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

[sinister]

The US line infantry sniper will get a 7.62mm autoloader for 90% of the targets he will see in the forseeable future.

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

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

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

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

The Good Idea Fairy is a whore.

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

[QuietShootr]

The US line infantry sniper will get a 7.62mm autoloader for 90% of the targets he will see in the forseeable future.

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

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

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

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

The Good Idea Fairy is a whore.

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

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

[glocktogo]

As the late Col. Whelen foretold, "Only accurate rifles are interesting".

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

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

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

[wild_wild_wes]

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

[sinister]

Most units have equipment that will meet the requirement, but individual Soldiers and company grade leaders are typically clueless as to how to train and use that capability.

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

[TehLlama]

The Good Idea Fairy is a whore.

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

Quality...

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

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

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

[Ghost__1]

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

Quality...

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alaskapopo]

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



]

I agree.
I was taking a basic precision sniper class for law enforcement back in 2007 put on and taught by the Anchorage Police Department SWAT team. One thing I brought up was that in Law Enforcement at the time our rifles emulated military rifles which had a different requirments from us. Their rifles were very accuracy and heavy made for shooting their intended targets from as far away as possible it seemed. While our mission generally had an average shot of 55 yards. With the longest recorded shot being a bit over 400 yards. (New York Central park) I said we should be using lighter rifles with qood optics say in the 2.5 to 10 range or perhaps less. The accuracy standard should go from .5 moa to 1.5 moa. The rifles should be lighter and easier to actually deploy and use in real life. Its funny because last year I saw a friend of mine who works for them and he was issued a Stoner SR-25 with what looked to be a 18 inch or maybe 16 inch medium contour fluted barrel. It was a lot lighter gun than they used to use.
I recently started using this as my patrol/jack of all trades rifle for the rural department I work at.

Its a bit heavy but not unmanagable as a patrol rifle but I have the ability to use it as a precision rifle if I need to. The worst situation we have had where a precision rifle would have come in handy was several years back when a person went into a national park and was taking pot shots at people with a handgun. Fortunately he was drunk and was taking shots well past his ability to hit. He was over 200 yards from where we ended up being able to see where he was at. No one at the time had magnified optics on their rifles. Fortunately no one was killed and he was talked out by dispatch over the phone.
Pat

[jenrick]

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

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

-Jenrick