"Precision Rifle" is pretty much an ill-defined concept

[wild_wild_wes]

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

[bp7178]

That kind of makes a lot of assumptions about the content of three photographs.

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

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

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

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

[wild_wild_wes]

^ Those are three different guys.

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

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

[bp7178]

It's hard to talk about cost when mentioning HK firearms in the same sentence.

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

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

[broylz]

a great shooter with a crappy rifle is still more dangerous than a crappy shooter with a great grifle

[anthony1]

I agree somewhat, I have targets out to 1.5 mile and I've shot with everything from custom guns to regular hunting rifles.

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

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

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

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

This guy has it figured out

[QuietShootr]

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

[sinister]

MISSION drives the tool.

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

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

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

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

[wild_wild_wes]

The past decade has seen many innovations in rifle configurations, and yes its worrisome to think about this practical knowledge being lost.

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

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

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

I've found lots of pics with M110 types fitted with PRS stocks. Here is another.


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