The Perfect Sniper Rifle

[greyghost01]

This question can not be answered, only in your own mind,

 

[d2wing]

I haven't seen that data first Marine. I have a 7-8 and I was disappointed that the ballistics weren't any better than the .308. That is in factory loads. I would be interesting in seeing that data.
Also I think a comparison of cartridges energy levels and bullet construction is in order. It is not just about hitting your target, it is about making a one shot kill.

 

[1stmarine]

I haven't seen that data first Marine. I have a 7-8 and I was disappointed that the ballistics weren't any better than the .308. That is in factory loads. I would be interesting in seeing that data.
Also I think a comparison of cartridges energy levels and bullet construction is in order. It is not just about hitting your target, it is about making a one shot kill.

That is why it is easier to make contact than the 308 and with very good momentum. Let me pull some data.
factory rifle makers and ammo are missing the mark selling feather light hunting rifles and deer loads.
The reason I bring it up is because it is pretty much like the 308 but with a lot more efficient bullets.
It improves on the ballistics of the 6.5 and 308 yet it carries the momentum the 308 is known for with its 168gr and 175gr sniper bullets.
At least hornady has released a new 150gr bullet for hunting with the new line but they will not release the 162gr and 170gr match because marketing is pushing now the 6.5mm.

http://www.hornady.com/store/7mm-08-Rem-150-gr-ELD-X-Precision-Hunter/

We are missing the match loads from everyone so reloading is the way.

 

[Mackay Sagebrush]

It is simply my opinion, but if you were truly interested in creating a "next generation" rifle that would be well received, I would be soliciting comments, information and feedback from those who actually have a professional background in the martial use of the sniper rifle.

SF SOTIC grads, scout snipers, private contractors and the more elite (full time) LE units. I would NOT bother spending much time with guys whose experience is limited to their local part time swat team. It has been my observation that usually the part time SWAT guys most often simply emulate others, and I have seen a BUNCH of seriously sub par guys who had been assigned as the part time team's "sniper". I know that ruffles feathers, but it is the truth.

There are a lot of good guys who post on gun forums, and many form opinions about such subjects like sniping by reading books, written by others, about actual snipers. The sheer amount of inaccurate information and story telling leads to a lot of misconceptions is often truly amazing. Well intentioned, but not really where I would be soliciting info.

I forgot to mention one particular potential source of information is the International Sniper Competition held annually at FT. Benning. Usually the top 10 of 40ish teams are pretty darn "switched on" shooters, and soliciting information from them would be a very good baseline.



With all that said, I will mention this; I have been used both an M24 and the M110/SR-25 in a professional capacity, and when it came time to purchase a privately owned high end rifle, I chose neither.

With my own $$, I purchased, and am completely happy with a Sako TRG 22, topped with a Nightforce 5.5-22. If money were no object, I would rock the same rifle, with a Schmidt & Bender.

Most don't know it, but the TRG 22/42 series are actually chassis based platforms.

In today's highly mobile world of responding to threats globally on short notice, often without unit level armorer support, a platform needs to be as "end user" friendly as possible in regards to PMCS and adaptability.

Hope this helps.

 

[barnbwt]

New
It is simply my opinion, but if you were truly interested in creating a "next generation" rifle that would be well received, I would be soliciting comments, information and feedback from those who actually have a professional background in the martial use of the sniper rifle.

I'd argue this is 2/3rds unnecessary, and 1/3rd impossible request. There's a long, long (long) history of private arms developments not only servicing military needs just fine, but generally outpacing the accepted standard art favored by the powers that be (especially back when we had our Ordnance system in this country). Aside from anti-materiel applications, the proverbial 'sniper rifle' is essentially identical to an outfit developed for precision hunting or long range target practice, albeit with more budget flexibility these days for our military. The request for "operator input" presupposes that professionals' experience will actually be applicable to what is surely a departure from their current tools ("next generation," remember?). Not to mention, that given the breadth of demonstrably bad information promoted by trainers bouyed by experience or fame in our nation's conflicts over the years, putting faith in someone's judgement just because they excelled at or survived battle is not necessarily a guarantee their way is best for others/all (again, especially during the centralized Ordnance system period; magazine cutoffs in bolt repeaters, refusal to entertain box magazines until the '50s, insistence on retaining the Trapdoor long after obsolecence, general stinginess with infantry ammunition while machinegun nests burned millions of rounds across No Man's Land, "self-cleaning" assault rifles, "walking fire," refusal to adopt anything besides 45cal and 30cal ammo for half a century, and God knows how many other disasters I can't remember hearing about)

I'm willing to revise my assessment if someone can offer an example of how a sniper's rifle is different from something used for competition or hunting (at a similar range & ballistic energy level, naturally). Snipers were originally hunters, after all (back when stalking was the preferred tactic for hunting instead of deer-stands)

TCB

 

[Mackay Sagebrush]

I'd argue this is 2/3rds unnecessary, and 1/3rd impossible request. There's a long, long (long) history of private arms developments not only servicing military needs just fine, but generally outpacing the accepted standard art favored by the powers that be (especially back when we had our Ordnance system in this country). Aside from anti-materiel applications, the proverbial 'sniper rifle' is essentially identical to an outfit developed for precision hunting or long range target practice, albeit with more budget flexibility these days for our military. The request for "operator input" presupposes that professionals' experience will actually be applicable to what is surely a departure from their current tools ("next generation," remember?). Not to mention, that given the breadth of demonstrably bad information promoted by trainers bouyed by experience or fame in our nation's conflicts over the years, putting faith in someone's judgement just because they excelled at or survived battle is not necessarily a guarantee their way is best for others/all (again, especially during the centralized Ordnance system period; magazine cutoffs in bolt repeaters, refusal to entertain box magazines until the '50s, insistence on retaining the Trapdoor long after obsolecence, general stinginess with infantry ammunition while machinegun nests burned millions of rounds across No Man's Land, "self-cleaning" assault rifles, "walking fire," refusal to adopt anything besides 45cal and 30cal ammo for half a century, and God knows how many other disasters I can't remember hearing about)

I'm willing to revise my assessment if someone can offer an example of how a sniper's rifle is different from something used for competition or hunting (at a similar range & ballistic energy level, naturally). Snipers were originally hunters, after all (back when stalking was the preferred tactic for hunting instead of deer-stands)

TCB

Like I said before, ruffles feathers...

While issues that occurred in the late 1800s through the 1950s are interesting, and can provide some entertaining reading, including "disasters you can't remember hearing about", they really have little to no bearing in the profession today. Yes, it is important to know history and not repeat it. Most people get that. The vast majority of leaders who have sniper/designated marksmen teams within their command understand to a certain degree the concepts of utilization, and are in fact (on the military side) required to attend training to better understand the tools at their disposal. Like I stated before the above quote is a perfect example of a well meaning/intentioned person believing that they have a thorough grounding in a subject, based on reading books, versus actual experience within the profession.

In regards to the bolded section:

A 1,000 yard competition rifle, or a Palma rifle, or your average hunter's Rem 700 30-06 can certainly have many similarities,, they are not however the same as a purpose built tool.

Sloped foreends, adjustable buttstocks to accommodate body armor, PEQ-15 advanced IR target pointers/illuminators, rail systems for night vision, or other mission specific tools are not something commonly seen on competition or hunting rifles. Yes there are always exceptions, and building/using the same gear that snipers use is very trendy, but they are far from standard. For every guy who has picked up an AN/PVS 22, to hunt hogs at night with, there are probably 5,000 (probably a very low estimate) guys with a standard AR, or Ruger M77. This does not even touch the the more advanced AN/PVS-30 and the AN/PAS-31. Also, I have yet to see a hunter or competitor attach a camera to a scope, then download that information to send remotely to another person, for them to assess real time data.

I can attest, as someone who has personally been to Knight's Armament in an official capacity, and looked at the (then) latest generation NV equipment, that what is being produced and used by select organizations is not, and will not be available for years to the general public for use in competition or hunting. It was designed for specific tasks, and has little to do with punching paper, or deer tags.

There is an acronym called METT-T or METT TC, that is used in mission planning. For relation to this conversation, essentially it means that the mission drives the gear. For the most part competition rifles are purpose built for the narrow field in which they will be used. An F-Class or Hunter Benchrest rifle is designed around their respective discipline, and would be a poor choice for use in a forward deployed theater. By the same token, an M110 SASS would not fare well in either of those disciplines.

With that said, the newer sport of "PRS" designed to closely simulate field conditions that a .gov or .mil sniper may encounter, has rifles that closely parallel each other. It should be noted that many concepts, to include equipment modifications have potential to be adapted into the profession, and in fact some have been.

I have experience in the competition field as well, and I have yet to see a person firing MK 211 High-explosive incendiary/armor-piercing ammunition. Nor have I seen anyone ever using the far more common MK248 Mod 1 ammo. In regards to MK 248, mod 1, I have a chassis rifle chambered specifically for it, and it would not be optimal for either hunting or competition. I certainly could make it work, but it would be less than optimal.

I have only scratched the surface of dissimilarities, but to be frank, I don't really feel like typing a book about the differences.

The punchline is that the rifle I used here:







Is not the same rifle that I would choose here, on my cow elk from last week:



or here:



This is based on actual experience, being in the martial profession requiring the use of various arms since is shipped off to the home of the Infantry in 1988. Not me mention hunting, and competitive shooting, as well as being an instructor in various disciplines covering everything from belt fed MGs, to sniper systems.


Barnbwt, no disrespect intended.

 

[S&W629]

Threads like this one...makes want to ask....."what color socks would feel best on my feet"......

 

[1stmarine]

Threads like this one...makes want to ask....."what color socks would feel best on my feet"......

This is like "what is the best caliber pistol or rifle ..." type of threads that can get a lot of attention but end up having little value.
Because we have no mission nor specific requirements and goals (real life ones) they end up all over the place with arguments about internet favorites.

 

[jmar]

It is simply my opinion, but if you were truly interested in creating a "next generation" rifle that would be well received, I would be soliciting comments, information and feedback from those who actually have a professional background in the martial use of the sniper rifle.

SF SOTIC grads, scout snipers, private contractors and the more elite (full time) LE units. I would NOT bother spending much time with guys whose experience is limited to their local part time swat team. It has been my observation that usually the part time SWAT guys most often simply emulate others, and I have seen a BUNCH of seriously sub par guys who had been assigned as the part time team's "sniper". I know that ruffles feathers, but it is the truth.

There are a lot of good guys who post on gun forums, and many form opinions about such subjects like sniping by reading books, written by others, about actual snipers. The sheer amount of inaccurate information and story telling leads to a lot of misconceptions is often truly amazing. Well intentioned, but not really where I would be soliciting info.

I forgot to mention one particular potential source of information is the International Sniper Competition held annually at FT. Benning. Usually the top 10 of 40ish teams are pretty darn "switched on" shooters, and soliciting information from them would be a very good baseline.



With all that said, I will mention this; I have been used both an M24 and the M110/SR-25 in a professional capacity, and when it came time to purchase a privately owned high end rifle, I chose neither.

With my own $$, I purchased, and am completely happy with a Sako TRG 22, topped with a Nightforce 5.5-22. If money were no object, I would rock the same rifle, with a Schmidt & Bender.

Most don't know it, but the TRG 22/42 series are actually chassis based platforms.

In today's highly mobile world of responding to threats globally on short notice, often without unit level armorer support, a platform needs to be as "end user" friendly as possible in regards to PMCS and adaptability.

Hope this helps.

Like I said before, ruffles feathers...

While issues that occurred in the late 1800s through the 1950s are interesting, and can provide some entertaining reading, including "disasters you can't remember hearing about", they really have little to no bearing in the profession today. Yes, it is important to know history and not repeat it. Most people get that. The vast majority of leaders who have sniper/designated marksmen teams within their command understand to a certain degree the concepts of utilization, and are in fact (on the military side) required to attend training to better understand the tools at their disposal. Like I stated before the above quote is a perfect example of a well meaning/intentioned person believing that they have a thorough grounding in a subject, based on reading books, versus actual experience within the profession.

In regards to the bolded section:

A 1,000 yard competition rifle, or a Palma rifle, or your average hunter's Rem 700 30-06 can certainly have many similarities,, they are not however the same as a purpose built tool.

Sloped foreends, adjustable buttstocks to accommodate body armor, PEQ-15 advanced IR target pointers/illuminators, rail systems for night vision, or other mission specific tools are not something commonly seen on competition or hunting rifles. Yes there are always exceptions, and building/using the same gear that snipers use is very trendy, but they are far from standard. For every guy who has picked up an AN/PVS 22, to hunt hogs at night with, there are probably 5,000 (probably a very low estimate) guys with a standard AR, or Ruger M77. This does not even touch the the more advanced AN/PVS-30 and the AN/PAS-31. Also, I have yet to see a hunter or competitor attach a camera to a scope, then download that information to send remotely to another person, for them to assess real time data.

I can attest, as someone who has personally been to Knight's Armament in an official capacity, and looked at the (then) latest generation NV equipment, that what is being produced and used by select organizations is not, and will not be available for years to the general public for use in competition or hunting. It was designed for specific tasks, and has little to do with punching paper, or deer tags.

There is an acronym called METT-T or METT TC, that is used in mission planning. For relation to this conversation, essentially it means that the mission drives the gear. For the most part competition rifles are purpose built for the narrow field in which they will be used. An F-Class or Hunter Benchrest rifle is designed around their respective discipline, and would be a poor choice for use in a forward deployed theater. By the same token, an M110 SASS would not fare well in either of those disciplines.

With that said, the newer sport of "PRS" designed to closely simulate field conditions that a .gov or .mil sniper may encounter, has rifles that closely parallel each other. It should be noted that many concepts, to include equipment modifications have potential to be adapted into the profession, and in fact some have been.

I have experience in the competition field as well, and I have yet to see a person firing MK 211 High-explosive incendiary/armor-piercing ammunition. Nor have I seen anyone ever using the far more common MK248 Mod 1 ammo. In regards to MK 248, mod 1, I have a chassis rifle chambered specifically for it, and it would not be optimal for either hunting or competition. I certainly could make it work, but it would be less than optimal.

I have only scratched the surface of dissimilarities, but to be frank, I don't really feel like typing a book about the differences.

The punchline is that the rifle I used here:







Is not the same rifle that I would choose here, on my cow elk from last week:



or here:



This is based on actual experience, being in the martial profession requiring the use of various arms since is shipped off to the home of the Infantry in 1988. Not me mention hunting, and competitive shooting, as well as being an instructor in various disciplines covering everything from belt fed MGs, to sniper systems.


Barnbwt, no disrespect intended.

Thanks for your comments, the question is open to anyone i just assumed there would be some military guys on here with input. But i value everyone's opinions equally, most of the guys who enjoy long range shooting don't have any military experience yet get under 1/2 moa at 1000=yards. They obviously know their stuff. I want to build a rugged and superbly accurate gun so opinions from both sides are greatly appreciated. Like you said it'd be great to hear from them but i have no idea where they congregate online. So please chime in if you used a sniper rifle in the field.

 

[jmar]

This is like "what is the best caliber pistol or rifle ..." type of threads that can get a lot of attention but end up having little value.
Because we have no mission nor specific requirements and goals (real life ones) they end up all over the place with arguments about internet favorites.

The problem with this thread is not the question posed but the answers given. This is not meant in a disrespectful manner but the phrase if you don't have some helpful to say don't say anything at all. For example i asked very specific questions, ergonomics, standard features, gun layout etc. But instead of people contributing they waste a reply saying there's no answer and that it's just opinion based... EXACTLY that's the point of it!

This is not a vague question, and definitely not a debate, it is a survey in a way. I didn't ask what the best gun is ever. I asked what YOURS is. YOUR perfect sniper. Seeing everyone's opinion can form patterns around certain aspects of guns. Which can help me in my design. And that was just one of the several questions asked yet it's the only one people take response two. And frankly it is the most unspecific so i have no idea why.

So just to clarify here are all the questions i've asked so far and some new ones.

I've already selected my calibers. No more caliber talk please. You are right when you say there's no one caliber or rifle that does it all. I knew this before making the thread believe it or not. But i've decided i'm making multiple guns with relatively the same design just up-scaled for different calibers. So again this portion is covered, thanks.

General shape
Weight
Barrel length
Trigger Design
Bolt shape and location
Materials
Do you like guns with exposed barrel tops: example AI AWM. Or guns that are inside chassis: example CheyTac Intervention
Do you like rails? Where do you like them?
Any specific bipod designs you like? Do you even like them?
Monopds
Magazine capacity
Do you like a built in scope rail, or a removable one?

These are examples of input i'm looking for. 'feel free to give your guys's opinion for both high and low calibers if you think it's to vague' Or feel free to not reply at all. Thanks

 

[1stmarine]

Jmar,
Sorry I didn't mean disrespect to your thread. Perhaps if you reduced the nr. of variables then it will be easier to hone on a specific set of characteristics based on the intended duty of the rifle. I already explained the benefits of the 7mm.
Many current rifles do great as sniper rifle so in order to differentiate we need to specialize IMO.

 

[barnbwt]

I have experience in the competition field as well, and I have yet to see a person firing MK 211 High-explosive incendiary/armor-piercing ammunition. Nor have I seen anyone ever using the far more common MK248 Mod 1 ammo. In regards to MK 248, mod 1, I have a chassis rifle chambered specifically for it, and it would not be optimal for either hunting or competition. I certainly could make it work, but it would be less than optimal.

Now we're getting somewhere; a special-cut chamber for military-specific cartridges is a distinct departure from what you'd see pressed into hunting (maybe not competition so much, where custom chambers tailored to a load are most certainly a thing). By the same token, military guns will be forced into a certain set of chamberings, which ultimately limits just how well they can be tailored for a mission. I get what you're saying as far as different guns for different roles; that's what I was implying with my comment about power levels and ranges needing to be similar to a civilian application for the point to hold up. Otherwise it's easy to say hunting/military guns are different via improper apples/oranges examples. An autoloading 5.56 DMR setup for close-medium range and 300WM bolt rifle for 1000yd moonshots are wildly different as far as application, yet both are precision instruments, both are equally suitable to hunting/competition and specific military service roles. You agree? I will concede that the hunting rigs generally won't be operated to the extent of their capability (ethical shots and all that) but many shooters still hold them to high standards of absolute accuracy out to great distances, like sniper's rifles.

The high-end optics and communications gear definitely fall outside at least what I personally consider to be the 'rifle,' and in the much larger/more important basket of supplemental equipment or tactics. Well, unless it's some massively-integrated Tracking Point type deal, and not just a quality reticle/magnification unit that's sighted in. Even then, it's such a modular aspect that I would not consider it 'integral' to the rifle's design (i.e. any changes to the rifle or optic would make them incompatible as a whole 'system'). It's also a whole other can of technical worms, above and beyond the already dizzying field of mechanical firearms. Let's just assume there's a quality optic suited to the mission available to be installed on the standard pic-rail we all know this thing's gonna have on top at the end of the day

To be honest, the same can be said of specific bipods, handgaurds, stocks, or even triggers so long as there is the ability to swap in elements most suitable for a given mission (this adaptability obviously being a desirable trait for a multirole weapon), but considering these definitely fall inside the envelope of the rifle and are the primary elements effecting shooter experience (apart from optics) it makes sense to discuss them in more detail.

As far as specific design details the OP brought up, here's my unwashed-masses opinion;
-General shape (depends on size constraints, but traditional, bullpup, and FG42 are kind of the only options)
-Weight (depends entirely on cartridge, type of action, type of optic, and length requirement)
-Barrel length (depends entirely on cartridge and length requirement)
-Trigger Design (adjustability probably matters here more than most, especially for an autoloader, but off-the-shelf triggers are an easy and appealing route)
-Bolt shape and location (forward locking bolt head for best rigidity, barrel extension locking scheme makes for a better overall design)
-Materials (steel, aluminum, and plastics of suitable type/temper where proper; this is akin to asking what kind of powder in the cartridge)
-Do you like guns with exposed barrel tops: example AI AWM. Or guns that are inside chassis: example CheyTac Intervention
(enclosed handguards are structurally stiffer for a given weight, but are less comfortable to hold & are usually covered in rails and accessories on said rails that end up weighing as much as a solid 'traditional' fore end. A single, monolithic stock running from butt to fore made of a sturdy material can be stiffer and stronger across the bedded action for a given weight)
-Do you like rails? Where do you like them? (the market has spoken at present, that rails are best for optics mounting, and mere provisions for rails are suitable where grips/bipods/etc may be located, using Keymod or similar)
-Any specific bipod designs you like? Do you even like them? (above all, the bipods must be isolated from the barrel & hard-linked to the receiver. The need for a bipod is also driven by a mission role)
-Monopods (again, market & history have largely move away from these, likely because they are inefficient compared to a bipod as far as weight/bulk/effectiveness)
-Magazine capacity (driven by mission role and the size/weight requirements it carries)
-Do you like a built in scope rail, or a removable one? (who's removing their scope rails?)

The questions that (still, I think) need answering or defining by OP are; what cartridge are we using (i.e. how far/how hard are we shooting), and what position will the user be taking (dismounted patrol, use from inside a vehicle, stationary overwatch, remote scouting), and what role will the user be taking (defensive or offensive)? I'm sure Mackey is familiar with the proper terms for these diverse fields of operations as well as many I am ignorant of. There is no need for one gun to do all of them (quite the opposite; that'll only cost you sales ) but you certainly need to choose a set of conditions in order to get suggestions specific enough to be useful.

Otherwise, I'd suggest steering the discussion away from military service to which features are most marketable in a precision tactical rifle (a good bit of overlap between the two, but also a lot of difference because pure function takes a seat alongside form criteria)

TCB

 

[BigBore45]

If in a urban or semi urban setting i would chose this: DPMS LR-308B. with a SWFA 4-16-42 MIL/MIL timney trigger and magpul stock. If in a more open area i would chose a Rem 700 M40 clone in 300 win mag. higher powered scope. if anti-vehicle was involved obviously the Barrett 50 semi auto

 

[FL-NC]

I've used or at least shot every US SWS from the 1903A4 to the MK13, plus more than a few foreign designs and "custom one-off" systems. There is no "1" design that is the best. In my unit we had no less than 6 different systems available to use depending on the mission. The "ideal" deer rifle in a Florida swamp probably wouldn't be "ideal" in the Texas panhandle- even though the target is the same. For me a AR type 308 gas gun (like the SR25 I used in the mil, or the Larue OBR I own now) AND a Surgeon in 338 Lapua would be the 2 rifles closest to "perfect" a sniper team could have at their disposal to address just about any mission they may be tasked with. Of course, these would require the best scopes available by a company like US optics or Schmidt- Bender, the required software, full night capability, suppressors, and a ton of other ancillary kit.

 

[Mackay Sagebrush]

Now we're getting somewhere; a special-cut chamber for military-specific cartridges is a distinct departure from what you'd see pressed into hunting (maybe not competition so much, where custom chambers tailored to a load are most certainly a thing). By the same token, military guns will be forced into a certain set of chamberings, which ultimately limits just how well they can be tailored for a mission. I get what you're saying as far as different guns for different roles; that's what I was implying with my comment about power levels and ranges needing to be similar to a civilian application for the point to hold up. Otherwise it's easy to say hunting/military guns are different via improper apples/oranges examples. An autoloading 5.56 DMR setup for close-medium range and 300WM bolt rifle for 1000yd moonshots are wildly different as far as application, yet both are precision instruments, both are equally suitable to hunting/competition and specific military service roles. You agree? I will concede that the hunting rigs generally won't be operated to the extent of their capability (ethical shots and all that) but many shooters still hold them to high standards of absolute accuracy out to great distances, like sniper's rifles.

The high-end optics and communications gear definitely fall outside at least what I personally consider to be the 'rifle,' and in the much larger/more important basket of supplemental equipment or tactics. Well, unless it's some massively-integrated Tracking Point type deal, and not just a quality reticle/magnification unit that's sighted in. Even then, it's such a modular aspect that I would not consider it 'integral' to the rifle's design (i.e. any changes to the rifle or optic would make them incompatible as a whole 'system'). It's also a whole other can of technical worms, above and beyond the already dizzying field of mechanical firearms. Let's just assume there's a quality optic suited to the mission available to be installed on the standard pic-rail we all know this thing's gonna have on top at the end of the day

To be honest, the same can be said of specific bipods, handgaurds, stocks, or even triggers so long as there is the ability to swap in elements most suitable for a given mission (this adaptability obviously being a desirable trait for a multirole weapon), but considering these definitely fall inside the envelope of the rifle and are the primary elements effecting shooter experience (apart from optics) it makes sense to discuss them in more detail.

As far as specific design details the OP brought up, here's my unwashed-masses opinion;
-General shape (depends on size constraints, but traditional, bullpup, and FG42 are kind of the only options)
-Weight (depends entirely on cartridge, type of action, type of optic, and length requirement)
-Barrel length (depends entirely on cartridge and length requirement)
-Trigger Design (adjustability probably matters here more than most, especially for an autoloader, but off-the-shelf triggers are an easy and appealing route)
-Bolt shape and location (forward locking bolt head for best rigidity, barrel extension locking scheme makes for a better overall design)
-Materials (steel, aluminum, and plastics of suitable type/temper where proper; this is akin to asking what kind of powder in the cartridge)
-Do you like guns with exposed barrel tops: example AI AWM. Or guns that are inside chassis: example CheyTac Intervention
(enclosed handguards are structurally stiffer for a given weight, but are less comfortable to hold & are usually covered in rails and accessories on said rails that end up weighing as much as a solid 'traditional' fore end. A single, monolithic stock running from butt to fore made of a sturdy material can be stiffer and stronger across the bedded action for a given weight)
-Do you like rails? Where do you like them? (the market has spoken at present, that rails are best for optics mounting, and mere provisions for rails are suitable where grips/bipods/etc may be located, using Keymod or similar)
-Any specific bipod designs you like? Do you even like them? (above all, the bipods must be isolated from the barrel & hard-linked to the receiver. The need for a bipod is also driven by a mission role)
-Monopods (again, market & history have largely move away from these, likely because they are inefficient compared to a bipod as far as weight/bulk/effectiveness)
-Magazine capacity (driven by mission role and the size/weight requirements it carries)
-Do you like a built in scope rail, or a removable one? (who's removing their scope rails?)

The questions that (still, I think) need answering or defining by OP are; what cartridge are we using (i.e. how far/how hard are we shooting), and what position will the user be taking (dismounted patrol, use from inside a vehicle, stationary overwatch, remote scouting), and what role will the user be taking (defensive or offensive)? I'm sure Mackey is familiar with the proper terms for these diverse fields of operations as well as many I am ignorant of. There is no need for one gun to do all of them (quite the opposite; that'll only cost you sales ) but you certainly need to choose a set of conditions in order to get suggestions specific enough to be useful.

Otherwise, I'd suggest steering the discussion away from military service to which features are most marketable in a precision tactical rifle (a good bit of overlap between the two, but also a lot of difference because pure function takes a seat alongside form criteria)

TCB

My opinions/observation differ, but I think this response was well written, and lots of points certainly arguable one way or another.

One particular topic that comes up frequently is utilization in urban areas. Many mistakenly believe that shots with urban areas are considerably shorter than out in a agricultural province or something similar. The punchline is that there are often shots within built up areas that are rather extended. That said, due to many other factors, a semi auto makes a lot of sense in this role. As previously mentioned, I was issued an SR-25. It was not anywhere close to as easy to shoot precisely as an M24, but it was often the better choice for urban use, simply for the ability to quickly re-engage, or do follow up shots, as well as having a suppressor on it that allowed ease of communications in addition to the other advantages of suppressors.

It was not prefect however, and when queried while at Knight's Armament I stated that if it were up to me (within the scope of my duties) I would have a 16" rather than 20" barrel on it, and I would ditch the full length A2 style buttstock in favor of a lighter weight, adjustable buttstock, that I could adjust length of pull to match what gear I was wearing. They actually had at the time a shorter carbine version, and it made far more sense to me.

Fast forward 8 or so years and now and H&K has been awarded a contract to supply a new compact SASS. It appears to be essentially a G28, and appears to readily address the shortcomings of the M110. It makes sense to me to issue the compact .308 semi auto, along with a purpose built .300 WM bolt action in a chassis (like the newer M2010). You pretty much have covered all your bases within reason. A 2 man team with such tools would be rather formidable.

 

[barnbwt]

Fast forward 8 or so years and now and H&K has been awarded a contract to supply a new compact SASS. It appears to be essentially a G28, and appears to readily address the shortcomings of the M110. It makes sense to me to issue the compact .308 semi auto, along with a purpose built .300 WM bolt action in a chassis (like the newer M2010). You pretty much have covered all your bases within reason. A 2 man team with such tools would be rather formidable.

That makes sense, but also goes back to my point about many aspects that may influence design choices coming from outside the rifle itself. The whole 'weapons system' concept that seems to have been the preferred development theory for a decade at least. While factors relating to the other team members or communications equipment could influence weapon choice as much as the specific mission, these things aren't exactly something a guy "designing a rifle" could really do anything with. That's where, as you said, having your bases covered with a number of overlapping options is most advantageous, and as we all now know, being highly modular is the easiest way to achieve a series of products that can cover a wide array of tasks.

Were we to try and actually design something though, those factors need to be specified (otherwise we're liable to just say "make it like the AR since it's the most modular, and therefore most likely to meet vague/undefined criteria) . Maybe another way to approach this topic is to list items/features a precision service/tactical rifle must have? That way we could start from a more broad position, and then later get into the weeds.

Many mistakenly believe that shots with urban areas are considerably shorter than out in a agricultural province or something similar.

My understanding (thankfully I have no experience personally, in part from efforts by guys like you) was that shots were almost always under 300yds for small arms (not counting LMGs intended to engage further out), and the majority about half that distance. Given how streets are generally straight even in dense urban areas, and the typical length of a city block, it makes sense that engagement distances are often similar regardless; they are dependent on the reach of the human eye, and 200yds is about as far as a sharp-eyed person is likely to spot something small or suspicious. I suppose if you combine that with the fact that streets 'funnel' activity into corridors, it's even easier to identify targets to engage further away than in an open field or forest with uneven features.

 

[jmar]

Now we're getting somewhere; a special-cut chamber for military-specific cartridges is a distinct departure from what you'd see pressed into hunting (maybe not competition so much, where custom chambers tailored to a load are most certainly a thing). By the same token, military guns will be forced into a certain set of chamberings, which ultimately limits just how well they can be tailored for a mission. I get what you're saying as far as different guns for different roles; that's what I was implying with my comment about power levels and ranges needing to be similar to a civilian application for the point to hold up. Otherwise it's easy to say hunting/military guns are different via improper apples/oranges examples. An autoloading 5.56 DMR setup for close-medium range and 300WM bolt rifle for 1000yd moonshots are wildly different as far as application, yet both are precision instruments, both are equally suitable to hunting/competition and specific military service roles. You agree? I will concede that the hunting rigs generally won't be operated to the extent of their capability (ethical shots and all that) but many shooters still hold them to high standards of absolute accuracy out to great distances, like sniper's rifles.

The high-end optics and communications gear definitely fall outside at least what I personally consider to be the 'rifle,' and in the much larger/more important basket of supplemental equipment or tactics. Well, unless it's some massively-integrated Tracking Point type deal, and not just a quality reticle/magnification unit that's sighted in. Even then, it's such a modular aspect that I would not consider it 'integral' to the rifle's design (i.e. any changes to the rifle or optic would make them incompatible as a whole 'system'). It's also a whole other can of technical worms, above and beyond the already dizzying field of mechanical firearms. Let's just assume there's a quality optic suited to the mission available to be installed on the standard pic-rail we all know this thing's gonna have on top at the end of the day

To be honest, the same can be said of specific bipods, handgaurds, stocks, or even triggers so long as there is the ability to swap in elements most suitable for a given mission (this adaptability obviously being a desirable trait for a multirole weapon), but considering these definitely fall inside the envelope of the rifle and are the primary elements effecting shooter experience (apart from optics) it makes sense to discuss them in more detail.

As far as specific design details the OP brought up, here's my unwashed-masses opinion;
-General shape (depends on size constraints, but traditional, bullpup, and FG42 are kind of the only options)
-Weight (depends entirely on cartridge, type of action, type of optic, and length requirement)
-Barrel length (depends entirely on cartridge and length requirement)
-Trigger Design (adjustability probably matters here more than most, especially for an autoloader, but off-the-shelf triggers are an easy and appealing route)
-Bolt shape and location (forward locking bolt head for best rigidity, barrel extension locking scheme makes for a better overall design)
-Materials (steel, aluminum, and plastics of suitable type/temper where proper; this is akin to asking what kind of powder in the cartridge)
-Do you like guns with exposed barrel tops: example AI AWM. Or guns that are inside chassis: example CheyTac Intervention
(enclosed handguards are structurally stiffer for a given weight, but are less comfortable to hold & are usually covered in rails and accessories on said rails that end up weighing as much as a solid 'traditional' fore end. A single, monolithic stock running from butt to fore made of a sturdy material can be stiffer and stronger across the bedded action for a given weight)
-Do you like rails? Where do you like them? (the market has spoken at present, that rails are best for optics mounting, and mere provisions for rails are suitable where grips/bipods/etc may be located, using Keymod or similar)
-Any specific bipod designs you like? Do you even like them? (above all, the bipods must be isolated from the barrel & hard-linked to the receiver. The need for a bipod is also driven by a mission role)
-Monopods (again, market & history have largely move away from these, likely because they are inefficient compared to a bipod as far as weight/bulk/effectiveness)
-Magazine capacity (driven by mission role and the size/weight requirements it carries)
-Do you like a built in scope rail, or a removable one? (who's removing their scope rails?)

The questions that (still, I think) need answering or defining by OP are; what cartridge are we using (i.e. how far/how hard are we shooting), and what position will the user be taking (dismounted patrol, use from inside a vehicle, stationary overwatch, remote scouting), and what role will the user be taking (defensive or offensive)? I'm sure Mackey is familiar with the proper terms for these diverse fields of operations as well as many I am ignorant of. There is no need for one gun to do all of them (quite the opposite; that'll only cost you sales ) but you certainly need to choose a set of conditions in order to get suggestions specific enough to be useful.

Otherwise, I'd suggest steering the discussion away from military service to which features are most marketable in a precision tactical rifle (a good bit of overlap between the two, but also a lot of difference because pure function takes a seat alongside form criteria)

TCB

Thanks for your input that's more like the type of reply i'm looking for. Since people keep asking let's just say the caliber will be .308 and .50BMG '2 rifles, similar design just up-scaled so don't really worry about the bigger one'.

-Do you like a built in scope rail, or a removable one? (who's removing their scope rails?)

If a scope rail is removable you can replace it with rails with built in MOA.