The EXACTO Sniper Rifle Program

[pmulcahy11b]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891348,00.html

[HorseSoldier]

Cool weapon, though I don't much like their underlying thinking that "training is hard, we need to fix it with technology" . . . since that's the kind of logic that gave us the three round burst instead of auto on the M16A2.

[Ramjam]

Btw the piece is wrong.

British Army CoH Craig Harrison of the Household Cavalry successfully engaged two Taliban machine gunners south of Musa Qala in Helmand Province in Afghanistan in November 2009 at a range of 2,475 m (2,707 yd), using a L115A3 Long Range Rifle rifle chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum. These are the longest recorded and confirmed sniper kills in history. (wiki ftw).


But the idea of really long range sniper weapons has been around for years. The only problem I see being the power of current ammo being able to reach out to 3km and still being able to kill someone.

Now I know it sounds like sci-fi but wasn't the US Army working on gauss technology afew years back as a replacement for the current design of ammo and small arms.

Now that would have the range and the stopping power needed to be a long range sniper weapon (if they ever get it off the drawing board).

[Eddie]

Cool weapon, though I don't much like their underlying thinking that "training is hard, we need to fix it with technology" . . . since that's the kind of logic that gave us the three round burst instead of auto on the M16A2.

Yeah, but the full auto M16 also contributed to 50,000 rounds spent per every enemy killed in Vietnam. That's the logic that gave us the 3-round burst limiter. Automatic fire really is only necessary for machineguns.

[Eddie]

Btw the piece is wrong.

British Army CoH Craig Harrison of the Household Cavalry successfully engaged two Taliban machine gunners south of Musa Qala in Helmand Province in Afghanistan in November 2009 at a range of 2,475 m (2,707 yd), using a L115A3 Long Range Rifle rifle chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum. These are the longest recorded and confirmed sniper kills in history. (wiki ftw).

Pardon the writer. He wrote it 15 APR and the article about Harrison was released 02 MAY.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I love the title, Soon Rifles That Kill From a Mile Away, I remember the safety warning on packets of .22LR bullets saying that the round can be dangerous for a distance of up to one mile...
The writer still slipped up somewhat, he says Cpl Furlong's first two shots missed but that's not correct. The first missed and the second hit the target's backpack and was thus prevented from killing him. The third shot was a killing hit

[Ramjam]

You are so correct Eddie.

I looked at the date on the article and swear we were still in April.

Where has the year gone

[headquarters]

full auto

Yeah, but the full auto M16 also contributed to 50,000 rounds spent per every enemy killed in Vietnam. That's the logic that gave us the 3-round burst limiter. Automatic fire really is only necessary for machineguns.

must say I love the full auto option on my NG HK 416 - but I admit its more fun than practical.

Steady flow of single shots with either accuracy or speed is more effecient.I think the V.2.0 rules takes this into account .Bursts are only really efficient when firing at multiple targets in specific situations or if rifle skill is :1.

[HorseSoldier]

Yeah, but the full auto M16 also contributed to 50,000 rounds spent per every enemy killed in Vietnam. That's the logic that gave us the 3-round burst limiter. Automatic fire really is only necessary for machineguns.

Poor training gave us the Vietnam kill ratios.

Automatic capability on an infantry carbine/rifle is rarely necessary, but when it is applicable not having that tool in the tool box because some genius decided a technical fix to a training issue was the way to go is a gross disservice to the troops.

[Eddie]

Poor training gave us the Vietnam kill ratios.

That was also a contributor.

Automatic capability on an infantry carbine/rifle is rarely necessary, but when it is applicable not having that tool in the tool box because some genius decided a technical fix to a training issue was the way to go is a gross disservice to the troops.

I'll agree with this to a point. But I also put forth that anything you need to do with automatic fire can be just as effective with aimed fire save elements of machinegun theory such as grazing fire.

An Infantry Carbine and a machinegun are two different tools. Similar to a flat-head screwdriver and a Phillips-head screwdriver. They look alike. They both put screws in things. They both do it by turning. But one is much more precise than the other one.

[HorseSoldier]

I agree -- I never saw much firsthand utility in burst with either the M16A2s and M4s or with auto on the M4A1 I've been issued down through the years. But, if you're going to add one option or the other to a weapon, the burst capability as implemented on the M16 series is an unnecessary mechanical complication and potential failure point that was only adopted because senior leadership lacked the will to implement meaningful combat marksmanship training.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

If I remember correctly there was a (somewhat but not exactly) similar situation in the British Army when they changed over from the .303 SMLE to the 7.62mm L1A1. The higher-ups, expressed the belief that the squaddies could not be trusted with a weapon that could fire full-auto so the design of the FAL was modified to allow only semi-auto fire. Their belief was that the troops would simply use 'spray & pray' instead of using single, well-aimed shots.

[Eddie]

I agree -- I never saw much firsthand utility in burst with either the M16A2s and M4s or with auto on the M4A1 I've been issued down through the years. But, if you're going to add one option or the other to a weapon, the burst capability as implemented on the M16 series is an unnecessary mechanical complication and potential failure point that was only adopted because senior leadership lacked the will to implement meaningful combat marksmanship training.

We were issued M4A1s in Ranger Regiment. And on more than one occasion I saw Ranger NCOs flip to full auto and waste ammo. Even disciplined soldiers will screw around. You're most definitely entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with it.

[Raellus]

I love the title, Soon Rifles That Kill From a Mile Away, I remember the safety warning on packets of .22LR bullets saying that the round can be dangerous for a distance of up to one mile...
The writer still slipped up somewhat, he says Cpl Furlong's first two shots missed but that's not correct. The first missed and the second hit the target's backpack and was thus prevented from killing him. The third shot was a killing hit

I've been reading about this for years and I still wonder why the "target" didn't get behind some serious cover after the first miss. My impression is that the terrain on which which this engagement took place was rocky and mountainous, with ample cover and concealment. Was it on a narrow trail on a steep mountainside or something Anyone know the details

[perardua]

If I remember correctly there was a (somewhat but not exactly) similar situation in the British Army when they changed over from the .303 SMLE to the 7.62mm L1A1. The higher-ups, expressed the belief that the squaddies could not be trusted with a weapon that could fire full-auto so the design of the FAL was modified to allow only semi-auto fire. Their belief was that the troops would simply use 'spray & pray' instead of using single, well-aimed shots.

The L85, on the other hand, does have a full automatic mode. Of course, the change lever is cunningly positioned to be rather difficult to switch to auto in a hurry, and even in my four years of involvement with the military, the situations in which automatic fire has been recommended have virtually vanished. Originally it was to be used when clearing buildings, when clearing trenches, and when under attack from a superior enemy force (think human wave). Now the training is to use rapid single for pretty much everything.