New Sniper Rifle

Neato...
I want one.

Oh great, its a semi-automatic 7.62NATO rifle with a 20 round magazine that is capable or being suppressed. Hmmm reminds of a sniper rifle already in use by the U.S Military and has been since around 1967 or so. Perhaps the M21 just isn't stylish enough. I guess we just didn't spend enough taxpayers dollars on it.

Seems like the army is reinventing the wheel. They started using the XM21 in vietnam and it did very well then in the 1980's they started replacing it with the M24 now they are going to try to replace the M24 with a new AR-10 basically.

Not saying its a bad rifle....just sorry to see how they learn and forget all the lessons learned.

Brother in Arms

From what I know, the AR-10 series is significantly more accurate than the M14 series, but I'm not sure of that.

The M110 is far more accurate than the old M21 and easier to maintain. When the army transitioned from the M21 to the M24 many thought it was a bad move to give up the fast follow up shot. The M110 is the result. The similar platform to the M16 makes for a nice fit logistics and training wise. No need to resurect a 1940's design that was never meant to have optical sights.

I love my M1A, but my AR-10T will shoot rings around it.

I'll take 5 of em!!

Can I have just one of the old M-24 kits

I find it ironic that the "New" M110 Sniper Rifle is older than the M24 its meant to replace (and basically the same age as the M21).

Is it just me that gets a kick out of seeing a military item saying "Stoner Rifle"?

Nice to see that our tax dollars are still fixing things that arent broke!

Looks like the Russian doctrine was right all along.

Bolt guns can so out distance that thing.

Ill stick with my M700

It's Pretty Cool

I think it's pretty cool. Most of you are all correct. The M21 is most stylish, the AR10 (M110) is a badass and I'd like to have one or two of them, and yes a bolt rifle will out shoot both of them. I think the point is though that the new model does quite well and is able to whack more terrorist scumbags in a shorter time. And I'm all for that. But make not mistake my national match
M1A will shoot with the best of them, is capable of producing awesome groups and at my range will ring the gong (top 18 inches of an acetylene tank) at 600 yrds. repeatedly in a very short period of time. I'd rather spend my tax money on killing terrorist than unborn babies.

You naysayers are stuck in the Vietnam era of sniping. The SR-25/AR10 rifles are needed for quick follow up shots. Our snipers are in urban combat, not stalking in ghillie suits and taking the shot from one thousand yards away.

Here's my brother taking a shot with the SR25 at over 400 yards. He's a Marine Scout Sniper who's got over 50 kills and been to Scout Sniper School and the Advanced Course. He swears by the SR25 after two tours in Iraq as a Scout Sniper. He's shown halfway through the video, with the reporter talking behind him as he takes the shot.

As mentioned, the M14 platform is more expensive and harder to maintain.
One benefit of the 'new' platform is that it mimics the M16 in form and function.
And you can build an AR10 that will match the M21 in accuracy for a lower cost and it's not as finicky over the long term.
I still prefer the M21 for asthetics(sp)

Lebowski

Impressive footage. Kudos to your brother; you must be very proud of him.

I am You should see his award commendation.

Bolt guns can so out distance that thing.

Ill stick with my M700

Click to expand...

I'll agree with that. But...


That's not what's needed as much as an SVD type rifle. Think about it. Iraq.


The M700 is the kind of rifle where you make long-range surgical strike. That is for a different type of sniping. For stalking. That implies a totally different type of engagement. It is more of an ambush/assassination type strike on a higher value target. That implies you expect a target in a certain area, and that you've been surveying the area waiting for opportunity. Have the time to prepare for the shot and the target is not expecting it.


In urban guerilla war, that's not the case. In combat no targets are just standing there, or typically are not standing there. Distances are not often going to be 1,000m.


What is more useful is an "accurate-enough" semi-auto. Something to drop badguys fast. Something with quick followup shots. Something you can deliver lead with down 600-700m with good accuracy (center of mass shots) and do so quickly on multiple targets.


That applies to open terrain also. You get a group of insurgent/terrorist fighters on a hill like in Afghanistan, and you need something accurate, with range and fast. They've been fiddling with these 77gr 5.56's...but the 308 outclasses it at distance.


I think this is a good move. They go through the trouble of getting a match-grade barrel, freefloating, adding a Leupold, custom stock and all this stuff on a 5.56 to shoot out to 600m ...why not just build a good .308 Stoner? That's what it was originally suppose to be. Hits harder, better downrange with less wind effects. I think the .308 takes more advantage of all the accurizing and customizations and optics.

Don't pooh-pooh the accuracy of AR-10 type rifles. Fed the right ammo and with a good barrel they aren't that far behind bolt gun. Mine will shoot 1/4 MOA with handloads, and 3/4 MOA all day long with FGMM. When you consider the Leupold M3 had a elevation knob in 1 MOA increments, that more than adequate to hit a man sized target at 1000 yards.

The fact of the matter is that bolt action sniper rifles in the 308 class are not that much more accurate, and the difference is accuracy is probably not significant for most precision shooting on the modern battlefield.

280PLUS that target was @ 100yrds. from bench in optimum conditions and perfect ammo. But it will consistantly still shoot these types of groups.
And I do like the fact that at the ground pounder level the military recognized the change in environment and tactics and has made adjustments. Besides think about when the CMP makes those rifles available

.308