with the enemy knowing the limitation of the basic RCO equipped Marine. There were numerous AARs coming back from AFG (BLT 1/6 of 24 MEU and TF 2/7) from the summer of 08 about how shooters really needed the higher power optics to see and PID the enemy in order to shoot them. RCO equipped Marines could not see or PID targets because the enemy hung out at the limits of 4x sights ability to PID them.

Interesting! Semper Gumby!

R0N
01-02-11, 13:46
Totally agree. As I said before, my platoon rotated DMs every few months due to R&R issues. To expect every single grunt Marine/Soldier/Sailor/Airman deployed on the ground to attend a formal training program is not only unlikely, but damn near impossible.



Some Marines get training in being a DM, some don't. That is the only good thing I can say about the Marine shooting program that all Marines have shot at 500 yards and it is not much of a leap in training to shoot at 500-600 meters.

One of the problems with the usage of Mk-12s is state-side predeployment training; I tried to get a few for training one of my Battalion prior to deploying because they would fall in on them. And there were none in the MEF to temp loan for training, the best I could do was get some of the guys from division school to come to the battalion and explain the sight.

kmrtnsn
01-02-11, 13:55
Wow! What a fount of information here. I built a Recce last year in the hopes of using it as platform to increase my long(er) range shooting ability. Although not a DMR type rifle per se I was looking for something that I could use over a wide array of applications. This Spring I will be taking it to a three day DMR course to identify its (and my own) weaknesses and hopefully make the appropriate corrections.

GIJew766
01-02-11, 14:08
Some Marines get training in being a DM, some don't. That is the only good thing I can say about the Marine shooting program that all Marines have shot at 500 yards and it is not much of a leap in training to shoot at 500-600 meters.

One of the problems with the usage of Mk-12s is state-side predeployment training; I tried to get a few for training one of my Battalion prior to deploying because they would fall in on them. And there were none in the MEF to temp loan for training, the best I could do was get some of the guys from division school to come to the battalion and explain the sight.

Oh no doubt, and the Sailors attached to them are also expected to be able to shoot, myself included. The big issue was, that when we rotated DMs and we were given the M14s, there were Marines who had never utilized that rifle or optic and being asked to make hits at 600 yards or so. Utilizing something as close to the standard issue M4 as possible will help those Marines and Sailors without DM training in the transition between their original issue weapon and the DMR. An M16A4 with an ACOG is a nice start, seeing as most of us were running them anyway. Hell, if the 7.62 was going to be the avenue of choice, an AR-10/SR-25 EMC would at least allow similar manual of arms for those of us without DM training.

HC

wild_wild_wes
01-02-11, 16:18
This thread saved me $1,500.

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/UB51.jpg

That is my newly-built "SPRish" rifle (12 pounds!). I have the parts on hand to do a companion 16" AR10 based precision rifle, but was facing a dillema- in terms of use it would parallel this SPR build (compact, close/mid-range precision rifle), and I was faced with the prospect of shelling out a large amount of money to buy another high-quality optic. The Nightforce 2.5-10X32 on the rifle above is perfect for the role of mid-range precision optic, but I hate buying two of the same thing, especially given the pricetag. This thread has convinced me that the NF would be more useful on the AR10, and an ACOG would be more suitable on the SPR; I have a TA31F on another rifle, and it will be moving to the SPR. I'm also going to replace the PRS buttstock with a CTR in order to bring the weight down even further.

GIJew766
01-02-11, 16:31
...This thread has convinced me that the NF would be more useful on the AR10, and an ACOG would be more suitable on the SPR; I have a TA31F on another rifle, and it will be moving to the SPR. I'm also going to replace the PRS buttstock with a CTR in order to bring the weight down even further.

I love my TA31F-RMR on the SR-15. Great optic. Easy to use, clear sight picture, and the RMR up top makes short range a bit nicer with the ACOG onboard.

By the way Wes, that is a nice piece of kit right there. I like the ACS over the CTR, but I really love the consistent cheek weld of the UBR. Just my personal taste, YMMV.

HC

Todd.K
01-02-11, 16:37
One of the reasons we kept the higher power optic for the Mk-12 had to do with the enemy knowing the limitation of the basic RCO equipped Marine.
Marines have a 13 man squad, Army uses a 9 man squad. This may help them give up a Rifleman for a "light sniper" but still leaves a team short a man for door kicking.



And there were none in the MEF to temp loan for training, the best I could do was get some of the guys from division school to come to the battalion and explain the sight.
I have to wonder just how much the scopes helped make hits with no hands on training. PID is obviously going to be better with higher magnification.

RogerinTPA
01-02-11, 17:16
This has been a very interesting Thread gentleman. The points made on the turn over rates of qualified snipers, DMRs and commanders, is one that is the most detriment to a unit as replacements have to be trained and previous ideas, have to be resold to the incoming commanders. It is amazing that the same issues are still in the system. It is a shame that commanders are not as forward thinking as most would think, and not listening to there training NCOs, especially when it comes to training/qualification/sustainment of these specialty skills. I won't even discuss the lack of training for individual combat skills for the average troop.

GIJew766
01-02-11, 17:29
Because of this thread, I was having this same conversation with my buddy who is a former 82nd AD sniper. The guy more or less echoed the same concern most of us share over losing your DM/Sniper/long range marksman to rotation for R&R or injuries, etc. As he put it to me, unless you are serving in a sniper platoon where there are multiple members who have all been through and graduated from sniper school, just handing over the "precision weapon" to the next guy in the squad does not make him a qualified DM/Sniper. The reality is, again, that we must equip our shooters with a weapon that the lowest common denominator can field effectively.

As much as I hate to make this analogy, it fits. The service is much like the public school system. We train/teach to the minimum standard. The advanced kids can opt for advanced training/honors classes, but so long as the graduation percentage is stable and high, the DoD/DoE could care less. Remember, both are funded by Joe Taxpayer, and it would be a hard sell for either the military or a school board to raise taxes for better training/classes or equipment/books...

HC

DMR
01-02-11, 20:49
Occam's Razor: the simplest solution is usually the best.

So true.



I'd say anything more than an ACOG equipped M4/A4 is ignoring the training limitation right now. ........................................

A Platoon level DM or two with more long range training is the next step, if the need is identified. Make something like the LRM class an ASI focused on long range shooting without the camo/recon/working alone part of the B4. Then we can look at specific long range equipment.

Todd you are wondering into my my point of view. Look at the basics. The "Designated Marksman" first re-appaired in 2000-2001 in Army manuals. The Staffing drafts hit the streets in the spring of 2001, at least my copy did of several manuals. The SBCT Company Manual and the M16 Marksmanship manual introduced it to a new generation of soldiers. As most staffing copies of manuals go few read them, even fewer provided feedback to the powers that be before they became final products. Strike one. Of course that can be somewhat over looked since a small thing like 9/11 happened and messed up a lot of things.

In my mind the biggest issue with the "Designated Marksman" is that some geinus placed the word "Squad" in front of it. In reality all they did was give the "Rifleman" a cool title, tossed out some shitty ARM standards and called it good. Strike Two.

Employment to discuss later.


The Mk12/SPR might have a place in the Special Operations community, but to take in it its typical configuration and use it in the DM role (as the Marines are doing) would seem to be a mistake.

Here is one of the places that you begin to see the fractional differances add up. In the USMC everyone has a M-16A4 and an ACOG, vs the Army having 1-3 (sometimes more) ACOGs per squad. The USMC also spends more time shooting out to 500 so again the fractional differances of using the MK-12 over the M-16A4 will start to show it's impact during operations. What I don't know is how the USMC are employing the MK-12's on the ground.


It has been pointed out that a good 14.5" M4 carbine has the accuracy potential to function in the DM role, but perhaps it would be a better idea to field a dedicated 18" precision rifle, so it could be used in both the DM and SPR roles, depending how it is configured (optics, bipod, etc.).

Agree/Disagree?

Yes. You forget that clairifier on the slide. "ON A CLEAR CALM DAY" you should also add stationary target. Contacts are seldom clear cut. An M-4 can get the job done for most contacts, but sometimes you will not be able to aquire the target due to size, distance or engage because of wind conditions(something the ACOG is little help with). A system optimised for "dynamic precision" work can again provide you with a greater capablity then the base line rifle. The question though is were does such a rifle fit in? Certainly not in a Army Squad, maybe not in a Marine squad.


One of the reasons we kept the higher power optic for the Mk-12 had to do with the enemy knowing the limitation of the basic RCO equipped Marine. There were numerous AARs coming back from AFG (BLT 1/6 of 24 MEU and TF 2/7) from the summer of 08 about how shooters really needed the higher power optics to see and PID the enemy in order to shoot them. RCO equipped Marines could not see or PID targets because the enemy hung out at the limits of 4x sights ability to PID them.

This is a good example of the USMC being a learning organization. Target ID and Target aqusition are over looked issues. I can aquire targets with my 2.5x10 Nightforce that you can't see with a 4 x ACOG. This applies to not only distant targets, but also the IED operator inside 300m in my problem statement. Small partialy exposed bad guys inside 300m can be as hard to engage as a those distant targets.


Some Marines get training in being a DM, some don't. That is the only good thing I can say about the Marine shooting program that all Marines have shot at 500 yards and it is not much of a leap in training to shoot at 500-600 meters.


Service differances often mean what works for you won't work for me. The USMC put a lot more thought into developing their solution then the Army has. Using the upgraded equipment and a "better" base line marksmanship standard add up.


As much as I hate to make this analogy, it fits. The service is much like the public school system. We train/teach to the minimum standard. The advanced kids can opt for advanced training/honors classes, but so long as the graduation percentage is stable and high, the DoD/DoE could care less. Remember, both are funded by Joe Taxpayer, and it would be a hard sell for either the military or a school board to raise taxes for better training/classes or equipment/books...

Don't throw the COC under the bus big guy. We have issues, but we also have a lot of things other going on. Lack of a "Standard" for DM's is an issue, but if gather a typical group of Infantry NCO's around and ask what the right answer is, you will get multiple answers based on their background and biases. Those guys are spending lots of time on lots of things. Sadly shooting often is hard to fit into a scheaduale as you prepare for a deployment.

Units are out fitted with all kinds of crazy capablities that we would not have dreamed of having even six years ago. Those capablities take up time to learn and in the end something has to give.

I had a strike three in my head somewhere, but seem to have lost it.

Next up for discussion Roles and Tactics.

danpass
01-02-11, 21:54
.....

sinister
01-02-11, 23:20
This topic gets re-hashed on ARFCOM, Lightfighter, and here all the time.

Bottom line -- the basic Infantryman's rifle and carbine marksmanship at the E1-E4 level sucks because the system fails to teach and maintain that skill. Ask a hundred different INFANTRY NCOs how to fix it and you'll get a hundred different answers.

Institutionally we suck at combat marksmanship from 7 yards to 600 -- if we didn't there'd be no market for training from dozens of retired SF guys and wannabes. The Army's solution is always to try to throw money and technology at the problem that could be fixed with sound doctrine, solid training, a couple thousand rounds of ball, an optic, and trigger time.

We don't suffer from possible hardware solutions (Lord knows there are dozens of those from the standard M4 with ACOG to 20-pound M14 mutants). The individual private today has a night vision optic, a laser, and hard-plate body armor -- something that 30 years ago would have been considered unthinkable and unaffordable. Ordnance, maintenance, and logistics, if trained, can fix our guns and scopes (this has been known and documented within the Army system since at least 1979).

Our Infantry troops aren't stoopid -- damned near all of them are high school grads, and lots have college degrees.

We suffer from SOFTWARE and EXPERIENCE gaps. Officers don't know how to shoot past (really) 200 Meters because they're never taught how to, nor motivated or driven to. I've seen more younger officers who'd rather play rugby, marathon, or do adventure racing than shoot a damned rifle or carbine.

NCOs aren't taught the capabilities of their own individual arms room weapons. The standard NSN ACOG wasn't even in the M16 manual until the 2008 edition. NCOs are supposed to teach officers and line doggies. SF guys are often taught to a higher standard, but again there are troops who just aren't gun guys.

Units often train for division or post football, basketball, and baseball intramurals. Show me one today (besides Benning, since the AMU hosts their matches) that has a division combat shooting championships -- even on M4/M16 and M9 popups.

Folks often recommend a 6.8 or 7.62 solution for a guy who sucks shooting a relatively lightweight and capable 5.56mm weapon. It ain't the hardware! If you're really intrigued, buy a box of cardboard E-type silhouettes from an outfit like ALCO Targets, or a steel E-type silhouette, and shoot the shit out of them to 500 yards -- then come back with solid recommendations. For civilians and hobbyists, don't forget to wear the Dome of Obedience, 20-25 pounds of body armor, and all kinds of other lightweight stuff on your body after doing the equivalent of the morning 12-mile roadmarch (in any clime) or running the ridges around your home town or range.

I don't have an exclusive answer -- but it starts with definition of the problem, and that's killing anything past 200 yards to 500/600 yards if I can see it with the naked eye after hearing rounds crack past me or watching dirt kick up around me.

This should be simple "Skill Level 1" basics, while our attention is diverted to Consideration of Others and Prevention of Sexual Harrassment. If we reinforced UCMJ for inappropriate behavior and conduct perhaps we would have time at the NCO level to concentrate on fire and maneuver and people-killing skills before dropping kids off into combat.

Rant off.

kmrtnsn
01-02-11, 23:25
Sinister,

Is your rant army-centric, as the USMC has a different philosophy on marksmanship which addresses several of your bullet points?

Ken

sinister
01-02-11, 23:56
I can't and do NOT speak from any knowledge of the United States Marine Corps.

I'm sure if you ask the Commandant and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps they'd tell you the Marine shooting system is perfect and needs absolutely no improvement at all. Every Marine's a Rifleman -- we should deploy all Marines and cut back the strength of the Army immediately.

Iraqgunz
01-03-11, 00:25
In my opinion across the board for all services the reason marksmanship sucks is because there is very little true focus on it or understanding of the weapon and it's accessories.

And most personnel do not get nearly enough trigger time to become proficient with the exception of the HSLD units.

kmrtnsn
01-03-11, 00:38
I can't and do NOT speak from any knowledge of the United States Marine Corps.

I'm sure if you ask the Commandant and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps they'd tell you the Marine shooting system is perfect and needs absolutely no improvement at all. Every Marine's a Rifleman -- we should deploy all Marines and cut back the strength of the Army immediately.

Sorry, that wasn't where I was going. What I would like to acknowledge is that the Marine Corps has a different and distinct philosophy as to basic marksmanship training as compared to the army and that the army is probably long overdue in addressing that disparity and distinction.

R0N
01-03-11, 04:05
I can't and do NOT speak from any knowledge of the United States Marine Corps.

I'm sure if you ask the Commandant and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps they'd tell you the Marine shooting system is perfect and needs absolutely no improvement at all. Every Marine's a Rifleman -- we should deploy all Marines and cut back the strength of the Army immediately.

Oh, we have our problems. Many the same as the Army.

As ironic as it is, the best way to increase the individual quality may be a reduction in the size and less systematic, check in the block training and more training customized to the requirements of the user.

Since the Marine Corps switched to the check in the block, PTP training there has been quite a bit of complaints that the units are "certified" but less capable than when the commander was able to tailor the training to what he believed needed to be done, vice what a Generals staff put together 3 years ago than have TECOM vet, staff and develop a POI for it.

The biggest issue in the whole discussion is the problem of hitting a moving target. What recent shooting experiments have pointed too is most troops, snipers included aren't that good at hitting a moving target. There are various factors to that: range finding is critical, for 25 meter change in range the amount of lead required to hit a moving target increases to the point that the previously used value was not applicable (part of the reason you tell shooters to increase lead on every subsequent shot) . On a training note, it was determined that the size of the target used for training was way too wide, and the average speed of the target was significantly slower than real world moving targets (survey was done last year of the all the training facilities in the US and no military or civilian facility actually has the ability to replicate a true life moving targets with live fire, this is one of the impetus beyond the Marines getting together with Segway to develop a Segway based target and look at some type of simulation that could be run on ISMT-E). There is still an open question at what the break even point will be for training to shoot moving targets, on a few of the position papers I read, they even said it may not be possible to train the average Solider or Marine to repeatably hit a moving target at beyond 150 meters

wild_wild_wes
01-03-11, 05:15
they even said it may not be possible to train the average Solider or Marine to repeatably hit a moving target at beyond 150 meters

You would think a good computer simulation could be made to teach this.

rob_s
01-03-11, 06:04
Even though I know that this topic has been done to death all over the internet, this particular thread is one of the best, and most informative and civil, variants I've seen. I want to thank all the SMEs and contributors to the thread. I've learned a lot and enjoyed the discussion.

Magic_Salad0892
01-03-11, 06:13
I agree with Rob. Thanks all. :)

You would think a good computer simulation could be made to teach this.

A lot of soldiers (former Army) that I've met can't tell 150m by eye.

Gotta learn to crawl before you walk. :|

JSantoro
01-03-11, 07:57
Sinister,

Is your rant army-centric, as the USMC has a different philosophy on marksmanship which addresses several of your bullet points?

Ken

Sinister has seen my own rants about the Corps and the glaring falsehoods of the modern "every Marine a rifleman" ethos, here and elsewhere. Whether his rant is Army-centric or not, it remains enough of a universal as makes no difference.

Without turning it into a "thing," be assured that the Corps leadership is telling as many lies to themselves and others regarding the everyday Marine's ability to aim and hit in a combative environment as the Army leadership has drawn pie-in-the-sky conclusions about the efficacy of their training model.

Don't get me started on things like how our KD ranges are in yards, so that optics scaled to meters end up zeroed to yard-lines (or arbitrary lines established by somebody's aaaaaaaaaawwwwwwesome $#^%*#@ pace-count). I'd also challenge anybody to name a single modern 1st World military who's mapping agency still generates maps gradiated in yards.

Just don't. For sake of the children, don't pull that pin....:laugh:

GIJew766
01-03-11, 08:49
Don't throw the COC under the bus big guy. We have issues, but we also have a lot of things other going on. Lack of a "Standard" for DM's is an issue, but if gather a typical group of Infantry NCO's around and ask what the right answer is, you will get multiple answers based on their background and biases. Those guys are spending lots of time on lots of things. Sadly shooting often is hard to fit into a scheaduale as you prepare for a deployment.

Units are out fitted with all kinds of crazy capablities that we would not have dreamed of having even six years ago. Those capablities take up time to learn and in the end something has to give.

It's not that I'm throwing them under the bus, I'm simply stating that the reality is there. The gap between where Command wants the skill level and where the training allows us to be is a huge disparity. As it has been said time and time again here, even by you, there is no one sure-fire answer to the problem. Therefore, we can't honestly say that the way things are now are good enough.

Equipment, training, techniques and tactics are always evolving. You mentioned the fact that what we have now wouldn't even have been a theory-based concept six years ago. So too must we approach the training and development (I am choosing those words intentionally) of Designated Marksmen moving forward. We cannot just assume that three weeks of "advanced marksmanship" training with some range estimation, target detection and engagement at range is enough to field an effective marksman. Just as a Paramedic has continuing education requirements to meet every year, so too must there be a standard (and a hard-set one) for DMs.

Yet again, we still come to the fact that we have things like R&R, injuries, etc. that can see someone other than the grunt schooled as the DM in that role. We need our school trained DMs to come back to their parent units and pass down the information to the rest of the unit. This requires increased range time, a buttload more ammo to the squads, and a more serious approach to marksmanship in the service as a whole.


HC

DMR
01-03-11, 10:06
Bottom line -- the basic Infantryman's rifle and carbine marksmanship at the E1-E4 level sucks because the system fails to teach and maintain that skill. Ask a hundred different INFANTRY NCOs how to fix it and you'll get a hundred different answers.

Institutionally we suck at combat marksmanship from 7 yards to 600 -- if we didn't there'd be no market for training from dozens of retired SF guys and wannabes. The Army's solution is always to try to throw money and technology at the problem that could be fixed with sound doctrine, solid training, a couple thousand rounds of ball, an optic, and trigger time.

NCOs aren't taught the capabilities of their own individual arms room weapons. The standard NSN ACOG wasn't even in the M16 manual until the 2008 edition. NCOs are supposed to teach officers and line doggies. SF guys are often taught to a higher standard, but again there are troops who just aren't gun guys.


Strike Three, thanks for getting me back on task and off my own side barish rant sinister.

Failure to train the trainers is the instatutional issue, far before we get into the weeds of this rifle will let me do this, but my issue rifle sucks, BS. NCOES did/does a poor job training NCO's how to be trainiers. Further many unit leaders do very little to truely foster leaders to be trainiers. "Lane Training", commeties like EIB and EFMB, MTT's and various other training events often mean that at the individual leader level not much thought is put into the hows and why's of training.

I have a POI developed by someone else, and I go through the blocks checking them off as I go. "All I have to know is provided to me." Thus I am an expert on this topic today. This was the conventinal Army I started out in in 1984 and was becoming the Army again as I neared retirement. There were some high points in the 90's for me at 10th MTN, but i digress.

Quality training takes time and experiance. Going out to the range with a line Infantry Company of 129+ for a day to do "marksmanship" training does little. To many folks, to few firing points and too few "trainers". Send them over to the Engagement Skills Trainer (http://www.peostri.army.mil/PRODUCTS/EST_2000/)(EST) to do "simulated" marksmanship on moving targets and you might as well be doing keg stands while playing Call of Duty.

Handing SGT Droopy a manual and some resoursces and telling him to teach a class on topic X doesn't mean he can do it. Lord knows I was the victum of many of those and more than likely did it to a few NCO's. Teaching him HOW to teach is much harder. How do you tune in the soldier, whats realy important about the task, whats the real application, how do you develope feed back from the students so you can adjust the material as required.

When you move into more complex taskes like marksmanship how do you trouble shoot soldiers problems. The big name trainers get that name because they can do those things. Those skills are honed through repeation and mentoring. Jason Fella I believe started a thread about the people that formed his style as a trainer. SOF units tend to produce more highly skilled individuals and trainers due to more specialization and actual "experts" on a subject. Experts developed through training and repetition of fundimental skills.

edit, long scary rant deleted

kmrtnsn
01-03-11, 10:59
Sinister has seen my own rants about the Corps and the glaring falsehoods of the modern "every Marine a rifleman" ethos, here and elsewhere. Whether his rant is Army-centric or not, it remains enough of a universal as makes no difference.

Without turning it into a "thing," be assured that the Corps leadership is telling as many lies to themselves and others regarding the everyday Marine's ability to aim and hit in a combative environment as the Army leadership has drawn pie-in-the-sky conclusions about the efficacy of their training model.

Don't get me started on things like how our KD ranges are in yards, so that optics scaled to meters end up zeroed to yard-lines (or arbitrary lines established by somebody's aaaaaaaaaawwwwwwesome $#^%*#@ pace-count). I'd also challenge anybody to name a single modern 1st World military who's mapping agency still generates maps gradiated in yards.

Just don't. For sake of the children, don't pull that pin....:laugh:

Roger that! It appears that the band-aid approach to increasing the capability of the individual soldier/Marine by giving them more gizmos isn't paying off because there has been no fundemental change in basic marksmanship training.

I was out at Pendleton last year and watched the running of the KD ranges (recruit training) for a few minutes. Nothing had changed at all since I passed through there in 1981, and I am pretty sure the only difference between what I did and those Marines back in the '40's and '50's is the weapon we were firing. The army loves those reactive pop-ups that never seem to all want to work at the same time. Where does this leave the DM, either army or Marine? Some appear to get advanced training for whichever platform they are firing, that is a good thing but as others have mentioned, if that trained DM is out of the picture then either an untrained or marginally trained operator has use the weapon or the weapon is left behind. One partial solution is to address basic marksmanship skills (and more advanced skills; range estimation, windage adjustment, bullet drop over incline/decline, etc.) from the get go in both services. The other, as previously mentioned, is to field a similar platform to mainstream weapons (M4/M16) that requires only additional training on the use of the optic, some DM weapons fit this bill and others do not. It will be interesting to see where both services go with this.

sinister
01-03-11, 14:22
In the olden days when I grew up the post trap and skeet ranges were right next to the pistol range (where every Saturday us kids would shoot our NRA junior .22 program and develop from zero towards Distinguished Expert -- 50 rounds in prone, sitting, kneeling, and standing at real little bullseyes weekly). You could shoot a round of trap and a round of skeet (birds included) for around 5 bucks on your way to the bus stop (cased rifle strapped across your back or in-hand).

That gets hand-eye and lead coordination going. Running target with air guns and 22s (like 10-22s, or sub-cal training kits or dedicated uppers) would do the same thing (remember carnival and fair .22 short shooting galleries?).

Look at today's posts and it is rare to find one with a skeet and trap range, and there are NO running target ranges in the USA. Some damn nice gyms, though, as well as two-man barracks berths.

How do you train a basic task like killing Hajjis running across an alleyway? Get on a KD range. Trimmed (narrow) E-types on sticks (google it) for runners. Targets up at Lane 1, and tear-ass across the range for four to six frame widths before bringing it down. Three or four guys in a fire team can shoot at the same time -- lock a 30-round mag in and start shooting once it appears. Target up at frame six and tear ass back to frame 1. Repeat.

Feedback? Not likely without a LOMAH range, except for holes. Cost-effective? Use your sub-cal or dedicated .22 uppers (with tracers!) if ammo costs raise eyebrows.

Simple? You be the judge.

Anything like it at all, today, for the line-dog Infantryman? I haven't been a line 11B private for over 30 years, nor an NCO since 1982 -- but as an officer I can tell you there aren't many other solutions for mass training on movers. I'm not sure, but I believe the Benning Malone Range Running Russians went the way of the DoDo long before the Soviet Union folded.

We've got shit-loads of trap, skeet, and sporting clays shotgunners across the nation -- none of them teaching shooting leads with an M4/M16.

What am I missing (besides Hajji in man-jammies armed with an RPG and PKM)?

9111B
01-03-11, 14:56
I can tell you there aren't many other solutions for mass training on movers. I'm not sure, but I believe the Benning Malone Range Running Russians went the way of the DoDo long before the Soviet Union folded.


That range, while still there, does nothing usefull other than check a box on the training schedule. When I was there the DS's didn't even score it for us because It was damn near impossible to see which targets were in your lane or the one next to you. Many of the targets didn't work, and I didn't even realize the 300's existed until halfway through. It's hard enough to get pop-ups to work properly, pop-up and movers is even harder. Nice idea in theory not so much in practice.

As for the current qualifying system in the army. I know a man who scored 40 out of 40 and had 7 rounds left in his mag.

sinister
01-03-11, 15:10
There is a movers Location-of-Misses-and-Hits (LOMAH) range that can show the individual shooter exactly where he hit and missed, damned near instantly (on a computer screen and hard paper printout).

Like the standard LOMAHs on Benning they're so damned expensive there aren't any in the United States to train conventional troops on.

A range that doesn't work (i.e., Malone) is a waste of Soldiers' time.

Funny how there's never enough time to do it right, but there's always enough to do it over.

hammonje
01-03-11, 15:20
I have to say I enjoyed this thread very much. Thanks to all the advice and informative posts. I guess my 20" WOA AR-15 would fit the bill. I knew I could put 20 slow-fire shots into a milk jug at 600 yards....only using irons.

Couldn't imagine what you could do with a magnified optic or 4X ACOG????

Personally, I would prefer to save weight and use a 5.56 NATO rifle out to 600 yards. Past that I would want a 7.62 NATO rifle, not for the size, but its ability to resist wind drift. When the projectile slows the wind plays havoc on POI. Better for the bullet to have more mass. 10-15 MOA windage adjustements make a one-shot kill a bitch. Or for me a bullseye.

Belmont31R
01-03-11, 15:41
I have to say I enjoyed this thread very much. Thanks to all the advice and informative posts. I guess my 20" WOA AR-15 would fit the bill. I knew I could put 20 slow-fire shots into a milk jug at 600 yards....only using irons.

Couldn't imagine what you could do with a magnified optic or 4X ACOG????

Personally, I would prefer to save weight and use a 5.56 NATO rifle out to 600 yards. Past that I would want a 7.62 NATO rifle, not for the size, but its ability to resist wind drift. When the projectile slows the wind plays havoc on POI. Better for the bullet to have more mass. 10-15 MOA windage adjustements make a one-shot kill a bitch. Or for me a bullseye.



Wind drift between 5.56 and 308 are actually pretty similar as is the drop. Theres about a 10% difference at most.

kjdoski
01-03-11, 19:26
Kevin,

Just out of curiosity have you folks noticed any zero shift with the ELCAN when the magnification was changed? There was a PJ at the last class that had one and when the magnification was changed, there was a significant POI shift (at 100yds)...Sorry for the delayed reply and possible thread shift. To be honest, I haven't noticed that problem; but, then again, we rarely use the ELCANs NOT on the 4x setting. We have the Docter Optics MRDS mounted for really fast up close work, so they just sort of stay on 4x.

We've got a range day tomorrow, I'll try to get one of the guys to bring out his ELCAN and I'll mess around with it...

Having said all that, I'm not a HUGE fan of the ELCAN as an optic, myself. I find the eye relief to be excessively "touchy" with a lot of parallax; and I think they're basically worthless as a 1x optic, so basically they're overweight and over complicated for what you get. We use it simply because it's what's issued to us; but if someone were to hand us ACOGs with 7.62 reticules, or some other low powered traditional optic (I'd love something from Zeiss or S&B in 1.5-6), I'd be happy to put the ELCANs away.

Regards,

Kevin

R0N
01-04-11, 04:21
Without turning it into a "thing," be assured that the Corps leadership is telling as many lies to themselves and others regarding the everyday Marine's ability to aim and hit in a combative environment as the Army leadership has drawn pie-in-the-sky conclusions about the efficacy of their training model.


I am not really sure that is the case, I have heard guys like PP&O and ACMC say we need to find out what is wrong with our shooting program and fix it.

We did after all start studying the problem and determine what we should be training, how it is trained. At the 3-4 star level guys don't do that unless they feel there is a problem

Now if we can get the SgtMaj mafia to see the problem is a whole other problem in itself.

El Pistolero
01-04-11, 06:56
This thread is a perfect example why I left TOS. Not because I didn't like someone there, not because I got kicked out, not because I couldn't login anymore (ok that one is true!), but because of threads like this. The wealth of information is mind-boggling and it is a very engaging to learn from people "in the know." Very cool stuff.

Back to your regularly scheduled program.

pezboy
01-04-11, 08:20
I would say that what rifle is used is the least of the worries. Every soldier should be a skilled marksman... the SDM should be trained more on his role... leaders should know how to take advantage of a SDM... ammunition supply should be better... soldiers should get more range time while deployed to confirm zeroes... designated marksmen shouldn't be doing CQB... every squad should have the minimum number of grenadiers and SAW gunners... a team leader shouldn't be a SDM...
We had M14s rebuilt into Crazy Horse configuration by Smith Enterprise and also some NM M14s and rack M14s that we installed the first version of Sage stocks on. They were great rifles and the only problems we had were due to lack of training (ignorance of the weapon), poor supply (lack of magazines and ammunition), and people not utilizing them (leaving them in the trunk).
Dustin

Magic_Salad0892
01-04-11, 10:40
Wind drift between 5.56 and 308 are actually pretty similar as is the drop. Theres about a 10% difference at most.

Then why do people want it so bad?

As somebody who is wholly unqualified to comment:

Would any of you say that inconsistency of rifles used to train with vs. used in the field is more of a problem than the training used?

If that sounds like a dumb question: Let me rephrase.

If a soldier were properly trained on the Armalite SDM rifles; if the fundamentals, techniques, etc. were taught properly, do you think the soldier would be able to transfer them to a standard M4+ACOG?

Would that be a better solution that just remaining consistent with what they'd be using?

I would expect both to suck, but if they could eliminate one; what do any of you think would be more productive or what they would do?

Skyyr
01-04-11, 10:48
Then why do people want it so bad?


Because, all things being equal, bigger holes are better than small ones.

Magic_Salad0892
01-04-11, 11:03
But is it worth the cost of ammo/rifle/ect., less ammo, and more weight?

Belmont31R
01-04-11, 11:17
But is it worth the cost of ammo/rifle/ect., less ammo, and more weight?




Just speaking on the weight issue something like an EMC or SCAR-H would be about the same or maybe 1lb at most heavier than something like a Mk12 or 20" DMR rifle. Ammo weighs more but I think a DMR doesn't need 15 mags. If you wanted to carry the basic load (210rds) thats 1 in the gun, and 8 on you. Not that bad, really.



Besides an M4 with ACOG, PEQ, and a light isn't really light weight itself. A 6.5lb gun can quickly get to 8-9 pounds by the time you add everything up. The M40A5/M24 is 14/15lbs. So if you split the difference, and get around ~11lbs for a semi 308 you're doing pretty good. The SAW is, I think, 17lbs without any ammo. M240 is 24 (?). So if you look at all the common long arms being used a EMC or the like would be the 2nd lightest gun being used.

Todd.K
01-04-11, 11:38
But is it worth the cost of ammo/rifle/ect., less ammo, and more weight?

In my opinion, NO. You can carry less 7.62 and without a lot of training improvements I don't think the 7.62 can add any real improvement in capability.

DMR
01-04-11, 12:24
Look in the end it's all about tactics. Your units TTP's realy define the role of the DM. So what is the DM?

First he is not a sniper. He's not going to have a spotter over his shoulder calling the strike of rounds though a spotting scope. He's not going to set up in a hide and wait to take "the" shot that will end the war. He certainly isn't going to be stalking to get in position to take the shot. He's also not normaly going to be taking that 800 meter shot that some think.

So were does that leave you in developing a DM program? Were is the DM going to be the most effectively used as a "CAPABLITY"? What does a "DM" do fundimentaly within the platoon, what makes a "Squad" DM differant then a RIFLEMAN? Aren't they realy the same thing with a fancy title for one? If it's not the rifleman, then who is it the Team Leader? Realy this is the fundimental verbal/doctronal trap the big Army created in 2001.

My interpetaion of the trap is the M-16 manual and other manuals made a fundimental mistake. While promoteing Advanced Rifle Marksmanship training in the manual they assigned it to a CAPABLITY/duty position that did not previously exsist. This contradiction quickly went out of control as the war started.

Breaking it down further. Our basic Infantry fighting unit is a platoon, consisting of 3 "line" squads, a weapons squad and a PLT HQ. Each of those squads controls roughly a 3-400 meter area in all directions. The platoon "owns" about a 600-1000 meters of space in all directions. Within that platoons space are "seams" between the 3 line squads. Those seams are managed by two people, the Weapons Squad leader(WSL) and the PSG. Within the seams the PSG and WSL employ the Weapons Squad consiting of two M-240 gunners and AG's along with 4 "unemployed" riflemen (also known as the Javelin Gunner and AB). The weapons squads primary function is to overwatch the three line squads and provide support by fire as needed. The Line squads primary mission is to close with and destroy the enemy. External to the platoon the PL and FISTer bring in various forms of precision fire from 60mm MTR's up to CAS and can extend the units reach outside of their 600-1000m bubble.

IF you accept that description of a Infantry platoon then you have to ask yourself were does the CAPABLITY of a Designated Marksman fit in? Is a "Squad" DM/Rifleman realy in the best position to provide that capablity to the Platoon leader or are you taking a assest away from the Squadleader? If the Weapons squads mission is to overwatch the three line squads then wouldn't it be better to have the DM's consolidated in the Weapons squad using the 4 Javelin gunners positions as your "base" authorization.

Assigning the "Capablity" Designated Marksman to the weapons squad starts to open up various options for employment that are not realy feasable within the squad. First, you can better position the capablity to support the manuver of the platoon. Operating from Support by fire postions within the platoons battle space he is better positioned to provide precise engagements across the engagements in my earlier problem statement. Operating in conjunction with a M-240 the DM provides the platoon leader with several advantages. First long range precision fire AND the ablity to transistion from single shot engagements to full blown SBF. DM's and M-240 gunners can train on the same ranges (within limits), and hopefuly would allow for the WSL to provide more extensive training on range estimation and long range fires to his element. In other words: "Platoon" Designated Marksman vs. "Squad" Designated Marksman.

If that Weapon Suad based concept works then maybe you can also look into something other than a M-4 with a ACOG for a material solution. At that level, I would be comfortable, with a good training plan in support, in having a MK-12 like weapon or maybe one of the 7.62 systems floating around.

So long as this is veiwed as a "Squad" capablity then our riflemen are better off with a M-4, aTA-31F ACOG, PEQ-15 and some time at the range.

boltgun71
01-04-11, 14:51
DMR, I must say that is an excellent doctrinal solution for the SDM that would clear up much confusion and promote quality training and equipment for them. It would require a whole new definition of the role and we know how resistant big Army is to change.

But your new Platoon Designated Marksman would create some new issues. If there is only one per Platoon, what is done on missions smaller than Platoon size? Who gets the PDM? Does he stay with the Weapons Squad and get bitched out to whoever needs him when its felt important? Like USCav said earlier each squad would lose their man who "has deep", and there is still lots of Squad level missions/patrols being conducted, ones Weapons Squad is usually not a part of. Large dismounted Platoon operations that fit the model you describe usually really only exist on the largest BN/BDE operations and therefore for short periods of time. What is the PDM to do during the majority of the remainder of the deployment when things aren't dictated by an integral close Platoon structure? Just curious what you think the best way to address this would be.

danpass
01-04-11, 15:01
This was purposely written as a heavily edited and generalized account of a Designated Marksman’s (not sniper) experience in combat. Both for the sake of OPSEC and the shooter’s desire to remain anonymous.
It is intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of the 5.56mm platform at range when utilizing proper basic rifleman marksmanship.



========================

Location: OPSEC
Time: pre-dawn
Task: Set up overwatch in order to conduct reconnaissance on a hostile village

As a Designated Marksman, on a Patrol Base Operation, several kilometers from the nearest friendly position, I took my spotter and we set up on a distant rooftop as overwatch for the security detachment as they come to speak with the locals.

The sun rose and daybreak set in. With my suppressed Mk12, MOD1 rifle and AA53 (5.56mm precision ammo) I observed movement in the village. Behavior was symptomatic of an impending firefight so we maintained a sharp eye.
Yet eventually the call was made to return to our patrol base. My element stayed in place and covered the village while the rest of the patrol bounded across an 80 meter danger area.
Once they were set we moved across that area as well, wary of any excitement that may suddenly present itself.

The danger area had a reed line that was about head high and a small berm that provided some cover. I was about half way through when the first round snapped past me. I took a knee and looked in the direction of the fire. Rounds from the enemy bursts were coming through the reeds, leaving the telltale supersonic snap/crack of the round as it passed by. I could tell the shots were coming from distance but could not see the origin of the fire. Turning to verify no one was injured I proceeded to push everyone through the danger area.

Once across I pushed my element past the other elements of our patrol and quickly took myself and my spotter to the rooftop of an appropriate building to scan for the enemy.

From the top of our building I could see directly into the village and it's main road that ran right up the center, evenly dividing the two main groups of buildings. I saw some movement though nothing definitive. After being set in place for a time, two men come walking up the road and met up with another man who had been observing our patrol earlier. Upon close inspection I could see the smaller of the two men had something tucked under his arm. As the larger of the two men turned sideways I saw it; the unmistakable shape of a Russian medium machine gun and it's bipod slung on his back muzzle up.

As they had walked up the road I had milled out the larger of the two men and had already dialed in 8 MOA of elevation. At this time the wind was minimal so no windage adjustment was necessary. My measurement gave me an estimated range of 370 meters (405 yards). Although I was at an inclined angle I didn't feel it necessary to compensate for it at this range …. but angle would soon play a part.

I put my crosshairs on the center of his chest, slowly let out a breath and controlled the trigger for a smooth release. I let off the first shot …………. the man looked shocked. His two friends didn't know how to react, let alone which way to run. At the same moment he reacted I saw an impact from my shot on the wall behind the target and thought to myself, "No ******* way I missed!" Assuming the round had struck low I held higher and fired, again seeing another impact on the wall behind him. Then I held a tad higher still for a third shot. At this point there was no question in their mind that they were getting shot at. By the third shot, two of which I saw impacts and was baffled by, the larger man with the RPK was lying on his back in the road. The two other men had darted away. One of which I was very sure had an AK47.
(Later on I learned that the man I had shot had been hit in the stomach. So the two impacts I saw on the wall were the rounds passing through. As I aimed higher I basically hit stomach, high torso, and then chest)

After observing him for about a minute I left the larger man lying motionless in the road. He was either dead or very badly wounded. My spotter followed the other two and talked me on. I ranged them as well. After about 2 minutes we took fire from our rear. At the same time two young men emerged and dragged the larger man into an alleyway out of our view.

Once the other patrol pushed out the shooting from our rear stopped and we set back up on a different spot. We set in overwatch as the other patrol went down into the village to recover the body and perhaps kill or capture the other fighters. The patrol systematically cleared through the entire village only to find it had been abandoned. They found a heavy blood trail and drag marks that stopped at vehicle tracks heading in the direction away from our position. The patrol decided to return.

As the last of their element was crossing they took a burst from outside the village. It was a few minutes after they had returned that I observed three men taking turns crossing into the village. They darted across one at a time with weapons tucked into their sides.

By this time there was about a 6-8 mph full value wind. As we continued our scan I spotted yet another armed individual. As I observed him thru the scope I made a 24 MOA elevation adjustment based off of my gut instinct telling me that this guy was 720-725 meters (790 yards) away. I held high center chest and led him 1.5 mils to compensate for the wind and his movement, which was in the same direction. I let out a slow breath, controlled the trigger for a smooth release, and let the precision 5.56mm bullet fly. The man stutter stepped as a jolt ran through his body. He took another half step and then clumsily dove to the ground. I kept on him, seeing that he was still moving, he had no cover in the field and crawled trying to hide behind a bush.

At this point another firefight broke out as the previous fighters took action. The whole time I scanned the area and then scanned back to the wounded man. He crawled with his weapon for about 5 meters then rolled onto his back where he thought he was safe. I could see him as he lay on his back behind that small bush. I fired three more rounds, putting an end to the threat.

The firefight eventually petered off, the day became quiet, and we all made our way back to the patrol base.


================

.

DMR
01-04-11, 15:30
If there is only one per Platoon, what is done on missions smaller than Platoon size?

Actualy in the IN CO's their are 4 Javelin gunners positions per platoon. 2 gunners and two Ammo bearers. Other formations have a differant structure and will require variations of the basic concept, but Javelin gunners are one way to apply the concept documentation wise.

Roger not all operations are done at platoon level, but unsupported squads are seldom, in my experiance, sent out to far on their own un-supported. Four DMs at the platoon level should allow for some rotation and also allow for task organizing a DM to support a patrol based on the leaders assessment. Also keep in mind you still have the rifleman or TL's armed with a M-4 and a ACOG, so realy at the squad level your not losing anything but a stupid title being hung on the riflemen. Ok, maybe you lost a M-14 EBR in the back of the M-ATV.

In the end all new capablities need to have a operational/tactical frame work to operate in. Either instatutionaly we are saying, "gee I realy need to take my RIFLEMEN out to the range for ARM more often," or we are saying that we need a certain capablity not meet by the riflemen and then outline it's tactical application.

At this point we have enough lessions learned, good and bad, that as an instatution we should have a good ideal what the F!@#$ we should be doing. Instead, as sinister pointed out, we just keep throughing money at it and praying it solves itself.

Todd.K
01-04-11, 15:31
Without going too far into it all the Leg Infantry got thrown into a truck for Iraq. That did more to mess up the structure of a unit than a DM does.

It's got to be the rifleman for SDM. So the squad leader places the team with the DM to cover longer spaces. This limits how specialized he can be.

The weapons squad is definitely the place for a more specialized marksman, but... he is going to cover the same ground as a 240 in a lot of ways. And the next war we fight could involve threat armor so do we pull the Javelin slots?

DMR
01-04-11, 15:44
And the next war we fight could involve threat armor so do we pull the Javelin slots?

I used the term, 4 "unemployed" riflemen, as a former Anti-Armor Section Leader. Most of the time in a Armor rich area, Javlin gunners are still riflemen lugging around a CLU until they can be resupplied. No real reason he can't perform both functions.

Most of the time we acted as the companies 13th "squad", other units broke their sections up completely. On one deployment the Companies AT section was used to drive the 4 or 5 UAH's that were assigned to the company. We recieved extra M-60's (wow I'm that old) for them to use and they would escort the Line platoons which were piled into the back of 5-Tons. :mad:

C-grunt
01-04-11, 16:24
To throw another wrench in the gears, mech units usually only have two dismounted squads per platoon. We sometimes would operate 3 6 man squads with one being a weapons squad but we rarely did it. But being backed up by 4 Brads the less men on the ground wasnt really noticed.

In addition to being the DM, I was also a 240 gunner, a M2 gunner, a Javelin operator and a back up Brad driver and gunner. We just didnt have the man power for everyone to be just one thing.

In the 03 invasion I was a SAW gunner and Javelin operator. But also being in a mech unit with Bradleys and Tanks, the javelin never got used. We did use the CLU for recon at night and it worked pretty well.

wild_wild_wes
01-04-11, 19:23
So what is the DM?

First he is not a sniper. He's not going to have a spotter over his shoulder calling the strike of rounds though a spotting scope. He's not going to set up in a hide and wait to take "the" shot that will end the war. He certainly isn't going to be stalking to get in position to take the shot. He's also not normaly going to be taking that 800 meter shot that some think.

So were does that leave you in developing a DM program? Were is the DM going to be the most effectively used as a "CAPABLITY"? What does a "DM" do fundimentaly within the platoon, what makes a "Squad" DM differant then a RIFLEMAN? Aren't they realy the same thing with a fancy title for one? If it's not the rifleman, then who is it the Team Leader? Realy this is the fundimental verbal/doctronal trap the big Army created in 2001.

IF you accept that description of a Infantry platoon then you have to ask yourself were does the CAPABLITY of a Designated Marksman fit in? Is a "Squad" DM/Rifleman realy in the best position to provide that capablity to the Platoon leader or are you taking a assest away from the Squadleader? If the Weapons squads mission is to overwatch the three line squads then wouldn't it be better to have the DM's consolidated in the Weapons squad using the 4 Javelin gunners positions as your "base" authorization.

If that Weapon Suad based concept works then maybe you can also look into something other than a M-4 with a ACOG for a material solution. At that level, I would be comfortable, with a good training plan in support, in having a MK-12 like weapon or maybe one of the 7.62 systems floating around.

So long as this is veiwed as a "Squad" capablity then our riflemen are better off with a M-4, aTA-31F ACOG, PEQ-15 and some time at the range.

"The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones"
-- John Maynard Keynes

Based on one of your earlier posts, I had come to much the same conclusion. Give your riflemen more time at the range, and with a weapon like this latest iteration of the M4A1, the requisite accuracy potential of the DM would be met within the Squad:

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/7360/2qu3fwg.jpg

Then, as you said, incorporating a marksman in the weapons platoon with a 7.62 semi-auto and a quality optic would round out the Precision element to the Platoon. Of course the 7.62 guys would need a higher level of training, to take advantage of their weapon/optic combo....perhaps an abbreviated Sniper course, sans the stalking/fieldcraft elements?

sinister
01-05-11, 00:58
If every Infantryman had the basics of musketry -- and I mean technical and tactical proficiency from SF Door Kicker to 600-yard day-night competence -- there'd be no need for the term Designated Marksman.

Every line doggy would be a competent rifleman.

It takes a modest investment in time and ammunition. What is missing is base-line NCO and company-grade officer expertise with today's issued hardware -- far more capable than what I was issued as a private, Ranger NCO, and Scout Platoon Leader in the early 80s. Even most SF ODAs into the mid-90s did not have the density in NVGs, ACOGS, and PAQ-4s/PEQ-2s as today's line infantry rifleman.

It's not a hardware problem -- it's a training and experience gap. Troops don't know the capabilities of what they have in their hands!

DMR
01-05-11, 01:41
sinister,

Agreed on so many levels. My day job is all about units not knowing what CAPABLITIES they have ON HAND. From magazines, to slings, to million dollar pieces of equipment.

In my old job that I got work on some simplier things that a grunt can more readily understand. No amount of explanaitions could convince those senior leaders that a well trained rifleman trained by a IMLARM grad could do all these things. Send them to the range and let them train and the whole discussion would go away. Those BC's needed a "CAPABLITY" not something else to put on the training calender, which was already full.

From there it's all down hill, never mind every capablity comes with an additional training requirement.......... How many licensed Raven and I-Robot operators does a company have for example. Each needs to be licensed, trained, the gear needs to be maintained, oh and you can't have any extra people to go with the extra gear.

The units have to much noise in their ears and hit the high points to get the mission done. Everyone has differant high points, so based on time something gets left out. Have a soldier learn Dari so he knows what the f the civs are saying on patrol or send him to the range. The list goes on.

Ash Hess
01-05-11, 07:52
How about.....
CO---"you dont need to PMI them, its just a paper Qual anyway. And I am not worried about your Battle Drill training, you can do that in off time."
PSG-- " Sir, this is only time I will have all my guys, and none of them have Zero's and they are all new"

CO--- "No matter, we have to re zero in country anyway. You will have all your guys there to train Battle Drills and Marksmanship"

Some folks just dont get it. and never will.
Sinister and DMR, you guys have nailed the whole problem. On every level. From the DM, The NCO, and thru the Rookie.

knoxtnshooter
01-06-11, 16:07
DMR- I'm not tracking whether or not you are saying that SDMs are being put I to weapons squads or SHOULD be put into weapons squads.

I may just be missing something you said, I apologize.

I wanted to let you know that my company was in the process of doing just that when the m14s were given back to whoever they were sent off to.

Another data point- we have one person in my company who is actually javelin certified, and no plans to send more.

wild_wild_wes
02-11-11, 23:51
From TOS:

"Sir, this is just from my experience, which is small compared to USMC wide, over 100 firefights in Marjah and surrounding areas.

The Marines actually regularly killing enemies with 5.56 are the DM's. I have not seen anyone kill an enemy with an M4/M16 outside 250 meters. The most effective weapons are M203, M240, and MK12 Mod1."

1371USMCFL
02-12-11, 10:21
From TOS:

"Sir, this is just from my experience, which is small compared to USMC wide, over 100 firefights in Marjah and surrounding areas.

The Marines actually regularly killing enemies with 5.56 are the DM's. I have not seen anyone kill an enemy with an M4/M16 outside 250 meters. The most effective weapons are M203, M240, and MK12 Mod1."

Having also just come back from combat in southern Marjah, I would say that is a correct statement. The Mk12's were an asset to us.

wild_wild_wes
02-12-11, 11:03
I was wondering still, if a compact 7.62 would be a better choice, but the same guy just posted this (emphasis mine):

"The reason the the Mk12 is prevalent and validated for usage is based on a request for higher power optics during BLT 1/6s involvement in Helmand. I wrote that UNS based on enemy knowing the limitation of our 4X sights and the BLTs Mk11s and M40s being able to engage within range of 5.56 but unobserved by those with RCOs."

sinister
02-12-11, 14:10
When the Infantry Directorate of Training and Doctrine (DOTD - tactics division) plagiarized Russian motorized infantry platoon doctrine (ever noticed how much a Stryker kinda-sorta resembles a BTR-60PB?) and modded the US infantry squad to fit they did NOT include the SVD-equipped platoon sniper. It would NOT have required huge density at 1 guy per platoon, but would have required another DOTMLPF review and adding another gun to an infantry platoon. Big fail. The result has been the M14 stop-gaps.

I agree the "Squad Designated Marksman" should have been "Any competent Soldier armed with a rifle or carbine and a suitable optic."

7.62 does offer that something extra that would be nice. Unfortunately (after 31 years of first-person observation) I do not believe the conventional US Army has the desire to give the squad and platoon leaders that capability -- instead reserving the new XM-25 for field-grade officers bucking for promotion.

It doesn't have to be fancy. That technology is commercial off-the-shelf available TODAY from nearly a dozen (or more) manufacturers.

Generalized example -- 7.62 on top, 5.56 on the bottom, bought off the internet. It did NOT require 25 years of kicking around the same can.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2eec7c4.jpg

1371USMCFL
02-12-11, 16:55
I was wondering still, if a compact 7.62 would be a better choice, but the same guy just posted this (emphasis mine):

"The reason the the Mk12 is prevalent and validated for usage is based on a request for higher power optics during BLT 1/6s involvement in Helmand. I wrote that UNS based on enemy knowing the limitation of our 4X sights and the BLTs Mk11s and M40s being able to engage within range of 5.56 but unobserved by those with RCOs."

I do think that the Mk11 would be a more effective weapon when it comes to distance. Having the Mk12's basically gave us kinda a 2 for 1, it provided with better optics for PID and, w/ full auto, gave us another auto rifle.

In all reality, I think the best application of the idea is what the British have done with the LM308MWS.

wild_wild_wes
02-12-11, 20:47
How are the Brits fielding the LM308MWS: as a Squad-level asset, or are they Platoon-level?

I'm beginning to think that a Squad DM might be better off with a 5.56 rifle (albeit perhaps one with a longer, higher-quality barrel) and ACOG-type optic with BDC (since they will probably not get enough training to master a click-adjustable scope), and have a couple of Platoon DMs with 7.62s, higher-power optics, and more training.

1371USMCFL
02-12-11, 22:22
How are the Brits fielding the LM308MWS: as a Squad-level asset, or are they Platoon-level?

I'm beginning to think that a Squad DM might be better off with a 5.56 rifle (albeit perhaps one with a longer, higher-quality barrel) and ACOG-type optic with BDC (since they will probably not get enough training to master a click-adjustable scope), and have a couple of Platoon DMs with 7.62s, higher-power optics, and more training.

Squad level I believe, they're SDMs have LM308MWS w/ TA648-308s. The only downside to the weapon system on the squad level is ammo as they would, most likely, be the only weapon system with non-linked 7.62 so if he happens to run out, he's done. With your 5.56 DMRs the rest of the squad (even ANA should you get in that deep) carry the same ammo. With LM308, they have the ease of use of the BDC and higher magnification with the ACOG, but the better ballistics of the heavier round. He also leaves the wire looking, to the naked eye, like he has an M4. Thus keeping him lower profile, similar to what the USMC did with switching to the M4esqe looking SAW replacement.

BH375
02-12-11, 22:56
The training gap -- both for SDM and for the average Soldier -- is a recurring theme of many of the [well-thought-out] posts in this thread, one that I'd like to address.

I'm an Infantry LTC with two tours in Iraq, three in Afghanistan, and a host of other "trips" to the AOR since 2003. These days, I'm responsible for training Soldiers. In my opinion, in the Army at least, we make training on and sustaining basic marksmanship skills far too difficult. I'll give you a couple of examples.

In basic training, the shortcomings begin far before a recruit ever shows up at Basic Combat Training (BCT). Drill Sergeant candidates don't receive the training necessary at Drill Sergeant School (DSS) to become excellent marksman themselves, much less excellent trainers. They simply shoot the BCT BRM program of instruction, and receive an additional block of instruction on "reading shot groups" based solely on how those shot groups look on paper (with no reference to the shooter who shot those groups and what they are/were actually doing at the time they fired the shot). Most have precious little experience as marksman themselves (a problem I'll discuss more in a minute), so this scant instruction creates trainers who are, more often than not, ill-equipped to train (they may be motivated, but simply aren't knowledgable). In civilian terms, it would be like a college student who took Biology 101 one semester teaching Biology 101 the very next semester, with a few hours in between to review their slides -- simply preposterous.

In a unit, there is a fundamental problem with marksmanship ability that has, at the heart of it, its roots in the lack of trigger time. Part of that, as DMR pointed out, is too many priorities, with none of them clear. But just as big a part, throughout the Army at least, is how hard we make it for any Soldier to get to the range to shoot their weapon. Think for a moment about all that goes into just getting a unit to the range, from scheduling, to drawing ammo, to arranging transportation, to drawing weapons, to transporting equipment to the range and setting up, to going through the big Army hassle with range control to open the range and meet all of their requirements, to actually shooting, to cleaning up and clearing the range and then going through all of the other steps in reverse. All told, dozens or hundreds of man-hours must be put into one day on the range. No wonder units find other priorities (Raven training or Dari phrases) that get done simply because they're easier to do. Yet another big part of the problem in getting to the range to get Soldiers to shoot their weapons is the Army's archaic processes for ordering, drawing, and handling ammo. When put together with the pain of the range process, it's again easy to see why units just choose to focus on other (easier) priorities.

In between units and the training base, young officers and NCOs don't get enough time on the range to become proficient with their weapons, let alone experts. That training is left to the units--units that experience the same problems that I just described in getting Soldiers to the range just often enough to punch paper or plastic for their basic qualification. So we never fix the basic problem of lack of marksmanship proficiency because it's just too hard to do, or because it's someone else's problem.

So what would I do about basic marksmanship proficiency, if you made me a General for a day (something the Army will never do, by the way)? First, I'd fix the training in the generating force, starting first with the Drill Sergeants and then with the Soldiers they train, with a dramatically revised POI and a drastic increase in the amount of time and ammunition devoted to the topic (and don't let recent feel-good propaganda articles about the changes in BCT mislead you to believe that this is already happening--far from it). Second, I'd re-look our facilities (something that would, admittedly, take a long time to fix), giving every battalion-sized unit its own flat range within walking distance of the unit area: one completely controlled by the unit, without the requirement to go through all of the scheduling hassles and range control bureaucracy that hinders Big Army (make it so a squad leader can show up, raise the flag, clear his SDZ, and start training his Soldiers). Third, I'd change the security and logistics requirements to make it easy for a unit (from squad to company) to draw its weapons and ammo and go to the range, so any unit can get a Soldier to the range once a week. Fourth, I'd change the training requirements, by rewriting the Army, MACOM, and unit training regs, to make marksmanship training a recurring regulatory requirement--something along the lines of "every Soldier will fire their weapon once a week in the x month period leading up to a scheduled deployment, or in the x month period leading up to a mission alert cycle". Make the choice of which priority to focus on an easy one for leaders (starting with that one of the Big Four which is at the heart of being a Soldier--proficiency with his/her weapon). A few critical changes like these, coupled with renewed emphasis by leaders at all levels (starting with the new SMA, for example) might--just might--be the catalyst for a culture change in our Army.

If you can fix those problems (and, admittedly, those fixes--however simple--are unlikely), then you might lay the foundation to fix our SDM shortcomings. Until then, you can build a better racehorse, but he'll still be pulling a cart with no wheels.

Hope that sheds some additional light on the topic.

wild_wild_wes
02-12-11, 23:16
Great post! In the Marines, in basic training Marksmanship training is not conducted by our regular Drill Instructors; they hand us off to specialized Primary Marksmanship Instructors. Mine was Sgt. Lascowski; 28 years later and I remember everything he taught me.

BH375
02-12-11, 23:23
Great post! In the Marines, in basic training Marksmanship training is not conducted by our regular Drill Instructors; they hand us off to specialized Primary Marksmanship Instructors. Mine was Sgt. Lascowski; 28 years later and I remember everything he taught me.

One of the few real constants in Army training is change. That's an approach we've tried, gone away from, tried again, and gone away from again. We're bound to try it again sometime in the future, repeating the whole cycle once more.

One thing that we've instituted that is different, as far as I can tell, is to institute a set of dry-fire drills that we teach on the first day of BCT. Then, we require Soldiers to perform those drills every single day of BCT--at least 25 complete iterations. Hopefully, that creates a Soldier who is better-drilled in the fundamentals.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that there are problems with our approach. First, the same Drill Sergeants who have lackluster preparatory training have to train and supervise Soldiers on these drills; some do it phenomenally well, and others, well--not so much. Second, with up to 60 Soldiers in a platoon and up to 240 in a company, there are inevitably Soldiers who aren't doing it right who don't get corrected; that said, that was going to be the case with the old-school method as well, so we've at least improved the odds a little. Third, we are unable to address things like achieving and cementing a NPOA (so far, at least). To reiterate, though, even with those problems, I think that for one group, for one block of time, we're doing a little bit better.

fhpchris
04-08-11, 03:26
When the Infantry Directorate of Training and Doctrine (DOTD - tactics division) plagiarized Russian motorized infantry platoon doctrine (ever noticed how much a Stryker kinda-sorta resembles a BTR-60PB?) and modded the US infantry squad to fit they did NOT include the SVD-equipped platoon sniper. It would NOT have required huge density at 1 guy per platoon, but would have required another DOTMLPF review and adding another gun to an infantry platoon. Big fail. The result has been the M14 stop-gaps.

I agree the "Squad Designated Marksman" should have been "Any competent Soldier armed with a rifle or carbine and a suitable optic."

7.62 does offer that something extra that would be nice. Unfortunately (after 31 years of first-person observation) I do not believe the conventional US Army has the desire to give the squad and platoon leaders that capability -- instead reserving the new XM-25 for field-grade officers bucking for promotion.

It doesn't have to be fancy. That technology is commercial off-the-shelf available TODAY from nearly a dozen (or more) manufacturers.

Generalized example -- 7.62 on top, 5.56 on the bottom, bought off the internet. It did NOT require 25 years of kicking around the same can.



I agree with you that the SVD is still a ground breaking rifle for this position. The SVD is also a very prevalent rifle, available both from major countries to random arms bazaars in the middle of no where.
My point is that we will be shooting against people with SVDs a large portion of the time. 18/20 inch 5.56 guns are great options to extend the firepower of the squad, but even if they are more accurate they do not compare to the capability of a 7.62x54r and are still the same PITA to carry around (from a length and weight perspective).

The SVD is not a uber-heavy gun. It is not a rifle capable of match-grade accuracy, but it is a rifle made in large quantities with no special fitting typical of something like a M21.

It is too bad that the KAC M-110 is so expensive, I would love to see it fielded in greater numbers or other configurations. The SCAR 17 is a great option to have as was said pages ago.

When you look at the weight, cost, and capability of the SVD, you will find that it is still a winning package.

One last thing, our training is no where near where it should be IMHO. That problem is only compounded by the M4's issues with improper maintenance and short barrel life. Oh, and my unit also considered the M9 as a POS.

Iraqgunz
04-08-11, 04:00
Quite simply. You are giving the SVD too much credit. It's not necessarily the weapon, it's how they employed it in the scenario explained by sinister.

I have seen plenty of them in the 3rd world and they were not maintained well enough to really be considered capable. I think most would agree that in the hands of a Soviet soldier or other westerners it was probably pretty accurate. Not so of others.


I agree with you that the SVD is still a ground breaking rifle for this position. The SVD is also a very prevalent rifle, available both from major countries to random arms bazaars in the middle of no where.
My point is that we will be shooting against people with SVDs a large portion of the time. 18/20 inch 5.56 guns are great options to extend the firepower of the squad, but even if they are more accurate they do not compare to the capability of a 7.62x54r and are still the same PITA to carry around (from a length and weight perspective).

The SVD is not a uber-heavy gun. It is not a rifle capable of match-grade accuracy, but it is a rifle made in large quantities with no special fitting typical of something like a M21.

It is too bad that the KAC M-110 is so expensive, I would love to see it fielded in greater numbers or other configurations. The SCAR 17 is a great option to have as was said pages ago.

When you look at the weight, cost, and capability of the SVD, you will find that it is still a winning package.

One last thing, our training is no where near where it should be IMHO. That problem is only compounded by the M4's issues with improper maintenance and short barrel life. Oh, and my unit also considered the M9 as a POS.

fhpchris
04-08-11, 12:16
Quite simply. You are giving the SVD too much credit. It's not necessarily the weapon, it's how they employed it in the scenario explained by sinister.

I have seen plenty of them in the 3rd world and they were not maintained well enough to really be considered capable. I think most would agree that in the hands of a Soviet soldier or other westerners it was probably pretty accurate. Not so of others.

I was not trying to give it credit in a worst case scenario; a poorly maintained weapon with someone that has no grasp of the fundamentals of shooting. I was trying to talk about the same one explained by sinister, a properly maintained weapon in the hands of someone that has Spentnaz-level training coupled with proper modern ammunition like 7N1. In that case, the SVD is a lightweight package that is a little dated, but works.

ZRH
04-08-11, 12:37
It's hard to evaluate the performance of something when the only data is anecdotal. Not trying to say it's unreliable data just the only, or most of the only, times people get shot with an SVD in poor conditions is when someone actually gets shot. With the number of them out there, and with the amount our people are being shot at, it could easily be mostly "luck" on the part of the enemy. To get an accurate picture of their performance we'd have to know approximately how many are out there, how often they shoot at us etc. Like the data we got on the Germans after WW2.

It's easy to take for granted the very basics of the information we have on US SDM effectiveness. Much harder to gauge the enemies actual effectiveness. You rarely remember when the enemy misses, but you definitely remember when they cause a casualty.

I am aware that a quality (Russian) SVD with match ammunition is about equivalent of an M24 (the Russian spec is 2 MOA at 300m?). I am also aware that the M24 isn't deployed as a SDM rifle. The accurized M-14 is pretty close though.

Belmont31R
04-08-11, 14:47
Quite simply. You are giving the SVD too much credit. It's not necessarily the weapon, it's how they employed it in the scenario explained by sinister.

I have seen plenty of them in the 3rd world and they were not maintained well enough to really be considered capable. I think most would agree that in the hands of a Soviet soldier or other westerners it was probably pretty accurate. Not so of others.



I don't know about that. In our AO in Baghdad they got put to some good use, and took quite a few casualties.


Not my unit that captured it but we got to inspect a van that was being used by foreigners within hours of its capture. They had a little cut out in the back of the van that they could pull a flap over so you wouldn't see it. They could pop the flap open, shoot, and be moving again all within a few seconds. The shooter could lay in full prone in the back in a solid shooting position. IIRC they were Chechens.


In the city a S/A precision or semi-precision rifle could be put to great use in the right hands. In the hands of your average dope its just another rifle but Ive seen enough damage caused by them to grant them a bit of respect even in the 3rd world.


This is another rifle that was captured..check out the sight..


http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/CIMG0531.jpg

Iraqgunz
04-08-11, 15:55
I am not saying that they didn't get employed and haven't created casualties. I am talking about general across the board use.

The foreign fighters that were using weapons like the SVD also had more training than the average bear IIRC.


I don't know about that. In our AO in Baghdad they got put to some good use, and took quite a few casualties.


Not my unit that captured it but we got to inspect a van that was being used by foreigners within hours of its capture. They had a little cut out in the back of the van that they could pull a flap over so you wouldn't see it. They could pop the flap open, shoot, and be moving again all within a few seconds. The shooter could lay in full prone in the back in a solid shooting position. IIRC they were Chechens.


In the city a S/A precision or semi-precision rifle could be put to great use in the right hands. In the hands of your average dope its just another rifle but Ive seen enough damage caused by them to grant them a bit of respect even in the 3rd world.


This is another rifle that was captured..check out the sight..


http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/CIMG0531.jpg

TehLlama
04-09-11, 00:48
If it were up to me, precision (relatively speaking) would be a fireteam asset, at least something like an SDMR-ified M16A4/M16A5 (as simple as substituting the M5RAS for a free floated unit) with a 5.5x ACOG, or at least a squad level item (the Mk12 makes even more sense in that role if GOTS is a requirement).

I would also concur with the assessment that a Mk12 in the hands of the right operator is the best economy of force tool in the AO. With the PID requirements that come along with any COIN operation, it's almost ridiculous to send a patrol out WITHOUT something similar to that.

Naturally, the underlying marksmanship isn't going to improve so long as more time is spent on mindlessly cleaning and attending gay acceptance powerpoint briefings.

TehLlama
04-09-11, 00:54
I agree with Rob. Thanks all. :)

You would think a good computer simulation could be made to teach this.

A lot of soldiers (former Army) that I've met can't tell 150m by eye.
|

There's one of these on MarineNet, and it's actually executed fairly well for what it is. Still not that handy, I've learned a whole hell of a lot more trying to hit somebody 15 yards away with a paintball or airsoft gun.

[eta] In regards to Marine employment - while I have a limited slice of this, the employment strategy for the Mk12's was just pushing as many out as possible on actual patrols, whenever those guys were on post they'd be the most accessible to the good overwatch positions (I have some great video of a buddy at 'Bayonet Rock' holding overwatch before a controlled det.). The company I was attached to had enough to usually push out two per squad, or at minimum one. It's not like the guys running them were especially good at shooting at range, but the glass alone was a huge asset, the overall effect being that SAF attacks were limited only to areas where our longer range accuracy was less of a factor (canal crossings, slightly denser areas, etc.)

... didn't realize I had two halves of this thread open in different windows. :facepalm:

Iraqgunz
04-09-11, 01:03
I just realized that the rifle in that pic isn't an SVD. It's actually an 7.62x39 rifle that was called a Tabuk sniper rifle. I had several of them in my armory along with real SVD's, Iraqi Al-Kadesih rifles, Romanian FPK's and other assorted stuff.

From what I recall they were not much more accurate than the AK47's.


I don't know about that. In our AO in Baghdad they got put to some good use, and took quite a few casualties.


Not my unit that captured it but we got to inspect a van that was being used by foreigners within hours of its capture. They had a little cut out in the back of the van that they could pull a flap over so you wouldn't see it. They could pop the flap open, shoot, and be moving again all within a few seconds. The shooter could lay in full prone in the back in a solid shooting position. IIRC they were Chechens.


In the city a S/A precision or semi-precision rifle could be put to great use in the right hands. In the hands of your average dope its just another rifle but Ive seen enough damage caused by them to grant them a bit of respect even in the 3rd world.


This is another rifle that was captured..check out the sight..


http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/CIMG0531.jpg

fhpchris
04-09-11, 02:13
It is crazy the things that are found over there. I hate seeing these Type 1 AKs and MP44s appear there out of no where. I thought that was a M76 for a second until I saw it had a RPK Rec.

I think this PDF is a good read:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA512331

I would love to know Iraq's opinions on it! :)

The MK12 and other DMR type rifles clearly help fill a large gap in our capability. The AK47 clearly is not a > 400m rifle though(while people here have kills at that distance with Mk18s), the SVD really helps in that infantry unit's ability to go further out than that. I feel that we are suffering from the same problem, just to a different degree. I would not doubt that the MK12 and other DMR rifles are very successful not only from an equipment standpoint but also a TRAINING one as well!

Hell, I think the WWII era rifles were really accurate and good rifles overall! As good as 5.56 carbines and rifles are, I just believe that if you are shooting at 500-900m having something like 8mm Mauser(Kar-98) or 30-06 is not a bad thing. You need to pick the correct weapons for the correct jobs, and if you have to defend a large mountain, I do not think the M4 carbine is always the right choice. This is only compounded by the fact the SAW is also 5.56, but that is a discussion for another thread :)

Iraqgunz
04-09-11, 05:29
I read it several months ago when it first came out. What would you like me to say?


It is crazy the things that are found over there. I hate seeing these Type 1 AKs and MP44s appear there out of no where. I thought that was a M76 for a second until I saw it had a RPK Rec.

I think this PDF is a good read:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA512331

I would love to know Iraq's opinions on it! :)

The MK12 and other DMR type rifles clearly help fill a large gap in our capability. The AK47 clearly is not a > 400m rifle though(while people here have kills at that distance with Mk18s), the SVD really helps in that infantry unit's ability to go further out than that. I feel that we are suffering from the same problem, just to a different degree. I would not doubt that the MK12 and other DMR rifles are very successful not only from an equipment standpoint but also a TRAINING one as well!

Hell, I think the WWII era rifles were really accurate and good rifles overall! As good as 5.56 carbines and rifles are, I just believe that if you are shooting at 500-900m having something like 8mm Mauser(Kar-98) or 30-06 is not a bad thing. You need to pick the correct weapons for the correct jobs, and if you have to defend a large mountain, I do not think the M4 carbine is always the right choice. This is only compounded by the fact the SAW is also 5.56, but that is a discussion for another thread :)

mass-diver
04-09-11, 08:40
Very informative thread. It's interesting to here from people that have combat experience that they believe M4 remains effective at distances in the 500m range.

There seems to be good data that the 5.56 round doesn't fragment after 100-150m or so, so it's reassuring to hear that the round still apparently has good stopping power even at 5x+ this distance (and even when fired out of 14.5" barrel).

DMR
04-09-11, 09:52
Anyone think this thread should move to the Precision Semi-Auto section?

TehLlama
04-09-11, 11:02
I also find it interesting how Suarez group also advocates for the anglo-Tabuk (slightly accurized Saiga with western optics - I think they refer to it as the Saiganov). Even with poor ammo, somebody on point in those classes could ace the Army qual, and for most urban situations that kind of platform would be more than adequate on either side of the coin, and as employed by the competent insurgents, very deadly. We had to use other intel to root those guys out most of the time.

I'd say this thread is in the right place - a box stock US military rifle with a TA31 and Mk262 ammunition, or I dare say Mk318/SOST/TOTM, is a lethally capable unit beyond the range most of our trigger pullers are comfortably proficient at.

If anything, given the proliferation of high quality kit on every ground fighter (ACOGs, PEQs, PVSs) it seems silly that we can't find the funding for an improved MURG for COIN use, especially at a squad level. A simple armorer level swap of trigger in an M16 or M4, and addition of a 16-18" floated match barrel would create a massively improved weapon system, at less cost than a new platform

wild_wild_wes
04-09-11, 18:52
I don't know about that. In our AO in Baghdad they got put to some good use, and took quite a few casualties.

Not my unit that captured it but we got to inspect a van that was being used by foreigners within hours of its capture. They had a little cut out in the back of the van that they could pull a flap over so you wouldn't see it. They could pop the flap open, shoot, and be moving again all within a few seconds. The shooter could lay in full prone in the back in a solid shooting position. IIRC they were Chechens.

Chechens. I just read a book detailing recent SEAL ops and they mentioned a hard fight they had with Chechen fighters. When the SEALs inspected the bodies, they were all fully kitted out with "choclate-chip cammies and Blackhawk! web gear".

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/CIMG0531.jpg

RPG-7 sight? Would it be of any use in this application?

kmrtnsn
04-09-11, 18:56
Chechens. I just read a book detailing recent SEAL ops and they mentioned a hard fight they had with Chechen fighters. When the SEALs inspected the bodies, they were all fully kitted out with "choclate-chip cammies and Blackhawk! web gear".

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/CIMG0531.jpg

RPG-7 sight? Would it be of any use in this application?

It goes with the tactical shower shoes everyone is wearing.

Iraqgunz
04-10-11, 00:50
Went looking through some of my pics from the stash pile.

8050

Russell Boyette
04-10-11, 14:00
Switch our SPR/DMR rifles (as well as all our other rifles/carbines) over to 6.5 Grendel bullets in necked up 5.56 casings.

Your suggestion, as well as ALL the other new-calibers/rounds, that have been suggested for the Army's next "DMR"/"Battle-Rifle" sound great...on paper!

Our DMR's are having to stop in the middle of fire-fights, haul-ass over to the closest 7.62-MG, & de-link rounds off the MG's belts, so he's got "something" to shoot back with, ALL THAT... because Big Army can't even get him enough ammo, to fill-up the 3-measliy, magazines they issued him for that old, worn-out M14/M25!

Now, if the Army can't get our DMR's 3 mags-worth of common-7.62x51(.308win), then how the crap are they gonna get him enough 6.8SPC when it's manufacturer keeps draggin' their feet with ammo-production like Remington's been doing, or some odd-ball 6.5mm cartridge that'll be even harder still? Sorry, that's a dumb question... Of course they won't! If that can't scratch-up enough .308, they dang sure won't be able to supply a proprietery cartridge like that!

A more serious & important question would be this...

Where are our Designated Marksmen gonna find any 6.5-Grendel/6.8-Spc to de-link???

ZRH
04-10-11, 15:21
The other problem is that 6.5 Grendel is wholly proprietary last time I checked. The only company Alexander Arms ever licensed production to was Sabre which is now TU.

Belmont31R
04-10-11, 15:32
Your suggestion, as well as ALL the other new-calibers/rounds, that have been suggested for the Army's next "DMR"/"Battle-Rifle" sound great...on paper!

Our DMR's are having to stop in the middle of fire-fights, haul-ass over to the closest 7.62-MG, & de-link rounds off the MG's belts, so he's got "something" to shoot back with, ALL THAT... because Big Army can't even get him enough ammo, to fill-up the 3-measliy, magazines they issued him for that old, worn-out M14/M25!

Now, if the Army can't get our DMR's 3 mags-worth of common-7.62x51(.308win), then how the crap are they gonna get him enough 6.8SPC when it's manufacturer keeps draggin' their feet with ammo-production like Remington's been doing, or some odd-ball 6.5mm cartridge that'll be even harder still? Sorry, that's a dumb question... Of course they won't! If that can't scratch-up enough .308, they dang sure won't be able to supply a proprietery cartridge like that!

A more serious & important question would be this...

Where are our Designated Marksmen gonna find any 6.5-Grendel/6.8-Spc to de-link???




If big army couldn't get that soldier more than 3 mags I would be buying my own, and delinking rounds BEFORE you go out.


Even a PFC can afford to buy a few M14 mags. They shouldn't have to, I know, but sometimes you gotta spend a little money to make sure you have what you need.


Also check with your ammo NCO. Maybe you have a lazy one who is spending more time playing his PS3 than doing his job. Both times I deployed we had more mags and ammo than we knew what to do with. Every unit I did missions with had more ammo and mags than they knew what to do with. Every truck was loaded to the brim with ammo.

wild_wild_wes
04-10-11, 17:59
How extensive in the Army is the issue of M-14s to DMRs?

kaltesherz
04-10-11, 18:07
If big army couldn't get that soldier more than 3 mags I would be buying my own, and delinking rounds BEFORE you go out.


Even a PFC can afford to buy a few M14 mags. They shouldn't have to, I know, but sometimes you gotta spend a little money to make sure you have what you need.


Also check with your ammo NCO. Maybe you have a lazy one who is spending more time playing his PS3 than doing his job. Both times I deployed we had more mags and ammo than we knew what to do with. Every unit I did missions with had more ammo and mags than they knew what to do with. Every truck was loaded to the brim with ammo.

When we deployed we were given 3 mags per M14 and that we would probably get more in country, I still ended up buying a bunch anyway (I think I had just made E2 then). And viola, no more mags showed up for months. As far as I know I was the only one that had personally owned mags on deployment, few others ordered them online but took weeks to arrive. Eventually (6 months later) we got new M14s, Leupolds, mags galore, and M118LR. So it did happen, but from what my friends that are deployed now tell me, they're pretty well supplied and don't really have the same issues as before.

hammonje
04-10-11, 20:07
Nice I like to see the old gals still turning cover into concealment. Nothing like the bark and absolute brilliance of the M14 platform. Nothing shoots quite like it. Such a natural aiming rifle. Good ergonomics...I don't like pistol grips on a battle rifle either.

Would love to see some pics of them in country.

kaltesherz
04-10-11, 20:23
[QUOTE=
Would love to see some pics of them in country.[/QUOTE]
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u64/kaltesherz/012-3-1.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u64/kaltesherz/011-5.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u64/kaltesherz/010-5.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u64/kaltesherz/080614-A-1179W-066.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u64/kaltesherz/014-2.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u64/kaltesherz/031-1.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u64/kaltesherz/036-1.jpg
Mine had a pistol grip on it (Sage stock) but I added a pic of one of our others that was TPE so it was still old school

Russell Boyette
04-13-11, 05:31
If big army couldn't get that soldier more than 3 mags I would be buying my own, and delinking rounds BEFORE you go out.


Even a PFC can afford to buy a few M14 mags. They shouldn't have to, I know, but sometimes you gotta spend a little money to make sure you have what you need.


Also check with your ammo NCO. Maybe you have a lazy one who is spending more time playing his PS3 than doing his job. Both times I deployed we had more mags and ammo than we knew what to do with. Every unit I did missions with had more ammo and mags than they knew what to do with. Every truck was loaded to the brim with ammo.

No doubt. I 100% agree, but as bad as it is to have to buy your own mags, & have to beg, borrow, or steal ammo to fill 'em up with, that's a whole different issue, & not the point I was trying to make.

I was just using the M14/.308/M118 problem as example why all these bigger, hotter, blow-Haiji's-socks off, new "replacement," calibers for US Forces' main battle rifle, or even in a less drastic implementation like being adopted as the new standard DMR caliber, is nothing but pure fantasy(clever marketing, maybe...).

Seeing as how the 7.62x51 has been a standard chambering for U.S. Armed Forces longer than even the 5.56 NATO, & counting all the Sniper Rifles, Beltfed/Crew-served MG's on the ground & in the sky that have been deployed in the GWT, I can't even imagine how much linked & de-linked 7.62 the US(not even counting other Allied Forces) has produced/shipped to Iraq/A'stan!

The whole point of my previous ramblings was that if getting 7.62, as popular & widely-used as it is, to our DM's is even a minor problem, then why do so many folks seem to believe the DM's need issued rifles chambered for 6.8-SPC, 6.5-Grendel, .300 Black-out, & whatever? I know some people are so caught-up in returning to the "good ole' days" & full-size, battles rifles, but it ain't gonna happen, at least not until the war is over, & the logistics of such a change would be as big a nitemare.

I wouldn't wish a caliber-swap on our military right now(the majority of returning troops I've talked to/read their posts, didn't seem to think it was needed). If I troops NEED it, WANT it, or JUST THINK It would benefit them, then I say, "whatever it takes/cost, GET IT TO THEM."

But if most of these Grand, Caliber-Changes are brought about, then Big Army better add another week or 2 to the DMR-training, so they can teach all the DM's how-to cast their own bullets, fire-form or neck-up/down 5.56 hulls to whatever "Whizz-Bang," new caliber dimensions is necessary, & teaching 'em home-made gunpowder receipes!

C-grunt
04-13-11, 10:57
^^^ Completely agree.

I have read many times about SDMs that are using 5.56 rifles not being able to get M262. Luckily my battalion commander came over from supply and I guess had some hook ups still because I had a whole case of it for my DMR.

Now if they all of a sudden had to use a completely different round, I dont think anyone would get ammo. At least if I ever ran out of ammo I could have borrowed a buddies mags.

JSantoro
04-13-11, 11:11
I was just using the M14/.308/M118 problem as example why all these bigger, hotter, blow-Haiji's-socks off, new "replacement," calibers for US Forces' main battle rifle, or even in a less drastic implementation like being adopted as the new standard DMR caliber, is nothing but pure fantasy(clever marketing, maybe...).

Yeah, the arguments presented by a great many of the "change calibers" proponents are, to me, akin to the "...goes to 11..." argument in This Is Spinal Tap: "You see, most blokes will be playing at 10. You’re on 10, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff...Eleven."

Having an amp that goes to 11 doesn't make you a better player, just as having the "better" round doesn't make up for the lack of time on the gun, and doesn't make up for not holding fast to training to a standard instead of to a timeline. Putting aside logistics questions.....

Todd.K
04-13-11, 11:59
Such a natural aiming rifle. Good ergonomics...
Have you ever shot an M14 with a scope? No way you could call that ergonomic. Sorry but the M14 is best left for outdated iron sighted and KD range games not combat. The M14 does not scope well and magnification is absolutely needed for PID at the range the SDM is supposed to cover.




Even a PFC can afford to buy a few M14 mags.
The assault weapons mag ban was still in place when I was in Iraq. I don't know what M14 pre bans were going for as I acquired enough for what I needed.
Also ITAR.

Belmont31R
04-13-11, 12:19
No doubt. I 100% agree, but as bad as it is to have to buy your own mags, & have to beg, borrow, or steal ammo to fill 'em up with, that's a whole different issue, & not the point I was trying to make.

I was just using the M14/.308/M118 problem as example why all these bigger, hotter, blow-Haiji's-socks off, new "replacement," calibers for US Forces' main battle rifle, or even in a less drastic implementation like being adopted as the new standard DMR caliber, is nothing but pure fantasy(clever marketing, maybe...).

Seeing as how the 7.62x51 has been a standard chambering for U.S. Armed Forces longer than even the 5.56 NATO, & counting all the Sniper Rifles, Beltfed/Crew-served MG's on the ground & in the sky that have been deployed in the GWT, I can't even imagine how much linked & de-linked 7.62 the US(not even counting other Allied Forces) has produced/shipped to Iraq/A'stan!

The whole point of my previous ramblings was that if getting 7.62, as popular & widely-used as it is, to our DM's is even a minor problem, then why do so many folks seem to believe the DM's need issued rifles chambered for 6.8-SPC, 6.5-Grendel, .300 Black-out, & whatever? I know some people are so caught-up in returning to the "good ole' days" & full-size, battles rifles, but it ain't gonna happen, at least not until the war is over, & the logistics of such a change would be as big a nitemare.

I wouldn't wish a caliber-swap on our military right now(the majority of returning troops I've talked to/read their posts, didn't seem to think it was needed). If I troops NEED it, WANT it, or JUST THINK It would benefit them, then I say, "whatever it takes/cost, GET IT TO THEM."

But if most of these Grand, Caliber-Changes are brought about, then Big Army better add another week or 2 to the DMR-training, so they can teach all the DM's how-to cast their own bullets, fire-form or neck-up/down 5.56 hulls to whatever "Whizz-Bang," new caliber dimensions is necessary, & teaching 'em home-made gunpowder receipes!



I don't think a caliber swap would be a good choice for the general issue rifle. For DM's it shouldn't be a problem to get them the right ammo. There is already a supply chain for M118LR and other non-standard rifle rounds. If the chain fails that isn't really the fault of the round chosen. Also if you take something like a Mk12, and have to snag a mag of m855 from a buddy because you ran out....how effective is that Mk12 going to be? M855 doesn't really offer the long range accuracy that makes the DMR/Mk12 stand out. I mean if you take a 3-4MOA round, and try to shoot at 500M...you're looking at 16-22" of deviation just taking the ammo into account and nothing else.


I do think the Mk12 is good weapon. From all the first hand reports Ive read, and shooting my own I think its effective. The 308 doesn't really stand out as far as trajectory and wind drift are concerned.


I also believe the 5.56 works well as a standard issue round. Its effective to the point the vast majority of troops can be expected to hit a target. If you can't hit a target at 400-500M with a 5.56 changing to 308 isn't going to change that, and will probably make things worse with the increased recoil, weight, and reduced ammo capacity.

Eurodriver
04-13-11, 12:24
Have you ever shot an M14 with a scope? No way you could call that ergonomic. Sorry but the M14 is best left for outdated iron sighted and KD range games not combat. The M14 does not scope well and magnification is absolutely needed for PID at the range the SDM is supposed to cover.


The assault weapons mag ban was still in place when I was in Iraq. I don't know what M14 pre bans were going for as I acquired enough for what I needed.
Also ITAR.

Todd,

You talking about an M14 as far as civilian shooting is concerned? Wooden stock, etc?

I have been training our DMR Marines for a deployment to Afghanistan. They started out with the 5.56 AR DMR which wasn't anything new. 2 weeks ago they got their first time on the range with the M14 EMR. I heard zero complaints, well, other than it was heavy. I have one Marine that can get head shots all day long at 750 yards...in 25mph full value gusts. This particular Marine isn't even a grunt, he came from H&S. You simply can't do that with any other weapon the Marine Corps has.

If we could get anything we want, it would be a Larue OBR or a Noveske N6....but the Army has thousands of M14s still in stock so I guess we have to make them happy...

Belmont31R
04-13-11, 12:27
The assault weapons mag ban was still in place when I was in Iraq. I don't know what M14 pre bans were going for as I acquired enough for what I needed.
Also ITAR.



True. I was always up in my armorer's and supply NCO's business when we needed something. Almost always got what was needed. Different from unit to unit but especially nowadays there shouldn't be too much of an issue getting the right stuff.


My first deployment in Jan 04 I showed up with a PASGT vest, and then we had to swap around IBA's. Sometimes went out with one plate. No uparmored trucks. No protection for our turret gunners. Things were a lot different back then. As Rumsfeld said you go to war with what you have. The second time I went things were completely different, and it was only a year and a half later. No unarmored trucks out the gate, fancy vests, a lot of us got optics on our guns, we had boxes of brand new mags, 5 tons full of ammo, ect.

Devildog0311
04-13-11, 12:41
I think they should start deploying 6.8's. Especially for a dm, it is the same platform as an ar, so it is light, and it has more knock down power than an ar, right in between 7.62 and 5.56. It is the magic caliber, it seems like people forgot that 6.8's exist. Or if you want to really get nasty and you don't need the range go with a .458 socom or a .50 beowolf.

C-grunt
04-13-11, 12:47
I think they should start deploying 6.8's. Especially for a dm, it is the same platform as an ar, so it is light, and it has more knock down power than an ar, right in between 7.62 and 5.56. It is the magic caliber, it seems like people forgot that 6.8's exist. Or if you want to really get nasty and you don't need the range go with a .458 socom or a .50 beowolf.

Never had a probem with the effectiveness of M262 out to at least 400 meters. Now that they are deploying a more effective standard round to replace the sometimes good-sometimes bad M855, which we never had a problem with either, I really see no need to go to 6.8.

If they do end up going to 6.8 I wont complain as it is a hell of a cartridge, I just think its not needed.

Todd.K
04-13-11, 15:49
If you can't hit a target at 400-500M with a 5.56 changing to 308 isn't going to change that, and will probably make things worse with the increased recoil, weight, and reduced ammo capacity.

I don't think there is any way to emphasize this enough. Without much better and more frequent training, talk of weapon or caliber changes are pointless.

Belmont31R
04-13-11, 15:55
This video shows the effectiveness of having a gun in the squad with enhanced precision and optical ability.



http://youtu.be/PBA6H0VXzqw

Bowser
04-13-11, 16:13
This video shows the effectiveness of having a gun in the squad with enhanced precision and optical ability.



http://youtu.be/PBA6H0VXzqw

Neat video. Grabbing the documentary now.

Also, in the April 2010 issue of SWAT magazine, it talked about the M14 and "Killing the Sacred Cow" and how it was a rifle with inherent flaws used for a DMR or something. Do you guys agree with it?

Belmont31R
04-13-11, 16:25
Neat video. Grabbing the documentary now.

Also, in the April 2010 issue of SWAT magazine, it talked about the M14 and "Killing the Sacred Cow" and how it was a rifle with inherent flaws used for a DMR or something. Do you guys agree with it?



Its not a bad rifle but its not better than MODERN 308 gas guns that share the AR15/M4 manual of arms.


I personally hate rock in mags, and in the studying I have done of M1A type guns they tend to need to be partially rebuild every 3-4k rounds to maintain accuracy...and even then its VERY hard to get one that will shoot sub MOA groups. You can take a modern OBR, MWS, EMC, OFF THE SHELF, and it will shoot sub MOA 10 shot groups without need of constant heavy maintenance. Manual of arms basically the same as general issue combat guns. Ergonomics are WAY better. My first 308 gun was a SA M1A, and they are a PITA compared to what I have used since.



However depot M14's are free whilst a modern SR25 variant is several thousand dollars, doesn't have many spare parts in the system, ect.

fhpchris
04-13-11, 23:25
Todd,

You talking about an M14 as far as civilian shooting is concerned? Wooden stock, etc?

I have been training our DMR Marines for a deployment to Afghanistan. They started out with the 5.56 AR DMR which wasn't anything new. 2 weeks ago they got their first time on the range with the M14 EMR. I heard zero complaints, well, other than it was heavy. I have one Marine that can get head shots all day long at 750 yards...in 25mph full value gusts. This particular Marine isn't even a grunt, he came from H&S. You simply can't do that with any other weapon the Marine Corps has.

If we could get anything we want, it would be a Larue OBR or a Noveske N6....but the Army has thousands of M14s still in stock so I guess we have to make them happy...

Hey! Some of us H&S marines are good shooters! :)

Eurodriver
04-14-11, 01:42
However depot M14's are free whilst a modern SR25 variant is several thousand dollars, doesn't have many spare parts in the system, ect.

/thread.

R0N
04-14-11, 03:36
Starting Oct of 10 the M110 was to replace all M39 EMRs in the Marine Corps inventory.

JSantoro
04-14-11, 08:25
Bowser, the M14 is still around essentially for the same reason it took the US military an extra 15+ years to start issuing optics with our general-purpose shoulder-arms: institutional inerta and tradition for the sake of tradition instead of for the sake of a real purpose. The M14 is a direct adjunct of the [hushed, reverent tone]Garand Rifle[/hushed, reverent tone], and is therefore made of Awesomeanium; no other rifle can compare.

Is it a decent gun? Yes. Can it fulfill the role? Yes, and it does. Is it the best possible option, given the state of the industry? No, and not for about 15 years. That, and there's scads of them basically just lying around in the Army inventory, so it's STILL got the nod in the face of better choices.

R0N, IS replacing...M110s have been appearing. Thank god...:D


If you can't hit a target at 400-500M with a 5.56 changing to 308 isn't going to change that, and will probably make things worse with the increased recoil, weight, and reduced ammo capacity.

The caliber freebasers will never accept this, because 1) solving training problems with training solutions makes to much sense and costs too much $$$ (why buy experience when you can buy gear?), and 2) 5.56 does not go to 11 like the 7.62/6.5/6.8 does. It can't possibly be of any worth if it doesn't go to 11.

Sgt_Gold
06-14-11, 19:27
First of all I want to thank all the troops who were deployed and now share their hard won information with the rest of us. This thread is chock full of info that every senior staff weenie should be made to memmorize the next time they think a shiney new toy costing millions is the way to go, instead of more range time with the toys we have.

I've been in the Army system on and off since 1982, and I've seen BRM\PMI go through many phases. The one thing that all the different phases of BRM\PMI training have in common is the don't share or store ANY information what so ever. Whatever is on the books gets taught, and nothing else matters. As far as the Army is concerned, there is no body of knowledge with lessons learned that gets passed along from generation to generation. The US Army is alone when it comes to having no professional marksnmaship instructors, and it shows. There isn't even an ASI, although SDM's are recognized as PMI instructors. (At least they are in the NG, don't know about the RA).

Why do I bring this up? Because I'm 'that guy' in my unit. I'm the gun guy who ends up as the CO or BN PMI instructor because I do a lot of shooting in my spare time. I go through about 12k of various calibers on my own time and on my own dime competing in both HP rifle and BE pistol, and I don't mind puting what I've learned to good use. I can't tell you how many times I've hit the wall trying to explain to some senior NCO or officer why unit level PMI is a good thing. I see Soldiers on the range that can't even zero because they don't understand the target, and have no idea what triangulate means. I also see unit commanders that don't want a real instructor withinn three miles of their unit because we just slow them down, and they just want to get off the range. Checking the box is more important that raising the standards. There won't be a change in training until there is a change in culture, and that aint happening any time soon.

As far as SDM technology is concerned, KIS is the rule of the day. If it's an SDM you want, an M4 with an ACOG is the way to go. You want a little more, something like the IOR 2-10 increases the lethality of the SDM because as others have pointed out you can see things at 10x that just aren't there at 4x. Tha ability to share not only ammo, but magazines and possibly parts can't be overstated. The M110 hasn't been without it's teething problems, but I'll bet out of a squad of M4's I can keep the SDM rifle running no matter what. Never mind the fact that these guys aren't snipers, the're rifleman+P. As others have said, maybe it's time for a section of PDM's (platoon designated marksman). An AR10 type rifle does offer some advantages, espically at longer ranges, and the ability to attach these weapons to high risk patrols makes that type of system more flexable as well.

wild_wild_wes
11-13-11, 00:47
If I may ressurect my own thread.

I was reading the Comments section on an article about the new HK G28 DMR rifle. One of the commenters said that a bipod has no place an a DMR rifle. Your thoughts?

DMR
11-13-11, 07:39
Here is quotes out of the USMC's Squad Advanced Marksman
Limited Technical Assessment:


We determined the eight Marines’ precision when they fired three rounds at a target. We calculated precision by determining the greatest distance between the three rounds fired. Each Marine fired a three-shot group using M855 ammunition and a three-shot group
using BHA-77 ammunition at each range (from 100 to 700 yards). Average values with the M855 ammunition (the standard rifleman ammunition) are shown in figure 2. The key results we found were:
-------
Adding a bipod to the M-16 A4 showed a trend of improved precision

Accuracy deficiencies caused thirteen percent of the three-shot groups using M855 ammunition to be reshot because they did not initially hit the target. M-16 A4s with no bipod required reshoots 29 percent of the time, while SAM-Rs with the TS-30 A1 required reshoots only 3 percent of the time. We assumed that the reshoots did not affect precision results.
-------

The first three bars in figure 8 show the effect of each rifle type on the precision the ACOG is used with all three different rifle configurations. Although adding a bipod appears to improve the Marines’ precision with the M-16 A4 by 15 percent, the
difference is not statistically significant. However, with the ACOG, Marines’ level of precision using the SAM-R is almost two times better than when using the M-16 A4 with or without the bipod, and the difference is statistically significant.
-DMR-All SAM-R's were shot with the bipod-DMR-

When comparing results among the M-16 A4 using different optics, the only combinations that were significantly different from each other were the ACOG with the bipod and the TS-30 A1 at 3x magnification. Using the TS-30 A1 instead of the ACOG does not appear to improve the M-16 A4’s performance. Looking at the SAM-R, the precision with the TS-30 A1 at 8x magnification is more than 25 percent tighter than with the TS-30 A1 at 3x magnification and with the ACOG (t-test, p < 0.05), but is not statistically different from the TS-30 A1 at 6x magnification. Thus, using a higher magnification optic improves precision.

We also looked at the combined precision results from both M855 and BHA-77 ammunition. This allows for twice as many measurements to be included in the average calculations. The results are similar to the above results, which is supported by our finding that there was no statistically significant difference in the average MOA when comparing the M855 and BHA-77 results (t-test, p = 0.11). A key difference we found is that when including all data, the precision of the M-16 A4 with the ACOG is significantly better if using a bipod, by about 20 percent. However, it still does not reach the 2-MOA SAM objective. The averages for all weapon combinations are below 4 MOA. There are also some changes in the statistical results when comparing M-16 A4s or SAM-Rs with
different optics.
-------

Table 6 indicates which part of the weapon configuration may have been the cause of the required reshoots. The M-16 A4s without the bipod reshot the highest percentage of time 29.2 percent so the bipod helps accuracy. The SAM-Rs with the TS-30 A1 reshot the lowest percentage of time 2.8 percent implying that the M-16 A4 and the ACOG tend to a higher number of reshoots.
-----
Although the rifle type may not affect the target identification, whether or not there was a bipod on the rifle may impact the identification percentages. The bipod gives the shooters more stability, allowing them to adjust with a moving target more easily. We compared the percentages of correct identifications for Marines with and without bipods on their weapon (figure 18). Since shooters without an optic did not use a rifle, we did not include them in this calculation. There was no significant difference between these values,
showing that the use of a bipod did not affect the target identification.
-----
When asked to choose between a SAM-R with a bipod or an M-16 A4 with a bipod, all Marines chose the SAM-R because of its higher precision, consistent-pull trigger, and smaller recoil. Many shooters also had to perform offset aiming with the M-16 A4 and ACOG, which is not preferred.
-----
We asked the Marines about the importance and preferences of a bipod with the system. All Marines thought a bipod would benefit both the SAM-R and M-16 A4 for target identification, and that it is necessary for precision fire. The rifle is more stable and it is easier to follow a target with a bipod. Those who used a sling were frustrated with its tendency to slip, and found it tiresome and unhelpful with stability. They were using a hasty sling, which may have created more problems than if it was a deliberate sling. One Marine noted that a standard rifleman might not need a bipod if he did not need to perform precision fires, and it would be an added piece of unnecessary equipment.

Some shooters preferred a fixed bipod to decrease canting and create less movement. Others preferred a swivel bipod to easily adapt to uneven terrain and for faster second shots. Also, some Marines recommended a removable bipod for flexibility and easy
replacement if the bipod breaks, while others preferred that it be permanently fixed to the rifle so that it is less likely to be lost and possibly more durable.
-------


So yes a bipod is useful and from my perspective I would argue required. I also would say that I am not happy with any of the designs currently on the market. I have the concept for what the bi-pod should look like, but need to meet with someone that can do the actual design work to make it happen. Given I shoot VLTOR VIS uppers I'd like to start with them.

JSantoro
11-13-11, 07:46
One of the commenters said that a bipod has no place an a DMR rifle. Your thoughts?

Mine are that whomever said that either has no idea whatsoever as to what he's talking about...

OR

....has conducted missions in a DM role to the point where he's practiced and skilled enough to not need one, but is old/narrow-minded enough to think that all DM guns should be set up the way his is.

Which amounts to the same thing, actually...

SIMBA-LEE
11-13-11, 10:08
There are a lot of good answers on this thread. But for me it boils down to this:

(1) Must be semi-auto/full-auto. Bolt actions are too limited. (I was one of two designated snipers on my old PD where we had to use PD issued 30.06 bolt actions with 3x-9x scopes, which I always thought a poor choice for all-around use.)
(2) Must be reasonably light weight.
(3) Must have a reasonably short 16"-18" barrel and collapsable stock for easy transport and close range urban fighting.
(4) Must have a lit reticle scope of 1x-4x, 1x-6x, 1x-8x for long range/close range, day/night targets.
(5) Must be of a standard mil caliber (5.56 or 7.62).
(6) Bi-pods: In my experience, a grip-pod is superior to the Harris as an ALL-AROUND long range/close range forward grip & bi-pod combo. The Harris is superior as a long-range-only bi-pod. Either will work, but in most situations I'd go with a Grip-pod because it allows better weapon control when NOT deploying the bi-pod.
(7) Assuming trained snipers with long range heavy caliber dedicated sniper rifles will be available in most very long range situations, as a DM I'd opt for an accurate AR platform 5.56 equiped as above, especially considering that I may have to use it house to house or indoors in dim light at very close ranges against fast moving multiple targets where illuminated 1x rules.

sinister
11-13-11, 10:29
Correct for the most part, however no one can assume conventional military units will have trained and capable snipers assigned or attached to their levels -- there simply aren't enough.

kmrtnsn
11-13-11, 11:05
I claim no expertise in this field, but I will weigh in. I did build a Recce style rifle a couple of years ago as I was fascinated by the multi-role concept of the Navy's gun. My build initially had a bipod on it, a Vltor which I find to be probably the most robust bipod out there for the money, I wish they had been around back in the day when we were regularly busting the cheesy aluminum bipods off of our SAWs. After getting some training in DMR style operations I fouled that after a bit of use that using improvised rests, such as a ruck, a rock, a wall, a buddies shoulder, etc. were faster to use and more efficient. I would imagine in a fuild, ever-changing environment that the deployment of a bipod and shooting from the prone or a rest is a rare event and outside the norm of shooting on the move from improvised rests. Now If I was covering a static position for an extended length of time, blocking up the stock of a DMR/Recce and deploying a bipod might be handy but I don't find I do much of that, however, I do keep my Vltor bipod in my 3-day ruck, just in case.

DMR
11-13-11, 11:24
SimbaLee,

Lightweight is a key point. A bare 7.62 system starts at around 9.5 lbs. My Noveske SPR with the following weights 11.1 pounds: (A M-14 EBR is closer to 16 lbs)

Noveske 18" SPR w/VIS3, with fixed A1 stock, Vickers padded sling with DD anti rotation sling swivel, MagPul MBUS sights frt/rear, Surefire G2 in a danger close mount and LED head, Knight hand stop, Norgan Ambi-catch, ambi selector, Ergo Grip, Nightforce 2.5x10 NXS in a Bobro Precision Optic mount, and a offset Insight MRDS on a DD mount.

Stripped down it weights 8.1 lbs w/MBUS and ladder rail covers. 9.12 lbs when you add the Nightforce w/mount. Changing the stock to a non-"Ban" compliant one might get some additional savings. As would differant treatments to the barrel be it fluting, dimpling or taking it down to 16". So sub-8 lbs w/o optic is clearly possible.

kmrtnsn
11-13-11, 11:33
I've just spent the last 20 minutes reading through the wealth of info on this subject at DMR's site, www.pro-patria.us. I think the mods would be well within their right to change DMR's status line to "Subject Matter Expert".

Belmont31R
11-13-11, 11:42
SimbaLee,

Lightweight is a key point. A bare 7.62 system starts at around 9.5 lbs. My Noveske SPR with the following weights 11.1 pounds: (A M-14 EBR is closer to 16 lbs)

Noveske 18" SPR w/VIS3, with fixed A1 stock, Vickers padded sling with DD anti rotation sling swivel, MagPul MBUS sights frt/rear, Surefire G2 in a danger close mount and LED head, Knight hand stop, Norgan Ambi-catch, ambi selector, Ergo Grip, Nightforce 2.5x10 NXS in a Bobro Precision Optic mount, and a offset Insight MRDS on a DD mount.

Stripped down it weights 8.1 lbs w/MBUS and ladder rail covers. 9.12 lbs when you add the Nightforce w/mount. Changing the stock to a non-"Ban" compliant one might get some additional savings. As would differant treatments to the barrel be it fluting, dimpling or taking it down to 16". So sub-8 lbs w/o optic is clearly possible.



KAC got the EMC down to a bit over 8lbs which is one of the reasons I switched from the MWS to the KAC. When you start adding optics, mags, lights, ect saving a lb or more off the base gun does make a difference.


I think a bunch of little changes in design, materials, and execution can shave a lb or so off the 308's with no lose in functionality. The issue is you start adding $$ to the cost of the gun and lose customers.


With a 5.56 sub 8lbs should not even be a problem.

SIMBA-LEE
11-13-11, 12:06
I'd guess 7.62 sniper rifles are going to weigh +/- 12 pounds.

a0cake
11-13-11, 13:24
This is the first I'm seeing this post. I'm going to briefly touch on one of the original issues....5.56 vs 7.62 for a DMR.

As Sniper Section Leader, I was heavily involved in TTP development as it relates to SDM's throughout the unit at large. Official doctrine is lacking, and units are thinking out of the FM 7-8 box as they should be.

It needs to be 7.62 and here is why (bear with me as I arrive at my point):

The vast majority of kinetic operations carried about by infantry in the contemporary operating environment (COE) are kill / capture missions. At its basic level the formula is simple....support by fire and assault.

Keep in mind that due to Afghanistan's extreme terrain, SBF positions are often further away from the elements they are tasked with supporting than is ideal. It is not uncommon for the SBF to be 600-800 Meters from the target house and even further from the Assault element at the beginning of their movement. Yet the SBF is still fully expected to support them.

SDM's are rightly being placed solely on support by fire lines, and here is why. In Afghanistan, assaulting elements are more often than not in small arms contact during movement to the target house. Effective support by fire is absolutely critical for their success and safety. Current doctrine dictates that supporting fires from M240's and MK48's must be kept at least 15 degrees ahead of assaulting elements when the guns are tripod mounted. You're looking at double that on bipods.

So, the machine guns are often forced to completely lift fire to prevent fratricide, even as assaulting elements are still in contact and have to move considerable distances under fire with no support from machine guns. Sure, those elements have organic MK46's, but what happens when they are effectively suppressed? This issue is exacerbated exponentially with an increase in range due to the angular nature of the surface danger zone standard.

Enter the SDM. At no time does the SDM have to lift fire. Under direction of the SBF senior leader, an SDM may continue to engage point targets on the objective in close proximity to the assaulters. They may even continue to engage the upper floors of a building as friendly elements are breaching at ground level. The expansion of a machine gun's cone of fire makes this relatively unsafe at 700-800M.

With a 5.56 DMR, this capability is severely degraded at extended range. When the 7.62 MG's have to go silent, what will replace them? Without a 7.62 DMR, the answer is nothing. No-go.

The good news is that individual soldiers are smarter than ever and more proficient with their weapons than ever. Pull any SDM with an M14 out of an infantry batallion with the 82nd or 101st for example (or any other front line unit), and I can guarantee you they can effectively estimate range out to 800M, and subsequently manipulate their weapon and optic to be effective at that range. The notion that all, or even a majority of these guys are inept or incompetent is false and disrespectful in the worst way.


Lastly, the KAC SR-25 EMC in 7.62MM with a 16'' barrel and a NF 2.5-10 would be about as ideal a DMR platform as one can imagine. The M14 EBR's are having a lot of issues and are not well liked by anybody that I know. Yet the capability mentioned above that it brings to organic infantry platoons cannot be overstated. Until the M14 is replaced (the sooner the better), it will continue to fill an important role in daily combat operations.

DMR
11-13-11, 14:24
Kmrtnsn,

I'm far from an SME. I'm a student of a narrow set of items. Shooting does not pay my bills, and I don't have current relative operational experience.

The things I put forward are more to generate discussion and while tinted by my biases, I try to keep that perspective in what I write.

Aocake,

Great feedback. Sounds like your unit has a great program and a solid set of tactics supporting the program. I have for the most part been a supporter of 7.62 systems as a platoon level asset. The question is always do you want a SDM or a DM? At the squadlevel I'm not sold on 7.62 as it generates other issues.

wild_wild_wes
11-13-11, 14:57
the KAC SR-25 EMC in 7.62MM with a 16'' barrel and a NF 2.5-10 would be about as ideal a DMR platform as one can imagine. The M14 EBR's are having a lot of issues and are not well liked by anybody that I know. Yet the capability mentioned above that it brings to organic infantry platoons cannot be overstated. Until the M14 is replaced (the sooner the better), it will continue to fill an important role in daily combat operations.

Do you have to get as "fancy" and heavy and adopt a specialized precision 7.62 rifle like the SR-25 EMC, or another 16" type with an accurized barrel? Could an issue off-the-shelf rifle like the SCAR-H fill the DM role? I mean, how accurate are the current M14s, 3 MOA?

Belmont31R
11-13-11, 15:08
Do you have to get as "fancy" and heavy and adopt a specialized precision 7.62 rifle like the SR-25 EMC, or another 16" type with an accurized barrel? Could an issue off-the-shelf rifle like the SCAR-H fill the DM role? I mean, how accurate are the current M14s, 3 MOA?




The M14 was an interim measure taken to put guns in people's hands NOW instead of a contract + lawsuits that tend to follow bids these days.


If you notice the Army is now using a 308 SA and 300WM bolt gun. I suspect the USMC will go this route one day, too. The british did the same thing with the 338 Lapua AI AWM and MWS.


From what I understand they were digging m14's out of the rafters (figure of speech) as we had mostly given them away. However from talking to people who were issued these guns support was crappy with lack of mags and they mostly had to use de-linked M240 belts for ammo. The M14 can be made accurate but like a 1911 it requires people who are real smiths not just assemblers. KAC can make sub MOA guns that are basically plug in play.


KAC also has a product improvement plan they are trying to sell the Army with the M110K which is a 16" version like the EMC.


From years of shooting experience and 2 deployments I think the magnum bolt action combo with an accurized 308 semi is hard to beat for issuing our troops to fill the precision fire need. FWIW I shoot semi regularly with guys who were mil trained and in the industry. I can put more rounds on target than they can with bolt actions out to 750. Our range goes 500-750-1k. At 1k with 300WM's their bolt guns are excellent.

wild_wild_wes
11-13-11, 15:13
I have for the most part been a supporter of 7.62 systems as a platoon level asset. The question is always do you want a SDM or a DM? At the squadlevel I'm not sold on 7.62 as it generates other issues.

I believe we discussed this earlier in the thread: the possible need to split the DMR duties and/or skillset between Squad and Platoon. I don't see 7.62 rifles working at the squad level either, but I don't see there ever being enough Sniper-qualified individuals to push them down to platoon level. So, maybe it should be a three-tier system: Squad DM (5.56), Platoon DM (5.56/7.62?), Company Sniper (7.62/.300 WM/.338 LM?).

a0cake
11-13-11, 16:38
Our 7.62 DM's are integrated into the Support Weapons squads per my recommendation. In fact, they are the two E-5 Weapons Team Leaders in the platoon. I've looked at this thing from every angle and this is the ideal organization given MTOE limitations on personnel numbers. It ensures that the DMR platform is always where it needs to be.

Firstly, since the team leaders are controlling the MG's, there is no need to do a target handover when the MG's have to lift fire as the TL already has total situational awareness within that sector of fire. (See my post a few replies up for why this is important...the DMR's most important job is covering an assaulting element when the MG's have to lift fire). The machine gunners then take up local security automatically, a task that requires no supervision and allows the TL with the DMR to focus on engaging point targets IVO the assaulters.

Second, when the platoon is maneuvering "guns attached" with one support and one assault team comprising a "section" there is an equal distribution of DMR equipped shooters in all the elements. This allows an easy and effective breakdown into SBF and Assault teams even when organic squads are split up without conducting a leaders huddle to determine how to organize combat power should the platoon have to disintegrate and move independently.

DM's with 7.62 rifles at the squad level in the position I described makes the most sense for the environment in which the Army is currently fighting and winning.

sinister
11-13-11, 18:37
a0cake, bravo. Now, the counter-argument stand I will take is how long did it take your unit to get where it is and how are you and they sustaining that capability?

600-800 Meters with a rifle isn't taught by the Infantry School (unless your boys are snipers). Good on your guys for training and disseminating. How are they training platoon leaders?

There is nothing magic nor voodoo about precision rifle fire. It is supposed to be NCO business -- sergeants teaching privates (and lieutenants) how to shoot; when, where, and how to move; and how to coordinate leaps and bounds (communicate and synchronize).

Codify and disseminate what you're doing by publishing in Infantry and at the Center for Army Lessons Learned. NCOs need to be putting this stuff down in the NCO Journal and teaching it at Benning.

If nobody knows about it it didn't happen and will be lost as soon as you rotate. What may be routine for you now will be pooh-poohed as "Folklore' once you are moved or promoted.

The Army teaches the M4 and M16 to 300 Meters. If you've built a better mousetrap document it and be its cheerleader. What you do as an Infantryman may not be getting disseminated to Engineers, Red Legs, Tankers, and MPs.

The Army is a wonderful machine but ponderous, slow, and myopic with a very short memory.

a0cake
11-13-11, 22:02
Sinister, I always appreciate your input and knowledge.

To answer your questions on how the program took shape :

Our unit commander tasked me, as Sniper NCOIC, with training all the Squad Designated Marksmen in the battalion pre-deployment. On day 1, I realized that the guys the platoon sergeants were sending me were picked in a "hey you" fashion. There was little order or method in the madness. Some were assault guys, some were weapons. Some were Privates, some were Sergeants. I sent them all home and knocked on the commander's door.

We sat down and discussed how to make the program worthwhile and not just another checked box. I recommended the organizational method that I outlined previously with MK48 / M240 gun team leaders as SDM'S. He agreed and we went with it. The Platoon Sergeants all had a case of the ass, but that's okay.

I was given a 14 day block where I had positive control of the unit's SDM's. We spent the first 4 days in the classroom and the next 10 on the range. My Sniper section and I basically ran the SDM's through a make shift sniper school. We were able to secure an 800M range, about 10 steel E-Type targets, and 750 rounds of M118LR per shooter.

By the end they were all proficient and consistently ringing steel from 100-800M.

The credit lies with the Commanding Officer who was receptive to the ideas of an NCO who was going against the grain. He allowed me the freedom to do it how I saw fit, and then used his position to ensure I was fully resourced.

You can't rely on institutional training such as "DM School" to get people up to speed. The best training occurs at unit level. TRADOC is fully worthless.

Sustainability wise, there were few issues. Every SDM had 8 M14 magazines before getting on the plane to Afghanistan. They all had an LRF. Once in theater, we only ran low on M118LR once. We ended up borrowing some Lapua ammunition from the Latvians for a few weeks.

Your point about dissemination is valid and paramount to this whole concept. As you know, implementing change in the Army is not the easiest thing in the world, especially when those at the top are either not interested or ignorant of what needs to get done. It's a constant struggle.

Thanks for the response and guidance.

sinister
11-13-11, 22:20
aOcake, you have made an old Soldier very proud.

NCOs are SUPPOSED to be the Subject Matter Experts. Write it down NOW while it's still fresh in your mind and you're executing. You'll find your memories and recollections will fade as time and duties take precedence.

It doesn't take long, and done right an American Soldier can do ANYTHING if he's taught correctly. The Army will earn many dividends on your efforts down the road.

You are absolutely correct it takes command emphasis and support (from both the Commander AND the Sergeant Major and First Sergeant) -- and once you have a no-shit capability people are awfully hesitant to give it up if it kills bad guys and supports good guys.

If you wish I can help you ghost-write your article.

DAMMIT, MAKE IT HAPPEN BOY! KEEP GOING!

a0cake
11-13-11, 22:40
That would be great. I'm appreciative of the help...sending a PM your way. Thanks.

Todd.K
11-13-11, 23:03
SDM's are rightly being placed solely on support by fire lines... Hence the erroneous and numerous calls for standard carbines with optics and other 5.56 variants to be used for DMR's. You just made a Platoon DM, not a Squad DM. An SDM is not relieved of normal rifleman work like your PDM is. Thinking a specialized 14lb weapon with scope and bipod is ideal for a rifleman that has to kick doors is erroneous so it is important to separate them.


The notion that all, or even a majority of these guys are inept or incompetent is false and disrespectful in the worst way. It has nothing to do with disrespect, if we did not have specific training, employment, and qualification doctrine for machine guns we would not have good machine gunners. Without specific training, employment, and qualification requirements I don't think the skills needed to utilize a special 7.62 DM rifle are going to be taught well across all units or be well sustained. Especially sustainment after the current war has ended.

I think the Platoon DM like you describe is a good way to step up from an SDM that HAS TO be a rifleman first (M4/M16+ACOG), but talking about special weapons without the training and employment becoming doctrine is premature. I would like to see the DM have an ASI myself, this would ensure a single standard of training.

a0cake
11-13-11, 23:08
Negative. With all due respect, please re-read the post.

Todd.K
11-13-11, 23:46
My response is Army wide and also based on my experience as an early SDM 03-04, not your specific well above average set up. If your level of training and employment could become doctrine then a 7.62 rifle makes sense, until then you are just giving a bunch of "hey you" riflemen a bigger rifle while the amount and quality of training they get, and useful to useless employment varies enormously by unit. You made it work, while other units often just reduce the effectiveness of their line Squads by giving a rifleman a big, long, heavy 7.62 rifle to kick doors with. The distinction between a line Squad DM and a Platoon or Weapons Squad DM like you made is significant, as is the training you provided. For the way the average SDM is chosen, trained, and employed I still think an M4 or A4 with ACOG is the best weapon choice.

My concerns about sustainment is not the number of mags you deployed with, it's what happens when you or the Commander smart enough to listen to you rotate out.

kmrtnsn
11-14-11, 00:02
This thread is making me re-evaluate the USMC's adoption of their IAR and its potential for other uses/roles with the proper ACOG affixed.

DMR
11-14-11, 05:12
aOcake,

There is so much right going on in what your unit did it makes me quite happy. Just the fact that you had the rifles in time to do pre-deployment training with them is an accomplishment. The fact that you then developed a local training plan and a set of TTP's which were disiminated BN wide and endorsed by the BN commander make you a "T".

I closed my last article with these comments:

Properly trained, equipped, and employed DMs are devastating to the enemy on the battlefield. If they are improperly trained or employed, they are just another guy on the battlefield.

Does your unit need the latest MATERIAL advancement in Optics, Rifles, and Ammunition? Maybe.

Will your TRAINING program alone allow you to dominate the battlefield? Maybe.

Without sound TACTICS within which to employ your DMs, will you realize their full potential? No.

Only by pursuing a balanced approach and fully examining requirements and committing resources to those requirements will you truly achieve MISSION SUCCESS.


If you're in the area of Drum shoot me a PM and I'd like to link up to write an update to my article or assist you in writing your own. I relied alot on folks that were still current and relivent when I wrote the last one. Infantry mag is preety straight forward to be published in.

Thanks again.

jonconsiglio
11-14-11, 07:57
aOcake,


If you're in the area of Drum shoot me a PM and I'd like to link up to write an update to my article or assist you in writing your own. I relied alot on folks that were still current and relivent when I wrote the last one. Infantry mag is preety straight forward to be published in.

Thanks again.

I hope this plays out for you guys. It gets pretty old listening to people with no experience or training whatsoever talk about precision rifles and what the military should do. Actual experience and knowledge are a wonderful thing to see and need to be put in the spotlight they deserve.

I'm not referring to anyone in this thread or in particular...

SIMBA-LEE
11-15-11, 11:04
...DM's with 7.62 rifles at the squad level in the position I described makes the most sense for the environment in which the Army is currently fighting and winning.

I agree when talking specifically about current desert-mountain areas of military operation where exceptionally long range targets are often engaged.

But having lived and hunted in S. Florida, the Northern Rockies and S. Texas, very seldom are shots possible at 400+ yards due to trees, bushes, etc. blocking the view. In fact, thinking back, almost all my shots at deer, hogs and elk were under 100y because of terrain limitations. Which makes me suspect that the current desert-mountain terrain will be the exception rather than the rule in most future battlefields world wide.

But thats another time and place, and doesn't help the DM in Afghanistan today who needs a longer range, more powerful rifle now.

As for house to house urban use, a short, lighweight full-auto M4 with 1x AimPoint seems best suited to the task to me, an old high-crime-city street cop.

DMR
11-15-11, 11:46
As for house to house urban use, a short, lighweight full-auto M4 with 1x AimPoint seems best suited to the task to me, an old high-crime-city street cop.

As written our concerns were with engaging at both distance and small targets at close range and partialy obsured, say an IED operator inside a doorway at 100-200 meters in the shadows, ect insert better example. So the capablity is not limited to the long range fight in OEF, but rather a precision requirement across a broad specturm of operations.

When we wrote our orginal requirement we had Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCT) deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, with other BCTs preparing to deploy to both AOR's. The IBCT operating in Bagdad was actualy our first unit equipped with M-14 EBRs followed by the IBCT in Afghanistan. Two of the BCT's had previously "built" their own EBR's out of M-14's w/ Sage stocks and 3.5x10 optics. Both while operating in Iraq, where most of their engagements were inside 300m.

"Operations other than War" or what ever the current buzz word is, place a higher requirement for precision fires, even at what would be easily called close range in the "precision" .mil community. While an LE sniper might consider a 200 m engagement LONG because of liablity/other concerns. It's a very gray area, because the doctrine has not caught up to the realities of operations on the ground.

SIMBA-LEE
11-15-11, 13:13
DMR

I agree with your reasoning, especially with regard to your area of operations where exceptionally long shots are common. My only disagrement is the choice of scope of the other unit. I personally would rather have a 1x-6x (or similar 1x-?) because in my experience a 3.5x has too narrow a field of view for fast moving targets up close: 10y-25y.

I realize that a DM isn't supposed to be that close to targets, but I try to base my personal equipment decisions on Murphy. (Namely, if it can happen, or if anything can go wrong, it will!) Other than that the M-14 EBR (or similar 7.62 semi-auto) looks like a good choice.

sinister
11-15-11, 13:21
The US Army can't get its arms around capability for where it wants to fight.

For the most part people on the planet (bad guys) live in built-up areas -- villages, towns, and cities. Engagement ranges in towns, jungles, and vegetated areas favor the 200-and-in shot, ergo the M4.

Many pout the full-length M16 is too long and manly (WTF?), or not heavy enough (a 7.62) to reach longer distances.

While we go around in circles the Army forgets it designed the Dragon, TOW, and Javelin to kill tanks as far away as we can see, yet has done nothing for dogface maneuver riflemen. Snipers are just now getting a .300 Win Mag capability SF wanted back in 1985, and SF is just now starting to get the .338 they want for Afghan terrain.

Iraqgunz
11-15-11, 16:08
Great post.


The US Army can't get its arms around capability for where it wants to fight.

For the most part people on the planet (bad guys) live in built-up areas -- villages, towns, and cities. Engagement ranges in towns, jungles, and vegetated areas favor the 200-and-in shot, ergo the M4.

Many pout the full-length M16 is too long and manly (WTF?), or not heavy enough (a 7.62) to reach longer distances.

While we go around in circles the Army forgets it designed the Dragon, TOW, and Javelin to kill tanks as far away as we can see, yet has done nothing for dogface maneuver riflemen. Snipers are just now getting a .300 Win Mag capability SF wanted back in 1985, and SF is just now starting to get the .338 they want for Afghan terrain.

Magic_Salad0892
11-15-11, 19:24
Thank you for your service, guys.

This information is great, too.

DMR
11-15-11, 20:26
DMR

I agree with your reasoning, especially with regard to your area of operations where exceptionally long shots are common. My only disagrement is the choice of scope of the other unit. I personally would rather have a 1x-6x (or similar 1x-?) because in my experience a 3.5x has too narrow a field of view for fast moving targets up close: 10y-25y.


Optic choice is a complcated point. First for referance the current crop of FFP 1x-6x(8x, 14x, ect) is a relative new development. They were building these guns and spec'ing the out the EBR's in 2004-2007. The XM-110 was coming out with a similure optic and the MK-12 also had a similure power range +/-. All in SFP. Heck the M-24 left the field recently with the same fixed 10x optic it was introduced with in the 80's.

Right now I'm shooting a SFP Nightforce 2.5x10 w/Velocity reticle. It works well enough for me close in and the reticle is always clearly visible, or "bold". I'm experimenting with an off set MRDS, but not fully sold on it.

As for the FFP 1x-8x, ect. optics out right now I had thought they were the answer. That said I'm no longer quite so sure. From my LIMITED exposure to a few FFP optics and a long T&E of one brand they need some refinements. I posted this on LF in a similure discussion:


I used to formly believe the answer was a FFP optic like the CQBSS, but again I'm no longer sure. In my limited exposure to FFP optics the scaling up and down of the reticle was not as useful as I thought. At low power the BDC/RF features were hard to pick out and only became of real value in a set in position at the higher end of the power scale.

With a SFP optic the reticle is always clear and distint. On low power the reticle is bold and I can shoot the 200y stadia all day long with off sets. If I need to do precision then I settle in to a supported position and zoom up to 8/10x. All the ballistic features of the reticle are there.

That said has others have stated just like with the ACOG and M-145 and I assume the ELCAN you have to know what those stadias mean in the real world.

So to some extent we are talking about optic management, aka a skill. If I can perform the same functions with a SPF optic at half the cost of a FFP optic which in the end I use basicly the same as the SFP, whats the gain?

First of all, recognizing that I'm a nobody retired fat ****er that lives in the hills of NY and the best local selection of shooting irons is found at Gander Mountain:blink:. I will make a somewhat gereral statement:

To optimize a FFP optic for use a 1x the better companies basicly have a reticle within a reticle. A the higher end of the power ring the optic performs in one fashion, while at low power it is differant. at around 3.5x on the FFP optics I've used you can start to use the ballistic features. As you dial up the more useful they become.

Most also use an illuminated reticle to speed up use up close. For me until they achieve the battery life and illumination qualities of the Aimpoint line I'm not completely sold. The SB and Leupold CQBSS may have beat that, I don't know. The company whose optic I T&E'ed recieved alot of feed back on ways to make their reticle work better at close range. Hopefully, they will introduce a model with those changes at SHOT 12.

Sinister, Kevin and some of the others have ALOT more relevent info on FFP optics and their advantages disadvantages then I do. I'm sure they will share.

Sinister did point out a great old example though. The ART scopes used on the M-21 and some of the older hunting scopes had a range finder built in. The center of the reticles where scaled to match a set size. as you zoomed the optic once the target size fit in the reticle you had the range. On my hunting scope and an old LE Leupold the power ring was marked with the range. Once the target fit in the reticle look at the ring and you had the range. With the ART scope it also featured a CAM system in the mount. Once the target fit in the reticle all you did was pull the trigger. The cam had already adjusted for range.

Duct Tape
11-29-11, 10:58
As a currently deployed SDM I can assure you that a severe lack of training exists. I.E none for our unit whatsoever. Our BN standard is alpha team leaders are DMs, so rather than being selected on any basis, you simply fall into the posistion. Because of this you become limited as to who you have in the slot.

I deployed with an M16A4 with an ACOG with no particular long range training other than me taking it upon myself to put more rounds downrange from as far as I was able (usually 300m). Upon deployment we fell in on several M14 EBRs that got dished out with nothing more than a "here you go stud". In the 7-8 months since I've been here I haven't been able to put any rounds down further than 200m and that's been a just pick a spot and shoot kind of arrangement.

If it weren't for myself trying to self educate and having a PSG who is sniper qualified, there would be nothing for me to fall back on for information. If the army is worried enough about SDMs to give us old M14s, they need to start thinking about having some sort of course/training for that position.

You can forget about Mk262 as well. I've never seen it. We have a hard enough time getting 40mm for our 320s/203s let alone LR 5.56 ammo, though we do have a good supply of M118 on tap.

I also believe that having something smaller and easier to handle is the way to go. Within a 30 minute walk I can go from open desert terrain with 2km+ visibility to alleyways and rooftops to orchards were all contact is hand grenade range. Having the adaptability for combat in all these areas is a key issue for me and is the reason the M14 stays in the hooch the majority of the time.

I by no means am an expert on this subject, these are just my experiences and opinions.

ICANHITHIMMAN
11-29-11, 13:43
Sounds to me like your leadership is droping the ball. I used to have the same issues. It was an uphill battle for me everytime but we got our point accrossed after awhile. Get some good NCOs on your side and you guys can do anything you put your mind to.

I dont know were you are in country righ now but I would think with the right amount of smoozing you could find the time and a spot to shoot some drops for that m14.

Guys who work the desk love range time to, invite them along to share in your fun. Let them shoot the weapons and involve them, that way next time you need something they will be all over it and all you have to do is ask. Maybe they hate there job and seeing and help in you will be a real treat.

DMR
11-29-11, 14:58
Duct tape,

Sorry to hear your troubles, I see not alot has changed sadly. Word has at least some of your sister BN's did slightly better with training, but I'm on the wrong side of the pond to say for sure. At least a couple of companies did. Long story why you got your rifles were and when you did. Most likely could have been prevented.

As for your A4, that is one of the other products of my old job. I attempted to get basicly the 3ID/AMU rifles, but all we got was the plain A4's. Something about 3 ID didn't povide the feedback up the chain as to if the effort was worth it or not.

Good luck and see you in the spring.

kaltesherz
11-29-11, 15:57
Our BN standard is alpha team leaders are DMs, so rather than being selected on any basis, you simply fall into the posistion. Because of this you become limited as to who you have in the slot.


Yeah my Batt had the same standard when I first came to it. Luckily at JRTC some OCs pointed out that it didn't make any sense to have leaders as SDMs as for when the shit hits the fan they have better things to do. We were lucky that we had Ft Benning bring their instructors up and give us a 3 week course. Sorry to hear there's still ammo supply shortages (how in the ****?!? STILL???) but at least you have access to M118LR.

Hopefully at some point soon you can take it out past 200m and get some good DOPE.

wild_wild_wes
11-29-11, 18:10
I also believe that having something smaller and easier to handle is the way to go. Within a 30 minute walk I can go from open desert terrain with 2km+ visibility to alleyways and rooftops to orchards were all contact is hand grenade range. Having the adaptability for combat in all these areas is a key issue for me and is the reason the M14 stays in the hooch the majority of the time.

By "smaller and easier to handle", are you specifying a 5.56 weapon?

Armati
11-29-11, 19:49
The key word here is 'squad'.

http://www.army.mil/article/67175/Squad_needs__overmatch__capability/

The Squad is where the rubber meets the road. No one on Earth can defeat the US military in open conventional war. But the odds get quite a bit better if when we have to fight town to town, street to street, and man to man. Everything we do must make that Squad the BEST in the world by a long margin. That includes given them weapons and training they can actually use. In terms of the DMR, some of the simpler offerings are most likely the best.

Duct Tape
12-02-11, 13:28
Sounds to me like your leadership is droping the ball. I used to have the same issues. It was an uphill battle for me everytime but we got our point accrossed after awhile. Get some good NCOs on your side and you guys can do anything you put your mind to.

I dont know were you are in country righ now but I would think with the right amount of smoozing you could find the time and a spot to shoot some drops for that m14.

Guys who work the desk love range time to, invite them along to share in your fun. Let them shoot the weapons and involve them, that way next time you need something they will be all over it and all you have to do is ask. Maybe they hate there job and seeing and help in you will be a real treat.

The issue with the training really stemmed from our training cycle which was just linear BS. You would show up and do a dry run for every event which consisted of every field grade in BN explaining where to go and what to do for everyone individually. The thought of practical training of any kind was no where to be found.

As far as the m14 dope goes, we really have no where to shoot it around here (company and higher won't let us) except our burn pit/range that I can get 100m out of. It's out of the question to shoot anywhere else as to not bother any locals with our loud guns. And there's no one around here that can make that call that would get any sort of thrill out of it as it would require walking and body armor.

A good example of the "range" problem is this; apparently I'm also going to get a barret here in a few weeks for some reason, at which point our CO want's our platoon to drive out to some range that apparently brigade has set up 2 hours away and zero and just remember what our adjustments for zero were so we don't ever have to zero again.

Not to mention that we aren't allowed to fire anything larger than 7.62 and no full auto on our range.


Duct tape,

Sorry to hear your troubles, I see not alot has changed sadly. Word has at least some of your sister BN's did slightly better with training, but I'm on the wrong side of the pond to say for sure. At least a couple of companies did. Long story why you got your rifles were and when you did. Most likely could have been prevented.

I know my previous deployment, we got our m14s several months before and all the DMs went through a week long course. I'm not sure what the issue was this time.


Good luck and see you in the spring.

Thank you.


By "smaller and easier to handle", are you specifying a 5.56 weapon?

Yes. Meaning my A4 is more ergonomical than my M14.

DMR
12-02-11, 13:54
The key word here is 'squad'.

http://www.army.mil/article/67175/Squad_needs__overmatch__capability/

The Squad is where the rubber meets the road. No one on Earth can defeat the US military in open conventional war. But the odds get quite a bit better if when we have to fight town to town, street to street, and man to man. Everything we do must make that Squad the BEST in the world by a long margin. That includes given them weapons and training they can actually use. In terms of the DMR, some of the simpler offerings are most likely the best.

Personaly no disrespect to the study leaders, but the the whole overmatch at the squad level is hog wash:

The Army's goal is to develop capabilities that provide squads with combat overmatch.

The squad operates in a three-tiered environment that applies to all operations:

Tier 1 squads conduct dismounted operations in restrictive terrain with great risk acceptance.
Tier 2 squads operate with armored, mechanized or wheeled forces, and
Tier 3 squads are characterized by a well-established presence and long-term occupation with contractor support.

An important goal of the squad-as-a-system concept is transitioning from each tier to the next -- up and down -- with minimal disruption or loss of capability.


Wait, does this mean I can now state I was in a Tier One unit for 15 years? Shucks man, I just became a super hero. I don't even understand what the F that whole thing means, and then there is the avatar crap in the story.

Squads fight has part of a platoon which is part of a company. Adding digital shit which is the real focus of this article only helps so much. Redesigning the the Manuver Company/Platoon to acknowledge all of the additional capablities that have been pushed down to them is a much better starting point. Doing so means adding people to the organization, which is what realy sends the whole thing into a death spin.

Duct Tape
12-02-11, 14:06
Sorry for the irrelevant post on this topic, but after reading through your site DMR, I realized my PSG was one of your squad leaders during the OEF 4 time frame. Small world.

DMR
12-02-11, 15:20
Sorry for the irrelevant post on this topic, but after reading through your site DMR, I realized my PSG was one of your squad leaders during the OEF 4 time frame. Small world.

If he has anything good to say about me you need to have him evaluated for TBI.:nono:

One Shot
12-21-11, 18:11
Here is something else for all of you to consider. The Filipino Marines could not afford to buy super high quality sniper rifles. Because of financial problems they did what soldiers and marines around the world have always done: They improvised. The Filipino Marines developed a Scout-Sniper program around re-worked M-16 rifles that were scoped and tuned up. In their case they used Tasco 3 by 9 variable scopes for their sniper rifles. With a little work, we Americans could improve upon what the Filipinos have been doing and then use our improved version of their sniper rifles for our DM rifles. What do you think about this idea? I personally think it would have merit IF WE DEVELOPED TACTICAL PROGRAMS AROUND THESE RIFLES AND A HIGH QUALITY 5.56 ROUND. We have got to remember our tactics need to be developed around the rifles and the rounds' abilities. What do you think?

http://users.belgacom.net/gc378379/sniping/Filipino%20MSSR.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSSR_rifle

Armati
12-24-11, 11:31
Personaly no disrespect to the study leaders, but the the whole overmatch at the squad level is hog wash:


Wait, does this mean I can now state I was in a Tier One unit for 15 years? Shucks man, I just became a super hero. I don't even understand what the F that whole thing means, and then there is the avatar crap in the story.

Squads fight has part of a platoon which is part of a company. Adding digital shit which is the real focus of this article only helps so much.

Think about it, when the US goes to war, no army in the world even comes close in terms of open conventional warfare in the open. We have 'overmatch' in conventional war. Where we get bogged down is when we have to fight street to street and room to room. This fight, more or less, takes us back to traditional attrition warfare. This fight is not a company or platoon fight but a squad/team fight. We want to produce the same overmatch at the squad level that we enjoy with tanks and helicopters in the open desert.

The idea of a tiered squad is to product a force for 'full spectrum operations' - a squad that can perform traditional combat operations as well as HA/CA/Stability Ops without missing a beat. How often were our troops caught flatfooted when, after seizing a piece of ground, were then told they had to patrol that piece of ground and act as MPs or humanitarian aid workers? Our Infantry cannot be a one trick pony because every problem we have as a force cannot always be solved by rotating our selector switch from safe to semi.

The Squad now has it's own web page at Benning. I think you have to CAC into it but it better explains the whole concept.

In as much as this pertains to the DMR, in general terms this is not capability the enemy possess. However, I would recommend reading "Fry The Brain: The Art of Urban Sniping and its Role in Modern Guerrilla Warfare" by John West. Technology and training is only part of the solution.

http://www.amazon.com/Fry-Brain-Sniping-Guerrilla-Warfare/dp/0971413398

DMR
12-24-11, 18:48
I'm not familur with your frame of reference, but I have a different point of view. My response would most likely completely derail this thread, so I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss. I did order the book you recommended and will look at he Squad website after the break.

KevinB
01-13-12, 15:20
I had missed this thread - shame on me.

I read thru it in the last 20 minutes, and see several familiar names.


The key is TRAINING, while I'd love to sell a ton of guns, its not going to solve the issue in a vaccuum, without the addition of specific training.

Recently MARSOC following the lead of some others, adopted the M110K1 -- however they did it via buying a conversion kit to install on their service common M110.

They looked at the range band of their weapons and looked for gaps.
The biggest gap was between the M4 and the Mk13 (which will be the same as the Army M2010) and thus the shorter 16" K1 offers the best method for filling the gap, this gets even more visible if a .338LM is brought into the mix inplace of the .300WM.

However SOF specific solutions are not always the solution for the conventional side. Sinister Dave brought a ton of great points to light dealing with Doctrine etc. being the cold hard truth of reality.

How far does the Army believe they need to engage with the organic squad weapons?

Also

a0cake
01-13-12, 15:27
How far does the Army believe they need to engage with the organic squad weapons?


FM 3-21.8 states 600M for Squad Designated Marsksmen on page 1-19.

As for the M240B which is the longest range dismounted small arm at the squad level, 1100M area and 800M point.

See my replies above regarding SDM's on SBF lines as to why 600M is not far enough and a longer range capability (capabilities are derived from a combination of training and equipment as you well understand) is necessary.

KevinB
01-13-12, 15:53
I've been to Afghan -- I hear you.

My belief is the US Army needs a 7.62mm SDM with a 1.1-8x CQBSS.
The 240 is a Pl weapon is it not? Also PID and "point" target with the 240 is often an issue... (Which I think everyone will agree with me on).

However I also believe the Army needs some serious marksmanship training.

Todd Hodnet currently holds an Army training contract for the SDM -- everyone in this role should be running thru his class.

DMR
01-13-12, 16:28
More to follow Kevin, but the general answer is the requirement put forth for the M-14 EBR was realy centered on 7.62mm being the requirement, vs any logical thing like i need this effect at that range, ect.

It pissed me off writing it, Shaw at SW's was pushing for a M-110 based system, but at the time of writing it was still an XM system, and the DM derivative was not even that. Then we had to specific it be M-14 based and ...........................

I understand there was a great deal of debate between the 600m and 800m group at higher levels as they developed the EBR and some other requirements. I left the position that I had, so in the end all I saw was the out come, not the process leading to it.

a0cake
01-13-12, 17:44
The 240 is a Pl weapon is it not?

I don't want to get off topic too far but I will answer your question lest anybody get the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about.


There is a disconnect between FM 7-8 / 3-21.8 and how combat power is being organized in the contemporary operating environment by units dealing with manpower issues. Having to man OP's, force protection, casualties, mid tour leave, etc, are issues that do not get accounted for by the MTOE. Try to organize a platoon and squad the way the book says in Afghanistan and you will quickly realize that you will not be able to function that way.

Units are not made using a cookie cutter and they don't all look the same. Example: On my last deployment, A Company had 2 platoons, B Company had 4 platoons, and C Company had 3 platoons. That's not in any book.

Why? Because that made the most sense given that B Company had to man 4 separate OP's / COP's...A Company rotated pulling forcepro and running patrols out of the main FOB with two platoons...etc etc etc.

Commanders can organize their combat power however they want.

To your point, yes the M240 is doctrinally a platoon weapon, existing only in the weapons squad in each platoon, BUT...

Here's how our M240's were organized last time around. It's how the unit we RIP/TOA'D with did things and how the unit that replaced us did things:

SQUAD 1

Assault Team A

Machine Gun Team A (This MG team leader is an SDM as per my replies above)

SQUAD 2

Assault Team B

Machine Gun Team B (This MG team leader is the second SDM as per my replies above)

Allows each squad to operate and move independently with a dedicated support and assault element organic to each squad.
It also allows the PL to do some pretty "whiz-bang" shit during the movement scheme of maneuver wise. On target, SL1 takes over AT A / B and leads the assault. SL2 takes over both MG teams and runs the SBF. It's a pretty fluid. It was rough at first, but once everyone knew their job it worked very well for our mission.

For all intents and purposes, the M240B / MK48 has become a squad weapon for a lot of units.

I'm not saying all units run like this, but many do.

Sometimes sticking to doctrine in these discussions leads to analysis paralysis.

DMR
01-13-12, 20:26
Let me start by again stating that i am a sorry, fat assed, retired so and so, those still in the fights comments need to be weighted higher then what i have to say. My points are not meant to attack anyones position, just provide points to ponder. I'm still wishing I had taken Sinister up on his offer to spend some quality time expanding and testing out all of the points in this discussion. :angry:

In the old days we called this Task Org, something which is used less and less in the current vocabulary. Got it.

The MTOE is just a frame work which allows you to share a common vocabulary. It also also for resourcing and developing requirements. Some of the manning issues in units today come from breaking the units MTOEs, mostly by not task organizing.

Need a PSD? two options. A. Task a Line Squad to be the PSD, you could even rotate the duty between units. B. Suck soldiers out of your formations to make a PSD. Option B is the most common COA taken. Impact? Platoons/squads are undermanned, while the parent organization is overmanned. Those are command choices, so you can't fight it, but often the artificial shortages in the subordinate units are left vacant.

I acknowledge basicly no one is fighting based off their MTOE, heck noone is authorized MRAPs, so everything is basicly a pick up came down range based on resourcing and the AOR. So if it's a pick up game you still need some sort of framework to work from.

TTP's realy guide the gear train. If my TTPs state that the DM can be expected to enter and clear structures, trenchs, ect OR provide long range over watch/precision fires then whats his material AND training requirement? A long rifle with can and varible optic might not be the right choice, while an M-4 and an ACOG will meet 90% of my needs. How many man hours can I dedicate to mastering both ends of his skill set?

On the other hand if my DM's primary mission is to provide overwatch and long range/precision fires. Entering and clearing would be a last ditch skill set then whats my material AND training requirement? By definition I would state that this is not a member of squad duty description.

When you are talking about other unit types such as the Weapons Company or a RSTA/CAV unit or Heavy BDE you have to spend more time splitting out the hairs, but it can be done.

In your example old timers would have to ask, what does 3rd Squad have when they dismount/patrol(damn MRAPs) and were the hell is the PSG? Again speaking within doctrinal referances insures that we all understand each other.

If you notice in all of my discussions I try to refain from the term "Squad" when discussing the "Designated Marksman" requirement. I know this is counter to some degree from what I'm saying above, but i do it to differ the requirement from the position.

Member of squad weights the requirement one way, member of platoon weights it another.

What aOcake has layed out above for the training progression and employment of his BATTALIONs Designated Marksmen is the exception. Most units don't have as thourgh of a process behind developing the TTPs and training of their DM's.

While you are using differant terms to describe how the systems are deployed they parrell my prefered disposition. 4 DMs equipped with 5.56 SPRs or 7.62mm DMR's operating in coordination with the MG teams. Those teams are task organized to support the squads ensuring that during movements, say a search and attack, the squads have supporting weapons. During the attack or during reconsolidation the MG teams and DM's provide overwatch and/or precision fires.

If you devolve the requirement down to the squads then its realy hard to have a system which is good at in your face distances and long range, wielded by a PFC that arrived in the unit mid tour.

To the 600m vs 800m discussion. It's realy about target detection. With the optics availible to a typical squad platoon how far out can I get PID? Most of the units optics are 4x ACOGs, 3.5x MGOs and 8x binos. Trying to get trace beyound 500m with any of those optics is about impossible and depending on the AO, you may not get splash either. Now look at your DMR optics. If you have an optic weapon combo which will allow you to self spot how far out can you do so? Now how far out can average Joe do so with minimal training?

How far does the Army believe they need to engage? I don't think you will find a consistant answer. To me I need a minimium stand off capablty of 600m. This allow me to engage out to danger close with organic weapons. Do I need the ablity at the platoon or squad level? It's a tough call, but given that squads operate as part of a platoon the vast majority of the time, and that I can task organize MG's and DM's to support them I would error on the side of platoon.

Armati,

I'm about half way through the book you referanced. Good read. It underlines one of our other needs for the DM, which is close in precision fires, vs the focus exclusively on the 500-800 meter window.

Armati
01-21-12, 11:49
For all intents and purposes, the M240B / MK48 has become a squad weapon for a lot of units.

I'm not saying all units run like this, but many do.

Sometimes sticking to doctrine in these discussions leads to analysis paralysis.

When I carried an M60 (yes, I am that old) I always thought it was a squad weapon. For my money, the Army missed the boat and should have went with the M60E3/Mk43 over the SAW.

In any event...

Questions:

What is the thought process in going with a 7.62mm SDMR? While we may field special ammunition I thought the idea was to be able to use regular issue 5.56mm and mags if the tactical situation went south.

If you do go 7.62mm, why the M21 type over the M110?

kaltesherz
01-21-12, 13:34
Questions:
What is the thought process in going with a 7.62mm SDMR? While we may field special ammunition I thought the idea was to be able to use regular issue 5.56mm and mags if the tactical situation went south.

If you do go 7.62mm, why the M21 type over the M110?

As someone who carried an M14 in combat I'd much rather have carried an M110 or similar 7.62 AR just from an ergonomics and accessory point of view, plus there were no spares for M14s. Also anyone who can handle an M4 can handle it, unlike the 14. But on the other hand none of us EVER had any reliability issues with our M14s and I've heard of issues with M110's.

I liked 7.62 for the SDM role for the extra range and lessen the effect of wind, esp at range. M118LR seemed to be plentiful when I left Afghanistan in 2009 so I can only assume it's even more so out there.

a0cake
01-21-12, 19:07
I gave my 2 cents on all these issues on Page 10 Post number 192.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1142094&postcount=192

I'll add here that there is absolutely no reason to go with an M14 based system over an M110 Carbine or similar.



When I carried an M60 (yes, I am that old) I always thought it was a squad weapon. For my money, the Army missed the boat and should have went with the M60E3/Mk43 over the SAW.

In any event...

Questions:

What is the thought process in going with a 7.62mm SDMR? While we may field special ammunition I thought the idea was to be able to use regular issue 5.56mm and mags if the tactical situation went south.

If you do go 7.62mm, why the M21 type over the M110?

One Shot
01-22-12, 05:50
One of the commenters said that a bipod has no place an a DMR rifle.

That is the opinion of an individual and he has a right to it. The smartest thing to do is let the shooter configure his rifle the way it works best for him. So, that means if a guy does or does not want to use a bipod then the shooter makes that call. I would at least want a detachable bipod for my shooting needs. That way if I wanted to use one, I'd have one on me. If I were maneuvering through hallways and rooms, I would not want a bipod on my rifle in that situation. But otherwise, I would have something, if nothing else than my rucksack, on which I could base my rifle for a shooting need.

One Shot
01-22-12, 06:03
Both the Army and the Marine Corp mean well when it comes to structure of units, training of units and supplying of units. The trouble is, and this has been stated many times, "Our military is always preparing to fight the last war." And that is pretty much true. Right now new trainees are learning how to fight based on what our people learned in Iraq and Afghanistan because that is the war the majority of their instructors recently fought.

My point is: There is nothing that keeps a good officer or NCO from setting up training in-house. If I were a NCO, I would approach my officers in my company with the idea of setting up our own in-house advanced riflemen, Designated Marksmen or even snipers. With a little inventive thinking, scopes and mounts could be purchased in some fashion outside of normal supply channels when needed. The key here is how much do you believe in good marksmanship and how can you interlock your belief in good marksmanship into your own unit?

wild_wild_wes
01-22-12, 22:12
I gave my 2 cents on all these issues on Page 10 Post number 192.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1142094&postcount=192

I'll add here that there is absolutely no reason to go with an M14 based system over an M110 Carbine or similar.

7.62 might technically be the optimal solution, without a major restructuring of marksmanship training, I doubt it would be supportable.

a0cake
01-22-12, 22:53
7.62 might technically be the optimal solution, without a major restructuring of marksmanship training, I doubt it would be supportable.

I don't know what this means. Marksmanship is marksmanship regardless of caliber. As far as being supportable, there are already 7.62 M14's being used as DMR's throughout the entire US Military. How on earth would an AR based 7.62 rifle require restructuring when the current DMR is the M14?

7.62X51 is the optimal solution, and in fact the current one. What is lacking is a) Training and b) the current M14 based systems.

None of this is the caliber's fault.

R0N
01-23-12, 03:56
I don't know what this means. Marksmanship is marksmanship regardless of caliber. As far as being supportable, there are already 7.62 M14's being used as DMR's throughout the entire US Military. How on earth would an AR based 7.62 rifle require restructuring when the current DMR is the M14?

7.62X51 is the optimal solution, and in fact the current one. What is lacking is a) Training and b) the current M14 based systems.

None of this is the caliber's fault.

The M14 bases DMR really is a big army solution, it is not a solution being used by most ARSOC elements or Marines. Both have found a 5.56 based solution addresses the requirement without fielding system requiring a separate class V and IX block and in the end is much lighter.

KevinB
01-23-12, 11:42
The USMC is busy mothballing their M14 and M39 EBR's, eventually when they get their full complement of M110's it will also be a PL DM gun (as I understand).

USASOC is busy working on a 762 DM gun -- mainly I think since Crane killed support for the Mk12.

I understand the whole difference between theory and practice -- but you cannot base acquisitions based on practice, there needs to be doctrine to support it.

Someone needs to step in and make a determination on the role and requirements of the DM and if there is a difference between the Squad DM and a Platoon DM.

To me, the ammo issue at the squad is a red herring, as if the DM with a 762 gun goes Winchester - then: there will be a lot of other weapons around, OR giving him more ammo won't help.

R0N
01-23-12, 16:24
The USMC is busy mothballing their M14 and M39 EBR's, eventually when they get their full complement of M110's it will also be a PL DM gun (as I understand).

USASOC is busy working on a 762 DM gun -- mainly I think since Crane killed support for the Mk12.

I understand the whole difference between theory and practice -- but you cannot base acquisitions based on practice, there needs to be doctrine to support it.

Someone needs to step in and make a determination on the role and requirements of the DM and if there is a difference between the Squad DM and a Platoon DM.

To me, the ammo issue at the squad is a red herring, as if the DM with a 762 gun goes Winchester - then: there will be a lot of other weapons around, OR giving him more ammo won't help.

Negative the Marine Corps is not fielding the weapons to rifle squads or platoons that don't have an existing system on its TO/E. So outside of MCSFR, EOD and scout snipers the system is not going to be used the way the Mk12 currently is being employed. There is thought with the infantry advocate that the M16A4 (PIP) may be able to meet the requirements without fielding another program of record.

Having been at the end of supply empire, I have run into numerous times when I was told here is you box of X, it took an 02 priority ERO to get it so if you use it don't expect anymore. So it is a very real concern on some BP or COP out the edge of the empire.

I have also been told the old "if you need a rifle they will be laying around" before too. It is a silly statement and not true, and I ended up shooting at people with an M9 because I couldn't get a rifle and later an AK because again there were no rifles laying around.

As to doctrine, both services have existing doctrine that lays out requirements, its just many want a system that gives them "Sniper-light capability" well beyond the layout out doctrine or training regime.

One Shot
01-23-12, 17:35
One of the key things to understand here is the range or distances at which you will probably be using a DM or precision fire weapon. The majority of shots probably won't be beyond 500 meters and the long distance shots will be rare. Shooting beyond 500 meters will be in the realm of the snipers and their specialized gear/training. But from zero to 500 meters the DMs need an effective round instead of the 5.56/.223 caliber 55 grain bullet. What would probably work best would be a scoped (ACOG type) 6.8 SPC rifle based on the M-4 system. Between a decent 6.8 SPC and various sniper rifles, our collective precision fire abilities would be devastating to any hostile forces within our sights. That is what I see us as needing. A step up in the basic rifle system as far as bullet diameter and weight, more scopes and more snipers. Let's make a thousand meter encroachment of our positions dangerous and the 500 meter approaches impossible.

wild_wild_wes
01-23-12, 20:58
One of the key things to understand here is the range or distances at which you will probably be using a DM or precision fire weapon. The majority of shots probably won't be beyond 500 meters and the long distance shots will be rare. Shooting beyond 500 meters will be in the realm of the snipers and their specialized gear/training. But from zero to 500 meters the DMs need an effective round instead of the 5.56/.223 caliber 55 grain bullet. What would probably work best would be a scoped (ACOG type) 6.8 SPC rifle based on the M-4 system.

Sorry, no. The 6.8 was concieved as a hard-hitting cartridge for short ranges. We won't go to another caliber for this need, and if we did, it would be the 6.5 Grendel, because it is so completely and absolutely superior to the 6.8 ballistically.

wild_wild_wes
01-23-12, 21:07
I don't know what this means. Marksmanship is marksmanship regardless of caliber. As far as being supportable, there are already 7.62 M14's being used as DMR's throughout the entire US Military. How on earth would an AR based 7.62 rifle require restructuring when the current DMR is the M14?

7.62X51 is the optimal solution, and in fact the current one. What is lacking is a) Training and b) the current M14 based systems.

None of this is the caliber's fault.

Sorry, I was unclear. KevinB makes the point better:


I understand the whole difference between theory and practice -- but you cannot base acquisitions based on practice, there needs to be doctrine to support it.

Someone needs to step in and make a determination on the role and requirements of the DM and if there is a difference between the Squad DM and a Platoon DM.


So: if a 7.62 DM rifle was fielded, the current training structure would not allow the best use to be made of it.

KevinB
01-23-12, 21:14
R0N,
I refuse to believe M118LR is so hard to acquire this day an age. AB39/Mk316 maybe so in some areas - but look to previous wars where we fielded 7 different ammo's in a squad, and to the comments about pushing the 240's/Mk48's to the Squad and you end up with the same aspect.

I've never yet had to resort to my pistol on a deployment - but around 2003 I learned this whole aim more shoot less thing ;)

Now in Afghan - I do know of situations where all the small arms ammo in the world will not help.

I truly believe that the 762 NATO round's better barrier penetratiuon and terminal effect at range does make a better SDM for some AOR's and I beleive always at the Pl level.

Of course I'm also the guy who feels snipers should have .338LM - I have this desire to kill folks as far from me as I can.

I still feel the 0-800m Semi-Precision range band is best filled by a DM with a 762N gun.

Nothing against 5.56mm - I've seen it kill way past 800m, but your pushing shooter and platform at that in combat, and I view it more as a 500m cartridge.

6.8 is a great 300m and in round -- anyone pushing for it to be looked at for MG or DM roles need to get out and actually shoot it, or get drug tested.

KevinB
01-23-12, 21:29
Sorry, I was unclear. KevinB makes the point better:


So: if a 7.62 DM rifle was fielded, the current training structure would not allow the best use to be made of it.

No real training due to no real doctrine.

Now Ft. Benning is trying to sort this out now, but how in God's green earth are we in Year 11 of a war in Afghan, and we dont have a real DM gun or Doctrine -- the Brit's figured this out three years ago, and they aren't the fastest folks to accept change.

Of course conventional Army still does not deploy to places like Idaho to train for live fire dismounted moutain ops either...

R0N
01-24-12, 04:01
As of last year the majority of Marine scout sniper kills in AFG have been under 500 meters. That huge problem right now, were doctrinally they are suppose to be masters of the 800-1000 m region, the lack of long range effects has caused concerns, so much in 08 LtGen Magnus directed an initiative to fix the scout sniper community. One thing that the infantry advocates really started to look at was there is almost a fetishistic desire for longer range capacity, to include the requirement for the SSR-21 being able to engage to 1500 meters, but there really aren't the numbers of engagements to justify the costs. Similarly one of the reasons the Mk11s were accepted they worked better in the typical engagement range than the bolt gun and the places the bolt guns worked better were in such a small number of engagements that it was a no-brainer.

I see much of the same problem in fulfilling the already defined requirement to provide semi-precision fires from 300-600 meters without having to invest the amount of time in training as required for snipers.

The more DODICs you have the more problems you have in them being on hand. I have seen cases where 0317s have had to break belts to use M80, I have also read reports that Army have run into that problem before and it was quite common for SDMs, less so these days but a real potential problem. During the March to Baghdad we didn't even get MREs for several days and try to get a common caliber like 9mm because the various ASPs had none. Lavishly equipping and supplying is luxury, one that we cannot just assume will be case on all battlefields.

DMR
01-24-12, 08:53
RON
There is thought with the infantry advocate that the M16A4 (PIP) may be able to meet the requirements without fielding another program of record.


It's an easy PIP in many respects, depending on how they split it out. Add one of the collapisble stocks with the TACOM "H6" (or like)solution with the SOPMOD or ACS stock, add a free float rail, SSA trigger (or equal) and a good barrel.

Meet an accuracy standard of 1 MOA with MK 262 MOD 1, and an accuracy standard of 2 MOA with both MK 318 MOD 0 and M855A1. Some reports are that M855A1 is shooting closer to 1.5 MOA. Given some details I would take the measurement at 300 meters, vs 100.

Then to seperate the DM capablity from the normal bullet launchers all you do is add a dedicated optic, QD Mount and a bipod. The Army already has a Multi Functional Optic program running which may provide a good solution for the optic. Several options on QD mounts, LaRue is the gold standard, I prefer Bobro's height. As for the bi-pod, of the current offerings i think they all suck, some more than others. For this APPLICATION they are all to bulky and prone to snagging because they stick out everywhere. I'm waiting on the solidworks file to see if we can make something better. For now I'm using the GripPod, fleas and all.

Of the reticle/optic combos I have been exposed to so far I still prefer the SFP Nightforce 2.5x10 with Velocity LV reticle. It has it's pluses and minuses, but balanaces short range performance with long range application the best. Managing the Soldier/Marines optic is its own issue. We could spend an entire POI on managing whichever optic is used.


Oneshot
My point is: There is nothing that keeps a good officer or NCO from setting up training in-house. If I were a NCO, I would approach my officers in my company with the idea of setting up our own in-house advanced riflemen, Designated Marksmen or even snipers.

aOcake and others have done this. In my base referances Training and Tactics are more important than the material solution. The units which will see the biggest gain are those that have an effective training plan and a good tactical frame work to employ the weapons in. For me the M-14 EBR is bad on just about every front, but is what commanders asked for. Some units are very effective with them because they trained with them and have a set of tactics for using them. Some units just hand them out and expect their soldiers to be instant snipers because they have a super rifle.