• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Army sets sights on new sniper rifle

Vox said:
Well, whatever it is.......it will probably surprise us.

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Not as much as it will surprise those poor individuals on the receiving end. :cool:
 
braindrain said:
I think you are confusing reality with what you watched on TV. I assure you the two are not the same. And there are no current plans within the military to replace the M16 series of weapons.

For the Army's new sniper rifle it looks like it will either be 260 or 6.5 Creedmoor with it most likely being the 6.5.

Not sharing the new ammo with Nato is not happening either. And that's a good thing because it would be a really dumb idea.

I don't know where you are getting your information from but you should probably find a new source.
Click to expand...

I don't watch much TV, but my younger son is now working ordinance procurement. Technology has progressed exponentially. The Israelis have already deployed some polymer ammunition. They are not the only military moving in this direction. The expense is much lower, the weight is much lower, meaning a soldier can carry more rounds. Accuracy is no longer dependent upon the soldier, making training simpler and less expensive. Need I go on?

NATO is no longer a trusted alliance thanks to the EU, and that has nothing to do with Trump.

I have no doubt your acumen of chemistry, physics, micro explosives, technology and so forth is superior to my own. As an investor who does invest in defense industries (not that I believe "defense" is an appropriate word), my research is rarely on point and I am certain you enjoy better returns. I firmly believe you would be shocked to learn which sectors have involved themselves in leading edge developments for small arms. And the military handguns we are familiar with will also wax nostalgically. The day of associating and measuring stopping power with caliber is coming to an end. Proof of evolution, the human species keeps finding better methods for killing each other.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Since the US Army is seeking to replace the M platform in its entirety, it is not likely current standard ammo choices will figure into the decision making process. With the need for replacing both standard carry and long range mission requirements, it is more likely we will see a revolutionary move toward .264 polymer multi-purpose ammo as a requirement for any new platform. .264 polymer ammo can carry programmed explosive loads, and guided electronics as needed. In other words this means programable after launch via radio from observer drones for long distance (up to 3.8 miles) targets on the move, as well as close range high velocity (under 300 yards) armor piercing even of our current M1A1,2,3 or the T80, T90 variants. Personal body armor becomes useless at short ranges thanks to vastly increased velocity, significantly reduced weight and computer guided heat and imaging accuracy. True point and shoot. The bullet that can be fired around corners and follow the target once locked on. There's an app for that. The greater concerns are ruggedness and protection from hacking for hand held computers. Times have changed.

SOCOM prototypes (as well as other manufacturers) have weighed in at less than half of anything offered on the M platform, with greater versatility for mods, functioning without mishap during testing in all environments. Impervious to sand, water, and other debris or weather conditions, cold or heat. All at lower expense than our current weapons in use when scale of manufacturing is brought up to snuff. These are weapons that will be robotically built for precision and controls. Untouched by human hands and lack of skills.

BTW, different purpose loads can be differentiated by color coding the polymer.

General discussions have made it clear, if adopted, this platform will not be offered to NATO, never be sold or supplied to other military forces, and never be released for the civilian market.
Click to expand...

I think these things you mention are far in the future and fairly unlikely. Sharing with NATO is a standard that will not change and standardized ammunition is an absolute priority.

Besides that, you're talking about some incredibly expensive changes in replacing current weapons systems with all new calibers and technology.

The military moves slowly and carefully.
 
Vox said:
I think these things you mention are far in the future and fairly unlikely. Sharing with NATO is a standard that will not change and standardized ammunition is an absolute priority.

Besides that, you're talking about some incredibly expensive changes in replacing current weapons systems with all new calibers and technology.

The military moves slowly and carefully.
Click to expand...

It's been 4 1/2 years since the US Army started looking at replacements for the M platform, with breathtaking technology advancement since the search started. Standing down on change can be far more expensive than moving on. We've been asking our soldiers to do more with less, now we can accomplish more with less soldiers. Fortunately, armchair generals will not be leading the charge for change. Nor will politicians seeking home state defense contract advantages. The changes are coming from American technology companies traditionally without a stake in defense contracting, yet with their leads in fields that are applicable, changes will come far more quickly than ever before, and we have the personnel from our leading military academies well versed in modern technology to make it happen.

When micro explosives designed for deep sea mining and potential asteroid defense are shown to be effective bullet loads that can pierce the armor of an Abrams, and the round is guided to its target by a hand held computer, like slicing butter with a hot knife, the US Army will not sit back to examine competing offerings that cannot deliver. That demonstration was made two years ago in Israel by an American company no one would suspect of defense industry aspirations. Change will come incrementally, but more rapidly than in the past. How long has it taken smart phones to become ubiquitous and land lines a quickly fading memory. Still in progress, but advancing daily. My mobile phone is a more powerful computer than the desktop I used 15 years ago.

NATO is not as appreciated or trusted as many believe. Today it is suspect, thanks to EU policies and aspirations.

The future is here and now.

BTW It's been more than a year since a British sniper took out a target in Afghanistan from more than 1 mile away. Time and technology has not stood still. This time, American military managers will not allow superior technology land in enemy hands via so called allies.
 
Vox said:
Sabots might have reliability problems in a semi-auto. I've never tried that.
Click to expand...

In small arms they have an accuracy problem. Go to any 'gun' rubber bulletin board and see.

The burning propellant at the base of a bullet has been tried as well- too small an amount that doesn't burn reliably enough for accuracy.

I don't see how the German rifle is 'better' than what we already have, any upgrades are easily worked into what is issued now. Shorter barrel, new barrel lining, new ammo, etc

1.5 MOA accuracy is about standard for any semi sniper rifle. MY DPMS does that and I doubt it costs 1/10th what the Army pays for a rifle... :peace
 
Vox said:
Indeed a mystery.

Since it's the same round there must be a special bullet with increased penetration.

Frankly, I'm skeptical in the extreme.

I don't see how it's possible to increase the penetration significantly in the same cartridge.
Click to expand...

Funny how the laws of physics have remained the same all this time, yet the Pentagon keeps trying to come up with some "other" new magic bullet.
Flashback to the early 60's with the 5.56.
 
Lutherf said:
6.5 Creedmore could easily replace the 7.65x51 but for heavy duty long range work the .338 Lapua and .408 CheyTac are tough to beat.
Click to expand...

The .338 Lapua is great for professionals.
However, have you seen the number of .338 Lapua caliber rifles for sale on-line by "tough guys" who had their fillings shaken out?
I looked at one of the rounds out of a box once....no thank you.
That German 7.62 NATO in my little Spanish FR-8 is about the limit of my recoil tolerance.

If I want to get beat up that bad, I will put on a MAGA hat and walk around in the Montrose area of Houston.
 
notquiteright said:
In small arms they have an accuracy problem. Go to any 'gun' rubber bulletin board and see.

The burning propellant at the base of a bullet has been tried as well- too small an amount that doesn't burn reliably enough for accuracy.

I don't see how the German rifle is 'better' than what we already have, any upgrades are easily worked into what is issued now. Shorter barrel, new barrel lining, new ammo, etc

1.5 MOA accuracy is about standard for any semi sniper rifle. MY DPMS does that and I doubt it costs 1/10th what the Army pays for a rifle... :peace
Click to expand...

The mystery has been solved above anyway.

The writer of the original article was confused and did not realize the improvement was simply going from 5.56 to 7.62 NATO.
 
PleasantValley said:
Funny how the laws of physics have remained the same all this time, yet the Pentagon keeps trying to come up with some "other" new magic bullet.
Flashback to the early 60's with the 5.56.
Click to expand...

See the post above.

The magic bullet was just the normal 7.62 NATO.
 
Vox said:
The mystery has been solved above anyway.

The writer of the original article was confused and did not realize the improvement was simply going from 5.56 to 7.62 NATO.
Click to expand...

Hmm... see post #2.
 
Vox said:
Right.......you had the answer, but there was nothing in the original article to suggest that answer.

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

True, but the emphasis (in that rather hard to read article) seemed to be on reducing the weight of a 7.62 rifle (to compensate for the heavier ammo?) - making it less of a burden than carrying the already lighter 5.56 rifles now in (more?) common use.
 
OldFatGuy said:
It's been 4 1/2 years since the US Army started looking at replacements for the M platform, with breathtaking technology advancement since the search started. Standing down on change can be far more expensive than moving on. We've been asking our soldiers to do more with less, now we can accomplish more with less soldiers. Fortunately, armchair generals will not be leading the charge for change. Nor will politicians seeking home state defense contract advantages. The changes are coming from American technology companies traditionally without a stake in defense contracting, yet with their leads in fields that are applicable, changes will come far more quickly than ever before, and we have the personnel from our leading military academies well versed in modern technology to make it happen.

When micro explosives designed for deep sea mining and potential asteroid defense are shown to be effective bullet loads that can pierce the armor of an Abrams, and the round is guided to its target by a hand held computer, like slicing butter with a hot knife, the US Army will not sit back to examine competing offerings that cannot deliver. That demonstration was made two years ago in Israel by an American company no one would suspect of defense industry aspirations. Change will come incrementally, but more rapidly than in the past. How long has it taken smart phones to become ubiquitous and land lines a quickly fading memory. Still in progress, but advancing daily. My mobile phone is a more powerful computer than the desktop I used 15 years ago.

NATO is not as appreciated or trusted as many believe. Today it is suspect, thanks to EU policies and aspirations.

The future is here and now.

BTW It's been more than a year since a British sniper took out a target in Afghanistan from more than 1 mile away. Time and technology has not stood still. This time, American military managers will not allow superior technology land in enemy hands via so called allies.
Click to expand...
Again you are just posting complete nonsense. Virtually nothing you have posted on this thread is even remotely true.
But here's your chance. Back up some of what you say. Show me a small arms round that can defeat the armor on an M1 Abrams. Show me a bullet that while in flight can turn and shoot around corners. Show me these breath taking improvements over the M4.

People have been engaging targets with precision rifles for decades now. Being able to shoot that far is nothing new.


I think you really should stop posting on topics your knowledge base is obviously completely lacking. Stick to what ever topic you actually know about and stop telling fairytales and maybe you wouldn't look so ridiculous.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
True, but the emphasis (in that rather hard to read article) seemed to be on reducing the weight of a 7.62 rifle (to compensate for the heavier ammo?) - making it less of a burden than carrying the already lighter 5.56 rifles now in (more?) common use.
Click to expand...

Yes, that writer had things all twisted up.

But you somehow got the right answer.

(Intuition?)

:thumbs:
 
Vox said:
See the post above.

The magic bullet was just the normal 7.62 NATO.
Click to expand...

Sucking my thumb in confident peace as I hug my FAL carbine and shut off the lights....
Goodnight, Chesty, wherever you are.
 
Vox said:
The mystery has been solved above anyway. The writer of the original article was confused and did not realize the improvement was simply going from 5.56 to 7.62 NATO.
Click to expand...

Yeah that blasted lame stream media- can't get even the simple crap straight.... ;)

Several things confused me- for quite awhile now the 'Merican semi industry has been cranking out excellent to crappy semis. I can't help but wonder why a European company will produce our squad marksman weapon.

Next it is the squad marksman weapon. I was straight leg, and a Mech monkey back in the old 113 Alcoa can APC days. The exact role, level of training and weapon to be used has been a bit of a football.

Is he a super grunt or a lower level sniper? Does his weapon need to use the same ammo as the squad or will he be an ammo queen needing his own special ammo? Is he to make the 'through the scope' shot or take out a hunkered down machine gunner? Does he go out as part of a patrol? Guys were a tad skiddish about carrying the old M16A1 (musket) in a team of M4's as they felt they were bullet magnets- the bad guys thinking the bigger rifle was important.

Body armor is a quandary- if it is that important an issue then wouldn't you want the ENTIRE squad armed with an effective answer to improved body armor??? Then there is the issue of Body Armor defeating ammo not being as effective on soft no vest opponents. It tends to 'zip' right through.

Back when the operational tempo was intense any rifleman and any rifle was thrown into DM- the variety of rifles, from old M14's to boutique specialty, to mid sized company's concept was issued. Now the force as stabilized- well as much as the Infantry ever stabilizes- and the thinkers be thinking- expand the DM mission, polish the cannonball, at a neat bell and a sweet sounding whistle who knows...

Will the DM be trained to a sniper standard as the 7.62 is a basic, school trained sniper round. Will he be a better than average shot in the squad so every squad has a 'sniper-lite' member... all will be tossed about for a bit...

But why not a 'Merican rifle??? :peace
 
braindrain said:
Again you are just posting complete nonsense. Virtually nothing you have posted on this thread is even remotely true.
But here's your chance. Back up some of what you say. Show me a small arms round that can defeat the armor on an M1 Abrams. Show me a bullet that while in flight can turn and shoot around corners. Show me these breath taking improvements over the M4.

People have been engaging targets with precision rifles for decades now. Being able to shoot that far is nothing new.


I think you really should stop posting on topics your knowledge base is obviously completely lacking. Stick to what ever topic you actually know about and stop telling fairytales and maybe you wouldn't look so ridiculous.
Click to expand...

On the path to what is coming:

https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/guided_weapons
Sandia's Self-Guided Bullet | Military.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD9utBMQ4SU
https://www.tracking-point.com/pres...litary-squad-level-precision-guided-firearms/
https://newatlas.com/darpa-sniper-bullet-change-path/32952/

All of the above is general knowledge and already old technology. I've given you a heads up to what is coming. I've merely scratched the surface of what is coming in the not so distant future.

Your times are over and archaic. Where does that leave you and your ignorance? We fear what we don't know, and you are trembling at being left behind. Too late, you have already been left behind.

People die in fairy tales all the time.
 
notquiteright said:
Yeah that blasted lame stream media- can't get even the simple crap straight.... ;)

Several things confused me- for quite awhile now the 'Merican semi industry has been cranking out excellent to crappy semis. I can't help but wonder why a European company will produce our squad marksman weapon.

Next it is the squad marksman weapon. I was straight leg, and a Mech monkey back in the old 113 Alcoa can APC days. The exact role, level of training and weapon to be used has been a bit of a football.

Is he a super grunt or a lower level sniper? Does his weapon need to use the same ammo as the squad or will he be an ammo queen needing his own special ammo? Is he to make the 'through the scope' shot or take out a hunkered down machine gunner? Does he go out as part of a patrol? Guys were a tad skiddish about carrying the old M16A1 (musket) in a team of M4's as they felt they were bullet magnets- the bad guys thinking the bigger rifle was important.

Body armor is a quandary- if it is that important an issue then wouldn't you want the ENTIRE squad armed with an effective answer to improved body armor??? Then there is the issue of Body Armor defeating ammo not being as effective on soft no vest opponents. It tends to 'zip' right through.

Back when the operational tempo was intense any rifleman and any rifle was thrown into DM- the variety of rifles, from old M14's to boutique specialty, to mid sized company's concept was issued. Now the force as stabilized- well as much as the Infantry ever stabilizes- and the thinkers be thinking- expand the DM mission, polish the cannonball, at a neat bell and a sweet sounding whistle who knows...

Will the DM be trained to a sniper standard as the 7.62 is a basic, school trained sniper round. Will he be a better than average shot in the squad so every squad has a 'sniper-lite' member... all will be tossed about for a bit...

But why not a 'Merican rifle??? :peace
Click to expand...

Apparently the HK did better in the tests.

Looks like they chose the HK because it doesn't look like a sniper rifle and thus doesn't draw attention.

Looks like they'll choose the best shot for the HK and the rest of the guys will be using 5.56 so his ammo will be special (don't know if that makes him an ammo queen).......and the 5.56 guys will be there to tear up the BGs with light or zero armor.
 
OldFatGuy said:
On the path to what is coming:

https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/guided_weapons
Sandia's Self-Guided Bullet | Military.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD9utBMQ4SU
https://www.tracking-point.com/pres...litary-squad-level-precision-guided-firearms/
https://newatlas.com/darpa-sniper-bullet-change-path/32952/

All of the above is general knowledge and already old technology. I've given you a heads up to what is coming. I've merely scratched the surface of what is coming in the not so distant future.

Your times are over and archaic. Where does that leave you and your ignorance? We fear what we don't know, and you are trembling at being left behind. Too late, you have already been left behind.

People die in fairy tales all the time.
Click to expand...

You may want to reread your own links None of them talk about a bullet going around corners while in flight. Which is what your claim was. There is a world of difference between slightly adjusting course a few mils over 1500 meters and actually turning. And you might want to look a bit more into tracking point. See how they are doing now. They were big on talk small on delivering what they said.

None of them talk about small arms rounds defeating the armor of an M1. Another of you BS claims.

Is funny you claim my time is over and archaic and yet I am currently serving military and in a unit that has some of the absolute best and newest equipment in the world.

Once again it is you talking about things you have no clue about. How about you tell us more about you taking out criminals with your throwing knives again or whatever other BS it was from some of your earlier posts in other threads.
 
Last edited:
Vox said:
Apparently the HK did better in the tests. Looks like they chose the HK because it doesn't look like a sniper rifle and thus doesn't draw attention. Looks like they'll choose the best shot for the HK and the rest of the guys will be using 5.56 so his ammo will be special (don't know if that makes him an ammo queen).......and the 5.56 guys will be there to tear up the BGs with light or zero armor.
Click to expand...

So when did you serve? Any scoped rifle looks like a sniper rifle... ;)

Ummm pick the best shot? Interesting... still will need training specialized to his mission. You can't equip an entire squad with ammo that can't defeat body armor at close range because the bad guys will more and more have some sort of armor. You can't have only one guy capable of punching through body armor. I feel the article was written to justify the new weapon system, rather than address real issues.

Testing is a funny thing- when the old reliable 19911 side arm was replaced by an imported pistol (soon to be built in this country) the import was declared 'the best'... then needed special modifications because of slide issues.... :roll:

Now the article was very flawed but the standard was and apparently still is 1.5moa. Pretty much every American AR type weapon of any popularity can do that. Just odd that once again the 'not made here' mentality prevails... :peace
 
braindrain said:
You may want to reread your own links None of them talk about a bullet going around corners while in flight. Which is what your claim was. There is a world of difference between slightly adjusting course a few mils over 1500 meters and actually turning. And you might want to look a bit more into tracking point. See how they are doing now. They were big on talk small on delivering what they said.

None of them talk about small arms rounds defeating the armor of an M1. Another of you BS claims.

Is funny you claim my time is over and archaic and yet I am currently serving military and in a unit that has some of the absolute best and newest equipment in the world.

Once again it is you talking about things you have no clue about. How about you tell us more about you taking out criminals with your throwing knives again or whatever other BS it was from some of your earlier posts in other threads.
Click to expand...

I bow to your superior knowledge of physics, chemistry, micro explosive, thermal, image and other methods of signature guidance, sensor miniaturization and other technologies of near future weapons. I'm pretty sure I said ammunition or ammo, not bullets, but who recalls and nor does it matter? Do you really want to learn how reprogrammable guided ammunition functions, ask the Israelis. See if they will speak with you. :lamo

Hey, what do I know? Just a lifer whose career was cut short by friendly fire, a father of two sons who served voluntarily multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, grandfather and uncle of 6 men now serving. Anyone can be anything on the net, so excuse my doubts of your claims.

Yeah, you are an anachronism.



That's the invincible Abrams taken out by Houti rebels armed with a Soviet era ATGM. We have much better toys, much, much smaller.

No one in the US Military has access to the newest and best equipment to be had. No one in any military with exception of some Israeli special units who are experimenting in the field. And not one of those systems is from a traditional source of weaponry.



He's not one of mine. He's bit older now, more accurate and learning about better throwing weapons. Gives you an idea what can be accomplished with a throwing knife in the right hands. Mine are smaller than his.

You'll have to search their archives for explanations of micro explosives, how they are created and how they can be used, which will be tough because none of the articles are entitled by "micro explosives," you'll have to search with some understanding of the chemical compounds: https://pubs.acs.org/journal/cgdefu

Have a field day. You've earned it.
 
Wrong thread.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom