• 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

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,114
Reaction score
33,455
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Army sets sights on new sniper rifle | Fox News

When you combine the skill of U.S. soldiers with this new mighty sniper rifle, it means very bad news for those foolish enough to take on the United States.




Army squads’ designated marksmen have been using the M110A1 7.62mm semi-automatic sniper rifle – but threats have evolved and U.S. soldiers deserve the best rifle for the job.
Enemy body armor is one of these evolving challenges. Russian-made advanced armor increasingly protects U.S. adversaries. In war zones, U.S. boots on the ground have had to contend with terrorist group ISIS protected by armor – and by ever stronger armor.

U.S. soldiers need a sniper rifle that they can always rely on to penetrate these types of strong armor and stop the threat.
Click to expand...
I wonder what the "secret sauce" is.
 
Article says m249 is probably going as well. I've heard about the m240 that replaced most of the saws already? Not long I'll be an old timer with a different rifle than the new-fangled military. We had 1911s but converted to m9s.
 
American said:
I wonder what the "secret sauce" is.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Mainly reduced weight and upgrading from 5.56 to 7.62 ammo.
Click to expand...

As I read the article it looks like there is not an upgrade......both old and new used 7.62 NATO.

That's what makes it so interesting.
 
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.
 
Vox said:
As I read the article it looks like there is not an upgrade......both old and new used 7.62 NATO.

That's what makes it so interesting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's something to ponder...
 
longview said:
If money is not an obstruction, they might be able to apply technology that extended the range of artillery
in the 80's. Allowing the projectile to not slow down as fast would keep the impact energy up.
Click to expand...

Can you summarize what they did to slow the loss of velocity?
 
Vox said:
Can you summarize what they did to slow the loss of velocity?
Click to expand...
In artillery, my understanding is that they included a slower burning propellant at the base of the projectile,
that kept a vacuum from forming behind the projectile. This made the projectile slip through the air better.
 
Vox said:
As I read the article it looks like there is not an upgrade......both old and new used 7.62 NATO.

That's what makes it so interesting.
Click to expand...

Maybe reduced barrel friction?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Maybe reduced barrel friction?
Click to expand...

That would mean the muzzle exit velocity actually increased. That could be part of the equation, but I think there's got to be more to it.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
That would mean the muzzle exit velocity actually increased. That could be part of the equation, but I think there's got to be more to it.
Click to expand...

Other than changing the round (bullet shape/coating?) it seems that barrel twist rate and friction are all that is left. I doubt that moving the gas port would make much difference.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Other than changing the round (bullet shape/coating?) it seems that barrel twist rate and friction are all that is left. I doubt that moving the gas port would make much difference.
Click to expand...

Twist rate is very important in achieving stability over range. Quite a balancing act to begin with. I will look forward to getting the full scoop on this.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Other than changing the round (bullet shape/coating?) it seems that barrel twist rate and friction are all that is left. I doubt that moving the gas port would make much difference.
Click to expand...

Yeah, some sort of high tech slippery bore and slippery bullet and maybe extra hard bullet are all I can think of at this point.

I imagine they already use the optimal ballistic coefficient and probably in a boattail bullet.

Hard to believe some new advance has been made in bullet shape.

If they actually do have something really new they'll keep it secret so I suppose we won't know for a long time, maybe never.
 
Vox said:
Sabots might have reliability problems in a semi-auto.

I've never tried that.
Click to expand...
I would be more concerned with the accuracy, but they might have worked those problems out.
There are videos out there of hand loaders with sabots getting over 4500 fps.
 
longview said:
I would be more concerned with the accuracy, but they might have worked those problems out.
There are videos out there of hand loaders with sabots getting over 4500 fps.
Click to expand...

Well, whatever it is.......it will probably surprise us.

:thumbs:
 
This article makes me think that TTWTT was right in the first place even though that first article didn't say it.

Looks like some of the writers have been confused and it's not an improved 7.62 NATO but just the switch from 5.56 to 7.62 NATO that brings the improvement.

https://www.military.com/kitup/2017/05/modern-enemy-body-armor.html

The U.S. Army's chief of staff told Congress the M4 Carbine's 5.56mm round can't penetrate modern enemy body armor plates and believes Infantry units need a more powerful rifle than the M4.
Click to expand...
 
working on getting my hands on a .338 Lapua... between that and a nicely tricked out Remington Model 700 in .308 -- don't need much more. (30-06 isn't a bad choice either but why add another caliber to buy ammo for. .308 gives you a twofer with the 700 & SOCOM 16)
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom