M107A1

Among the firearms creating the most buzz at this year’s Modern Day Marine show was a version of Barrett’s M107A1, a shoulder-fired rifle designed to shoot drones out of the sky with hulking 25mm rounds.

It’s billed as an “anti-UAV” weapon, referring to the military acronym for unmanned aerial vehicles. The rifle reminded more than a couple of Marines of a scene from the 2012 movie, “The Bourne Legacy,” in which the hero, Aaron Cross (played by the actor Jeremy Renner) shoots down a Predator drone with a sniper rifle.

In reality, the M107A1 has a range of up to 2,000 meters and is designed to take out low-altitude drones — those that can fly as high as 10,000 feet or so. (The Predator is a medium-altitude drone that can soar up to 25,000 feet.)

The semi-automatic, anti-material rifle can fire a 5-round magazine of 25mm cartridges and weighs 33 pounds.

Barrett, based in Murfreesboro, Tenn., has built several of the rifles, some of which have been used by U.S. Special Operations forces. The Army is also considering buying the weapon, Barrett officials maintain.

In addition to military customers, the company is marketing the rifle to potential civilian buyers, including law enforcement agencies in the states such as Washington and Colorado as a tool to help control avalanches. (It’s safer than using plastic explosives.)

{ 88 comments… read them below or add one }

Vincent. September 26, 2013 at 3:55 pm

"In reality, the M107A1 has a range of up to 2,000 meters and is designed to take out low-altitude drones — those that can fly as high as 10,000 feet or so."

Unless my math is horribly off 2,000 meters has always been less than 10,000 feet.

Reply

JCitizen September 26, 2013 at 5:01 pm

HA! HA! I think my ANM-3 .50cal on my M63 mount would do a better job – but not at 10,000 feet! HA! Good one Vincent! :D

Reply

Chris September 26, 2013 at 5:49 pm

2,000 Meters is about 6,562 feet. 3048 meters is a 10,000 feet.

Reply

JCitizen September 26, 2013 at 6:27 pm

I think I'd rather try my F-11-3 rocket engine with about 2lbs of thrust – put that in the Pro II Nike ought'a be about right! ]:)

It goes about 50,000 ft in a few seconds. ~@>—>

Reply

Mr Mxyzptlk September 26, 2013 at 8:23 pm

The effective range is 2000m, the maximum is 3,600m so it could technically shoot 10,000ft. However this is the straight line range without taking elevation into account, the effective altitude it could reach would be significantly less as well as dependent on your relative position.

Reply

Vincent. September 27, 2013 at 3:56 am

My point exactly.

Reply

Ryley September 27, 2013 at 8:57 pm

Yeah most drones in that class fly below 10k feet (service ceiling for them is 10k feet) and they can't do much that high, they have to come in to surveillance altitude to be effective, and that's when you'd shoot it. Definitely an effective WS in mountainous terrain.

Reply

Lwss September 28, 2013 at 9:09 am

Question is how many country’s outthere have UAV that match US technology,that we need to build this riffle for this poetic ulnar use what would end up happening is that this weapon will find its way trough the black market and some habib it’s gonna uses it againt our drones.

JP2336 September 27, 2013 at 10:43 am

Buuuuut, if you are firing:
-from the prone
-on or atop a mountain
-using basic cosign equations for high angle fire
-and a little black magic
…..you could in reality shoot in excess of 10k ft. Yes? Yes. Good.

Reply

AEReOsearch September 27, 2013 at 10:28 am

many low altitude-drones do not fly at their maximum ceiling due to reduced instrument accuracy. Just as most airplanes do not cruise at their maximum flight ceiling. If you're not a pilot, and you're not a defense weapons contractor, and you don't really know anything about a specialized field, don't criticize the things that you know nothing about.

Reply

JP2336 September 27, 2013 at 10:53 am

whose "criticizing things" that we know nothing about there bud? Are you in one of your 3 aforementioned categories? The comments originated with a poorly constructed sentence in the article.

Reply

Vincent. September 27, 2013 at 11:31 am

I might not be whatever you deem necessary to criticize this stuff, but I can assure you I'm perfectly capable of thinking both physics and common sense, both of which lead me to conclude that it's a very impractical weapon to shoot drones with.
You're not convincing me you think otherwise. If you actually do someone should probably take your computer away.

Reply

Bob September 27, 2013 at 11:05 am

A rifle to shoot a drone at even 2000 meters? How will you get it to hold still while you shoot it, this isnt a shotgun you know, and the drone isnt standing still while you fire at it. America has more drones than any other Country so why would someone even think of a drone killer unless they are going to sell it to the enemies?

Reply

Holdin Steady October 14, 2013 at 11:29 pm

Civilians realize that we will someday face our own government. They wont get many service men to fire upon their own. They will use drones at every opportunity.

Reply

misplacedcountryboy September 27, 2013 at 12:12 pm

You should also try shooting an aerial target with a rifle. Not easy!

Reply

Old MP September 27, 2013 at 5:32 pm

It's not impossible. I used to bull's-eye womp rats in my t-16 back home. They're not much bigger than 10,000 meters…….

Reply

Parley September 27, 2013 at 9:49 pm

6561.68 feet

Reply

Ryan September 28, 2013 at 11:21 am

2000X3.28=6560

Reply

Cincy_sensei September 30, 2013 at 10:48 am

Drones that "…fly as high as 10,000 feet or so." Read as: max ceiling for low-altitude drones. If your gas range has a burner with max of 7,000 btu, doesn't mean you set it for max btu for every use.

Reply

Wolf January 19, 2014 at 11:06 pm

I agree 100%.

Reply

Lance September 26, 2013 at 5:12 pm

This rifle will be a smash hit in Colorado where towns passed laws OK shooting down NSA drones. LOL joke

Reply

JCitizen September 26, 2013 at 6:11 pm

With it qualifying as a destructive device, I doubt any local yokels will be buying one anytime soon. Maybe with a very expensive license and a CLEO letter, but I still doubt it. Still funny though :D

Reply

Glenno September 26, 2013 at 6:03 pm

Interesting that it is designed to shoot down drones, but the user is advised to fire from a prone position. Kind of limits the field of fire!

Reply

Matt September 26, 2013 at 6:33 pm

My thoughts exactly.

Reply

Mr Mxyzptlk September 26, 2013 at 8:18 pm

Anybody remember the bullpup M82A2 variant that was designed to fire from the standing position as a cheap MANPADS for use against helicopter? It seems like this would have been a better platform to build this rifle on than this conventional M82/107 layout.

Reply

JP2336 September 27, 2013 at 3:46 am

No no no no…..now the market needs to add "tactical" to COTS roof pitch angle convertors or phone apps. Voila! The sky's the limit. Bwaaaahahahahahaaaa

Reply

james September 28, 2013 at 7:05 am

Not if your on an elevated position like a mountain top. This could me mounted on a turret on a armored vehicle to give SWAT some cover fire when they start raiding homes for guns…

Reply

Joe September 26, 2013 at 6:04 pm

Shooting vertically at a UAV can't make you fall over…right? Ha

Reply

JCitizen September 26, 2013 at 6:13 pm

As I've said somewhere on here before – you'd be better off using a model rocket! HA!

Reply

Josh N September 26, 2013 at 6:31 pm

So much for Barrett honoring their previous statements of not selling weapons to law enforcement that can't be bought by regular citizens in their state.. Both version of that are illegal in Colorado. Nothing like a company taking an stand then selling out for the dollar.

Reply

GMAHN September 26, 2013 at 7:21 pm

Colorado needs to un-fuck it's gun laws and Barrett isn't at fault for that. Barrett is one of the strongest supporters of the 2nd Ammendment to ever exist and you need to show some respect. At some point that company needs to make cash to compete in the market and allow it to do things like keep supporting the 2nd. Progressives have used your money from taxes to try and undermine the 2nd Ammendment so it shouldn't bother you if Barrett were to sell some 25mm rifles to the state of Colorado so that he could take their cash and then use it to support the 2nd Ammendment. Get active in actually fighting gun control instead of just looking to trash the people on your own side.

Reply

ZachB September 27, 2013 at 7:12 pm

Actually they're not. Aside from the magazine limits, Colorado doesn't have any restrictions on the type of weapons you can own, including the various categories of NFA weapons.

Reply

PaCo September 30, 2013 at 11:02 am

You might want to gather your facts before you run your mouth.

Having been to the factory Barrett armorers course (on their dime while I was on military leave no less) Ronnie, Chris and Angie Barrett are nothing but stand up Americans, if they tell you something they will stand by it 100%.

It was put out in the course that after graduation of the course we would abide by their policy of not working on states weapons that did not afford the citizens of that state the same rifles.

Reply

Glenno September 26, 2013 at 7:54 pm

Strictly speaking, avalanche control is more a public safety issue than pure law enforcement. A weapon like this would have very limited application in a pure law enforcement environment. Even in a barricade situation, the risk of of collateral injury and damage needs to be considered. That is why police have resorted to armored vehicles with battering rams, rather than using shaped charges and LAWs, to effect entries. If Colorado or Washington were to purchase this monster, my bet is that it would have pretty limited application and that would predominantly be in avalanche control -which last time I looked isn't,strictly speaking, a 2nd Amendment issue!

Reply

Mr Mxyzptlk September 26, 2013 at 8:15 pm

I hope they aren't really calling it the M107A1, as if so that will be really confusing. The M107A1 is already a rifle, it is the current .50/.416 variant manufactured by browning which is a improved, lightweight version of the M107. Also, this rifle or one very similar to it has existed for a while as the XM109, so they should really be calling it the M109 or M109A1. Somebody at Barrett needs to sort their shit out before they end up trying to sell two different rifles with the same name.

Reply

fuzznose September 27, 2013 at 12:16 pm

Ever think that maybe the reporter got the terms mixed up? How about instead of calling Barrett out on it, find out what the facts really are.

Reply

Mr Mxyzptlk September 27, 2013 at 3:26 pm

This is being reported as the M107A1 from several different cources, so if there is a weak link in the chain it is more likely a Barrett spokesman or press release giving the wrong information. Anyway, i did say that I hope that this is wrong and they aren't calling it the M107A1. It wouldn't be the first time Barrett did confusing thing with their names, like making a bullpup called the XM107, then shifting the project to a modified M82 named the M107, and then after selling both the M82A1 and M107 individually for a bit they discontinued the M82A1 and renamed the M107 as the M82A1.

Reply

fuzznose September 27, 2013 at 4:00 pm

Okay, I'll go along with that…

Reply

mpower6428 September 27, 2013 at 3:17 am

Duck season is about to fall and these mopes are trying to have Elmer Fudd reassigned…?

Reply

TParker September 27, 2013 at 9:56 pm

Funny you mention ducks. Commercial duck hunters from way back used to use a 2 gauge gun that was mounted on the front of a large row boat and take out entire flocks of ducks. Rumors are these were later used in defense on the west coast during WWII.

Reply

zbaaer September 27, 2013 at 7:49 am

The idea for a 25mm Barrett is several years old. This is just a new, and somewhat stupid (marketing), spin on it.

Reply

TheDude September 27, 2013 at 4:06 pm

Its not “somewhat” stupid. Its americas future, like it is depicted in the movie “idiocracy”!

Reply

majr0d September 27, 2013 at 4:25 pm

What's your nationality sweetie?

Reply

whoopie September 27, 2013 at 9:50 am

Nice picture, your flash not working? Try this trick instead: Photoshop>image>adjustments>levels, now adjust the brightness and contrast sliders until the pic looks half decent.

Reply

Sirius Jones September 28, 2013 at 9:08 am

Flash works just fine; flash hider just doing its job ;op

Reply

whoopie September 28, 2013 at 10:20 am

Touche'

Reply

Watchdog January 18, 2014 at 10:54 pm

When putting out a prohibited weapon you don't want to show all the pieces in high detail. This gives an aura of mystery, besides if they see that this gun is actually a 5 round revolver in disguise who will buy it? Low resolution yes, Photoshop no.

Reply

steve September 27, 2013 at 10:36 am

I want one!

Reply

John D September 27, 2013 at 11:19 am

This weapon concept has been around for a long time and they are just changing their marketing approach. The liberals will jump on this as an antigovt move to counter the UAVs but the weapon system cannot be just bought in a local gun store. It classifies as a destructive weapon by the GCA 1934 and is heavily regulated. The anti gunners will go crazy like the cop killer bullets!!

Reply

Guest September 27, 2013 at 11:28 am

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Nowhere has Barrett actually called their rifle a 'drone killer' – only the internet and various mall ninjas…

Reply

Bill W September 27, 2013 at 11:41 am

Agreed, simply a marketing ploy, if in fact is originated at Barrett. I can see a sales rep joking with someone at a trade show…
"ya, and over here is my drone killer M107A1…"
"Really mister?"
(rep turns head at others in the know… wink wink)
"yes, really…."

Reply

burkefett September 27, 2013 at 11:59 am

Because it's so much easier to hit a small, moving object (with, in all probability, no reference points) with a semi-automatic rifle than it is to lay in the ol' C-RAM…or the F-16…or the ma deuce.

Reply

Rob September 27, 2013 at 1:47 pm

Ok so the author is full of crap. It is NOT a 25mm, it is nothing more than an update on the original M107. 25mm rounds are fired from AC-130's, Harriers, Bradley's and LAV's. It really is amazing what a little research can find. Took me 5 minutes to compare and look at specs from Barrett. Just the fact that you can go to the website and see that the M107A1 is designed to use a suppressor, would clue some in.

Reply

Robb September 27, 2013 at 2:40 pm

The pic on this article is a XM109 25mm.

Reply

Mr Mxyzptlk September 27, 2013 at 3:27 pm

It has a curved magazine which means it is the 25mm XM109 (or a new rifle based on the same concept),

Reply

burkefett September 28, 2013 at 1:01 am

25mm refers to the nominal diameter of the bore. It is not a single, set-in-stone cartridge designation.

Reply

Gary September 27, 2013 at 3:22 pm

Just as an FYI: check out (google) the Barrett XM109. It is chambered for 25x59mm and has been in the works since 2004. It uses the M82/M107 lower receiver. It can be switched between .50BMG and 25mm in a matter of minutes.

Reply

Super Tex September 27, 2013 at 4:49 pm

I'd hate to hump that up and down the mountain………….Heck, for that matter flat level ground would be a buggar.

Reply

Watchdog January 18, 2014 at 10:59 pm

This is why the Egyptians invented the wheel, well they had chariots didn't they? Maybe a horse drawn model-caissson type.

Reply

tongun6 September 27, 2013 at 6:38 pm

i wonder what the recoil is like? Even though it is Semi – Auto.

Reply

Justin September 27, 2013 at 7:20 pm

This will NOT be a reliable UAV killer. It is like how Japan put the AA sights on their Arisaka type 99, but honestly, you have a better chance at winning the lottery and then having a pot of gold fall out of the sky before you actually hit a aircraft with these.

Reply

DaveL September 27, 2013 at 7:37 pm

Hey, I thought I once read in a previous article somewhere when this gun first came to light, that the reason for such a big 25mm diameter bore was to have more design room to mount a laser seeker in an HE bullet tip, to be guided by a laser designator–the ultimate one shot kill at remarkable distances! –No?? Did this not get developed? Or are we not being told?

Reply

Stefan S. September 28, 2013 at 12:25 am

25MM ammo price? 200-500 bucks a round?

Reply

billywhat? September 28, 2013 at 2:04 am

Ok, so lets take the situation of a uav flying at 1500 meters high at 50km/ph. First hit it with a laser range finder. Calculate where its going since they are usualy going in circles. Aim at it with your 24x times scope. With no references where to hold. Either you are to close in so it keeps flying out of scopesight or youre zoomed out so much you lose accuracy. Also because of the angle you schoulder firing so even less accuracy and more scopsway. Everything combined….no way youll be hitting one.

Reply

MrHawkeye September 28, 2013 at 2:42 am

Dude…What kind of BS is this! Medium Alt drones fly at 25-35,000 feet moving at over 200mph…What a joke of an article or sales pitch this is…..

Reply

DaveL September 28, 2013 at 7:53 am

Cancel my previous post, unable to find original laser designating article. Probably an internet myth.

Reply

Foghorn September 28, 2013 at 10:54 am

Wouldn't this be considered a destructive device per NFA?

Reply

majr0d September 28, 2013 at 12:53 pm

Moderator kept deleting my post. So be it.

Later Kit Up.

Reply

serotoninjoe September 28, 2013 at 2:55 pm

33 pounds! Unloaded? That makes me tired just thinking about lugging that beast. BUT OMG wouldn't that be frigging awesome to get some training on this? 2000 Meters nasty. I'll want one in black for me and a titty pink one for the wifey!

Reply

draculaagainstnwo September 28, 2013 at 5:33 pm

this is a variant of the .95 jdj that costs 40 dollars and is made from the casing that is used for the 50 bmg the pressure is going to be 38500 fps now then the rifle weighs way to much as shown a video that was put out by jdj this is the same rifle it will not your ass into the pavement unless you had someway for a decent recoil not funny so by to your chest from that the bullet weighs 8.2 ounces

Reply

RentAscout September 29, 2013 at 2:25 am

I seen more then a few WWII clips of AA firing at low aircraft with hundreds of rounds before hitting the target. Now how many people have good experience hitting a drone with 5 rounds? If ODA wants it, let them have it.

Reply

Joe_Sovereign September 30, 2013 at 3:42 pm

Japanese bolt action rifles in WW2 had fold down wings on their sights to aid in shooting at aircraft. At least their strategy was that large numbers of soldiers could lay up some kind of defense against low flying aircraft.

Reply

Eronc September 29, 2013 at 11:14 am

Best chance of hitting drone… on ground. They want it for something might be useful.

Reply

moondawg September 29, 2013 at 12:57 pm

My, question is will it be banned in California, New York State, Maryland, New Jersey and Illinois?

Reply

Michael September 30, 2013 at 3:11 pm

Wouldn't it require smart ammo, only to have any decent probability of hitting a flying target?

Reply

bombbuster72 September 30, 2013 at 5:05 pm

"It’s safer than using plastic explosives." How dare you speak that way about my beloved, favorite moldable H.E. This is just more of the smear campaign against C4, Semtex, and all the other wonderful (and very safe) plastic explosives.

Don't get me wrong, 25mm shoulder fired rifles sound amazing, but let's not even compare them with the awesomeness of explosives.

Reply

jackiecox October 1, 2013 at 12:35 am

MDG 50 cal depleted uranium rounds, Barium ? (would be cheaper, formed hard) 9300 fps, 3500 yards

Reply

Wolf January 19, 2014 at 11:13 pm

They have an ever lasting effect also. 1500 years.

Reply

J Cliff October 1, 2013 at 5:32 am

I have had enormous success knocking down drones using time honored voodoo doll techniques. It's all about pin placement.

Reply

Garbage October 18, 2013 at 11:54 am

I'm sorry – but this article is complete crap. I've talked with Barrett and whoever wrote this didn't seem to pay attention to anything, ASSUMING they even really talked to Barrett. Looks like the took a photo of the Barrett XM109 (25mm) and started calling it the M107A1. Pathetic.

Reply

Tommy January 31, 2014 at 9:49 pm

agreed. Fuck it!

Reply

nfl jerseys October 24, 2013 at 12:37 am

I didn’t share them all… and good thing someone created a spinnable comment from it..

Reply

scott December 4, 2013 at 9:38 am

where do i get one? :):):):):)

Reply

Jiro January 24, 2014 at 10:51 pm

You guys are brutal! That writer will never show their face again. The write up did remind me of the anti-tank rifles of the interwar period (1919-1939). I think the anti-tank rifles were more useful. I do like the avalanche control concept.

Reply

Owad January 29, 2014 at 4:00 pm

Can someone explain to me how a 25 mm round can be used for avalanche control? Controlled explosions yes..I get that! Wouldn't the projectile fired by this think just bury itself in the rockface/soil /berm?

Reply

Tommy January 31, 2014 at 9:45 pm

epic

Reply

James February 1, 2014 at 12:38 am

The purpose of this rifle/shoulder-canon doesn't really need to have anything to do with what is stated in this article. Wouldn't we all agree that this would do much more damage to anything it was fired at than with the standard Barrett .50-Caliber Rifle. And what was the Barrett .50 designed to do, take out strategic vehicles; this would simply do a better job of it. Come on, a 25mm High-Explosive round out of a quickly set-up shoulder fired rifle; I can think of numerous applications. But taking out high flying drones is not one of them.

Reply

Popsiq February 1, 2014 at 10:34 am

A 25 mm automatic anti-aircraft gun would be better. And a 90 mm gun should be able to stop a Reaper.
Although these latter are in short supply in 'drone theaters', I don't the thnk targets will be trying to smuggle these babies in anytime soon.

Let's face it, they're meant for the 'gopher bustin' market'.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: