For You Snipers out There

[Newboomer]

What comes out of the office is not necessarily what goes outside the wire. What goes outside the wire is what works for that mission.

 

[Red Leg]

Exactly. The bosses can buy these all they like. No one is going to use them as these idiots bought them.

The “Bosses”? “idiots”? Seriously? Acquisitions aren’t done that way - and I speak from meaningful experience on both sides of the fence. The requirement is generated based upon combat experience. The fact that there was joint service agreement in the acquisition of this weapon meant that a lot of tough Marine Gunnies and Army marksman NCO’s had a lot of input in the final requirements document. A number of competitors offered solutions for that requirement set and a selection board that included a set of those same end users made the down select. As a former company, battalion, and brigade commander (along with ADC(M) of an infantry division), I am all about simplified training, support, and application. As a former VP of a major defense corporation, I am all about answering that requirement set precisely. A common platform, answers a lot of those wishes. And no, a sniper is not going into the field with a set of barrels on his back. What he can do is configure HIS rifle for a specific deployment or mission without retraining on a totally different system. Makes those idiots seem pretty smart to me. This is one of those occasions where the DOD agreed to spend money wisely at the tip of the spear rather than on the latest exotic unmanned recon platform.

 

[Chago]

The “Bosses”? “idiots”? Seriously? Acquisitions aren’t done that way - and I speak from meaningful experience on both sides of the fence. The requirement is generated based upon combat experience. The fact that there was joint service agreement in the acquisition of this weapon meant that a lot of tough Marine Gunnies and Army marksman NCO’s had a lot of input in the final requirements document. A number of competitors offered solutions for that requirement set and a selection board that included a set of those same end users made the down select. As a former company, battalion, and brigade commander (along with ADC(M) of an infantry division), I am all about simplified training, support, and application. As a former VP of a major defense corporation, I am all about answering that requirement set precisely. A common platform, answers a lot of those wishes. And no, a sniper is not going into the field with a set of barrels on his back. What he can do is configure HIS rifle for a specific deployment or mission without retraining on a totally different system. Makes those idiots seem pretty smart to me. This is one of those occasions where the DOD agreed to spend money wisely at the tip of the spear rather than on the latest exotic unmanned recon platform.

Ok I shouldn't have said stupid. That's fair. But
with all that experience which I don't doubt by the way. I am sure you aware of how many sniper or DMR rifles the US military has procured in a process Just like you have described above. And ended up being dropped faster then they were procured. And by dropped I mean never procured again. To this day the m40 I believe is the system with the most quantity in circulation. It is as of 2018 after all of these years that they are finally replacing them with the MK13 Mod 7 which I actually have one in the safe. (obviously not a us military issue but same system made by same factory) and this rifle is sticking and slowly being procured to replace them all. Or at least for now.

Listen I could be wrong. And I shouldn't have said stupid. But if I was a betting man, based on my experience actually using these systems. This will be another one time purchase as the added cost of multi caliber rifle is not worth it considering how little that feature will be used. I had multiple issued rifles and would 100% preferred to keep the that way. Because I had rifles set up and zeroed not only for the caliber but for the purpose. The only benefit I can see to this is not changing calibers but to change shot out barrels in the field. But even that would realistically never happen on a single deployment.

 

[Chago]

I realize I wasn't clear when I said being issued 2 rifles and why it was better. As mentioned a rifle is set up for a purpose. In theory it sounds great, sure change the barrel and bolt and now your 308 went to 338 etc. But keep in my mind there is much more to it. Different glass is used between those rifle set ups, and most would prefer that from my experience. Because again the difference of carrying a 308 vs a 338 is yes due to effective range. But effective range differences means a completely different battlefield. Completely different set of needs etc. In Canada you typically had a McMillan tac 50 and a pgw c14 338 lapua. Both set up and ready to rock depending on the purpose. I think and again speaking for myself. I would think when your life and other people's lives are on the line. I would want everything set up to my liking prior too. That way when she is put in the pack I leave with 100% confidence. I think even hunters can relate to that. And not having to tinker with something, rezero, pick a glass that would be a one size fits all, pick chassis that would be one size fits all etc. Again my 2 cents.

 

[Red Leg]

I realize I wasn't clear when I said being issued 2 rifles and why it was better. As mentioned a rifle is set up for a purpose. In theory it sounds great, sure change the barrel and bolt and now your 308 went to 338 etc. But keep in my mind there is much more to it. Different glass is used between those rifle set ups, and most would prefer that from my experience. Because again the difference of carrying a 308 vs a 338 is yes due to effective range. But effective range differences means a completely different battlefield. Completely different set of needs etc. In Canada you typically had a McMillan tac 50 and a pgw c14 338 lapua. Both set up and ready to rock depending on the purpose. I think and again speaking for myself. I would think when your life and other people's lives are on the line. I would want everything set up to my liking prior too. That way when she is put in the pack I leave with 100% confidence. I think even hunters can relate to that. And not having to tinker with something, rezero, pick a glass that would be a one size fits all, pick chassis that would be one size fits all etc. Again my 2 cents.

Who said you wouldn’t be issued two of the new rifles? The advantage is in configuring like platforms. If your mission required you to be ready to roll with either a NATO standard or something with more reach out range, then you would have a couple of platforms ready to go. The advantage is having a single platform to support both for logistics and training - particularly if it works. For the USMC and Army to agree on anything took a lot of extensive field testing at Quantico, Bragg, and Benning. Because it has its own procurement process, I suspect JSOC will merely add the new platform rather than immediately replace anything.

But look guys, what I am reacting to more than anything is the typical procurement debacle that has plagued the Army since Reagan - which was the last time The US Army had a successful major procurement era (M1, M2, Apache, Blackhawk). Since then, every major acquisition has died largely due to catcalls from within. Crusader, IFV, FCS etc, etc were all killed because our critics could always find a choir within the Army critical of the procurement. The other services, who remain in lockstep behind F22, F35, the new carriers, etc then gladly gobble up that planned spending. The reaction here to what should be good news about the two primary ground combat institutions getting together on a modern acquisition is in microcosm what happened annually in DOD and on the Hill every year.

I retired as Army Chief of Legislative Liaison largely because of the Crusader Artillery debacle where I simply grew tired of defending it against both Donald Rumsfeld (an old man with a lot of American blood on his hands) and my own armor branch (who wanted a next gen tank which the Army has also never procured).

All that is a long way around to trying to explain a visceral reaction. I have utmost respect for you lads who actually employed those weapons in combat. I respect your opinions. Just try to remember, a bunch of guys just like you participated in the requirement development. A bunch more tested the offers from industry. And another set participated in the actual down select. I also suspect no one on this forum, to include myself, has a clue to the actual TTP’s (tactics, techniques, and procedures) that will govern their actual future employment.

Finally, like the generation that came out of Vietnam, it is highly unlikely that the next conflict will be fought by making excursions beyond the wire. Both the USMC and Army are determined to return to the skills associated with maneuver warfare. For snipers, that will create a whole new set of challenges and requirements. Hopefully, this procurement will help address some of those.

 

[Chago]

Who said you wouldn’t be issued two of the new rifles? The advantage is in configuring like platforms. If your mission required you to be ready to roll with either a NATO standard or something with more reach out range, then you would have a couple of platforms ready to go. The advantage is having a single platform to support both for logistics and training - particularly if it works. For the USMC and Army to agree on anything took a lot of extensive field testing at Quantico, Bragg, and Benning. Because it has its own procurement process, I suspect JSOC will merely add the new platform rather than immediately replace anything.

But look guys, what I am reacting to more than anything is the typical procurement debacle that has plagued the Army since Reagan - which was the last time The US Army had a successful major procurement era (M1, M2, Apache, Blackhawk). Since then, every major acquisition has died largely due to catcalls from within. Crusader, IFV, FCS etc, etc were all killed because our critics could always find a choir within the Army critical of the procurement. The other services, who remain in lockstep behind F22, F35, the new carriers, etc then gladly gobble up that planned spending. The reaction here to what should be good news about the two primary ground combat institutions getting together on a modern acquisition is in microcosm what happened annually in DOD and on the Hill every year.

I retired as Army Chief of Legislative Liaison largely because of the Crusader Artillery debacle where I simply grew tired of defending it against both Donald Rumsfeld (an old man with a lot of American blood on his hands) and my own armor branch (who wanted a next gen tank which the Army has also never procured).

All that is a long way around to trying to explain a visceral reaction. I have utmost respect for you lads who actually employed those weapons in combat. I respect your opinions. Just try to remember, a bunch of guys just like you participated in the requirement development. A bunch more tested the offers from industry. And another set participated in the actual down select. I also suspect no one on this forum, to include myself, has a clue to the actual TTP’s (tactics, techniques, and procedures) that will govern their actual future employment.

Finally, like the generation that came out of Vietnam, it is highly unlikely that the next conflict will be fought by making excursions beyond the wire. Both the USMC and Army are determined to return to the skills associated with maneuver warfare. For snipers, that will create a whole new set of challenges and requirements. Hopefully, this procurement will help address some of those.

Amen to that.

 

[raimanparoni]

My opinion is that training is the most important thing. No matter what gear you have.

 

[SFC Ronald "Kilmore" Moore]

Impossible set of circumstances to make the multi caliber weapon viable in a combat environment. Ideally you would have a separate scope for each caliber, and the supporting kit to deploy the weapon. We tried using one scope (NightForce ATACR) and dope to support the caliber changes and it was the most dyslexic nightmare you could ever want to deal with. Accuracy International was early in the game with Mil grade multi Caliber weapons systems, EDM was another good one. I had a .408 Cheytac with a spare .338 Lapua Mag barrel and it was enough to turn my hair gray. It all sounds marvelous in a presentation complete with Power Point, but the reality is: Give shooter one or two good rifles that he/she has trained extensively with and let the mission and the soldier make his own decision on what to use.

 

[SFC Ronald "Kilmore" Moore]

My thought on the multiple caliber is that the gun can be on the far side of the supply chain and still operate. Availability of .308 would at least keep it shooting if not as accurately.

SOCOM dumped 7.62 for the 6.5 Creedmore.

 

[SFC Ronald "Kilmore" Moore]

What comes out of the office is not necessarily what goes outside the wire. What goes outside the wire is what works for that mission.

Word out.

 

[Newboomer]

6.5CR replacing 7.62. Sounds like the old days of going to a lighter, faster system when the 5.56 came in. Personally, for popping people, I'd favor the 6.5Cr over 7.62 or 5.56. Better range and with the right projectile just as deadly.

 

[Ray B]

Back when we were shooting .223" at them and they were shooting .311" at us I recall that each side thought the other side had the better cartridge. I guess that was because both sides would see the damage that was caused. I recall thinking that splitting the difference at about .264 would be about right. A lot of militaries used the 6.5mm with various case configurations, so there's a decent track record.

 

[SFC Ronald "Kilmore" Moore]

The new belted machine guns are slated to be .338 Norma. General Dynamics has a real nice version. Sig also has a good gun.

 

[SFC Ronald "Kilmore" Moore]

Who said you wouldn’t be issued two of the new rifles? The advantage is in configuring like platforms. If your mission required you to be ready to roll with either a NATO standard or something with more reach out range, then you would have a couple of platforms ready to go. The advantage is having a single platform to support both for logistics and training - particularly if it works. For the USMC and Army to agree on anything took a lot of extensive field testing at Quantico, Bragg, and Benning. Because it has its own procurement process, I suspect JSOC will merely add the new platform rather than immediately replace anything.

But look guys, what I am reacting to more than anything is the typical procurement debacle that has plagued the Army since Reagan - which was the last time The US Army had a successful major procurement era (M1, M2, Apache, Blackhawk). Since then, every major acquisition has died largely due to catcalls from within. Crusader, IFV, FCS etc, etc were all killed because our critics could always find a choir within the Army critical of the procurement. The other services, who remain in lockstep behind F22, F35, the new carriers, etc then gladly gobble up that planned spending. The reaction here to what should be good news about the two primary ground combat institutions getting together on a modern acquisition is in microcosm what happened annually in DOD and on the Hill every year.

I retired as Army Chief of Legislative Liaison largely because of the Crusader Artillery debacle where I simply grew tired of defending it against both Donald Rumsfeld (an old man with a lot of American blood on his hands) and my own armor branch (who wanted a next gen tank which the Army has also never procured).

All that is a long way around to trying to explain a visceral reaction. I have utmost respect for you lads who actually employed those weapons in combat. I respect your opinions. Just try to remember, a bunch of guys just like you participated in the requirement development. A bunch more tested the offers from industry. And another set participated in the actual down select. I also suspect no one on this forum, to include myself, has a clue to the actual TTP’s (tactics, techniques, and procedures) that will govern their actual future employment.

Finally, like the generation that came out of Vietnam, it is highly unlikely that the next conflict will be fought by making excursions beyond the wire. Both the USMC and Army are determined to return to the skills associated with maneuver warfare. For snipers, that will create a whole new set of challenges and requirements. Hopefully, this procurement will help address some of those.

The Russian Army now employs 3 echelons of snipers at different distances when they operate. Their outside line of defense/offense is at 3000 meters. The mil got some catching up to do as SOTIC graduates shooters that can hit an old tank with .50 Barrett at 2000 yards. During T&E we are using a ballistic computer called Aim-E and a magnifying device called a Charley-Terac and can engage targets out to 5000 yards with a highly modified .408 Cheytac improved. I say just call in CAS and take a smoke break.

 

[Ray B]

During T&E we are using a ballistic computer.

The T&E that we used stood for Traverse & Elevation and it was a gear mechanism that connected the M2 to the tripod.

 

[SFC Ronald "Kilmore" Moore]

The T&E that we used stood for Traverse & Elevation and it was a gear mechanism that connected the M2 to the tripod.

Training and Evaluation.

 

[Ray B]

3 echelons of snipers reminds me of an incident- the Russians had nothing on the Marines. the fire base was in the flat open area near HoiAn, SVN. The tower spotted some NVA/VC moving around slightly over 3000 yards away. The designated rifle was an M14 with Starlight scope, but 3000+ yards was beyond its capabilities. the location was too near indigenous personnel so artillery was out. So we zeroed in the M2 20 cal. with T&E gears on it we could shoot a burst, watch the arc and impact and adjust. It was really indirect fire as the tube was elevated what seemed like 20 degrees. Now for the third echelon sniper- while all of this is going on a Staff Sergeant decides he's going to get in some shooting at the enemy so he walks up to the top of the berm, pulls out his 1911 45, takes a good two handed isosceles position and proceeds to bang away at the enemy. impacts from the 45s could be seen about a hundred yards past the wire. but that didn't deter the Staff Sergeant. He emptied the magazine in the gun then went through two more. Satisfied that he had engaged and vanquished the enemy, he retired from the berm. For several days no one that I knew could pass him and keep a straight face. So much for your 3 echelons.

 

[SFC Ronald "Kilmore" Moore]

Training and Evaluation.

Testing and evaluation. My bad.

 

[ZG47]

6.5 Creedmore = 6.5 Mannlicher with a different case shape! Definitely going round in circles and ... slightly off point from the start of this thread!

 

[mark-hunter]

And optics for new mrad:
https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/army-precision-sniper-rifle-optic-leupold

5-25x56.
Is it OK?