Army weapons officials released a “sources sought” solicitation yesterday, officially launching a search for an M110 Compact Semi Automatic Sniper System. I wrote about the Army’s desire to equip squad designated marksman with a shorter version of the M110 SASS in April.

The market survey is intended to identify potential sources for manufacturing a complete system or reconfiguring some or all of the existing 7.62 x 51mm M110 systems currently available in Army inventory.

Gun makers have until August 14 to respond with their initial ideas for producing the new CSASS.

 Here’s a list of the initial 15 requirements industry would have to meet:

1. Operation: Semi-automatic
2. Caliber: Compatible with 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges
3. Accuracy: Capable of 0.60″ AMR at 100m or better with match ammunition.
4. Size: Overall length shall be reduced using a shorter barrel and/or collapsible buttstock. Maximum overall assembled length of the rifle shall be not greater than 36 inches with the stock at its shortest position and no sound suppressor mounted.

5. Weight: Weight shall be no more than 9.0 lb for the unloaded rifle without optics and accessories.
6. Grip: A modular, adjustable pistol grip.
7. Trigger: A non-adjustable match style trigger.
8. Hand guard: A fore-end that includes a fixed 12 o’ clock rail with configurable 3, 6, and 9 o’ clock rails.
9. Sound suppressor: A muzzle mounted, detachable sound suppressor.
10. Muzzle device: A compensator/muzzle break compatible with the sound suppressor.
11. Bipod: Tool-less detachment featuring cant and pan/track capability.
12. Day optic: An Army specified variable power day optic and compatible rings.
13. Back up sights: Iron sights offset 45 deg from the DOS.
14. Sling attachment: Flush cup, quick detach sling attachment points.
15. Barrel and Receiver Life: Significant improvement from M110 requirements while enduring higher rates of fire.

{ 281 comments… read them below or add one }

NMate August 1, 2012 at 9:00 am

So basically, the Army is buying the rifle they should have bought five years ago? For some reason, people equate barrel length with accuracy. Longer barrels give you more velocity, not necessarily more accuracy.

A 16" barrel is much more appropriate for a 7.62x51mm semi-automatic sniper rifle than is a 20" barrel. The collapsible stock should really be seen as a requirement these days, not an option.

Reply

Tim August 1, 2012 at 11:21 am

A KT RFB modified with a lighter trigger pull and automatic gas plug like the Saiga 12's would fit the bill perfectly.

Reply

Pete August 1, 2012 at 11:26 am

****, a SOCOM-II with a Troy or JAE stock would do with a couple of modifications.

Reply

Destro August 1, 2012 at 11:30 pm

thankfully they aren't looking for a M14 platform

Reply

JJDPAC August 1, 2012 at 11:29 am

This is why the AR-15 improved piston or gas tube system is great, you can change barrels, uppers to needed length and even change calibers. Other than single shots, ther eis not a better cost effective platform avaliable.One size can fit all if done correctly.

Reply

boralibubba August 1, 2012 at 12:40 pm

We don't need another rifle to spend millions on ! We need the ones we have, with extreme prejudice!

Reply

Lance August 1, 2012 at 12:44 pm

I think this may be a few years down the road. Overall I dont see the need for a collapsible stock or a shorter barrel SINCE most snipers want to have more of a sturdy sniper rifle than a LARGE M-4 to shoot with the infantry.

Overall with more cuts coming thins may be a pipe dream someone in PEO solder wanted since he liked his M-4 and hated to see a sniper with a M-110 have a fixed stock.

Reply

18x August 1, 2012 at 1:53 pm

I agree and disagree a full length sniper system and a compact one have there place. Although this procurement wont see the light of day for awhile.

Reply

majrod August 1, 2012 at 2:22 pm

Reread the story. This is for the rifle squad's designated marksman not the sniper. There IS a difference…

18x – agree

Reply

18x August 1, 2012 at 3:35 pm

I over looked the part of designated marksman.

Reply

Lance August 1, 2012 at 3:49 pm

They'll keep M-14 DMRs in service for years till the funds to get this would come.

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 1, 2012 at 5:02 pm

Actually, the reference in the write up is misleading. This solicitation is first and foremost about finding a compact Sniper rifle. If a rifle were chosen later on down the road after an actual open competition is let, then that rifle may possibly be issued to DM.

Reply

Lance August 1, 2012 at 5:52 pm

Doesn't matter its going to be between. The KAC, Armillite, and Remington anyway.

Reply

Big Daddy August 1, 2012 at 4:20 pm

Why use the 7.62 NATO? Why not a semi auto bullpup .338 Lapua. Wait that would cost a billion dollars and 10 years to find it's out of date and didn't work right to begin with.

Guess what, if the Army went with the 6.8mm SPC round or another similar intermediate cartridge all this would be a moot point. Something that can be shot from a short barrel without losing velocity so forget the Grendel please.

There is answers for these questions but the DOD refuses to use common sense and proven methodology. LMT already makes this weapon for other nations.

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 1, 2012 at 4:57 pm

A. 338 Lapua semi auto?!?! Try getting something like that under the weight and length limit! Lol!

Seriously though, an intermediate cartridge would be a nice way to go but unfortunately wouldn't be consistent enough in terminal ballistics to work for snipers and DM. Not only that, but the Grendal completely overshadows the SPC for medium range tactical precision.

As far as LMT. Yes, they build and provide a DMR for other countries. However, this solicitation is for getting a closer look at EVERYTHING that is out there to explore options. This is not about purchasing a new gun. The DOD hasn't looked over anything.

Reply

Tiger August 1, 2012 at 6:12 pm

Logistics, that is why. You want to run arround looking for odd ball ammo in a supply chain that covers half the world? You run with what is in the warehouse.

Reply

Big Daddy August 1, 2012 at 11:17 pm

The history of the DOD says differently.

Yes a .338, they already make semi autos that aren't that heavy. They look like ARs but are too long, that's why I say Bullpup and a short barrel. Or even the .300 winchester mag that is already inventoried.The weight issue, that's why they invented synthetics and titanium, this is 2012 not 1912.

Grendal does NOT work well with short barrels, look at the ballistic tables, geez, what's up with these Grendal people, they remind me of tea party types. Great round for hunting period. The 6.8 SPC was designed from scratch to be a military round, the Grendal a hunting round with a long barrel. Overall the Grendal outperforms the 6.8 yes but it's not a military round.

For every problem there is a logical solution, very rarely do people look for them. The DOD very rarely finds them. It seems people's prejudice and ignorance always stands in the way.

Reply

Destro August 1, 2012 at 11:42 pm

that completely misses the point, .338 is not suited as a SDM round.

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 2, 2012 at 4:47 am

I think your missing the point. The .338 is far from the answer for this solicitation. The .300 and the .338 are not capable of filling the role that this gun would be required to fill. As for synthetics and titanium. You can only do so much before you start to see diminished returns.

I'm not "Grendal people". I'm a shooter. The 6.5 isn't a military cartridge? Neither is the 6.8. Also, the solicitation is for a 16" or 18" barrel gun. In that case the 6.5 DOES outperform the 6.8. Like I said, I'm not "Grendal people". I'm just being honest about the performance and capability of the two rounds.

Reply

Jeff August 1, 2012 at 8:58 pm

Sounds like a semi-auto version of Cooper's scout rifle…

Reply

ZM August 2, 2012 at 4:16 am

Screams Larue OBR to me.

Now if 'they' can find a decent scope(Leopold M6 3-18x)?

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 2, 2012 at 4:33 am

I agree that the OBR would be PERFECT for this role. Unfortunately Larue probably won't meet the criteria set by the solicitation. I would think that if the Army wanted to get a glimpse at everything out there, they would be more vague in their requirements.

Reply

Joshua August 2, 2012 at 4:25 am

I wonder if they know KAC makes it? The SR-25 would fit this roll perfectly.

Honestly its what the M110 should have been from the beginning but they just had to have a fixed stock:rolleyes:

Reply

Joshua August 2, 2012 at 4:26 am

I wonder if they know KAC makes it? The SR-25 would fit this roll perfectly.

Honestly its what the M110 should have been from the beginning but they just had to have a fixed stock

Reply

engineer August 2, 2012 at 4:45 am

10. Muzzle device: A compensator/muzzle break compatible with the sound suppressor.

Muzzle break? Designed so the end of the barrel falls off?

If the people who write the specs do not know what a muzzle brake is, no surprise small arms acquisition is a mess.

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 2, 2012 at 4:49 am

***!?!? So the end of the barrel falls off? Lol!

Reply

18x August 2, 2012 at 6:56 am

The SR25 is used but there were more refinements needed than a fixed stock.

Reply

Joshua August 2, 2012 at 7:21 am

You could make a few changes and you would have a modified SR-25 to meet this contract.

Honestly the M110 is a great rifle, the issue IMO is the stock. Other than the stock the rifle is a great rifle. The suppressor is what adds alot of length to the rifle, combined with the stock.

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 2, 2012 at 7:40 am

The M110 is just an Army spec. SR25. The SR25 is nearly identical and its been used for years as the MK11 MOD0/1/2/3 by SOCOM and the Corps.

I have worked on this CSASS project directly/indirectly off and on for years. Just a few years ago, the Army contacted KAC about a possible M110A1. KAC then developed a rifle with the specified modifications. About the same time, Snipers started complaining about durability issues with the M110 (issues that I have never experienced). The Army then changed its mind and started leaning toward an open solicitation. The solicitation referenced in this article is the beginning of that process.

Reply

Joshua August 2, 2012 at 7:45 am

I think I recall KevinB mentioning the issues soldiers were having with the M110.

He said the issue was they were storing them improperly and this was causing rust to form in the bore and chamber, so a fix was to start sending every new gun with its own vapor bag to keep it from rusting.

I'm sorry but soldiers are not known for the ability to properl maintain their rifles.

Reply

18x August 2, 2012 at 9:38 am

If maintenance is the only problem that's a personnel problem not an equipment problem. **** growing up I was taught you take the rifle out you clean it shot or not. I'm not going to say that's easy in combat zone as I don't know yet but in college I was on many shooting teams and all of them had the same sentiment of cleaning. Now that I'm out of college I recently got the 18x contract thus the handle so soon I'll be finding out first hand.

Reply

majrod August 2, 2012 at 6:32 pm

Soldiers do, what leaders check.

I'd also be very cautious about saying what soldiers are or aren't "known" for. There are PLENTY of stereotypes out there.

Reply

18x August 2, 2012 at 7:19 pm

Majrod if your talking to me I meant no disrespect, I wasn't intentionally implying that soldiers are known for anything I was mearly working with the statement that they weren't properly maintained.

Reply

Joshua August 2, 2012 at 7:30 pm

18x, he was probably referring to my comment on how soldiers are not known for their ability to maintain their weapons.

I guess I did make that a little bit of a broad generalization.

Reply

Sev August 2, 2012 at 6:57 am

Why not a Bullpup version of the M110?

Reply

Joshua August 2, 2012 at 7:19 am

Because bullpups suck for a fighting rifle especially one for a DMR role, the triggers are crap.

Even the brits realized this when they chose the L129A1.

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 2, 2012 at 7:45 am

One of the biggest points for this solicitation is to get rid of the M14EBR and replace it with something MORE FAMILIAR to the Snipers and more importantly the SDM. A bullpup is not going to accomplish this goal. Also, there are many drawbacks to a bullpup especially in the Sniper/DM role. The biggest reason though, that a bullpup is not a consideration, is because precision marksmen don't want them.

Reply

Sgt. Rich Cabral August 2, 2012 at 7:47 am

GO TO SHORTRIFLES.COM

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 2, 2012 at 9:02 am

Do us all a favor and refrain from plugs.

Stay on topic and contribute!

Reply

Destro August 3, 2012 at 12:09 am

Thanks for showing us exactly what the army is not looking for

Reply

Matt M. August 2, 2012 at 11:00 am

The Army continues to baffle me. Cuts up the wazoo and they want ANOTHER rifle, wow. A short, semi-automatic sniper rifle may have its place and need but they need to focus on getting their M4 business handled. They either need to retrofit the M4 with a kit or uppers or whatever their idea is, buy a new rifle, or DO NOTHING. I don't like this "Let's buy a new one next year, and the next, and the next, and the next." thing that they have going.

I would leave the 20" barrel and simply introduce a collapsible stock and call it a compromise, of all the places that a 16" barrel on an M110 would be appropriate-Afghanistan seems to not be one.
Question to all that have deployed (as I am a civi) – Do you think that a 16" barrel on a DM rifle is needed for where you are fighting? Your opinions are worth more than mine or anyone else's and I would like to know.

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 2, 2012 at 2:55 pm

@Matt M. – Your concerns are very valid. As a taxpayer, you should always question the use of your hard earned money. Hopefully, I can explain a little bit.

1) The budget cuts for the Army are not nearly as severe as some have made it seem. Basically,the cuts that are coming down the line will put the Army back to a budget equal to that of 2007. If you don't know what kind of budget we had in 2007, I'll just say it like this. We had no concerns about getting the things we needed back in 2007.

2) I can see where you might be concerned with too much going on at one time. However, I can tell you that the Army has plenty of resources to RDT&E multiple weapon systems. Now, whether or not they make good choices is up in the air but I know that attention is being focused hard on the M4 improvement programs and ICC.

So, is all this worth it? Absolutely! Soldiers pray and hope everyday that the Army will get them the things that they need and ask for. In this case, the Snipers have been asking (needing) a compact sniper rifle for a long time. Anything the Army does to make that happen is a good thing for our warfighters. One reason we see all these weapons programs popping up is that the US is looking to pull out of Afghanistan. When the US is at war, the government puts top priority on RDT&E and funding of new weapons and equipment. Once we pull out, the door may be closed for a long time. We need to get these projects up and running now while we still have the "blessing" of congress.

As far as a 16" barrel Sniper rifle being useful in Afghanistan? A compact sniper rifle is more useful in Afghanistan than anywhere else. Our warfighters are having to engage threats in Afghanistan at longer distances than ever before. Because of that, the squad needs a long range capability. With that said, some of our SDM and snipers have been carrying M110's and M14EBR's out into the field. You can imagine how a full size sniper rifle would suck in the high elevation and uneven rocky terrain. Not only that, but with a full size gun, the sniper/SDM is pretty limited in his ability to shoot move and communicate with the rest of the team. That's why guns like the MK12 MOD0/1 was developed. With a compact, 16" barrel and collapsable stock, the sniper/SDM will be able to fight with the team, lay down heavier fire (compared to the M110), and engage threats out to 1000m while retaining the ability to use standard M80 ammunition used by Machine Gunners. Notice I said engage out to 1000m. The range capability between the 20" barrel and the 16" barrel using 7.62 is essentially the same. On a hot day in Afghanistan, a 16" barrel will get you out to 1000m and still punch through cover.

The CSASS really is the gun that the Army should have got in the first place. It represents the ultimate long range battle rifle. There is certainly a use for the 20" M110 and I have seen first hand the advantages it brings to our Warfighter. With that said, the CSASS has been a long time coming and should be in the hands of our snipers and SDM. My teammates who still serve in Group have been running 16" guns (OBR's) for awhile now and it's time the conventional guys do the same.

Reply

Joshua August 2, 2012 at 3:12 pm

yep, gotta get it done while we can.

I tell ya though if I had the ability I could pick and field the improvements for the M4A1 and this rifles in a month. IDK Why the Army drags ***.

I mean the OBR…the perfect CS***.

new BCG, FF handguard, and barrel. all COTS, all easily available right this second, IMO the Army takes to long making decision.

Reply

majrod August 2, 2012 at 6:10 pm

It's not as easy as you might think. It's a big Army. Many people forget the spec ops community is about 60K across all the branches. We have over a million man Army.

Cutting edge tools are great and relatively easy to obsess on. The truth is we aren't using the basic M4 today to its full capability, just look at marksmanship training. Changing grips, handguards, barrels etc. when we don't really even train shooting positions besides the prone and the kneeling is a little backwards.

Reply

Matt M. August 2, 2012 at 6:46 pm

@FormerSFMedic – Thanks for your reply and input, it's always nice to hear from guys who have been/ are there. (thanks for your service by the way)
1) My concerns over budget cuts and whatnot could have been better put, it's not that I'm concerned that war-fighters won't get what they need or where my taxes go; I support every service getting what they need. It just seems that the Army has a habit of putting money into systems that end up going no-where and that there are other services that make better choices or live with what they have. (to me it seems a little unfair)
2) I see the benefits that both 16" and 20" bring to the table and have no problem with either, but the Army does have a "thing" with getting bored with one program and going on to another; sadly enough once that happens the previous system descends into chaos, and I don't want to see that happen to the ICC.
3) What I would like to see would be some major advancement in the ICC, and then looking into replacing SAW's with new ones. Both of which would have a greater effect on soldiers than a slightly lighter and more maneuverable designated marksman weapon.
NOTE: I am not trying to bash this solicitation or the LaRue.
I have no doubt that advancements for DM weapons will come (whenever that may be) it's the other systems that give me the chills.

At any rate, thanks for the reply; it did help.

Reply

Sgt. Rich Cabral August 2, 2012 at 12:26 pm

Ok wrong way to put it. After 8 years in the Corp 2 years in the Army 10 years in the guard an Army contractor in Iraq 2006. I have designed a simple way to take one of the greatest combat rifles ever deployed (M14 / M1a) and still in theatre today and shorten it ONE FOOT. The addvertisement is looking for what I build. Dear Medic, first let me thank you for your service. Take one minute and go to my web site and tell me this is not the solution. Semper Fi. Rich Call me my # is their.

Reply

Lance August 2, 2012 at 4:02 pm

I agree the M-14 will serve on especially in the Navy.

Reply

Sgt. Rich Cabral August 2, 2012 at 12:29 pm

ONe more thing. I disagree with your comments on Snipers do not want them. SF has our system in the Sandbox and the SEALS are deploying with them. !

Reply

Joshua August 2, 2012 at 1:11 pm

I have my doubts to this comment.

Reply

Sgt. Rich Cabral August 2, 2012 at 1:43 pm

J any time you want to come out so we can dance at a grand, bring your junk and we can play.

Reply

Lance August 2, 2012 at 4:08 pm

Hay Joshua

This make ICC look even more blank. They want a weapon to look and share parts with the M-4 and that's another nail in ICCs coffin. Overall Sen Colburn is losing his argument and foaming at the mouth on it.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/08/02/sen

Reply

Lance August 2, 2012 at 4:08 pm

Your opinion?

Reply

Joshua August 2, 2012 at 4:19 pm

whats your email again? lets take this to email so we dont have to stray to far from the topic at hand.

Lance August 2, 2012 at 5:50 pm

L a n c e 7 2 5 6 @ Yahoo com

Hope to hear from you soon.

Reply

Sgt. Rich Cabral August 2, 2012 at 6:08 pm

Lance if you want to email me just go to my web site in this thread, I do not want any one getting upset. Rich

FormerSFMedic August 2, 2012 at 7:00 pm

Saying you don't want anyone to get upset is making people upset.

If you have something to say, say it! This may not be SOFREP, but we can handle a discussion here!

Lance August 2, 2012 at 10:17 pm

Whats your site again Cabral??

FormerSFMedic August 2, 2012 at 6:09 pm

Let me stop you right there Lance. The link points to NO "nail in the coffin"! In fact, it's more of a win than anything. They are not looking for an IC that looks like an M4 or shares parts with the M4.

There is no reason to get on here and spread rumors and bad information. Sen. Coburn is NOT losing his argument! Everything your post says is NOT in this article! This infatuation with Sen. Coburn being some kind of bad person is ridiculous. Everything Sen. Coburn is saying is exactly what the Army needs! Exactly what they need!

Reply

Joshua August 2, 2012 at 6:18 pm

Normally I agree with you, but CMON!

Coburn is one of the most uninformed people I have ever heard. He means well, he really does. The issue is that he cites things like Wanat and Vietnam as the definitive reason we need to move to a new rifle, all the while ignoring events like Keating where soldiers expended more than 40 mags per rifle and never once had a single problem.

This is why I asked for Lance's email so me and him could discuss it without derailing this thread but let me say this.

Is the M4 perfect? NO, Is it as good as anything else out there in todays market? YES. Can the M4A1 be made better through the PiP? YES, and it would appear it is with the amount of PiP's being introduced for it.

As long as we are using 5.56 the M4A1 is what we should use, because nothing else out there is an improvement worth the cost that could not be achieved with the PiP, SOCOM discovered this after the MK16.

Was the MK16 good? certainly, but they discovered that their limited funds were better spent on the M4A1 SOPMOD II package, which honestly gives them a M4A1 just as good as the MK16(minus the OTB capability).

The fact that Coburn even uses Vietnam and Wanat to support his argument show his errors.

Matt M. August 2, 2012 at 7:21 pm

@FormerSFMedic – I agree about Coburn but I am saddened that the ICC lost the only 7.62 entry (CM901). People say what they want about Colt and the CM901, but it was the only shot at getting a larger caliber out there in mass numbers. Colt, Adcor, and FN all look good but damn. This does however strengthen the argument for a shorter M110 (remember i'm not against it), as it seems that all the entries are 5.56.

Lance August 2, 2012 at 8:18 pm

Not saying this is a carbine matter. BUT the army wants and said they want a DMR with similar parts to the M-4 and same training with fire movements. A SCAR will NOT do this so the army arguments make it clear they want to stay with a Stoner system for all rifles/carbines.

Sgt. Rich Cabral August 2, 2012 at 4:29 pm

If you are talking to me ****@***********.*** SF.

Reply

majrod August 2, 2012 at 6:48 pm

Way to make friends and influence enemies…

Not a good business move dude.

Reply

NMate August 2, 2012 at 5:47 pm

No, it wouldn't. Kel-Tec makes garbage.

Reply

Gunner777 August 3, 2012 at 7:56 am

Kel-Tec wouldn't last a week under combat conditions. Not a bad gun for civilians though.

Reply

Sgt. Rich Cabral August 2, 2012 at 7:53 pm

Not sure what you mean, the ****@******** *** SF was my email which apparently is not allowed the SF is for Semper Fi. This will conclude my entries I will let the Key Board Commando (Medic) have it. SF. Rich

Reply

xcalbr August 2, 2012 at 10:05 pm

M110 with a 16" barrel and collapsable buttstock. is it really that difficult? im sure they'll spend millions of dollars on it and reinvent the wheel. or they could go with a larue OBR…

Reply

Matt M. August 2, 2012 at 10:53 pm

Exactly, it is simpler than it is being made out to sound and KAC has already made an "M110A1" as SFMedic said earlier and I recall seeing some YouTube vids of the same weapon that you described and the Army wants.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5oTauZF6Qs&fe
Go to 5:45 to fast-forward.
It's not the weapon that I have a problem with, it's opening up a competition that annoys me.

Reply

xcalbr August 3, 2012 at 8:14 am

OMG, thank you for finding that link! I have watched it before and couldnt remember where for the life of me.

Yes, it seems that the "M110A1" is already being produced. http://www.knightarmco.com/sr25.html "Enhanced Match Carbine".

Im sure the army will spend millions of dollars in research and development. 100 bucks also says theyll neglect to add a forward assist on this "M110A1" so that it suffers from the same drawbacks as its cousin.

Reply

Destro August 3, 2012 at 1:10 am

ok people…stop talking about bullpup's, M14s, and SCAR's, they made it clear they wanted a rifle that looked like an M4 so the SDM was not a target.

Reply

xcalbr August 3, 2012 at 12:27 pm

I can guarantee you the SOCOM II will not achieve the accuracy requirement. A bona fide M14 cannot achieve that level of accuracy.

Reply

Tom D (shortround67/ August 3, 2012 at 12:50 pm

I'm not sorry am an old Grunt M14 E2 , shorten bipod by half , sniper barrel , barrel could be shortened by lenght of suppressor. I wouldnt shorten or change the stock , Its like holding my best girl in my arms , Kill range is thing of legends. Only thing I have found close is Mauser 8mm , sporteized stock barrel shortened 4 ". What in the world is wrong with the M48 sys?

Reply

Xn0r August 3, 2012 at 1:56 pm

Hrm 36" would fit a SCAR Standard w/ 16.5" barrel. That's what mine measures with the buttstock extended.

If they wanted a longer barrel, I think they'd need to go with a bullpup design.

Reply

Joe August 3, 2012 at 2:31 pm

the scar-h or L arperfect for this they're both designed for up close and personal as well as long range

Reply

xcalbr August 3, 2012 at 3:43 pm

The SCAR H and Mk 20 SSR are more superior than the M14 and M110/SR25 in their respective roles in my opinion. I would be really shocked if those weapons venture beyond the SOCOM realm however.

Reply

Matt M. August 3, 2012 at 5:20 pm

Better than the M14 – yes, SR25/Mk11 – maybe (they are pretty old and have been used a lot); but I don't think that the SCAR H or Mk20 would beat an M110. If anything, in DM roles I would say that a Mk20 or M110 would be equals with the exception of the Mk20 sticking out a bit more.
The SCAR IS better than most M4's but only barely. I wouldn't mind seeing more SCAR's but it needs a new stock; the boot stock kills me.

Reply

xcalbr August 5, 2012 at 2:37 pm

well the SCAR H is a battle rifle, not a sniper rifle. It couldn't "beat" the M110 as far as precision requirements go. The M14? yes. Throwing out a educated opinion, the SCAR H is the best battle rifle available right now as far as features, recoil, modularity, accuracy, and reliability. It doesn't require extensive and expensive modification to be accurate and modular (unlike the M14 platform).

As far as the M110 goes, it is finicky as far as reliability goes and disingenuously doesnt have a forward assist. It is accurate, though I doubt it is more accurate than another semi-automatic precision rifle (like the Mk 20).

Like I said before, it would be cool if big army used a platform that had parts commonality with a carbine, battle rifle, and precision rifle and the same ergonomics and theory of operation.

Reply

Joshua August 5, 2012 at 2:49 pm

the December USASOC international Sniper Competition seems to show the opposite about the M110.

It placed first in the Competition and the MK20 placed nearly last.

The M110 is not a rifle I would call finicky anymore, the very first ones were def finicky but KAC quickly fixed those issues and current ones are very reliable when the end user does their part. You have to remember the bore is not CL so you have to make sure to keep it cleaned. This is also the reason why KAC now sends Vapor seal bags with every KAC for storage.

xcalbr August 5, 2012 at 4:17 pm

I would like to see comparative data on the M110 vs others; competitions are dependent on the proficiency of the shooter rather than the equipment for the most part. There is no doubt the M110 is accurate. I think the vapor seal bags for storage help mitigate the barrel life issues (which initial prototypes were known for), though i remain dubious that reliability was enhanced. Im sure lessons were learned in combat environments for what works and what doesn't.

Lance August 3, 2012 at 5:23 pm

The Army will not goto a pure SCAR for all troops. The L offer nothing over the M-4 and the H is useful but a M-110 and M-14EBR can do the same job and are way cheaper.

SCARs are way over priced and use there own FAL type mag no one out of SOCOM wants to use. Overall if you had to goto a Euro gun a HK 416 and 417 would be more logical to goto for a general issue weapon.

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 4, 2012 at 2:59 pm

Lance, you are severely misinformed. Not only that but you just keep repeating the same nonsense.

The MK17 and MK20 SCAR platforms are NOT more expensive than the M110 or M14EBR's. Gun for gun, the SCAR's are cheaper and/or require less time and resources to field.

BTW, no one is talking about the entire Army getting SCAR's.

Reply

xcalbr August 5, 2012 at 4:23 pm

the 416 and 417 more logical? how so?

The SCAR L and H are more reliable than the 416 and 417. They are also lighter and more flexible. If there is a system that offers measurable improvement over the existing carbine, it sure isn't the 416. They are excellent weapons at their own right too.

I know for a fact that the M14 requires much modification (which is expensive and human labor intensive) in order to compare equally with the SCAR H. I have heard good things about the Mk 20 and SOCOM is purchasing them for a reason.

Reply

Joe August 3, 2012 at 2:33 pm

M-16 A4 is also a very fine rifle for the bill at hand

Reply

Dar August 3, 2012 at 3:18 pm

I love the idea of a compact sniper rifle…it's more ideal for urban warfare in my opinion. I also love it because I want to join the US Army and hopefully become a sniper myself, but I'm a little on the short side and from what I've heard from soldiers the snipers that are in use today are/would be too big and powerful for me to shoot. (I'm 5'6")

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 4, 2012 at 3:05 pm

@Dar- Brother, you have nothing to worry about. I spent nearly 10 years in the Army and graduated sniper school with no problems whatsoever. Training to use good fundamentals and the proper grip and stance will allow you to shoot anything the military sniper community has in its arsenal. I'm 5'7" and right around 155lbs. I have shot and continue to shoot. 308's, .300win mag's, .338 lapua's, and .50BMG's without issue.

Reply

Taxpayer August 3, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Hey! If the Army cannot get it done with the weapons at hand, time to disband.

We taxpayers are broke and sick and tired of paying for wild goose chase junk.

If you can't get it done with an M16 then go work for the TSA or something.

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 3, 2012 at 4:32 pm

@Taxpayer- Well, I can tell you that this solicitation is NOT about a "wild goose chase piece of junk". It's about winning the fight and Soldiers coming home alive. The subject of this solicitation is a rifle that has been needed for a long time and it's effectiveness has been well documented over years of combat experience.

Our soldiers can't "get it done" with the weapons at hand because the weapons at hand are not designed or capable of accomplishing the tasks that our soldiers are required to carry out to stay alive.

Your tax money is being spent wisely. Wisely on the things that our Soldiers have asked for!

Reply

majrod August 3, 2012 at 5:15 pm

SFMedic – Don't get sucked in. This guy's posts are generally disrespectful of the military on DoDBuzz.

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 4, 2012 at 3:16 pm

Thanks for the heads up majrod. Sometimes it's hard to just sit back and let it go. There are a lot of readers out there that read this blog in order to learn and increase their knowledge. Most of those readers look to the comments for follow on information. I know people that come here to learn things to hopefully increase their skill set as well. I've always felt that if comments like this aren't rebutted, readers will take it as GOOD information and then pass it along. That's why you will sometimes see me reply to trolls and/or individuals with bad information.

Thanks for looking out!

Reply

majrod August 4, 2012 at 3:44 pm

Understand, agree and concur. I come here to learn and share when I can. I've wasted time with this joker before with thoughtful responses. He has an agenda and perspective that won't be swayed. He sees the military as basically unskilled labor sucking away the "taxpayer" dollar.

Just didn't want you to waste a lot of time. A quick retort calling him out for what he is saves everybody a bunch of time.

Matt M. August 3, 2012 at 5:58 pm

@Taxpayer
You need to understand that the need for the rifle is there; a competition – not necessarily, but the rifle certainly. What we are asking our soldiers to do now is more or less like asking someone to win the Datona 500 in a Peterbilt. With enough gas (ammo) it can be done but it's going to suck the entire way.

1) First you need to understand what a Designated Marksman does in a squad. Often a squad or fire team will engage targets that are quite far away and hitting a target at 6, 7, or maybe even 800 meters isn't easy. A DM has more marksmanship/training than the rest of a squad and engages targets with a higher caliber/more accurate weapon. He gives the squad the ability to reach out and touch people further away with more accuracy.

2) Now you need to know what this weapon will do. A shorter M110 will replace the M14's currently in use. It will be lighter, easier to maneuver, and take less out of the soldier using it. An added benefit is that it will look a crap load more like what the rest of his squad is using so he will stick out less.

Reply

Lance August 3, 2012 at 6:09 pm

With budget cuts and the fact any Army competition will take years to do. I bet the M-14EBR will be around for a long time.

The Navy will keep them even longer.

Reply

Gunner777 August 3, 2012 at 6:19 pm

All I can say to that is if you haven't walked in the shoes of a military member, police officer, first responder of any sort you lack the knowledge and or experience to make statements such as these.
I must admit I do get a bit irritated when those who comment do so based on what they read or are told not from personal experience. The vast majority have not paid the price of losing friends in combat or on our streets.
We fight with what we are given we don't get to choose often! I want the best weapons available for those of us who fight to keep you free—–free to speak as you wish right or not.

Reply

baldmurph August 5, 2012 at 11:11 am

Taxpayer, you gotta go with what you got. What we got right now is the M16, great for close quarters work, not so good for long range. When I enlisted Infantry I loved the M1 Garand – I did well on the 500 yard targets with iron sights, had no problem hugging the ground or reloading, and considered it a decent club when I was out of ammo. I thought the M14 was a bit deficient in all the above characteristics, but it DID use the NATO round. The M16 was/is something else, for use in a different game: less problem in thick bush/closer turning areas, lighter ammo increases amount the soldier can carry – which also means you can run out faster because you can fire faster, especially when you can hose an area. If my target of choice is carrying an AK47 I would prefer to engage at 500 yards, beyond his effective range for return fire. YOU may do a face to face OK Corral if you wish, I prefer to join the other old chickens in lamenting proper support for the next generation on the field.

Reply

Don Owens August 3, 2012 at 4:19 pm

Never been there and never done that but I do shoot. I have been eyeing an A10 in .308/7.62. If they built this rifle in a short magnum, they could shorten the action. With a collapsible stock and a 16" barrel, could they have something similar enough to the M4 that the training would apply to both rifles. I understand, sort of, the supply problem with something that is not in the system but the logistics could be managed.

Reply

Don Owens August 3, 2012 at 4:21 pm

Dar,
The weapon itself may be large enough to be a problem but the caliber is used in youth rifles so I wouldn't sweat the power/recoil.

Reply

robert August 3, 2012 at 4:25 pm

I was thinking about shorter & larger barrels and the rounds, having extending aelirons and quidance control.

What they really want is smart-rounds, imagine that level of miniaturization. wow.

Reply

majrod August 3, 2012 at 5:08 pm

Matt – "It just seems that the Army has a habit of putting money into systems that end up going no-where and that there are other services that make better choices or live with what they have."
and…
"the Army does have a “thing” with getting bored with one program and going on to another"

EXAMPLES? Don't think the Army is any more guilty of this than any other service…

Reply

Greyaxe August 3, 2012 at 7:00 pm

Xcalbr, actually the M-21 system which is a modified M-14 will, I know I carried 1 for years.

Reply

xcalbr August 3, 2012 at 7:13 pm

But the M21 is not a SOCOM II nor is it a standard M14.

Reply

Lance August 3, 2012 at 8:25 pm

Don't forget the M-25 and the Mk-14 which all very accurate M-14 variants they do just fine. M-14 EBR has a high remarks from troops.

Reply

Brandon August 4, 2012 at 3:59 pm

Which troops are you talking about. Yeah it is better than Throwing rocks and swinging sticks. I would rather a SR-25. My EBR would have been good years ago, but not today, with what else it out there.

Reply

H2O MAN January 25, 2014 at 6:51 pm

For what it's worth, Smith Enterprise offers an excellent standard weight 16.25" barrel for the M14, it has a 1:10 ROT, and it can be chambered for M118LR. I have seen excellent accuracy @ 100 yards with 146gr NATO surplus.

Reply

Michael August 3, 2012 at 7:22 pm

but a good idea, just not Kel-Tec

Reply

xcalbr August 3, 2012 at 7:23 pm

"EXAMPLES? Don’t think the Army is any more guilty of this than any other service…"

The army isn't any more guilty than the other branches. all of them have wasted hundreds of billions of the taxpayers dollars. There is of course the F35, the V22, the Growler, the EFV (recently cancelled), the Future Combat Vehicles now transformed into the Ground Combat Vehicles.

Infantry weapons are a tiny portions of defense spending.

Reply

Jay F August 3, 2012 at 10:09 pm

GAP 10 (www.gaprecision.net) should fit the bill just right. Considered one of the best in its class for this type of work. Once I am done contracting here in Afghanistan, I am getting the GAP 10 as a gift to myself for all the time spent working overseas (military and civilian).

Reply

Paul August 4, 2012 at 12:32 am

Steyr Scout, tactical version. Add a flash hider and you're done. :)

Reply

Destro August 4, 2012 at 8:26 am

guess you missed the part where they wanted a semi auto

Reply

crackedlenses August 4, 2012 at 10:51 am

Notice the "Scout" part. It's a light-handling bolt-action for scouting purposes that could possible snipe if needed. Not quite what our troops need….

Reply

William C. August 4, 2012 at 3:11 am

It seem to me like going for a compact DMR is kinda defeating the point. The idea is a weapon that can extend the effective range of an infantry squad, and a longer barrel helps in that regard. A standard M16 isn't all that heavy or unwieldy, and I'd imagine the current M110 isn't any worse in that regard. Just leave the door kicking to the guys with the M4s.

Reply

Matt M. August 4, 2012 at 10:18 am

The thing is that DM don't use the M110, they use an upgraded M14 which is heavy and unwieldy. This weapon that the solicitation asks for wouldn't replace the M110 necessarily, it would replace the M14.
The 16" barrel will be fine as 7.62×51 will easily reach out to where it needs to go. There, however, will be a velocity drop which is a whole different, sometimes negative can of worms.

Reply

Clearbrook August 4, 2012 at 5:14 am

Although I agree with some of the comments here that suggest that the Army does not need to spend money on another weapon system in the general sense, this is something that the Army does in fact need. In the current conflicts, we are finding that the insurgents are engaging from longer distances, and doing quick ambushes and retreating leaving us no opportunity to respond effectively. Putting sniper capabilities at the squad level (not fully sniper qualified, but roughly equivalent to advanced marksmen) would allow them to engage those enemies as they retreat, or before they can get into range to attack back in the first place.

The Caliber Requirement of 7.62x51mm NATO makes sense from a logistics standpoint, and in line with those arguing that we don't need to spend excessive money developing *another* weapon system, I would agree that this would be a way to cut down the costs of deploying this weapon. However, in that same vein of thought, I would suggest that a similar requirement should be put forth for an M4 derivative that is similar. The M16 to M4 evolution could be taken down this path, and the potential to make every soldier a sniper if they gained the skill, (which when you realize that your life may depend upon it, you might be more motivated to do just that) is a very effective force multiplier in many of the current situations. Not all soldiers would reach that level, but those that did would be much more effective and increase their survival rate in combat at the same time.

In a pinch, should 7.62 Ammo be in short supply, the "Neo-Sniper" in the squad could pick up one of those weapons and use it to still great effect. A couple of soldiers, with a level of training that is lower than a full fledged sniper, but better than your average soldier in the squad, will make them a much more dangerous target for those out there that intend to do us harm. It may even cool down wars, if the fear level involved with engaging us goes up as a consequence. (and don't tell me that these terrorists have no fear — they may control it better than some, but they *do* still get scared and run away!)

Will this be manged right by the Army? Well, sometimes they get it right. I think this is more important than another Camouflage Pattern, which is costing a lot of money too, I might add. (not that better Camouflage is a bad thing, maybe just not as badly needed)

Reply

1stIDGUY August 4, 2012 at 9:01 am

hahaha that just made my day obviously an email address….

Reply

notthatimportant August 4, 2012 at 11:36 am

I am pretty sure that the army will find the right weapon fitting to the requirements listed above. The only thing that makes me wonder is why not all 5,56mm guns are dumped or upgraded in favor of a caliber with a little more reach and punch like the 6.5 grendel or something similar. Logically this way far more firefights could be won (which implies less bodybags for own troops), presuming reconnaissance is working and possible targets are identified soon enough. And instead of giving the DM something in 7,62mm (which is not a bad caliber since I also know it from my time in the army but…I mean…seriously?) you could go right to .338 LM or .338 NM wich makes much more sense, especially if you also want to knock out some other things and want to have some psychological effect on the enemy too. And yes, something in .338 LM as you all know already comes in a small package like the guns from Desert Tactical Arms.

Reply

Chris August 4, 2012 at 12:08 pm

Larue Tactical PredatOBR for sure! They also make it in 14.5"

Reply

Brian August 4, 2012 at 12:58 pm

The reason we won't leave 7.62 is because it allows the SDM to use the ammo from the 240 in a pinch. The reason we won't adopt the 6.8mm is because the rest of NATO (and most of our other allies) uses 5.56×45. You may have noticed who was supplying the ammo in Iraq and Afghanistan. The DOD needs to work within these constraints.

Reply

Gordon August 4, 2012 at 2:48 pm

My two cents: keep the gun nice a short, but give it a heavy *** barrel offset with a collapsible bi-pod if shooter is going prone. When it comes to accuracy, barrel weight is more significant than barrel length… especially if we're talking compact sniper.

Reply

Ecume August 4, 2012 at 3:40 pm

You don't necessarily even need to have a collapsible stock, especially if you simply get a rifle in a bullpup configuration. By doing that, you get a much more efficient configuration for the weapon in terms of size and weight restrictions. You could keep the same basic rifle but convert it into a bullpup and have it be significantly shorter, without even sacrificing muzzle velocity or anything like that. The only problem may be that a bullpup configuration may be less familiar to a soldier used to working with a M-16-style weapon, but that's nothing that a bit of training can't fix.

Reply

Joshua August 4, 2012 at 4:22 pm

NO ONE WANTS A BULLPUP!!!

I swear I get sick and tired of all this bullpup crap, they are crap. they are especially crap for a DMR, their triggers suck.

Reply

Johnno August 4, 2012 at 4:51 pm

Have they bothered to get 5 or 6 top snipers together, sat down and asked them what they really would like. The guy polishing the seat is not the guy in the field on the 2 way range……
Steady on I'm being sensible for once……..

Reply

Destro August 5, 2012 at 1:20 am

what good would that do? the rifle won't be used by snipers

Reply

RT August 4, 2012 at 6:02 pm

POF 308 w/20"Sniper Barrel, Semi-auto 7.62×51. 25 Rd Mag, Adj slid stock. 6X20X50 BDC Scope (Choice ?)

Reply

Steve in St. Louis August 4, 2012 at 6:51 pm

With shorter barrel and and same ammunition, they would need a faster twist for the rifling to achieve the same accuracy.
Otherwise they will need to change the ammunition to achieve higher velocity in the shorter barrel.
High velocity with accuracy is the best combination, otherwise at long distances, bullet drop becomes an issue and then you need very accurate range determination and sight calibration, so higher velocity is certainly preferable. With a squad designated marksman, this will mean combat engagement, with immediate access and "quick on the draw". You really can't have that feature and a folding stock, although there are some shotguns which have been combat adapted with stocks which fit over the barrel, but that would interfere with optics. You give up quite a bit of range by shortening the barrel so a folding stock would probably be preferable, however a folding stock will probably affect accuracy as well.
The whole idea of designated marksman for an infantry platoon just seems like a bad idea, since everyone should be a rifleman and a marksman. What is it the Marines say, every Marine a rifleman. There is some truth to it.
The inadequacies of the 5.56 cartridge have become so severe the infantry squad actually needs someone with a 7.62 weapon to protect them from longer range weapons.
Changing the cartridge to a more effective medium round, 6 or 7 mm with long range capability for everyone is probably eventually going to be necessary since the 5.56 round is so inadequate that a designated marksman needs to be attached to the squad for them to perform their job, a symptom that the 5.56 is inadequate to the job done by the infantry squad.
If it's not simple, cheap and effective, it will never get done.

Reply

ShooterVI August 5, 2012 at 3:25 am

Check out the Berger 7mm VDL ballistics – very impressive

Reply

Keith Westbrook August 5, 2012 at 4:42 am

Take a moment to look at this website http://nemoarms.com/guns/ I think you'll agree with me this is the answer but it won't be picked due to politics. If you know who one of the primary owners is you know the progressive socialist ruling class both in and out of the military will never support him. I intend to procure one ASAP!

Reply

Dan August 5, 2012 at 6:05 am

The whole point of this is not to have it for SNIPERS. The reason they are looking for a collapsable stock and the other modifications is to be used with squad and platoon movements. The article clearly states that it will be utilized by Squad Designated Marksmen. Therefore, being that they will be utilized in such a manner they need to be light weight and carriable by a squad element. The SDM is "Counter-Sniper" to an extent. They have more training than you would get just from Basic Rifle Marksmanship, but not nearly to the extent of a Sniper. More attention to details of the article than just giving an opinion of a brand and whatever set up you may own may produce much more relevant discussion.

Reply

Big Daddy August 5, 2012 at 7:42 am

Not sure why the "new" weapon has to be in 7.62, oh well…….If you just have to use 7.62, why not go down to the warehouse and checkout a M-14 ?

Reply

Herb August 5, 2012 at 9:09 am

The M-14 was and still is my weapon on choice for put down power for up to 800 yds. Over that I would have to go with the .300 WinMag

Reply

Matt M. August 5, 2012 at 12:04 pm

That's what they have been using for years but they want a rifle that has a closer resemblance to an M4. The reasoning for 7.62 is that it's a caliber that the Military has an insane amount of and will easily do the job; they could go with an intermediate round but they would have to deal with the logistics of procuring enough of the new round and then making sure that it's available in theatre. 7.62 just ends up being easier.

Reply

Mac62 August 5, 2012 at 8:19 am

SFMedic,

I am wondering why you would say Larue might not meet not meet the requirements specified. We carry them now and my opinion is the OBR heavy would be the perfect choice within the existing field of current weapons systems. The OBR in the 18" configuration, to me, is a no brainer.

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 5, 2012 at 9:10 am

@Mac62- First of all let me say that I believe the Larue OBR family of AR15/AR10 pattern rifles to be the finest AR's on the market. I have shot each model and can attest to the outstanding performance of these rifles. The guys that I served with in Group have been using the OBR EXTENSIVELY with great success. In fact, the OBR and variants have become somewhat of a standard sniper rifle for the sniper sections over in SF.

With all that said, the requirements set forth by the Sources Sought Solicitation for the Compact M110 are such that Larue probably won't be able to contend. They CERTAINLY would have no problem with the accuracy, size, and weight requirements. However, the muzzle brake, sound suppressor, 45 degree iron sights, and bipod requirements may be a different story. If you look at the Knights Armaments M110 package that is issued to the Army, you will find that most of the gun accessories are manufactured, built, and provided by Knights Armament. The current M110 comes with a plethora of different accessories but the major gun components are built by KAC. Larue is not in the muzzle brake/suppressor/sights business. The Army likes companies to be able to provide ALL or MOST of the accessory requirements themselves for logistical simplicity.

Manufacturers wishing to put forth examples for this solicitation will have to quickly put together a "package" with the aforementioned products. Companies like Remington, who are part of a larger financial equity group, will be able to do this with ease. Private companies like Larue, will have a much harder time with this but won't be completely out of the chase. If they can work with companies like Surefire (who they have a good relationship with) then they might be able to compete. It all depends on how the Army wants to proceed.

Reply

Mac62 August 5, 2012 at 9:59 am

Former SFMedic,

I see your point. Larue does have a very good relationship with Surefire though and I don't think it would be too much of a hassle for the 45 degree iron sight mod on the system. Personally, I find that kind of setup awkward at best. But I'm old school. :)

As you know, we have a choice in SFG's with what we carry, many of us have been using the OBR. I'm a firm believer in "if we use it, it's because it gets the job done."

I don't know if Larue will enter the competition, like you say they are a realtively small manufacturer. I hope so.

Reply

not a gun genius August 5, 2012 at 10:33 am

Is the military looking for a US based company? Because I believe the Germans (H&K) already have this exact rifle with few minor changes. HK417 is essentially what they are looking for right? They offer it in 20 and 16" versions. Also has a telescoping stock that's comparable to a magpul. Although I think the traditional m16 style NATO length stock would be much more stable. They mention the 45 degree flip up sights (which would be used when firing left handed I'd assume) but nothing in terms of optics. Are they looking to use an intermediate power between your normal acog and high power SASS type scope?

Reply

Matt M. August 5, 2012 at 11:53 am

I would imagine that the Army will welcome all contenders with the manufacturing ability, domestic or not. Especially since companies like FN and HK have plants in the US – they shouldn't have any problems. The main thing here besides size is that it does not stand out in a squad of M4's so the HK417 should be ok.

Reply

xcalbr August 5, 2012 at 3:17 pm

the HK417 is a battle rifle. The army is looking for a sniper rifle that is more compact than the M110. Even HK's more precise offspring, the G28, is still a designated marksman rifle only.

Reply

Matt M. August 5, 2012 at 3:33 pm

I respectfully disagree. This is about getting a new DM rifle and the Army is asking for a compact sniper rifle to make things simpler; this isn't about replacing the M110, it's about replacing the M14 EBR.
And that is how the HK417 is used, as a designated marksman rifle.

Reply

Dan August 5, 2012 at 11:48 am

The whole point of this is not to have it for SNIPERS. The reason they are looking for a collapsable stock and the other modifications is to be used with squad and platoon movements. The article clearly states that it will be utilized by Squad Designated Marksmen. Therefore, being that they will be utilized in such a manner they need to be light weight and carriable by a squad element. The SDM is “Counter-Sniper” to an extent. They have more training than you would get just from Basic Rifle Marksmanship, but not nearly to the extent of a Sniper. More attention to details of the article than just giving an opinion of a brand and whatever set up you may own may produce much more relevant discussion.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2012/08/army-begins-sea
Kit Up!

Reply

Mac62 August 5, 2012 at 12:05 pm

The M110 SASS or Semi Automatic Sniper System is what they are looking to replace.

Bolt action Sniper Systems are being replaced by Semi Automatics that allow for quicker follow up shots.

Reply

Matt M. August 5, 2012 at 12:33 pm

@Mac62 They're not replacing the M110, they're replacing the M14 EBR with what is essentially a smaller M110 for all intents and purposes.
And I don't think that bolt-actions are going anywhere anytime soon, that was the plan with the M110 originally and it turned up that it couldn't beat an M24's accuracy at extremely long range I believe.

Reply

Reinhold August 5, 2012 at 12:15 pm

The renegade public servants in the US government and military seek a compact sniper rifle to fortify their occupation of the foreign lands they unlawfully compel the deluded military servicemen to invade and to attempt martial law within the free States of this Union. Those of us that act to suppress the current insurrection by the above renegade public servants to destroy our Republic already have such things and more. US Military people will do well to more carefully consider their oath to defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We have not seen a foreign enemy here since the defining war of 1812. Since then there has been no end to insurrection, war and lawless occupation by these domestic enemies. Those who serve must weigh carefully the consequence of their compliance with lawless orders. Treason is a terrible thing but it is not as despicable as the cowardice of complicity. It may be difficult to remove this US Domestic Insurrection but we shall remove it. Beware of opposing snipers.

Reply

Gunner777 August 5, 2012 at 2:19 pm

I believe you may be on the wrong blog for that kind of talk!

Reply

Powderman August 5, 2012 at 1:33 pm

Let's see…the specs are that the rifle rifle must be under 9 lb stripped; be semiautomatic, have a short barrel length and hold .60 MOA.

Good luck with that.

The short barrel, actually is NOT the concern. Lots of benchrest and extreme accuracy shooters use shorter barrels–less flex and whip upon firing, thus giving a more rigid barrel. The first problem is weight–these short barrels must have a heavy contour to withstand the whip and flex upon firing.

The barrel/bolt interface is going to be dicey–for the type of accuracy wanted some blueprinting and truing of the action must be done, as well. The stock won't be much of a problem–free-float tubes have been used with great success.

The rifle must also have a user-adjustable gas system–otherwise, the increased back-pressure of the round fired through a suppressor will batter the crap out of the lower receiver parts, eventually leading to premature parts failure.

By far, the biggest problem is going to be ammunition. Asking a rifle to engage a target at certain ranges is fine. Expecting the rifle to carry through with it requires some work. The 147-150 grain .308 diameter bullet at military velocities (2600-2700 fps) will do the job fine, out to 500-600 yards. The 168 grain bullet will be stable and accurate out to about 700 to 800 yards. After that it goes subsonic–and when that happens in flight, the bullet becomes unstable and unpredictable. To achieve that type of accuracy, a 175 grain bullet or better, fired at a minimum 2600 fps is needed–in the .308/7.62 this will achieve 1000 yards, still be supersonic when it gets there, and will be more of an accurate round.

Translated–the ammunition issued will have to dupicate the ballistics of the Federal Gold Medal Match bullet, loaded with the 175 grain MatchKing. The M118 round as currently loaded is the military version of this cartridge.

Yes, in a pinch you will be able to break down a belt of 7.62×51 machine gun ammunition–but accuracy will suffer for it.

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 5, 2012 at 3:43 pm

There seems to be a lot of speculation and opinion being thrown out there. Not only that, but some of these comments are just wrong. I'm gonna put a few things out there just for clarification. I'm not trying to single anyone out. So, don't assume I'm responding to you.

1) This solicitation is the first step toward a goal that was set MANY years ago. The quest for a Compact Sniper Rifle was initiated by Snipers who needed a specific capability to fill roles that they had not previously been required to fill. Also, the adoption of a state of the art bolt gun chambered in .300 Win Mag negated the need for a full size semi auto. With that said, this solicitation, which is NOT a Request for Proposal, is about finding a SNIPER RIFLE for SNIPERS.

2) The 7.62 cartridge was chosen for a number of reasons. Logistics, weight, firepower, etc. are all important things, however the most important reason is that it's PERFECT for the Compact Sniper Rifle role. There have been some concerns as well as some OPINION thrown out as fact. The truth is, the 175 grain 7.62 will stay supersonic out to 1100 yards from a 16" barrel. That's cold, hard fact that I have seen for myself during testing for this very program.

3) More to follow……..

Reply

Joshua August 5, 2012 at 4:41 pm

No doubt, my point was that if reliability was an issue the team using the M110 would not have placed first.

The SEAL team using the MK20's placed nearly last.

I am not sure about what mods have been done, but I have seen them talked about before, the only one I am sure about is the Vapor bags now being supplied with them. The main issue they faced was the rusted bores and chambers from being stored improperly, the Vapor bags fix that issue.

Reply

not a gun genius August 5, 2012 at 4:42 pm

So its clear that there is alot of information up in the air or unexplained in full by this article.
rifles like m14 ebr and m39 emr and Mk 11mod 0 are all examples of semi auto sniper rifles that are considered less than ideal. And the sass m110 was the first to be able to have a fire rate almost 5 times faster than the m40a5.
We want the SASS in a shorter overall system, yes? If they try in any way to do this while trying to save money, they won't accomplish the goals set forth. It just isn't something that can be pieced together with what we have already.

The gentlemen who feels the bolt action is becoming obsolete is mistaken. The 338. Papua mag is a devastating round in many rifle configs…it scares opposition im sure of it considering its range and velocity. Barret 50 is clearly only necessary for very specific operations involving hard hitting (more like exploding) power and suppressive effectiveness. Long range engagements are less common as we learn more on middle east warfare. to have an infantry man who can reach past the m4/m16 and m249 with more power and precision is interesting to say the least.
And im aware this is specifically for sniper capable soldiers not just highly accurate infantryman.
Is that fair to say?

If what they want is the SASS in a shorter config, dont they have the blueprint a solid 85-90% finished?

Reply

Joshua August 5, 2012 at 4:42 pm

a good rifle would be the LMT 308MWS, it beat out both the SCAR-H and the HK entry during the British trials. Now labeled as the L129A1.

Reply

David olmstead August 5, 2012 at 4:58 pm

Shorten butt stock and extend the forestock to match required length. No need for suppressor if barrel is inside stock. And left over barrel cuy off. Rest stays the same and will save you money! Use current m110.

Reply

xcalbr August 5, 2012 at 8:13 pm

That is a excellent rifle joshua. To quote a certain crusader "You chose…wisely"

Reply

xcalbr August 5, 2012 at 8:16 pm

equal and opposite reaction my friend. Newton is a soldier's friend. ;)

Im short and ugly, though everything from a 22 to a 50 caliber still loved me.

Reply

xcalbr August 5, 2012 at 8:22 pm

The M25 and Mk 14 required extensive modification to be very accurate. My point is that the SOCOM is not properly tuned or modified to fit the criteria.

My experience with the M14 EBR was different. They are a ******* to keep properly cleaned, because of the mounted optic and stock system, and when they are not cleaned and greased, they are unreliable. Certain soldiers didn't even use grease to lubricate them, which was a training deficiency more than anything.

My point is that the platform leaves much to be desired. there are better ones out there for the job of a shortened sniper rifle.

Reply

xcalbr August 5, 2012 at 8:27 pm

oh come on joshua. dont you want to relearn how to shoot and remaster the ergonomics of a bullpup LOL ;)

Reply

Joshua August 5, 2012 at 8:36 pm

nothing would make me happier………

Reply

xcalbr August 5, 2012 at 8:38 pm

This is about getting a compact sniper rifle, not a new DM rifle. the reason why designated marksmen keep getting brought up is simply so that they can get equipped with a compact sniper rifle that snipers can use too. Its about flexibility. Indeed, it is a wise decision to field a compact sniper rifle so that snipers and DM can use them instead of just a single design for DM.

My point is that the HK417 is not what the army is looking for. It is not precise enough to be a sniper rifle (by US Army criteria), instead being a designated marksman rifle in the 16" and 20" barrel configurations. Perhaps the G28 can fit into this criteria, though not much is known about this weapon system.

Reply

Matt M. August 5, 2012 at 11:09 pm

For the record I wasn't for the HK417, I was simply saying that the HK417 isn't likely to be passed up b/c HK happens to be German; there are other reason such as accuracy like you mentioned.
In my opinion, even if all goes well and a contract comes out of this, the 20" M110's will still be around. I think that the end user will be Designated Marksmen mostly, and not-so-much school trained snipers.
However I think we should just respectfuly disagree on that. (not implying that you were disrespectful)

Reply

xcalbr August 6, 2012 at 12:09 am

yeah im with you there matt. I think that "upgrading" to a rifle that is sniper-standard or capable is a good thing for designated marksmen and snipers that maybe required to employ such weapons. Flexibility is a good attribute.

Reply

Joshua August 5, 2012 at 8:40 pm

LMT def knows their AR-10's.

the LMT was more durable, reliable, and more accurate than the SCAR-H, the HK417, and the Saber defense XR-10.

I have yet to see any negative reports on the L129A1 from anyone who has been issued them, all I see are great reviews.

Reply

ShooterVI August 5, 2012 at 11:56 pm
Jon August 6, 2012 at 12:07 am

Shooters,

All good discourse on what always is a very personal and subjective matter. I have spent years working operationally and continue to do so, but also have the perspective of having led major DOD precision small arms capability acquisitions and would like to point out a few things. First of all, the reality is all of us will probably be disappointed if the requirements listed in this article are what actually was sent to industry. The USG continues to shoot itself in the foot by producing very poor quality capability documents and not being specific. For example, the way this solicitation is written, the "best" fit probably won't win because a much cheaper, not as good system will have a valid legal protest to say it should win if it so much as produces only a marginal improvement over current systems based on the very loose and subjective procurement criteria. From an acquisitions standpoint, this is a pure waste of time and money unless the Army significantly tightens up the language…remember, words mean things in acquisition standards and have legal implications for contracts.

Second, although I am a fan of non-7.62 rounds that have far better ballistics, the reality again that drives the issue is cost. Specifically, the cost of ammo quickly and massively exceeds the cost of any specific rifle. Thus, the DoD is trapped in a self-reinforcing DOTMLPF cycle making it very hard to break away to a different caliber. Further, with many of your bigger rounds such as a .338 or Magnums, you significantly decrease the barrel life and again, massively increase the lifecycle costs of a rifle. In actual test cases (not manufacturer claims), most rifles tested to become the SR-21 for the Marine Corps chambered in hotter calibers burned out the barrels within round counts not suitable to even finish a training cycle at the SS school house without replacing the barrel. A few standouts did achieve what I consider a fair standard for barrel life, but again, the overall system cost was prohibitive for big Army or USMC fielding (SOF as you know has a different set of rules in this regard for good reason).

I have fought this fight doggedly for years and can tell you it will leave you beaten and disillusioned. I have seen teams do outstanding work and identify exceptional systems for our shooters only to have the program killed over and over again by brass with retirement deals with KAC and the such (status quo)…the USMC REPR selection being a perfect example (overruling program team recommendations and buying an inferior system with dubious reliability in combat). We all have a stake in getting these procurements right so the first stop for anyone that is serious about action should be to contact the program officer and those with signatory authority…to include your Congressman. For those in uniform, you need to get yourself either heard or directly on the team developing the capability production document and follow through with influencing the testing and evaluation criteria…if not acting as a SME tester yourself. Short of that you will take what you get and I promise you it will not be what you, me, or anyone but a manufacturer wants.

Reply

xcalbr August 6, 2012 at 12:18 am

I am dubious that it is more durable and reliable, though accurate perhaps. This contention is based off of the lack of evidence and reporting on my part, though if it was true, I wouldnt be surprised.

Lewis Machine & Tool makes excellent products. If I had to choose between one and a Larue OBR for AR10s, I would have to flip a quarter…or buy both.

Reply

Joshua August 6, 2012 at 4:45 am

Every report I have seen in regards to the L129 trials(which have never been full reports) stated that the LMT entry outperformed the other entries in every category during testing. Though the LMT did shine in accuracy putting up 1MOA at 200M with the ball ammo the british use.

Reply

a August 6, 2012 at 6:53 am

They should look for the 243 cal. conversion.

Reply

a August 6, 2012 at 6:57 am

243 cal.

Reply

a August 6, 2012 at 7:08 am

6.16x51mm (.243 Win.)

It is a bit heavier than the .223 and has some good bullets for long range shooting available. It does fall between the .223 and the .308 in terms of energy and penetration. The .243 has less recoil than the .308, and yet it sends bullets down range at near .223 speeds, with twice the bullet weight. This flat shooting cartridge does not suffer from some of the over penetration problems of the .308 and it doesn't suffer from some of the under penetration problems of the .223. In reality, this round is very suitable for the Law Enforcement arena. The .243 has never been used in any military rifle, but it would lend itself well to the 600+ meter sniping role.

Recommendation: The .243 would be an excellent sharpshooter caliber. It provides good energy and good trajectory with some mid weight bullets. Anything the .243 can do, the .308 can do also with a bit heavier bullet. But with some of the new .243 match loads that are coming out, it could make a very good mid range sniper rifle.

Reply

PS6 August 6, 2012 at 2:17 pm

What about using a Law Tactical AR Folding Stock Adapter with a collapsible stock and 16″ barrel.

Reply

John Maceda August 6, 2012 at 3:25 pm

I agree.

The 175 gr. 7.62×51 is a reliable, accurate and predictable round out to 1100 yards.

It is perfect in the compact sniper rifle role.

Reply

digger August 7, 2012 at 9:18 am

POF .308s suck. They jam like a SoaB. Their barrels are ideal though. They are fairly light, and super dense keeping them cooler, more accurate and more durable.

Reply

Capt. Paul Kozloski August 7, 2012 at 12:32 pm

In Vietnam in 1970 the M-16 issued to the 101st was so poor, I carried a Kar 15 with a fold in stock. This weapon was great and all scopes could be mounted. Why spend more money, just make it adjustable provided we have any in mothball.

Good Luck,
Capt. P.K.

Reply

Sergeant August 7, 2012 at 12:48 pm

Remember back in the sixties when they were rearming the Army from everything from the basic rifle to the LMG. The problem with the people testing the weapons was that peacetime firing conditions differ dramatically from wartime. I remember putting thousands of rounds through my m60 until the bipod turned white and slowly began to melt, yes, I said melt! The bipod bent. the Mi6 and most of the "new" equipment was garbage. Even the APCs were soft as butter and could be easily penetrated by heavy caliber ordinance. Thank goodness, through combat testing we eventually ended up with a decent line of weapons and equipment.

Reply

fcmiller68 August 7, 2012 at 12:57 pm

18 inch LaRue OBR with 5.5 – 22 x 50 Nightforce. Nuff said.

Reply

Sundance98 August 7, 2012 at 1:05 pm

*Have any of you ever heard of the BM-59 Tanker model by Beretta? Had a folding stock option shorter barrel and M-14 Action! Very accurate out of the box. Why re-invent the wheel?

Reply

edward campellone August 7, 2012 at 1:50 pm

JUST BRING THE M14, BACK RE TOOL IT, AND GO FOR IT.
I HAD MINE CUT BACK FOUR INCHES IN NAM AND USED
IT AS MY SIDEARM, WHILE BEING A 11B20,MG.WHEN MY BELT JAMED OR WE HAD TO INTERCHANGE A HOT FROUNT END I WEAS GLAD I HAD IT.(BUT THAT DAM AK47 WAS A TOUGH WEPON TO GET AWAY FROM.) PS BRING BACK THE 45.
.
SGT CAMPELLONE 199TH LT INF HQHQ 3rd/ 7th 1966 till 9171.
God beless all of you for the job you are doing.AND IF YOU THING YOU HAVE IT TOUGH LOOK UP THE HISTORY OF THE 36TH TEXAS DIVISION 143rd INF CO'K 143 INF THE BATTLE AT MT CASSINO THE RAPPIDO RIVER 1943.JUST THINK ABOUT THE WEPPONS THEY HAD TO WORK WITH.

Reply

oscar d August 7, 2012 at 3:28 pm

Sundance.
Ever heard of the AR-10? Why import a wheel?

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 7, 2012 at 4:07 pm

That 5.5-22×50 Nightforce would be a step back. It's certainly not ideal for many applications for the compact sniper rifle. Agree on the OBR though, however with a 16" barrel.

Reply

Monty August 7, 2012 at 4:18 pm

Keep The M-14!! Most Durable & Accurate!!!

Reply

Troopersmith August 7, 2012 at 6:35 pm

Why do you say a 16" barrel is more appropriate? I can understand for CQB but if you going for distance then you want the longer barrel and a sniper weapon should never be employed at any range less then 1,000 meters. The standard infantry soldier should be able to accurately engage targets out to 1,000 meters and leave anything else to the sniper. A collapsible stock is nice but again should only be reserved for CQB operations the sniper weapon should be custom built to the shooter with a fixed stock to reduce noise from the collapsible stock rattling around. A collapsible stock to me is one of the worse inventions ever, I have one on both of my AK-47s and am thinking of throwing the stocks in the fireplace where they belong, uncomfortable and noisy both traits are bad in combat. But then I do hate the M-16/M-4s with a passion and think the military did a disfavor by adopting them over the M-1/M-14 yeah sure they're heavy but there ain't nothing better for knock down and stopping power.

Reply

Joshua August 7, 2012 at 6:37 pm

OH PLEASE.

knock down and stopping power are made up terms with no place in a ballistics discussion.

Reply

Lance August 7, 2012 at 6:54 pm

Overall the M-14 is good for DMR and for point defense. It cannot compare to a M-16 or M-4 for CQB or for general infantry weapon. But its jobs in the navy and as a EBR are great and they are just as reliable as FN crap is. How ever The AR-10 can match and surpasses it for accuracy, so there is a trade off.

Reply

Matt M. August 7, 2012 at 8:11 pm

@Troopersmith
A 16" barrel will be fine; the 7.62x51mm round will reach out to where it needs to go – there will be a drop in velocity and thus, a drop in range but that for the most part, will only be past 1000m.
See, the greater the velocity – the flatter the trajectory – so this will make accurate range estimation more important as the bullet's flat trajectory will decrease more. However, this will only be really noticable after 1000m which is more than fine for DM employment and school-trained snipers are more than capable of correcting for this; so the problem is largely minimal.
About the stock, collapsible stocks are more than necessary as soldiers are not all the same size and body armor only makes it harder for some soldiers to get an accurate shot with a full stock.

Reply

Troopersmith August 8, 2012 at 5:40 pm

So why not just eliminate the need for them to adjust make their job easier not harder the sniper already has enough to factor in before taking the shot. It only makes sense to me anyway but then again before I joined, I trained with an M-1 Garand a standard infantry weapon for the infantry soldier of WWII and should be still to this day. Like I said about the collapsible stocks they are junk just cut the stock to fit the sniper and train troopers to actually shoot right. The 7.62x51mm round is a good round yes but it is a heavy round and it needs all the help it can get including longer barrels and better powder and stable stocks that don't allow for any kind of deviation like my junk collapsible stocks on my AKs do. In basic I was making shots that the new army only dreams of because I'd been training to shoot at what I thought were normal ranges 1,000M and beyond with iron sights so fixed stocks and longer barrels are a must for accurate long range shooting.

Reply

Destro August 8, 2012 at 11:42 pm

this post is full of so much wrong I don't even know where to begin

Reply

S.Monty August 8, 2012 at 8:22 am

I think that if the Gov. is going to spend all kinds of money that they should try designing
A weapon that will shoot something other than a bullit. We have been shooting bullits
for hundreds of years. With a little bit of brain power they can design a differant means
of projectile , with the same accuracy and better distance, Mybe this weapon could be capable of holding 1000 rounds or better, and the marksmen could carry 4 or 5 (1 000) round clips. Who knows mybe they already have something in the making..

Reply

Matt M. August 8, 2012 at 9:48 am

Case-less weapons hold around 50 or so per mag w/o being bulky and the US Army is currently looking at them. The problem is that you cant get you absolutely CAN'T get the ammo wet, there are problems with heat-dissipation, and the biggest I've heard is that there are major problems with getting a good seal in the breech.

The weapon that you described is more like a rail-gun, but smaller.

Reply

SFC W.J. Oakley (Ret August 8, 2012 at 6:26 pm

If the want a shorter more compact sniper rifle, they need to start with something like a match grade M14. Remove the stock and mount the action into a "bullpup" design stock.
It allows you to reduce the overall length and still maintain a full length barrel. Then they can add whatever else they need to quite easily.

Reply

Sgt. Rich Cabral August 8, 2012 at 11:19 pm

Tis thread is reall old and long. I mentioned my company website and was admonished by those key board commandos, so just go to SHortRifles.com what you suggested is done and in production and we have submiited our info to this bid. Also we have them in the hands of SF and SEALS.

Reply

Destro August 8, 2012 at 11:50 pm

yeah, because you come on here trying to sell you product, one that was clearly stated they DO NOT WANT. The army said they DO NOT WANT A M14 PLATFORM. No matter how many times you plug your website your not going to change the RFP.

Reply

Joshua August 9, 2012 at 6:37 am

No one uses your stuff so just stop.

I talked to some of my friends and apparently they purchased some for testing but decided not to adopt them because they sucked.

Reply

Sgt. Rich Cabral August 9, 2012 at 10:33 am

Did not think you had any friends!

Reply

Joshua August 9, 2012 at 11:09 am

I have a few in special places, and none of them like your system and all say it never made it past T&E.

H2O MAN January 25, 2014 at 7:00 pm

I own a CQB-16 type SEI M14 that is bolted into a bullpup conversion kit. Overall length with DC Vortex flash hider is just under 28". The total length with a Wind Talker sound suppressor attached is 36". The package is accurate & reliable, but I do wish the bullpup conversion kit was at least 2 lbs lighter than it is.

Reply

Diego Blanchard August 9, 2012 at 4:54 am

I must agree with a possible BullPup Type of semi auto rifle. They are much less prone to Kick back. They also are able to configure one with a barrel length that will not interfere with accuracy. I have always felt that for under 1,000 yards a 223/5.56 Type round with a heavier powder load might be a good choice. However I am no expert and far from it. The most used long range rifle is the 50 caliber, No? Then we have the bolt action Remington 700 series in different set up's. All with 7.62 I think.
But what they are looking for now is and could be a combination of the M1A1 yet with a BullPup action. I don't know how likely that would be at all. I do know that I not only prefer the Garand action on any rifle I have always felt it is less likely to jam under most combat situations. Well I guess that's all I can say again not knowing all that much about these things. All I can add is that I hope the ARMY finds the "Right Stuff" On this one and not a piece of crap that will later cause problems for the solder. Like the M16-A1 Or A2 I was issued as a recruit in 1982.
GIVE ME AN M14 ANY DAY!!

Reply

moses August 10, 2012 at 11:49 am

I agree with you thoroughly, to bad it is not shorter for closer quarters!

Reply

Riceball August 10, 2012 at 2:44 pm

Wrong caliber, 5.56 vs. 7.62, and has a fixed stock as opposed to a collapsible stock.

Reply

Riceball August 10, 2012 at 2:52 pm

If people like Taxpayer had their way we'd still be using Springfield 1903s, wearing woolen uniforms, steel pots on our heads, and we'd walk into every battle and haul everything using horses and mule drawn carriages.

Reply

Powderman August 10, 2012 at 4:03 pm

"People put up with the M14 but no one finds it ideal."

How so?

The M14 is a battle-proven design. It is simple to operate, robust, fires the 7.62×51 NATO cartridge, and is VERY adaptable.

It can be easily suppressed; it has the capability for a gas cut-off to even make it a straight pull bolt gun, totally quiet with subsonic rounds.

How accurate is a SCAR, or any of the other new rifles? Maybe 2-3 inches at 100 yards.

How accurate can the M14 be? Match-quality accurate. Sniper-quality accurate–see the M21 weapon system. Put it in a properly bedded stock–or bolt it tight to a Sage EBR stock; feed it M118 ammunition and it can be 1000 yard accurate. Will it shoot sub-MOA? You bet it will.

As for the short barrel requirement, look to the Springfield Armory Scout configuration. The barrel is the right length. Worried about recoil? Block the bottom ports of the flash hider, and you have a compensator/muzzle brake.

Reply

Lance August 10, 2012 at 5:21 pm

@Powderman

I agree the M-14 is a accurate reliable weapon and is a good sniper platform (M-21, M-25). One BIG reason the Navy uses them and the SEALs still too.

Reply

xcalbr August 10, 2012 at 6:42 pm

People understand that there are better designs out there, and objectively speaking, the M14 was generally inferior to the FAL and G3. The M14 is expensive to maintain and upgrade to be accurate and modular, it is heavy, and it is a pain in the *** to keep running. It is also not as accurate as the internets claim that it is. for goodness sakes, the M14 is 3-4 MOA accurate off the rack. In order to be more accurate, it requires extensive tuning and accuratization.

"It can be easily suppressed; it has the capability for a gas cut-off to even make it a straight pull bolt gun, totally quiet with subsonic rounds."

The SCAR and other battle rifles are also easily suppressed. No advantage there. and the gas cut off is for rifle grenades once upon a time, thus it has no applicable purpose for modern combat. LOL, with a 7.62 NATO, there is no such thing as "totally quiet" even with a suppressor. You want to know a dirty little secret? suppressors are not necessarily there to be quiet, they are there to reduce muzzle flash.

"How accurate is a SCAR, or any of the other new rifles? Maybe 2-3 inches at 100 yards."

The SCAR H can be 1-2 MOA depending on the ammunition used. A m14 can also become that accurate, if not more so, though with modification. the advantage of new rifles is that they're this accurate out of the factory. That is what is so neat about them.

"How accurate can the M14 be? Match-quality accurate. Sniper-quality accurate–see the M21 weapon system. Put it in a properly bedded stock–or bolt it tight to a Sage EBR stock; feed it M118 ammunition and it can be 1000 yard accurate. Will it shoot sub-MOA? You bet it will."

After extensive and expensive modification and fine tuning.

"As for the short barrel requirement, look to the Springfield Armory Scout configuration. The barrel is the right length. Worried about recoil? Block the bottom ports of the flash hider, and you have a compensator/muzzle brake."

There is no reason to adopt a M14. period. The technology has evolved past it.

Reply

Sgt. Rich Cabral August 10, 2012 at 7:47 pm

It has become obvious that everyone here has their own idea about what works. So why don't you all do what I did stop talking the Walk and WALK THE WALK go out and develop your system. OMG!

Reply

Joshua August 10, 2012 at 8:09 pm

The L129A1 is .98 MOA at 200M using the standard ball ammunition the British forces use. It is also easier to maintain, and repair than the M14.

Heck even a rack grade Colt M4A1 can be a super accurate with the right ammo, the issue is ball ammo is generally 2-4MOA by design, the MK318 the Marines use gets 1-2MOA from their M16's.

If you want an accurate rifle you need good ammo and a free floated barrel, something almost all current day rifles are capable of.

Reply

Sgt. Rich Cabral August 10, 2012 at 8:18 pm

I DISAGREE the M14 will kick the fals butt and in the BullDog762 G4 stock system NO Contest.

Reply

Joshua August 10, 2012 at 8:27 pm

DUDE, give your system a rest. I swear all you are doing is trying to shill your product by mentioning how super secret squirrel cool it is and how all the super elite use them(which they dont). It really gets old.

xcalbr August 10, 2012 at 9:26 pm

in what way? the FAL has superior ergonomics, is lighter, has synthetic furniture (which doesnt swell in the humidity nor degrade due to weather), is easier to manufacture, and less expensive. it was the named "the right arm of the free world" for a reason.

There is so much mythology behind the M14. Its rediculous. Sure, it is a decent rifle, though it definitely obsolete and was behind the curve even in the 1950s.

Destro August 10, 2012 at 11:57 pm

atleast the Juggernaut Tactical stock looks like it might hold up during a trip to the range….that bulldog stock looks like rivited plastic

xcalbr August 10, 2012 at 9:11 pm

I thought my comment contained the LMT 308 AR10, but yes, joshua is absolutely correct. That is ONE example of a system that is overall superior.

Reply

PS6 August 10, 2012 at 7:05 pm

The AR Folding Stock Adapter could solve a lot of the size issues .

Reply

xcalbr August 10, 2012 at 9:16 pm

there are off the shelf options from LMT and Larue that would suffice nicely. ****, even knights armament has a shortened SR25! talk about reinventing the wheel LOL

Reply

Lance August 10, 2012 at 10:30 pm

The M-14 is far more reliable and as if not ALOT more accurate than the German G-3 was. The M-14 also was better fit. the G-3 was made for 7.92×33 and was stretched to 7.62 NATO and is awkwardly long and heavy. Recoil is alot worse on a G-3. While some may say the M-14 was out of date before it was adopted strange that Over a dozen nations use them. It beat all European designs in accuracy test and we better than the 50s era AR-10s which had major heating problems on auto fire.

We can argue over AR-10 vs M-14 sure but leave the vendetta you got against the M-14 over you FAL. M-14s solder on FALs have largely died off the worlds combat arms with only a few third world nations using it.

Reply

Joshua August 11, 2012 at 9:02 am

Lance, the AR-10 never competed against the M-14.

Eugene Stoner was late getting samples to the government and because of that it never once got tested.

Reply

xcalbr August 11, 2012 at 12:31 pm

far more reliable than the G3? ********. plain and simple. It is also not "alot" more accurate. A rack grade M14 and G3 are just as accurate as one another. That is a fact.

and the G3 awkwardly long and heavy? these are also the attributes of the M14, if not more so. The recoil is one of the things that sucks about the G3.

The M14 was out of date, even when it was introduced. It was upgraded 1930s technology that incorporated a new cartridge, select fire, and detachable magazine. Thats it.

The M14's "popularity" was due to the fact that we just gave certain allies M14s. They were certainly NOT as popular as the FAL and G3. The only issue the original AR10 had was its barrel, which tried something radically new and failed. In many ways, the AR10 was the most superior battle rifle of that era that was ditched due to politics and human stupidity rather than the demerits of the design. Stoner would have his revenge anyways :D

Also, many nations continue to use the G3 and FAL, which are being replaced rapidly. The M14 also was resurrected only because large numbers were stored and brought back into service by the US Army. Since Canada, Australia, and the UK largely destroyed stocks of FAL variants (L1A1), the M14 had no competitor for a DMR role. Ill also add that newer battle rifles have made the L1A1 essentially obsolete and the US military is recognizing that the M14 is also obsolete and are looking at the aforementioned CSASS and SCAR Hs/Mk20 platforms on the SOCOM end.

Reply

crackedlenses August 11, 2012 at 11:24 am

@Troopersmith

"Wow someone else who thinks I don’t know what I’m talking about"

Joshua has established his reputation on this blog; I can repost a couple of his other posts, if you like. I have no idea who you are.

"I’ve only had one and the 7.62 should be the standard for every trooper that way you save money on ammo only having to buy one type of ammo only translates into cheaper operating costs. There I just put a real weapon in the hands of our troops and cut the cost of supplying them to."

Not only that, but you have just decreased the amount of ammo each trooper can carry, decreased the hit probability by decreasing the number of rounds that will be fired at the enemy, and saddled undertrained soldiers with a weapon that requires even more skill to hit stuff with. That, and you will have to issue the soldiers something to go with their 7.62 mm. battle rifles for when they conduct MOUT operations.

"If you want to go cheaper then start getting AKs and make the 7.62×39 the standard caliber and as for them not being accurate you just need to learn how to shoot better because I can get a 1-2 inch group at 300 yards…"

Sorry, but our military will NEVER buy AKs, and especially not in 7.62×39. Not happening. Also, accuracy depends alot on the shooter, and all AKs are not made alike.

"in semi auto which is the only way our troops should be shooting there shouldn’t be any 3rd burst or full auto in the standard infantry weapon that’s just a waste of ammo."

3-rd. burst probably is useless, though I have read of it being used in combat. Full-auto is just another tool in the box; probably won't need it, but it is still useful for just in case.

Finally, please use some punctuation. I want to read your posts, but the lack of punctuation makes it harder for me to follow…….

Reply

Troopersmith August 11, 2012 at 11:49 am

He may have "established a reputation" but he has finaly met someone who knows what he is taking about even if he doesn't think so. If the troopers can't hit something in 8 rounds they don't need to be in the military plain and simple. As for CQB that's what bayonets and sidearms are for, but you'll never catch me using a sidearm even for CQB I'll use my M-1 knowing that I can punch through a brick wall and take down the five hajis on the other side of that wall. As far as my puncuation oh well deal with it I'm unconcerned with what others think of me and I know that is how our military should be. My childhood hero General George S Patton didn't care what others thought that's why he hired known Nazis to run Germany after the victory in europe.

Reply

Joshua August 11, 2012 at 12:12 pm

Oh cmon really? You'll use your sidearm and bayonet for CQB?

You know you can run your M1 and think its the best thing since sliced bread was made, it doesn't mean you are correct though. Have you ever tried engaging someone at 300+M? If you had you would understand just how difficult it is to hit a moving target with 8 rounds, it does not mean the soldier is a bad shot, it just means its a difficult feat to do. If they are standing still it is still difficult but much easier to do.

Also you do not know what your talking about and I have met plenty who do, and those that do tend to agree with me…….just saying :D

Reply

xcalbr August 11, 2012 at 12:42 pm

"If the troopers can’t hit something in 8 rounds they don’t need to be in the military plain and simple."

You obviously dont know what you're talking about with a comment like that. Have you ever been in a combat environment? one shot kills are as rare as hens teeth. The odds of hitting your target beyond 300 meters diminishes significantly, even with a 30-06 or 308, which are generally effective up to 800-1000 meters. Plain and simple, the 308's maximum effective range was deemed irrelevant to the common infantryman, who typically engages targets within 200 meters. That is why the assault rifle concept was born to begin with.

"As for CQB that’s what bayonets and sidearms are for, but you’ll never catch me using a sidearm even for CQB"

********. If you can have a long rifle thats effective up to 500 meters and compact enough to clear urban environments with, then it will be more profundly effective than a sidearm. Also, sidearms are even less effective weapons against human targets than rifles (I dont give a **** if you have a 45 ACP or even a 44 magnum). Bayonets? leave them in World War II. You can be just as deadly with your weapon without a bayonet.

"I’ll use my M-1 knowing that I can punch through a brick wall and take down the five hajis on the other side of that wall."

(*facepalm) You obviously havent been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. They dont build with brick, but rather mud. Afghan mud huts are notorious for stopping even 50 caliber rounds and a 30-06 will certainly not punch through the other wide and kill five afghans with (which you wouldnt know were combatants or not, violating the rules of engagement and geneva convention).

"My childhood hero General George S Patton didn’t care what others thought that’s why he hired known Nazis to run Germany after the victory in europe."

the entire US government hired Nazis after the war's end. Research operation paperclip. That wasn't a patton phenomenea. NASA benefitted from it immensely, though ill let you do the homework on how.

Reply

Troopersmith August 11, 2012 at 11:34 am

Oh yeah and those stoppages I've had with my M16A2 range from double feeds to stovepipes and the ejector sticking so don't tell me the M16s and M4s are reliable as for the AK my daily run into town weapon has only been cleaned once in 15 years and my other weapon has been cleaned once a year for the last 10 years both function perfectly. The only problem I've had with my M-1 was because the 70 year old firing pin decided to break. I'm sorry but the 5.56 and all it's kin are junk and no one is going to change my mind about it. I heard about the testing phase of the M-16 they had to rig the tests to make it pass. Why would anyone want a weapon with such a dishonorable history?

Reply

xcalbr August 11, 2012 at 12:55 pm

Your M16A2 was improperly maintained. I can tell you right now you needed new magazines and a new extractor spring and/or extractor. Dont take my word for it, just pull out a -10 manual and you would have found the issue and fixed it with a armorer. The malfunctions of the M16/M4 are not because of the design, but because of the operator. parts break and wear out and must be periodically replaced. Parts not being replaced is the primary reason why M4s malfunction.

as far as cleaning your AK once in 15 years and your other weapon once a year for the past 10 years, this tells me what kind of gun owner you are. You probably didn't lubricate your M16 at all or go through the manual for a adequate PMI. The M16A2 and M4 are very reliable rifles.

Right, im sure 5.56 rifles are junk. You obviously know something SOCOM and federal law enforcement tactical teams, not to mention their foreign counterparts, dont know…

Reply

Sgt. Rich Cabral August 11, 2012 at 12:26 pm

Trooper Smith I am with You. Semper Fi. THe Zombies do not have a Clue.

Reply

Matt M. August 11, 2012 at 1:13 pm

@Troopersmith
Why would we want to eliminate something that has almost no effect on the war-fighter or his effectiveness other than giving him/her more experience and knowledge?
Proper range estimation is a very important part of a sniper setting up for a shot and making it just a little more important will ONLY make our snipers better (not saying they are bad).
And regardless about what you think of your M1 or your training, anything can ALWAYS be better.

Reply

xcalbr August 11, 2012 at 5:09 pm

nobody is adopting the M1 or another M14 variant. get that idea out of your head. The sun has set for those weapons being used for a military application.

They are awesome shooting rifles, dont get me wrong. Perhaps if a asiatic empire invades north america, you can grab your M1 and head for the mountains. ;)

Reply

Lance August 11, 2012 at 6:25 pm

Neither is anybody adopting your beloved FAL anymore. 7.62 NATO weapons out sider of sniper rifles are passay and no one wants them, The AR-10 is the only one selling and not for a assault rifle but for marksman. And the sun isnt set on the M-14 the navy uses them and im not talking about SEALs who also use them. The M-110 is not going to to be a DMR anytime soon budget crunch will stop most arms projects outside of NIE and JLTV. The EBR is popular and will last at least for a another several years.

I know you hate the M-14 with a vengeance and just hate all none FN weapons. But The fact is the M-14 will solder on for a few more decades in various small catches. The FAL had its heyday but is overall is gone into the past no one is adopting FALs either.

@Joshua
Iam a M-14 fan and see it soldering on, for the navy. But the AR-10 is a good weapon too. As a sniper rifle its going to be popular for a long time.

Reply

xcalbr August 11, 2012 at 8:53 pm

and where in the **** did i say they should adopt the FAL? NOWHERE.
and nobody wants 7.62 NATO weapons besides sniper rifles (i think thats what you said)? That is flat out wrong. Please tell me why HK 417s, SCARs, and AR10 copies are being adopted by NATO and non-NATO nations? designated marksman rifles were discovered to be extremely useful in the 21st century battlefield.

and as myself and others have pointed out before, the budget "cuts" will bring the DOD budget back to 2007 levels. Devastating, absolutely devastating LOL…(facepalm). The truth is that replacements are arriving for the M14 and its platforms in US military service. SOCOM has largely replaced the M14 platform because they are a pain in the *** to maintain and keep accuratized. and FALs and G3s are continuing to circulate around the world; they are just as popular, if not more so, than the M14.

The M14 is a neat rifle, dont get me wrong. but it is stupid to keep a antiquated rifle in service when better, less expensive, more modern platforms are available. this emotional attachment and nostalgia has no place in the 21st century superpower US armed forces. Get over it.

Reply

Lance August 11, 2012 at 9:55 pm

And your way off again pal. Your FALs and G-3s have been replaced for years around the world by M-16s AUGs FNCs G-36s ect. Your FAL has been replaced by 5.56mm weapons 90% of the worlds armies. No army has adopted the HK 417 and only a small number of SOCOM units bought SCARs, which the L and H model has no major foreign sales. The M-110 was not a M-14 replacement and was to replace and failed to do so the M-24 SWS. Still when you see the news or any SOCOM related material in MARSOC and SEALs M-14s are still around. You fail to state too that Navy has and will use M-14 for many years to come for ship security. And I been around M-14s for years they are not a pain to maintain they are alot better than a SAW or other infantry arms. You can argue a M-4/M-16 may be easier to clean but that's it.

As for foreign nations the Baltic states the Philippines, South Korea Columbia Taiwan all still use there M-14s for sniper and DM roles as well.

I can only count 5 nations who still use FALs most have been replaced by 5.56mm weapons.

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 11, 2012 at 10:34 pm

This thread has some of the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen! I have sat back and read most of this crap shaking my head in utter disbelief.

Lance, your OPINIONS are SPECULATIVE at best. I think its rather funny to watch you try and bait other readers into an emotional response only to drive yourself into insanity over your own doing. With that said, you continue to repeat the same arguments over and over here on kitup as well as other blogs. This whole "SCAR lovers" and "FN lovers" thing is pure imagination. Oh, and before you say it, I never called you any "names" (because we know that one is coming). Lol!

So, let's see, what do we have today.

The HK417 has been adopted in some variation by no less than a DOZEN COUNTRIES. So, that is guesswork on your part.

The SCAR has been purchased in large numbers by every SOCOM unit in the military, including the Navy who purchased the MK16, MK17, and the MK20. Again, not true.

The M110 failed to replace the M24 SWS? Where did that come from. Do you even know what your talking about? The M110 has replaced the M24 and has filled that spot for years. The Army Sniper School teaches the majority of the course with M110's and the last International Sniper Competition had competitors using the M110 as the standard rifle amongst all competing Snipers. The M24 is GONE!

Who is comparing M14 maintenance to SAW's? The M14 is terrible to maintain. Why would anyone fail to mention that the Navy would be using M14's for ship security for years?!? That statement, once again, would be speculation and predication.

I'm seriously upset about the way this thread has gone. We could have discussed some of the best candidates for this solicitation and instead we have wasted all this time on M14's and bull pups. Two guns that aren't even a consideration. WTH!

Reply

Matt M. August 11, 2012 at 11:40 pm

@FormerSFMedic
I was under the impression that the M24 is still in use due the XM2110 which came from the M24E1 reconfig – http://www.army.mil/article/45970/army-awards-con… -. And this -http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=3820 -.
I'm not trying to be incorrect.
NOTE: I'm in no way saying that the M24 and M24E1/XM2010 are the same rifle.

Reply

Lance August 11, 2012 at 11:45 pm

Strange you and other brought the M-14 up. SOCOM did not replace all weapons with SCARs they have some but in many ways still have M-4s and M-14s and Mk-18 and M-60s. You've been a SCAR lover for years and keep saying how all other guns suck to your super weapon from Belgium. Even know SOCOM ditched the L and yes buys some Hs yet ive seen only a few. Some SF groups have bought HK-417s for a DMR Only Germany bought them for a regular DMR. The Navy HAS NOT bought SCARs for regular Sailors and have used M-14s along with the Coast guard for years for ship security details since you dont know about about the navy maybe you can let sailors talk since your no sailor. The M-110 was to replace all M-24 SWS yet the Army has maintained some M-24s and largely shut down M-110 for the new XM-2010 which is a M-24 with a new chassie. So the M-110 did not replace all M-24/2010s.

The main reason me and other brought up M-14s is that you kept on trashing it and saying how we needed M-110 with a short barrel to replace them. Others and my self who shot them longer than you've been running your mouth say they are NOT a bad weapon and are not that horrible to maintain. Strange I could clean my M-14 faster than my A2 rifle. As far as your wish to discuss companies to retrofit M-110 everyone knows its going to be between LMT KAC and Remington since they did all the AR-10 work for US and NATO nations for years.

Reply

Joshua August 12, 2012 at 6:33 am

There are alot of MK17's and MK20's out there.

Also lets be honest, SOCOM didn't stop procurring the MK16 because it was a horrible rifle. SOCOM only has so much money that they can spend on fancy SOCOM items, they get M4A1's for free from the Army. The reason the MK16 stopped was because they found that the M4A1 kitted with the SOPMOD package could do everything the MK16 could. The MK16 did everything it was supposed to, but when compared to a SOPMOD M4A1 it was not worth all that money that they would have to spend, thus they chose the M4A1. The SCAR isnot a bad rifle, quite the opposite, it's a very good rifle it's just not worth the money over the M4A1.

As to the topic at hand, and being a tax payer I wish the Army would quit wasting my money. Tek KAC that you want some mods done to the M110, let them do them and redesignate the modded rifle the M110E1, this would save money and be much quicker.

I get tired of all of these rifle competitions when the cheaper and quicker solution is COTS mods that can be had.

E. Ronc August 12, 2012 at 5:41 am

God have mercy on my soul… First, Army basically says we want something that looks like an M4 to fool the insurgent into thinking they all are carrying aforementioned M4 and not carrying something with some real bang. Why our favorite jihadist can’t tell that one M4 looks bigger than the others, I’m not real sure.

This leaves out my M14. For all you haters remember it has been around for a long, long time in one form or variation. These aren’t your average rack grade rifles found in the locker of my old sub or oceanographic ship. Tuned properly it is as accurate as anything out there. A simple trip to camp Perry will back that up. It has been the base for two sniper versions, the M21 and the M25. Also the guy who wants to put it in a bullpup is late to that party, been done a couple time already. M89SR and AWC G2, oh both were built for snipers. Guess we should be able to put a way any talk of lack of accuracy, except for the die hard hater.

Next 7.62×51 is not the best round in the word. But guess what, there is no real best round in the world. If you were to pick a distance, you can probably find at least two better cartridges for that distance checking ballistic tables. There are hundreds different rounds out there including wildcats, can’t carry all of them. The 7.62 is generally a decent compromise for a wide area out to 800 meters, yes a good sniper can stretch that. The services have been working on improvements of basic ammo for these weapons. M59 or M80 not the first pick for most looking for that long shot now. Today we have M118 and variants along with MK 316, M852. The Brits even have their pet rounds for their weapons. So as we look at the 7.62×51 we see quite a bit of data from 175 grain to 168 and 147 that cover a lot of area with a known performance history.

So what the Army wants it will probably get. It will be a Stoner style rifle with 16 inch barrel in 7.62x51mm. God knows our troops can’t figure out how to manipulate any other type of rifle. (That is sarcasm). Held back, but finally my 2 pennies in.

Reply

VTCC August 12, 2012 at 8:04 am

You know what, he's right. We need to go back to the basics, but even this semi – auto crap is too advanced. We need to start reissuing the Springfield for standard troops. Bolt actions are the real way to fight!

Reply

18x August 12, 2012 at 11:05 am

FormerSFMedic is there a link or someway I could possibly contact you?

Reply

crackedlenses August 12, 2012 at 11:06 am

@E. Ronc

So how is the M14 better than whatever AR variant the Army will end up with? The AR has always been known for accuracy; it will easily match the accuracy of the M14. It makes sense to me to standardize your DMR/semi-auto SPR with your standard issue infantry rifle for a variety of reasons.

Not trying to pick a fight, I really do want to understand your take on it…..

Reply

E. Ronc August 12, 2012 at 7:10 pm

@crackedlenses
Never said M14 was better or that accuracy in Stoner design was lacking. Just was answering the 14 haters.

{It makes sense to me to standardize your DMR/semi-auto SPR with your standard issue infantry rifle for a variety of reasons.} In general I agree. Though I don't real see it as a major imperative. The biggest thing going for it is the same general silhouette but as they get closer or use optics(binoculars) it will show up as different. First off, different mags will show difference; 5.56 with its curve and guys wearing a totally different mag carriers.

Maybe because I am a shooter, I find that they are different enough not to make mistakes in manipulating the actions or controls. Don't get me wrong, I have two AR platforms and like them. Like a few like to point out, why did we get the Mk. 14 ERB and M39 Enhanced Battle Rifle? We had the M14's to build them from. That should of helped the cost. My friends kid did a tour in Afghanistan with the 181 and liked the ERB. Now not everyone is going to like the ergonomics of the 14 or its variants, but same can be said for the AR, but I will grant you less than the 14's, especially with original stocks.

The Mk. 14 mod 1 is not the worst choice is all I'm saying. Decent review here: http://www.tacticalshotgun.ca/content_sub/sage_eb

As to what the Army does want, the LMT like the brits went with seems to fit the bill. Knights Armament SR-25 EM CARBINE seems tailored to this. FN suffers from the same non M4 shape, not to mention cost.

No big fight here, just that you have something that seems to fit the bill, so let's buy another system for no large advantage. Talk about full circle, I got hammered before for advocating to go with HK 416 over an M4 if there was small advantage (to avoid a replay, just let that stand as is, not interested in arguing if it is or isn't). Now a lot of same people reversing course. Some say the FN Mk. 16 is a better rifle but the difference over the M4 SOPMOD not worth the cost. But **** I could be wrong, maybe the Eugene's system is all that, over the M14 variants. I just haven't seen it.

Reply

crackedlenses August 12, 2012 at 9:49 pm

@E. Ronc

Thanks for elaborating. Many seem to view the M14 and its variants as an interim solution. Why they do not simply adopt a carbine variant of the M110 is beyond me, as that would seem to satisfy all needs.

Everyone has their favorite weapons systems (mine has always been the XM29 and its descendent the XM8 lol), but at the end of the day the Army's decisions will always make some unhappy (downside to standard issuing weapons). Many simply do not like the M14, just as many Vietnam vets simply do not like the M16/M4, no matter how much performance has improved. I just hope the Army gets what it needs without ticking off too many of the said weapon's users…..

Reply

E. Ronc August 13, 2012 at 8:27 am

@ crackedlenses
{Many seem to view the M14 and its variants as an interim solution.}
Blame my team. The Navy has always been a fan of the M14 for its range and power over the M16. Plus added bonus, they have a line launcher you can use. When you have to shoot up some little boat, bigger is better. The SEAL’s looking for more pop, had the boys at Crane build them the Mk. 14 mod 0. Plus jarheads had DMR already, which was later dropped for an upgraded to M39. The poor Army was late to the party with M14ERB-RI. http://www.m14.ca/DIY/M14_EBR_SUPPLEMENT.pdf

Now, I understand initial hesitation of vets in Vietnam to dislike the M16, with early problems with rifle and ammo change. Now if I was in a jungle I would rather M4. If by a long open rice paddy I think the M14 would be more to my liking. Like my dad always said, use the right tool for the job. Forgot who said it, “We are always fighting the last war.” No more evident when you show up in wide open spaces and stark mountains with an M4. The bad guy, with a K98 from WWII, has better range than you kind of sucks.

{Why they do not simply adopt a carbine variant of the M110 is beyond me, as that would seem to satisfy all needs.}
Looks like that is what the Army wants to do. But will it have a line launcher?

Reply

Lance August 12, 2012 at 11:50 am

I can agree Joshua M-110 is a good weapon. Not debating that. I can garentee its going to be either KAC or Remington to make new M-110E1s and I do know regular M-110 will be around as well.

@E.ronic I agree the M-14s at Camp Perry are not the same as the ones our father carried in Vietnam. The Navy versions too are kept and accurised and so very accurate.

Reply

xcalbr August 12, 2012 at 12:56 pm

"The main reason me and other brought up M-14s is that you kept on trashing it and saying how we needed M-110 with a short barrel to replace them."

The reason he kept "trashing it" (i call it highlighting its disadvantages) is because certain people on here keep mentioning brining back the M14 for sniping duty and certain bullpup "enhancements" (dare i use that word) to the M14. What Im saying is that the M14's sun has set. There are other superior platforms out there and its time to move on.

The M14 does need replacing. It is time for the army to drop its interim solution to the designated marksman rifle and adopt something fitting for the 21st century that is already compatible with the M110 already in service.

"Others and my self who shot them longer than you’ve been running your mouth say they are NOT a bad weapon and are not that horrible to maintain."

Thats a bold statement. Indicating by what ive read, the critics of the M14 know damn well what they're talking about.

Nobody is saying its a "bad" weapon. The M1 garand is also not a "bad" weapon. Its just not fitting for our time. Lance, I can guarantee I know far more about the M14 platform that you do. Have you ever maintained such weapons in Afghanistan or Iraq? they are a pain in the ***. Certainly not impossible to master, though they have their unique set of rules you have to abide by, or you will have unreliable weapons (which happens a lot).

"Strange I could clean my M-14 faster than my A2 rifle. As far as your wish to discuss companies to retrofit M-110 everyone knows its going to be between LMT KAC and Remington since they did all the AR-10 work for US and NATO nations for years."

Then you are not cleaning your M14 right, thats all i can say. And who cares if its between LMT, KAC, and Remington? who else has the capability to produce accurate AR10s for the military?

Reply

herp derp August 12, 2012 at 3:44 pm

6.5 Grendel is wonderful, you can even use the lower from the M-4

problem solved

Reply

Joshua August 12, 2012 at 6:11 pm

Hey Medic, I heard through the rumor mill that come this november the Army js going to have a big announcement about the IC. From what I hear we may have a new rifle.

I have way to confirm this though, any thoughts?

Eta: this is purely speculation about something I heard from someone, this is not my thoughts or words.

Reply

Lance August 12, 2012 at 7:36 pm

Hay Joshua

Email me whats this about November and IC? Is M-4 PiP going well???

Reply

Lance August 12, 2012 at 9:14 pm

I do agree Joshua that the Mk-17 is adopted and used by some SOCOM personnel. I was just saying it hasn't replaced all other weapons used. I do say fort a CQB 7.62mm rifle the Mk-17 once it can take AR-10 mags would be a good weapon. (Sorry the modified FAL mags are hard to find.)

Overall I do agree with you overall the M-4A1 killed the Mk-16 not due to that they have similar performance but M-4s are more economical.

Reply

oby August 12, 2012 at 11:40 pm

Why should it be a 7.62 rounder? Can't they use the "BEOWULF" with little modifications like using tripods and good scope?

Reply

Lance August 13, 2012 at 5:29 pm

Looks like France will go with a AR design rifle. Whats your thoughts? Whats your rumors of IC?? Hows M-4 PIP doing? http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/08/14/fre

Reply

Lance August 22, 2012 at 12:43 pm

hAY jOSH BEEN A LONG WEEK i RECOUVERING FROM NEEDED SURGERY. bEEN THINKING OF YOU MY FIRIEND FOR A WHILE. HATS YOUR TAKE cOLT BEING COLT IS TRYING TO MAKE rEMINGTON stop m-4 PRODUCTION. tHINK WILL HURT m-4 pip??? anY NEW rUMORS????
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/08/

i ALSO READ aRMY OFFICALS STOPED THE m-110 UPGRADE PROGRAM FOR MONEY FOR NOW. http://www.armytimes.com/prime/2012/08/PRIMEarmy-

Reply

Lance August 22, 2012 at 6:17 pm

Email me soon Josh hope to chat soon.

Reply

Lance August 23, 2012 at 3:19 pm

Hi Josh I need to chat on M-4 PIP please email me Lance ****@****.*** soon pls.

Reply

Lance August 24, 2012 at 10:04 am

Found another fun article for you pls check it out.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/08/23/inf

Reply

Joshua August 24, 2012 at 11:02 pm

more on the M110A1 here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMQxSGrqQtY
Honestly a FA is not needed. If your rifle is having issues chambering a round bashing it in is usually not a good idea.

Reply

Zach August 25, 2012 at 2:46 pm

I agree with you about the M-14 being a very capable rifle. The problem the military is facing is that they are running out of spare parts for them. They are a sweet rifle, a little on the heavy side, but nearly unstoppable with its gas piston system. The AR-10 is the way to go for this new contract. In my opinion the GA Precision GAP10 is about as good as it gets. Since we know the military is not going to stray from the .308 cartridge, then the AR10 is the best platform.

Reply

H2O MAN January 25, 2014 at 8:04 pm

The private sector has addresses the issue of spare parts for the M14… as good as or better than USGI parts are available.

Reply

Zach August 25, 2012 at 2:55 pm

I have to completely disagree with you on your above comments. There is no way the US standard issued infantry rifles (M4 carbine and M16 rifle) could ever be effective past 600 meters. That is MAX range for the bullet to be fired somewhat accurately. At that range you are not going to have anywhere near enough energy to kill a person with a 55/62gr 5.56 round. Nor are you going to be accurate due to the pore ammo the military issues. It is very sad that the US military is still using the 5.56 cartilage as its standard infantry round. The advance in ballistics for carbine sized rifles has developed so many deadlier rounds. You would think with the conflicts we have faced in the past 20 years, and troops having to engage targets at much longer ranges we would have switched to a much heavier and accurate round by now.

Reply

Dan August 30, 2012 at 3:08 am

The whole point of this is not to have it for SNIPERS. The reason they are looking for a collapsable stock and the other modifications is to be used with squad and platoon movements. The article clearly states that it will be utilized by Squad Designated Marksmen. Therefore, being that they will be utilized in such a manner they need to be light weight and carriable by a squad element. The SDM is “Counter-Sniper” to an extent. They have more training than you would get just from Basic Rifle Marksmanship, but not nearly to the extent of a Sniper. More attention to details of the article than just giving an opinion of a brand and whatever set up you may own may produce much more relevant discussion.

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 30, 2012 at 4:08 am

@Dan – Actually, the purpose of this solicitation is to find a compact rifle for SNIPERS. If you read a little further(and deeper) you will find the information. The way Matt Cox wrote the story makes it somewhat deceiving as to what the solicitation might be for. It always gets under my skin when authors write articles that make information seem a certain way to make themselves look special.

Reply

combatengineer October 13, 2012 at 8:47 pm

I think M110 is overpriced vs the SCAR H or LMT for what you get, but I was never a sniper. I think the M-14 should be replaced by the SCAR H or LMT because they are more accurate from what I have seen at the range, weigh less, and are not that expensive vs M110 – think tax payer dollars. My SCAR 17 shoots 1-2 MOA with German DAG and I have shot 1 MOA with an LMT before it jammed from Pakistani surplus. I love the AK and would take it over an M4 – I could never qualify expert with M4 in the Army, but could do it the full size M16 which I actually like better. AKs are 2.5-5 MOA from benchrest so I am not saying they are highly accurate, just reliable and the round goes thru cover better /vehicles which for support troops, contractors / non 11B is fine. Yes- there is a large variety of AKs and I find Russian, Bulgarian, and Polish very reliable. I think 11B Army Infantry should have M16A4s like the Marines but again I like what an 7.62×39 or 7.62×51 can do to a car, especially if at a checkpoint. I have seen the M14 / M110 used in a combat zone in OIF / Al Anbar province (2005) with 1-5 Marines and 2nd ID and the M14 seemed very heavy and old and the soldier was not in love his rifle either. I have only seen the M14 EBR at a gun show and it seemed ridiculous heavy. The Marine snipers I met liked the M110, but I don't understand why it is 2x the cost of the LMT. I vote for SCAR H to replace the M14 because of the cost, accuracy, ease of cleaning, and weight. The SCAR H would be great for overwatch and to stop cars at checkpoints as it is more of a lightweight battle rifle that can fill in for DMR work. As for it not looking like an M4 – does it matter? I mean M14 is different from an M4. I still can't get over the Army moving to ACUs, thank God I had DCUs, but that is another topic. I do not think the SCAR H can match the M110 for accuracy, but I think the LMT / MK20 might be close and are half the cost, (I did not price check the MK20 before writing this-made my statement based off the SCAR H). Again- I am not 18x or 11x and I am no longer in the military – I just don't get why M110 is 2x the price.

Reply

IS21 November 11, 2012 at 2:39 am

I dont get this argument that the 6.8 is equivalent to the .308… doesnt the simple ballistic comparisons between the two rounds denote that the .308 is superior? http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=8&f=

Scroll down and find the chart…

Reply

Sgt. Rich November 11, 2012 at 8:11 am

***. It really does not matter what is best or right, we have fools running the country, Stupid is as Stupid Does!

Reply

mike December 5, 2012 at 6:00 am
Joshua December 5, 2012 at 6:15 am
E. Ronc December 5, 2012 at 6:59 am
mitchRAvet January 21, 2014 at 10:12 pm

I say "pick your battles."Howabout pressure to keep the A10 tank killer which is very effective for the grunt on the ground? The air forceshoulfKEEP it as well as the C-130 as they both work.Enough of wasted money and years of development of iffy or failing systems.Rememberwhat IKE warned about the military Industrial complex.At best they waste our tax dollars at worst they can get good men killed .Sorry if I am off topic here,but is near to my heart cause our guys are still out there.The preceding were my own thoughts.But Ike was right.We need Him back again .

Reply

brad January 24, 2014 at 12:51 pm

why not use the m14 juggernaut

Reply

H2O MAN January 25, 2014 at 7:08 pm

Make the conversion kit at least 2 lbs. lighter and use the 16.25" CQB barrel from Smith Enterprise and you have a contender. http://www.athenswater.com/images/CQB-16Bullpup.j

Reply

H2O MAN January 25, 2014 at 7:19 pm

The same 16.25" barrel in a SAGE EBR chassis with a light weight folding butt stock would be another option. I would love to see SAGE make their PMRI/PRS2 butt stock interface fold-able.

Reply

Powderman January 25, 2014 at 10:21 pm

Oh, for heaven's sake.
Stop spending money, and use what we have! The M14 in a Sage EBR stock will do the job nicely. Or, if they just HAVE to have a shorter 7.62 carbine, just get an upper with a 16 inch barrel. Oh, and you want a higher rate of fire? AND sub-MOA accuracy? Sorry, but those two are not too compatible. Stop trying to make your snipers into general duty Infantrymen, and stop trying to make every Infantryman a sniper. USE WHAT WE HAVE!!!!

Reply

Raymond l. murray January 26, 2014 at 12:21 am

Well there is a company in Montana Named Nemo that is making 300win. mag in a ar platform 10 shot semi auto. Barrell size 24, 20 , 18. They claim the recoil is less then 308 ar. Ray

Reply

Nevadarebal June 16, 2014 at 3:47 pm

Really 7.62 / 308 come on, that is such old technology. No go with the 6.5 Grendel better ballistics in a AR-15 format 8 pounds. Has far less wind drift good out to 1200 meters on a 20 in barrel and flatter then then 7.62 hits harder the 7.52 after 600 yards with 6 LB less recoil for follow up shots if needed. bullet is like a arrow 2 inch long in 95 to 144 grain rounds. This is a real 21 century round. Also a great penetrator round too trust me. I have one and there's noting this universal round can't do. It kills everything it hits , 400lb elk at 400 yards, 1000Lb buffalo one shot, wild boars, men though cars (see future weapons) , etc. I know but, if you don't believe a owner, go check out YouTube look for 6.5 Grendel. O'll and all you need is a Clip and Upper, scope for the existing M4 , M16's and would have the rifle of the future cost noting compared to new ones..

Reply

Lance August 5, 2012 at 4:08 pm

Strange I heard only good thing abut the M-14 EBR yet on here the SCAR lovers come chatting death to the M-14 yet it has high troop approval and will be in service despite this competition for many years to come.

Reply

Joshua August 5, 2012 at 4:11 pm

People put up with the M14 but no one finds it ideal.

Reply

Troopersmith August 10, 2012 at 9:31 pm

Ok everyone is so caught up in the new weapons what about this "If it ain't broke don't fix it" Meaning why not take a simple weapon system like the M-14 which is a current sniper system or a standard infantry rifle like an M-1 Garand which is just as accurate as a Mauser 98K if not more so and throw a good optic on it (it can be done very easily) It's a simple bear bones rifle easier to maintain then an M-4 has good range has a good sterdy wood stock which you can use to bash the enemy's teeth in when you run out of ammo and it still takes a good old bayonet for close in fighting so you have the best of everything. Heck it only weights 8 pounds 9 ounces fully loaded just as heavy as a M16 so you don't lose anything.

Reply

Destro August 10, 2012 at 11:50 pm

is this a joke?

Reply

Joshua August 11, 2012 at 9:01 am

Really please tell me that is a joke?

I'm sorry but the M4 and M16 are some of the easiest rifles to maintain that our military has ever used.

You can keep your M1 but I wouldn't want to carry one of those around.

Reply

Matt M. August 11, 2012 at 9:23 pm

@Troopersmith
Simple reasoning – When firing 30 rnds –
M16/M4 – Bang, Bang, Bang, etc. (30 times) = 30 rounds
M1 Garand-Bang, Bang, Bang (8 times) + brinnnnggg now; Bang (8 times) + brinnnnggg now; Bang (8 times) + brinnnnggg now; Bang (6 more times) = 30 rounds
The M16/M4 platforms also allow one to add optics, grips, lights, etc. very easily; for an M1 you would have to use something like the Sage system which would make it heavier and more unwieldy.

Reply

Troopersmith August 11, 2012 at 10:10 am

Please tell me you don't really buy into that bull that the M16 and M4 is easy to maintain because I will refer you to the AK-47 and then I will refer you to the M1 Garand I can clean eaither my AK or my M1 in 15 minutes where as my M16A2 takes 2-3 times longer trust me I trained with the M16 in basic and I trained with the M1 before basic and the AK after I got out. Oh and you not wanting to carry the M1 tell me why it doesn't weigh any more then the M16A2. Stoner did a disfavor to the military by producing such small caliber plastic junk weapons. You might not think that if your one of those who never picked up a weapon until they joined in that case you were deprived of the very best. The military today is to worried about the newest and "greatest" weapons instead of saving money and keeping a weapon system that works you may have to buy new weapons but atleast if you stick with what you know already works then you don't have to spend money on developing new weapons. The M1 and M14s are 10x more reliable then the M16 and the AKs well there is no weapon on the modern battlefield that is more reliable then the AK type weapons. The military needs to stop letting the 98 pound weaklings in and start letting real men join a man who pack an 8 pound 9 ounce battle rifle plus the 30.06 caliber ammo for it and stop adding night sights, lasers, and whatever else their adding now and just keep a bear bones simple rifle that can punch through the brick and mud walls in Afghanistan and kill the two hajis lined up on the other side of that wall

Reply

Joshua August 11, 2012 at 10:25 am

I have grown up around firearms, all kinds.

Let me tell you, if you spend more than 15 minutes cleaning your M16 or M4 your doing it wrong, aside from inspections(which are such ********* in general and do more harm than good) my cleaning consists of:

1. remove BCG
2. remove bolt from carrier
3. wipe down bolt and carrier
4. clean chamber(20 seconds with chamber brush)
5. wipe down upper.
6. run bore snake down bore 2-3 times.
7. relube and reassemble.

The issue with the Military way of cleaning is they use it as a way to kill time, that whole scraping and scrubbing crap is not needed and actually does far more harm than good by removing needed coatings and changing dimensions of the piston in the M16FOW.

so please tell me how exactly that is a system that is not easy to maintain? You want to know how many stoppages I have had in my life? about 10, you want to know how many of those are magazines? 7, the other 3 came from crappy steel ammo in my civilian firearms.

I can also say the AK-47 is no where near as reliable as the errornet makes them out to be, I have first hand seen a few have major issues, they are also generally innacurate as ****, I'll take a M4 any day of the week and a M16 on the weekends(i just dont like the length of it).

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, is the 5.56 ideal? nah, but it is actually a very good round, the MK318SOST has no issues killing people and MK262 has confirmed kills out to 800M so tell me how it sucks? I'll take my 7lb M4 with a aimpoint, LDI DBAL and M951 any day of the week over the M1 or M14.

The 7.62 certainly has its place but not as the standard issue caliber for all soldiers, it works great for things like a DMR though.

Reply

18x August 11, 2012 at 1:52 pm

I've been shooting competitions my whole life including retro events shooting M1's or Springfields and there no way in **** an M16 weighs more than an M1. To be honest from your posts it sounds more like youve been playing COD world at war to much.

What was your MOS if you were actually in post some creds or something because this line of thinking is not progressing this discussion anywhere but back.

Reply

FormerSFMedic August 12, 2012 at 1:59 am

Wow! That's some seriously misguided opinions!

Reply

Troopersmith August 11, 2012 at 11:10 am

Wow someone else who thinks I don't know what I'm talking about my military issue M16A2 was junk and the one I bought to use as a training aide was junk I stopped counting the number of stopages after 10 and I don't scrape my rifle I tear it down like you're supposed to 1. take down pins 2. bolt carrier 3. bolt 4. buffer spring 5. run 1 dry to 1 wet patch through the barrel usually about 6 patches total 6. brush the gunk off the hammer spring 7. brush the bolt and bolt carrier 8. wipe down the buffer spring and buffer 9. reassemble the bolt and bolt carrier 10. take down pins. You say the AK isn't as reliable as everyone says in the thousands of rounds I've put through mine I have yet to have a stopage and my M-1 I've only had one and the 7.62 should be the standard for every trooper that way you save money on ammo only having to buy one type of ammo only translates into cheaper operating costs. There I just put a real weapon in the hands of our troops and cut the cost of supplying them to. If you want to go cheaper then start getting AKs and make the 7.62×39 the standard caliber and as for them not being accurate you just need to learn how to shoot better because I can get a 1-2 inch group at 300 yards in semi auto which is the only way our troops should be shooting there shouldn't be any 3rd burst or full auto in the standard infantry weapon that's just a waste of ammo.

Reply

Joshua August 11, 2012 at 11:50 am

ok keyboard commando, you just proved you have no idea what you talking about by saying you can get 1-2MOA at 300yrds lol please.

you realize that would be .150MOA at 25yrds??? I'm done with this, you cannot have a discussion with keyboard commandos.

Reply

18x August 11, 2012 at 1:46 pm

You do realize that even the Ruskies went away from the 7.62×39. Yes the AK is a great weapon but the fact of the matter is it was still made for a conscript army not a well trained one like us! It's not made to be used as a pin point rifle nor does it have the capability to be one not that it's inaccurate but that it's not that accurate is all. My M1 is amazing too so is my Springfield trapdoor but were obviously not going to go back to those hahaha.

Reply

Troopersmith August 11, 2012 at 11:58 am

And you can't have a discussion with people who think they know it all. I'm done trying to educate people who think they have all the knoweldge. An AK is one of the best weapons in the world it too has been called the "right arm of the free world" And no it isn't 150MOA at 25 yards it's people like you who love the plastic junk weapons that say such stupidity of the great weapons. As for calling me a keyboard commando all I have to say there is pull your head away from the computer and go out get away from technology all together do away with your fancy holographic sights and go back to the basics.

Reply

crackedlenses August 11, 2012 at 12:28 pm

"And you can’t have a discussion with people who think they know it all."

Hey pot, I've found a kettle for you.

"An AK is one of the best weapons in the world…"

Agree actually. Doesn't mean I'd use it if I had a choice.

"As for calling me a keyboard commando all I have to say there is pull your head away from the computer and go out get away from technology all together do away with your fancy holographic sights and go back to the basics."

I'm not against going back to basics, but throwing all the tech out does not make you better than the guys that use it. You just sound like you are in love with the past and find it superior to the present and future. Kind of like the major powers going into WWI……

Reply

xcalbr August 11, 2012 at 1:02 pm

The AK is not the "right arm of the free world". That title belongs to the FAL.

Tell me, what is the model and make of your AK that is that accurate? 1-2 in at 300 yards? ********* seriously doubt your M1 is that accurate LOL

there is a reason why we have rails and optical sights. We can acquire targets faster and more accurately, particularly at night.

Face it, your M1 is obsolete. Nobody will ever go back to that platform nor will they "bring back the 7.62".

Reply

Destro August 11, 2012 at 1:53 pm

Do your grandkids know your on the computer?

Reply

Destro August 11, 2012 at 1:49 pm

8 rounds will be great when your COP is getting overrun by Muj,…when your out you can just fix bayonets and "charge"!!!!

Reply

Joshua August 11, 2012 at 9:47 pm

You must have missed the point were lights, lasers, and optics make us pansies.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: