New Sniper rifle for U.S. Army.

[F-15 Eagle]

Here is the video of the M110 semi-automatic sniper rifle to replace the bolt action M24 in the Army. I found this video of the M110 from Youtube. At first they fire the M110 with a QD suppressor and then near the end a fire it without the suppressor. It has an effective range of 800m and has a 10 or 20 round magazine. Click where it says M110 Sniper Rifle on the video screen because for some reason it wont work if you click the arrow.

[ame="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-920881635491962871&q=M110&total=88&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0"]M110 Sniper Rifle[/ame]

 

[Systems Adict]

..What about the Barret M107 .50 Cal Sniper rifle??

I thought THAT was the "Weapon of Choice" at the moment...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWJp14tkBlU"]YouTube - Barrett M107 .50 Caliber sniper rifle[/ame]

(You tubed clip from the discovery channels "Future Weapons" TV program)

Systems Adict

 

[F-15 Eagle]

..What about the Barret M107 .50 Cal Sniper rifle??

I thought THAT was the "Weapon of Choice" at the moment...

YouTube - Barrett M107 .50 Caliber sniper rifle

(You tubed clip from the discovery channels "Future Weapons" TV program)

Systems Adict

Thats a different weapon for a different topic, the M110 fires the .308 round and will replace the M24, the M107 fires the 12.7X99mm round. They have two types of rounds for two different missions. The .308 is for anti-personnel targets well the .50 caliber round is for destroying machinery, vehicles, other targets at over a mile. There is no weapon of choice, theres the M110 and theres the M107 for two different missions.

 

[winnyfield]

The bolt-action community is going to be a little pissed but as long as performance (particularly the 1st round shot) is the same or better, I see nothing to fault.

However, I can't help but think that the magazine is a little too big. Maybe reduce it to 10-15 rounds to be comfortable - 20 rounds is a bit over kill.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The bolt-action community is going to be a little pissed but as long as performance (particularly the 1st round shot) is the same or better, I see nothing to fault.

However, I can't help but think that the magazine is a little too big. Maybe reduce it to 10-15 rounds to be comfortable - 20 rounds is a bit over kill.

How in the hell is 20 rounds an over kill!!! That is what makes our snipers far more lethal than the enemy, you don't bring our snipers down to the level of the enemy you have to be ahead in the game. And the snipers wont have to reload as much, they can just keep on firing twice as much before reloading than a 10 round clip.:lul:lul

 

[kato]

And the snipers wont have to reload as much, they can just keep on firing twice as much before reloading than a 10 round clip.:lul:lul

If your snipers have to fire anywhere beyond 3-5 rounds in a single engagement, something went seriously wrong.

 

[Waylander]

Hey, it works on Conterstrike...

Seriously I agree that I also hae the feeing that a magazineof 20 roun is reallybig for a sniper rifle.
In the end weae not talking about a DMR.

 

[kato]

There is a reason the PSG-1 was usually delivered with a 5-round magazine (even though it accepts standard G3 20-round mags), after all. And no, not the AWB.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

If your snipers have to fire anywhere beyond 3-5 rounds in a single engagement, something went seriously wrong.

Not when you take into account that todays war environment is a multi-target environment. That is why their going from a bolt action to a semi-auto. If you don't like the 20 round mag they still have the 10 round mag but they will still keep the 20 round mag.

 

[buglerbilly]

Not when you take into account that todays war environment is a multi-target environment. That is why their going from a bolt action to a semi-auto. If you don't like the 20 round mag they still have the 10 round mag but they will still keep the 20 round mag.

Hmmm I really wonder about that...............

Most snipers I've ever talked to over the years, from a variety of Armies, want put-down punch and phenomenal accuracy over 1,000 metres, preferably over 1,200 metres, which is exactly why the UK has gone for the .338 Lapua Magnum bolt-action a few weeks ago.

I agree a .308 semi-auto is preferable as a back-up gun assuming a Sniper Pair, and it's certainly an area the Brits, in my opinion, have gone adrift BUT this does not detract from the fact range/calibre rules NOT volume of fire, you have various calibre machine guns for that.

The discussion about the magazine size has all parties correct to the extent that crawling into position you do NOT want a 20-round mag in place, it'll catch on every obstruction in sight!

IF in a purely Defensive role, then the 20-round gives you more immediate opportunity to flatten a few.

One final point, the .308 has undoubted capabilities BUT at the same time you are putting down a target from 600-800 metres, the .338 will be knocking them out at 1,000 metres and 1,200 metres consistently and accurately. At 1,200 mtres you'll also NOT hear the round that kills you.............

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Hmmm I really wonder about that...............

Most snipers I've ever talked to over the years, from a variety of Armies, want put-down punch and phenomenal accuracy over 1,000 metres, preferably over 1,200 metres, which is exactly why the UK has gone for the .338 Lapua Magnum bolt-action a few weeks ago.

I agree a .308 semi-auto is preferable as a back-up gun assuming a Sniper Pair, and it's certainly an area the Brits, in my opinion, have gone adrift BUT this does not detract from the fact range/calibre rules NOT volume of fire, you have various calibre machine guns for that.

The discussion about the magazine size has all parties correct to the extent that crawling into position you do NOT want a 20-round mag in place, it'll catch on every obstruction in sight!

IF in a purely Defensive role, then the 20-round gives you more immediate opportunity to flatten a few.

One final point, the .308 has undoubted capabilities BUT at the same time you are putting down a target from 600-800 metres, the .338 will be knocking them out at 1,000 metres and 1,200 metres consistently and accurately. At 1,200 mtres you'll also NOT hear the round that kills you.............

Why use a .338 when you can use the 12.7X99 .50 from the M107. It can reach out to over a mile and the power is awesome. As for the .308 that round has worked for over 50 years with no problems so it wont be going away for a long time.

 

[buglerbilly]

Why use a .338 when you can use the 12.7X99 .50 from the M107. It can reach out to over a mile and the power is awesome. As for the .308 that round has worked for over 50 years with no problems so it wont be going away for a long time.

Cos the .50, any .50, is too bloody heavy and cumbersome to carry an length of time and/or distance...........strangely enough not too many Snipers get carried to their shooting locations even now. It's also too bulky, as in huge in comparison; both the ammo and weapon are extremely awkward to use in Confined spaces.............

I got NO problem with the 308, just the 338 is better for the same role and doesn't severely denigrate your ability to move distance or carry weapon as a 50 does.

Try a 20 kilometre hike across severe terrain in hot-n-high mountainous conditions lugging an example of each calibre and then come back and tell me again which one you want to shoot consistently at over 1,200 metres.

 

[DavidDCM]

That is because a rifle in .338 LM increases the performance but has almost the same dimensions than a comparable one in .308, whereas a rifle in .50 would be way bigger, heavier and more difficult to handle.

Edit/ Too late

 

[buglerbilly]

That is because a rifle in .338 LM increases the performance but has almost the same dimensions than a comparable one in .308, whereas a rifle in .50 would be way bigger, heavier and more difficult to handle.

Edit/ Too late

Ha! Methinks our replies over-lapped.............

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Cos the .50, any .50, is too bloody heavy and cumbersome to carry an length of time and/or distance...........strangely enough not too many Snipers get carried to their shooting locations even now. It's also too bulky, as in huge in comparison; both the ammo and weapon are extremely awkward to use in Confined spaces.............

I got NO problem with the 308, just the 338 is better for the same role and doesn't severely denigrate your ability to move distance or carry weapon as a 50 does.

Try a 20 kilometre hike across severe terrain in hot-n-high mountainous conditions lugging an example of each calibre and then come back and tell me again which one you want to shoot consistently at over 1,200 metres.

The .50 is a good round, it has its uses in sniper missions, the .338 will never replace the .50. you cant compare the .50 with the .338, the .338 does not have the range or power of the .50. As for the 1200m ranges the .50 can easy do that, it can go for over a mile so 1200m is no problem. The military loves the M107 and their not planing to use the .338 the .308 is good enough for anti-personnel targets and has worked for over 50 years. Your not saying they should replace the .50 with the .338 are you? Because that would be the dumbest thing the Army can do is give up the power and performance for just a lighter weight round.

 

[oldsoak]

.50 cal is a good round - but as buglerbilly points out, its not really the rifle you want to lug around when you and your spotter are trying to go tactical on your lonesomes. If you have transport to and from your position then fine. If you have to lug it around while crawling on your belly, its not such a good idea. The US have a mix .308 and .50 - thats cool, look how they are deployed. Us Brits have picked an all round round that we can put in a manageable package. If we need the .50 cal, we'll call it up. Until then , the .338 does most of all we want.

 

[buglerbilly]

The .50 is a good round, it has its uses in sniper missions, the .338 will never replace the .50. you cant compare the .50 with the .338, the .338 does not have the range or power of the .50. As for the 1200m ranges the .50 can easy do that, it can go for over a mile so 1200m is no problem. The military loves the M107 and their not planing to use the .338 the .308 is good enough for anti-personnel targets and has worked for over 50 years. Your not saying they should replace the .50 with the .338 are you? Because that would be the dumbest thing the Army can do is give up the power and performance for just a lighter weight round.

NAH mate! You misunderstand, 338 doesn't replace 50cal they are for entirely different purposes and/or tactical scenarios.

For DEFENSIVE Ops and EOD, 50cal is superb not the be-all and end-all, but overall first class.

The 338 in a long rifle, bolt action, is equally superb, even more so if you are carrying out OFFENSIVE Sniper Ops where hidden location requiring long, often difficult, but very secretive access to the chosen location(s) means you need to crawl your way there without being seen. The 338 far outstrips the 308 for this task.

The 308 semi-auto has its place in a highly-accurate, comparatively high fire power role out to 600-800 metres and, possibly, is the better weapon system for MOUT/FIBUA roles where fire-power counts albeit highly accurate fire power.

With this new announcement, I am surprised (still, even at my age! ) that the US Forces still don't adopt the 338.

The combination of all three calibres opens up opportunities for any and every occasion.

Perhaps Old Soak or one of the other UK correspondents knows but the RM at least, being the premier Sniper-orientated group in the Brit Forces, should now have, or soon have, access to 308 (bolt action), 338 (bolt action) and 50cal (Barretts in their case) sniper systems IF the UK is going to retain the 308's for the Other Half of a Sniper pair (and I don't view a rebuild of the 308's to as-new condition as ineffective use of sparse funds, the more long rifles the better IMHO, they suit the Afghan role in particular).