View Full Version : What does a precision semi-auto do best and how does it change your training?
I've looked at a couple of times posting at leangth about the question of Semi-Auto Precision Rifles. It's very hard to define and one of the lessions I learned in 2006 from the XM-110's Operational Test was it's realy a very differant capablity than a Precision Bolt Gun. The latter development of the M-14EBD, M-39 and the use of USMC units of the MK-12 has further opened up what a Precision Semi-Auto does/is.
First for those looking into Precision Semi-Autos read a few of these threads and than ask yourselves what role are you attempting to fill:
Battle for light precision supremacy: The Recce Rifle Vs. The SPR (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=80882)
Designated Marksman discussion thread (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=70417)
ACOG Chart (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=68676)
M14 to MK 14 Evolution of a Battle Rifle (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007smallarms/5_9_07/Armstrong_12pm.pdf)
And optics links:
Nightforce NXS 2.5-10 x 32 Compact (http://nightforceoptics.com/nightforcescopes/SCOPES_OVERVIEW/COMPACT_NXS_MODELS_/compact2_5-10x32nxs_/compact2_5-10x32nxs_.html)
Leupold Mark 4 2.5-8x36mm MR/T M2 (http://www.leupold.com/tactical/products/scopes/mark-4-mrt-riflescopes/mark-4-2-5-8x36mm-mrt-m2-illum-reticle/)
Trijicon ACOG (http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product2.php?id=ACOG&mid=4x32 BAC)
I have seveal other files which I will post once I recover them from a crashed hard drive and validate some of them are releasable.
My intent for this thread is to discuss the evolution of the Precision Semi-Auto Rifle as a System. My background and biase in this topic comes from the my basic Infantryman's perspective.
http://pro-patria.us/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/5418579692_5b570e142d_b.11184846_std.jpg
I'm going to post the first major comment from the perspective of developing a Designated Marksman Program. I'd also like to see comments from a Police Sniper which use similure systems ILO a bolt gun and also from Military Snipers using the M-110/MK-11 along side their bolt guns.
How does using a semi change your employment and for most cases is it better than a bolt gun, or just differant?
As early as the 1958 the Army had a written requirement for Squad Desiganted Marksmen and even had a detailed set of training and material requirements outlined in the field manual:
FM 23-5 U. S. RIFLE CALIBER .30, M1, SEPTEMBER 1958. Outlined in Chapther 7 ADVANCED MARKSMANSHIP-SNIPING and described as the following:
"The sniper is first of all a rifleman in the squad. In a great many tactical situations, his firepower is integrated with the squad or team application of fire. In some tactical situations or as time permits, the squad leader or a higher commander will be able to use the sniper's ability to deliver accurate fire at slightly longer ranges by employing him as a mobile sniper or as a member of a sniper team.
As a guide, the standard of shooting demanded of a sniper enables him to hit, with regularity, a man's head at ranges up to 200 yards and a man's trunk at ranges up to 400 yards."
Let the sharp shooting begin
http://pro-patria.us/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Range1.296172425_std.gif
Some geek with a Noveske VIS SPR with Knight Handstop, PWS 556, and a Nightforce 2.5x10x32 Velocity Optic in a Bobro Precision Optic Mount. (Since someone was going to ask)
“I agree that there is a marksmanship gap at the unit level from 300-600m as mentioned and believe the Designated Marksman at squad level is a possible answer to this. In Afghanistan , we had multiple engagements (I would say vast majority of our engagements) with the enemy (were) from beyond 300m. A-lot of engagements took place on our re-supply convoys/vehicle patrols. The enemy in these cases always had the high ground because all roads in my AO were in river valleys and followed the river on the valley floor. The terrain was too steep to possibly make a road on higher ground. With the enemies high ground advantage it was like they were shooting fish in a barrel. They only had to spend a quick second exposing themselves to dump a magazine of AK ammo down in our general direction before dropping behind cover or the crest of the ridge or hill they were on and out of our sight and then they would just repeat until we brought in-direct fires on them. Rifle fire/crew served weapons was of little effect on them in most cases. I attribute this to three reasons. Lack of marksmanship ability past 300m for which our standard weapons are zeroed at, lack of knowledge on how to engage or lead a moving or pop-up target, and angle firing.”, SSG (aka boltgun), C Trp, 3-71 RSTA, 10th Mountain Division
The concept of the Squad Designated Marksman (SDM or DM) first surfaced in the draft M16 field manual, FM 3-22.9, and FM 3-21.9 The SBCT Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad in late 2000, early 2001. These early requirements are also reflected in the requirement for a Designated Marksman rifle variant of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW). Since then, the Global War on Terror has underscored the need for Designated Marksmen, but further development of the three elements of the Designated Marksman requirement, Material, Training, and Tactics, have been fitful. Each element alone has very little chance of making a meaningful impact on today’s war fighter. Combined, they make the Designated Marksman a formidable threat.
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.
Material:
The current M-16A4/M-4 is a very accurate weapon with proper training and ammunition selection. However, commanders continue to ask for a better material solution to the Designated Marksman’s requirements. A trough discussion of how to address material improvements is impossible within the context of this article. However, refining the weapon platform through improved configurations, a matched optic, and ammunition will increase the DM’s capability. The objective is to provide for more consistent shot placement in order to destroy on the enemy.
Rifle
Accurizing the M16 family of weapons is a common practice that has been applied by the service rifle teams and civilian shooters in competition for over a decade. The most common solutions have already been applied to the Special Operations MK12, Marine Corps Squad Advanced Marksman-Rifle (SAM-R), and the Army Marksmanship Unit’s (AMU) Designated Marksman Rifles. The Crane MK12 is being qualified for 1.75-inch 5 shot extreme spread groups at 100 yards suppressed, with MK262 ammo. AMU built rifle’s are qualified for 10-shot groups smaller than 3.28 inches at 300 meters, with MK262 ammo. The USMC’s SAM-R rifles are built to a 2 MOA specification, with MK262 ammo. The methods to do so are not hard and generally consist of a “match grade” trigger, free floated barrel and a “match grade barrel.” I say generally, because each variation has subtle differences as shown by how their accuracy is defined. These specialized rifles do produce improvements over the base M-4/M-16. However, without an underlying training program and supporting tactics those improvements may not be realized by the unit.
Target Detection (Optics):
DOD Photo
Target detection begins with scanning your sector looking for what doesn’t belong. Scanning crowds with the optic on your rifle is no way to make friends in any country, so what do you do? The current issue M24 Mini-Binoculars can provide the DM with a lightweight 8X ability to scan. The greatest advantage of the M24 is that Soldiers are able to scan for longer periods of time at a higher magnification and greater field of view then they would be using a rifle mounted optic. The M24 also provides a ranging reticule for range estimation and adjusting indirect fires.
Once a threat is detected, you need to be able to engage with your rifle optic. Many of the advantages over the M-4 w/ACOG of the MK-12 SPR and the SAM-R are provided by the use of a higher powered magnified optic, then the 4x ACOG. The two most commonly encountered optics for use by the military Designated Marksman are the Trijicon ACOG and the Leupold Mark 4 MR/T. Each optic has its advantages and represent a compromise. Selection needs to reflect the TTP’s of the unit and the level of training committed to sustaining the units Designated Marksman program. Key considerations when selecting the units optic are ranging, ballistic hold over’s, and the ability to quickly detect and acquire the target. Low power 4x optics appear more stable when firing off hand or in other non-standard firing positions. High-powered optics provide more precise target identification and target engagement.
Nightforce NXS 2.5x10x32 Compact:
More infor coming soon.
Trijicon ACOG Riflescopes:
The Trijicon ACOG (TA31RCO, M150 RCO, or TA31F) is the most common magnified optic currently being employed by the Army and the TA31RCO for the USMC. SOCOM SOPMOD Block II uses a TA31ECOS version that adds an unmagnified red dot sight. The ACOG offers a very simple ranging reticule that incorporates a bullet drop compensator (BDC) in one reticle. The ACOG’s illuminated reticle also allows for use of the ACOG at close quarters nearly has fast as the M68 Close Combat Optic. The standard issue sights are 4X magnification, but larger 5.5X or 6X versions are also available (TA55: 5.5x50 or TA648: 6x48 Trijicon ACOG). Both versions offer common training with the issue TA31RCO/TA31F and are worth considering verses the more complicated Mark 4 MR/T scopes. The commands assessments of their requirements really determine the proper choice.
Figure 1.1, ACOG BULLET DROP COMPENSATOR (BDC) & RANGING CAPABILITY
Leupold Mark 4 MR/T Riflescopes:
Leupold Mark 4 MR/T’s are most commonly found on the SOCOM MK12 SPRs and the USMC’s SAM-R (and the M110 SASS). The selection of this optic reflects an operational employment different from the Army. The Marine Corp’s standard optic is the ACOG, unlike the Army’s M68. With that in mind, a higher-powered scope such as the 2.5-8X MR/T for the SAM-R makes sense. Unlike the ACOG, the MR/T is typically used by extremely well trained Designated Marksman. It is a specialized optic that is not well suited to close combat work, but extremely good at intermediate range work. Its higher magnification allows for more precise target selection and to some extent improved target detection. Depending on the reticle, range finding, and ballistic hold over’s, the MR/T will require more advanced training than either the Trijicon or Aimpoint (M68).
Ammunition:
Figure 1.2, M16/M4 & M855 vs. M4A1/ACOG & AA53 (MK262)
Great debate continues on the accuracy of 5.56-mm M855 (standard ball 5.56mm) versus MK262 (“match grade” 5.56mm).. Using published reports, it is often hard to sort out the truth due to the use of different data points for comparing information. For example in a Crane NDIA brief on the M-855 vs. MK-262 Iron sighted M-16’s with M-855 are compared to MK-12’s with MK-262. In that example MK12 with MK-262’s accuracy is clearly superior to M-885. However if you were to make a composite of M-4 w/ACOG vs. the MK-12 both using MK-262 you see very close performance. Indeed a summary showing the M-4 w/ACOG & M-855 vs. MK-262 is the best comparison. The comparison of the M-4 with ACOG vs. the MK-12 SPR shows that with MK-262 ammo the standard Army issue M-4 is mechanically capable of meeting the requirements outlined above.
Figure 1.3, M4A1/ACOG & AA53 vs. MK 12 SPR & AA53
However, MK-262’s improved accuracy comes at a cost of penetration over M-855. M855 will penetrate hard targets at slightly longer ranges. Again, this means that commanders have to balance their mission requirements against the material they use to accomplish the task. In both loadings, inconsistent terminal effectiveness on the enemy underlines the importance of good shot placement.
Figure 1.4 Effects of Small Caliber Munitions Through Intermediate Barriers
Training: “Proper training and shooter selection within a TTP driven program are more important then any of the material solutions.”
“The main factor units need to address in developing their DM Program is the training. The skill set given to the shooter will determine his ability to engage targets consistently at distance effectively. Good marksmanship is not 40/40 on a pop-up range but rather the ability to place rounds in the same spot time after time. A shooter with an understanding of a good body position, what the round is(doing) during the external phase of ballistics and proper eye (to) sight alignment, he will be effective consistently. But a shooter who doesn’t understand how to properly point the rifle and fire it without movement will never be effective regardless of the optics or modifications made to a rifle. The concept is simple but the ability to train this is lost because of short cuts engrained in current marksmanship programs. The current M4 is capable of meeting the DM needs as long as the shooter has the proper skill set. It is far less expensive(and more effective” author insertion) to teach a skill set than to equip shooters with a system they are unable to effectively use because they can't properly point the rifle and fire it without movement.”
1SG Scott Baughn, prior to retiring as the Commandant of the 10th Mountain Division’s Light Fighters School.
Training is the one variable that the Commander can control. An intense pre-deployment focus on developing the fundamental skills, stabilizing the Designated Marksmen in position, and a sustainment program focused on the Designated Marksman’s advanced skills while deployed, are a must. Too often, Soldiers are selected as Designated Marksmen, sent to school for training and then return to their unit and assume other duties. In designing a sustainment program, the commander will need to overcome several institutional issues beyond stabilizing the Soldiers.
SSG Hawes outlined the following short comings, “Lack of marksmanship ability past 300m for which our standard weapons are zeroed at, lack of knowledge on how to engage or lead a moving or pop-up target, and angle firing.” Each of these are difficult tasks for commanders to get at, in particular while deployed. Moving target ranges are not normally designed as rifle ranges. Ranges for angle firing from extreme elevations, such as rooftops or hilltops, are rarely available. Very few posts have more than one range designed to require Soldiers to engage targets between 300-600 meters, as frequently encountered in Afghanistan. Even fewer have a range designed for engaging small fleeting targets such as IED operators, suicide bombers, and enemy marksmen within 300 meters interspersed with non-combatants, such has often encountered in Iraq. With this in mind, institutionally we need to look at how our range complexes are developed and institute some of the lessons learned into their design.
Tactics: Failure to develop a sound set of operational tactics for the employment of the Designated Marksman will decrease his effectiveness.
First, the Designated Marksman is NOT A SNIPER. Some of the skill sets are transferable, but the DM is not a sniper. Tactics are very complicated and vary by many factors based on the AOR and level of training of the unit. Doctrinally the few references available are in conflict:
The DM’s role is well defined in FM 3-22.9 Rifle Marksmanship: The primary mission of the SDM is to deploy as a member of the rifle squad. The SDM is a vital member of his individual squad and not a squad sniper. He fires and maneuvers with his squad and performs all the duties of the standard rifleman. The SDM has neither the equipment nor training to operate individually or in a small team to engage targets at extended ranges with precision fires. The secondary mission of the SDM is to engage key targets from 300 to 500 meters with effective, well-aimed fires using the standard weapon system and standard ammunition.
Under this definition the use of a highly tuned precision rifle such as the USMC’s SAM-R or the SOF MK12 SPR presents a risk. Is this rifle system the right thing to have in a Soldiers hands when clearing buildings? Are the M14 based systems that are being promoted the right answer? Deployed as a member of the clearing squad, an M4 based solution would appear to be the better choice.
FM 3-21.9, The SBCT Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad: k. Designated Marksman. The Designated Marksman acts as a member of the squad under the direction of the squad leader or as designated by the platoon leader. Although normally functioning as a rifleman within one of the fire teams in a rifle squad, the Designated Marksman is armed with a modified M4, 5.56-mm rifle. He is employed at the direction of the squad leader or reorganized with the other squads' Designated Marksmen into a platoon sniper section. He is trained to eliminate high-payoff enemy personnel targets (such as enemy automatic rifle teams, antitank teams, and snipers) with precision fires.
This definition opens up the possibility for a different material solution. I disagree with the proposition that the Designated Marksman is well suited to Counter Sniper/Sniper duties. If, however, you accept the DM being consolidated at the platoon level, such as under the weapon squad leader, then different material solutions are possible. Use of the Javelin Gunners with specialized rifles, such as the MK12 or SAM-R, is one possible solution. DM’s could then be task organized to support the squads, or remain under the control of the Weapons Squad Leader to provide supporting fires and over watch for the Platoon. Other 7.62mm solutions such has the M-14 Enhanced Battle Rifle or the Special Operation MK-14 also have advantages that could also be explored.
Conclusion:
The Designated Marksman is a great combat multiplier. Properly trained, equipped, and employed DM’s 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 DM’s, 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.
Belmont31R
05-24-11, 23:05
This is a subject Ive talked to a few members about, and I think what it comes down to is that its been proven in the last few years that a semi auto rifle can fulfil the precision role out to 800M (and beyond depending on the gun and shooter). So the 308 bolt action is becoming obsolete because you can obtain the same functional accuracy out of a semi auto, and a semi auto can now both be extremely reliable and accurate. Prior to the last few years semi auto 308 guns weren't really as reliable or as accurate.
So the conclusion is a bolt action in a magnum caliber is the best for the 800M+ shots like the 300WM and 338 Lapua mixed with a general off the rack gun like the MWS, EMC/M110, maybe the OBR if it gets a mainline contract, ect. These newish 308 semi autos can crank out consistent sub moa groups from gun to gun and are reliable. I can tell you the main advantage...just me doing informal shooting against other guys on the range....is that a semi auto 308 can crank out accurate fire at a much faster pace than a 308 bolt gun with near the same accuracy and reliability. The rate of aimed fire is so much greater its funny on the range, and I shoot against trained guys with good guns.
I think the next step in the semi auto precision world is a 6.5(ish) round that can be proven to be as reliable, cost of shooting, ect. Right now there really isn't a caliber that does that, and although Im interested in those rounds Im not going to pay a minimum of double per round to start shooting them since I don't reload. But based on everything Ive seen a good 6.5 round and 300/338 would be an ideal combo with the 6.5 being a gas gun and the magnum being a bolt gun.
As a non-LEO civilian I've always found these discussions interesting, and have headed down the path of assembling a semi-auto precision rifle several times, in .308, 5.56, and 6.8 separately at different times, as well as owned my own fantasyland "sniper" bolt-action Remington 700 years ago. What I've always come back to is that for a non-professional user the juice ain't worth the squeeze. Between the initial cost investment of the hardware, to the ammunition costs, to the distraction from more important skillsets to train in (physical fitness and health, handgun, hand-to-hand, carbine CQC, etc. in that order) I just never get very far down the path. For the non-professional user I believe they are a "toy" at best, and become part of many people's post-apocalyptic fantasies at worst.
I do think SHOOTING at distance with any firearm has training value, but that's not the same thing.
I find the discussion of the professional applications interesting though and look forward to this discussion from that avenue.
it's much more difficult to go out and earn it with these guns than it is to go grab a cpl. hundred rds. of steel case wolf and shoot at barn sized targets @ 25yds with your M4 type, however if you master this genie...whole different universe's open up for you and your capacity in real world situations by employing these guns that have the ability to produce in ways that are far and away unmatched to date.
Two things.
First is that if you're shooting at "barn sized targets" you're doing it wrong. Just because you're shooting at a reduced distance does not mean that the accuracy requirement is reduced, and in some cases it may even be heightened. A threat at 200 yards (and in a non-professional role I don't even know how you define that, more in a second) that will need to close to a distance where he can harm you and may bleed out is a much different target than the guy in your hallway holding a knife to your kid's throat and only presenting an eyeball to you.
Second, as I mentioned in my post above, is I would love to hear what the "real world situations by employing these guns" are. As mentioned I've gone down this path many times and the brick wall I've always hit is that I can't come up with any "real world situations" where I would "employ these guns".
Further, if one does believe that there are "real world situations" for the non-professional user, there is WAY more to it than proning out at the static range with a bipod and a sock full of sand. Unconventional positions, shooting with a time constraint, in the rain, in the dark, in the cold... There was just an SPR shoot in Central Florida where they shot a "BSA" drill which was 15 rounds at 15 1" circles at 100 yards in 45 seconds. By all accounts the weather was pretty brutally hot as well. That's certainly a good start. I suspect a lot of the bench-rest types were severely challenged by that stage.
Apricotshot
05-25-11, 07:17
Two things.
First is that if you're shooting at "barn sized targets" you're doing it wrong. Just because you're shooting at a reduced distance does not mean that the accuracy requirement is reduced, and in some cases it may even be heightened. A threat at 200 yards (and in a non-professional role I don't even know how you define that, more in a second) that will need to close to a distance where he can harm you and may bleed out is a much different target than the guy in your hallway holding a knife to your kid's throat and only presenting an eyeball to you.
Second, as I mentioned in my post above, is I would love to hear what the "real world situations by employing these guns" are. As mentioned I've gone down this path many times and the brick wall I've always hit is that I can't come up with any "real world situations" where I would "employ these guns".
Further, if one does believe that there are "real world situations" for the non-professional user, there is WAY more to it than proning out at the static range with a bipod and a sock full of sand. Unconventional positions, shooting with a time constraint, in the rain, in the dark, in the cold... There was just an SPR shoot in Central Florida where they shot a "BSA" drill which was 15 rounds at 15 1" circles at 100 yards in 45 seconds. By all accounts the weather was pretty brutally hot as well. That's certainly a good start. I suspect a lot of the bench-rest types were severely challenged by that stage.
I can attest to that. Sweat in the eyes, mixed with a bitch of a mirage, coupled with a periodic dust devil. Makes for some good fun. And for me, some large groups.
As a non-LEO civilian I've always found these discussions interesting, and have headed down the path of assembling a semi-auto precision rifle several times, in .308, 5.56, and 6.8 separately at different times, as well as owned my own fantasyland "sniper" bolt-action Remington 700 years ago. What I've always come back to is that for a non-professional user the juice ain't worth the squeeze. Between the initial cost investment of the hardware, to the ammunition costs, to the distraction from more important skillsets to train in (physical fitness and health, handgun, hand-to-hand, carbine CQC, etc. in that order) I just never get very far down the path. For the non-professional user I believe they are a "toy" at best, and become part of many people's post-apocalyptic fantasies at worst.
I do think SHOOTING at distance with any firearm has training value, but that's not the same thing.
I find the discussion of the professional applications interesting though and look forward to this discussion from that avenue.
+1, it's an interesting discussion. As a civilian, I also find this post interesting and somewhat informative as well, seeing how other folks have worked through some of these stages of acquiring various long arms configurations and determining what you really "need."
One thing's for sure: I don't NEED most of the stuff I used to think I did, particularly in the area of long-range precision stuff. I sure enjoy playing with my bolt guns and thinking about building up semiauto precision builds though. :-)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.