COMPACTSDM
The U.S. Army has invited gun makers compete for the chance to build a compact version of the service’s M110 Semi Automatic Sniper System.

The service released a formal request for proposal which could lead to a contract award of $44.5 million to buy about 3,600 Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper Systems, or CSASS. Gun makers have until Oct. 10 to submit proposals.

Here’s a look at what the Army wants:

– All external and visible surfaces shall be of a rough, dull, non-reflective Flat Dark Earth.

– The unloaded rifle with forward rails for concurrent mounting of required accessories but without suppressor, magazines, accessories, and/or optics shall weigh no more than 9.0 pounds.

– The 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. The stock shall be in the unfolded position if a folding stock is present. The length of the barrel shall be no less than 16 inches.

– The stock of the rifle shall be adjustable for length-of-pull. The length of pull in the shortest configuration shall be no greater than 12 inches. The length of pull in the longest configuration shall be no less than 16 inches. The minimum travel of the stock adjustment shall be no less than 4 inches.

– The rifle shall incorporate a muzzle brake or combination flash hider/muzzle brake.

“Since its initial fielding in 2007, the M110 has provided Army snipers with a very reliable and effective anti-personnel sniping capability. However, advances in warfighting technology have promoted the need for increased sniping capabilities to counter constantly changing threats particularly in urban environments and at extended ranges. As a result, the CSASS initiative evolved directly from Operational Needs Statements submitted by deployed units and sniper feedback. The CSASS capabilities and features have been identified from sniper inputs during weapon Integrated Product Team meetings, conferences, observations and interviews with conventional Army, Special Operations, NATO/allies snipers and Sniper School instructors, according to the June 12 solicitation posted on FedBizOpps.gov.

The Army adopted the M110 in 2005. Made by Knight’s Armament Company, it’s chambered for 7.62mm, weighs about 15 pounds and measures about 46 inches when fitted with its suppressor.

{ 151 comments… read them below or add one }

Robbie June 13, 2014 at 11:38 am

The article begs the question of why the Army wants/needs a smaller version of this rifle.

Reply

Tangodown June 15, 2014 at 11:29 pm

For some reason I didn't even hardly complete my 'reply', and it was deleted…administrator? It wasn't even controversial. Whoever YOU are, you couldn't have even given it a good read. I'll try this again. What we need is change of administrations…AND revamp the ROEs. We HAVE the weapons, etc. We HAVE the WARRIORS. WHAT"S the problem?

Reply

NativeSon June 16, 2014 at 11:30 am

The administration is not the problem, in fact, it has been the answer. The “mission accomplished” bravado that got us into unwinable situations in the first place is the problem. The problem is also fighting wars not for honor or freedom but for oil and economic benefit for the few.

Pay attention.

Reply

Gino Schafer June 16, 2014 at 7:38 pm

You seriously believe 0bama has been the answer? Sorry, Charlie. Anything you have to say after this is irrelevant. You have totally discredited yourself.

There are no unwinable situations for the US military. None. NADA. The only things holding us back from every victory since WWII are politicians.

Reply

stpaulchuck June 20, 2014 at 1:41 pm

baloney

Reply

moshulu June 17, 2014 at 6:12 pm

@ Tangodown

LOL….So new sniper rifles are a problem of President Obama? How does that make sense to you?

Reply

Rsquared June 21, 2014 at 5:01 pm

You've got that right! Ole bigears keeps encouraging more bad guys to step up to the plate to fight against the US military by not standing up! If he would turn the military loose on the hooligans there wouldn't be any hooligans left.

Reply

Sean June 16, 2014 at 5:31 pm

Just a guess; discreet insertions? Getting to the hides without shouting SNIPER to the locals?

Reply

seargent alphonse June 17, 2014 at 8:04 pm

like i said previously there will always be a b.s. reason in my day it was the cold war i fought for."PLEASE!!" now its this freedom crap meanwhile we are becoming china's new kick around toy and if obama wasnt about oil then why did he not use some reserves supplies like Reagan and Clinton did the oil man left already and is back in texas snortin up columbia

Reply

guest June 18, 2014 at 6:56 pm

shorter, smaller people……

Reply

JDW June 23, 2014 at 7:52 am

RFP stated that the barrel cannot be less than 16 inches if they go with a 21 inch barrel with a 1 and 7 left hand twist they will get three turns before exiting the barrel. The bullet will exit in the same position it was fired which will give less wabble in flight. Also if the twist is to the left hand any drag that would occur would veer left crossing optics and be easier to adjust for. I do prefer a polygonal rifling for barrel life both in riffling build up which is almost none and expansion from heat. However because of the way these barrels are made they need to be heat treated to relive metal stress

Reply

Charlie Meador June 13, 2014 at 1:31 pm

Won’t the shorter barrel reduce muzzle velocity, accuracy and effective range of the weapon? Can you lock the semi-auto feature for single shots so the sound of the bolt operating doesn’t give your position away? Will this sacrifice killing more enemy combatants and endanger our troops for comfort and portability?

Just askin’, being a Gunsmith these thoughts come to mind. Any answers?

Reply

co_adventure June 13, 2014 at 1:20 pm

DTA bullpup would mitigate any velocity issues, if they actually get their paperwork in on time.

Reply

Lance June 13, 2014 at 1:33 pm

Sorry but Bullpups are not ergonomic and most AR-10 designs will not work well in a bullpup configuration.

Reply

Mr.E June 13, 2014 at 3:17 pm

"Bullpups are not ergonomic"? Really? In what way? The P90, F2000 and Steyr AUG are perfect examples of firearms built with ergonomics in mind. Even an ugly bullpup like the SA80/L85A2 has perfectly servicable ergonomic qualities, they're just not the same ones as an AR-style weapon.

There's no reason a bullpup rifle can't be built ergonomically. The real issue with going with a bullpup route would be getting a trigger pull suitable for a sniper.

Reply

jose June 13, 2014 at 10:50 pm

Uhhhhh, you might want to check Desert Tactical Arms and come back and revise your statment

Reply

CSARmedic June 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm

Uh sorry, but I had the opportunity to shoot two different variants (I can't remember which ones) at Kandahar and Tarin Kout and were easily more comfortable and had better check welds than our M4s.

Reply

majr0d June 13, 2014 at 10:49 pm

The M110 was specifically adopted because it blended in with the M4/M16 family. A bullpup would eliminate that advantage making the sniper or designated marksman stand out for the enemy.

Reply

Tomaso June 14, 2014 at 7:54 pm

This is the only reason with merit that puts a negative for a bullpup.

Reply

Mr.E June 14, 2014 at 8:33 pm

The RFP is asking for a weapon that's entirely FDE in colour, so it's going to stand out from all the black rifles anyway, right?

Reply

majr0d June 14, 2014 at 9:14 pm

You have heard of paint? Not every soldier's weapon is black out there.

Here's a picture. http://cmsimg.armytimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?…

Here's an article. http://www.armytimes.com/article/20100606/NEWS/60

The "money" quote. "Col. Doug Tamilio, the head of Project Manager Soldier Weapons, said the Army reversed the ban on painting weapons in part because "the soldiers, of course, are doing it anyway."

steelcobra June 14, 2014 at 3:25 pm

Bullpup designs mostly lack adjustable length of pull because the stock is right behind the action, so that's right out.

Reply

Tomaso June 16, 2014 at 1:54 pm

Not true …many current designs lack the adjustable feature….but then again all weapons lacked this feature till late 70,s? A few current bullpup designs have this feature now. One being the Croatian design.

Reply

seans June 13, 2014 at 2:36 pm

First, shorter barrels don't "reduce" accuracy, they typically improve it, but they do change the BC of the bullet, which will reduce you range, and accuracy at range. How much so typically depends on the bullet. Second do you really believe suppressors on a rifle really reduce the sound enough so somebody would only hear the bolt? Locking the bolt/slide is to reduce your noise signature is really only useful for pistol caliber weapons. And why do people assume the comfort and portability are not important. Having to switch to a secondary to clear a room before you go to the roof, or having a rifle that does not lend itself well to close in shots is not useful in urban terrain.

Reply

balais June 15, 2014 at 11:30 pm

Thats why you have noveske and other SBRs recorded with astonishing accuracy. I actually substantially improved the accuracy of a PSL one time by shortening/re-crowning the barrel. It eliminated the "barrel whip", which tightened the grouping up.

Reply

Stephend117 July 13, 2014 at 11:58 am

What the heck are you talking about “barrel whip”?

Reply

W.R.Monger June 18, 2014 at 2:31 pm

Can someone actually hear the bolt slap at a quarter mile, and in many cases more, away? I'd think that would be the least of a sniper's issues. Even at the length of a football field it's difficult to hear something like that.
Just thinking out loud I suppose…

Reply

jaime airtaz June 16, 2014 at 2:22 pm

i guess some common sense does not apply here
as yes all those items truly reduce the effectiveness of any sniping weapon
bu ti am sure this is only the basic version and improvements will be done by military armorers or weapons sergeants in the S.F. community

Reply

Mike Venuto June 17, 2014 at 5:11 pm

good points…also; the article states 7.62 x ? I assume x 51 like the old M-14 and the Remington 700?

Reply

W.R.Monger June 18, 2014 at 2:33 pm

That would be a nice thought but they do have much better rounds today. That being said, however, that particular round is very plentiful and would be an inexpensive way to field a new weapon.

Reply

tiger June 18, 2014 at 8:00 pm

NATO ammo standards

Reply

Kevin Richardson June 17, 2014 at 7:04 pm

Yes, yes and yes. What the military needs are people like you to give them facts about weapons. The government seems to know everything anyway, but it wouldn't hurt to put your 2 cents worth in. They already have facts about the weapons they have in service. Ask any sniper who has been on active duty for the last 10 years and he will tell you all the little good things and certainly every little bad thing about the weapons they use. Bringing sniper groups in for questioning is the best way to field answers for and from the weapon manufacturers. The soldiers are telling their commanders what they would like to have and how much easier it would be to use their weapon if only…. ? The soldiers do not understand the total downplay of the weapon manufacturing process of their dreams. They only want something like that. The manufacturer can address the situation in a briefing with the commanders. Also, you can address the situation yourself, by writing to your local soldier. Surely you know someone in the service who could get you message to the proper chain of command for recognition. A True soldier asks questions and gives his or her best answers. Soldiers are recognized for ideas that can and do become very useful to the service. It was a soldier that suggested we went to Velcro fasteners on clothing. It may turn out to be a soldier that comes up with the best weapon design also. Team work between minds and scientific facts about metals and the other pieces of a weapon become extremely important at this stage. Thank you for your input.

Reply

Larry Nutter June 19, 2014 at 2:44 pm

A shorter barrel will reduce velocity and possibly effective range; however, a short barrel has little to do with accuracy. The longer the barrel the greater the problem with barrel harmonics. Benchrest barrels are short and stout for that exact reason. A 16 to 18 inch barrel chambered for a round which would kick a 6.5mm, 140 grain match bullet out of the barrel at about 2,700 feet per second would be an effective weapon out to 1000 yards. A .260 Remington would likely be able to accomplish this on the same platform as the M110. When the military says, "Sniper Rifle" what they are actually needing is a, Designated Marksman" rifle.

Reply

proseshooter June 19, 2014 at 5:52 pm

SHORTENING THE BARREL WITH A 5.56 REDUCES VELOCITY AT ABOUT 100 TO 150 FPS PER INCH. A custom gun maker near Phoenix makes an 18 inch barrel sniper rifle that shoots 1/2 MOA at 1,00 yards. The velocity reduction will have a minor effect on bullet drop, but not significantly. Civilian high power shooters routinely shoot civilian versions of H-Bar M-4 type rifles at 600 yards. The AR-10 style,(ie M-110) which shoots 7.62 NATO ammo, would be comparable, and with the heavier bullet and greater Ballistic Coefficient should be quite effective out to 1,000 yards in the hands of a competent sniper team.

Reply

Sgt Rock June 24, 2014 at 8:19 am

The velocity reduction from a 16 in barrel is negligible.

Reply

Lance June 13, 2014 at 1:36 pm

Think this is more window dressing and pure research the Army cant afford to replace all M=100s and WX-2010s with a small AR-10 right now. I dont see logic for a collapsible stock M-100 now any way. SO this industry day might show off some cool ideas but this project been around for 4 years now and has not shown anything over just pure research for Army brass as of now.

Reply

JohnD June 13, 2014 at 2:32 pm

Put a shorter upper on the sliding stock variant! Another stupid,request, cancel the purchase and save the money!

Reply

W.R.Monger June 18, 2014 at 2:38 pm

Just use the 300 Blackout. That was what it was designed for in any case.

Reply

CSARmedic June 13, 2014 at 4:32 pm

Lurking. Just subscribing.

Reply

Rogue Male June 13, 2014 at 4:34 pm

Not strictly on topic, but looking at the photo, perhaps the Army might invite helmet makers to manufacture a helmet that covers the head properly (without interfering with body armour and optics, etc., of course).

Just sayin'.

Reply

JP2336 June 14, 2014 at 9:16 am

While true WRT the pic, if its properly worn (which can be "fun" with issued gear as it fails to stay put) it in many cases is not an issue;not trying to plug them but Ops Core was the ticket for most in my Team/section/Plt. While the high cut, HSLD cool guy, ballistic Yamaka is what some may rant about, the MICH/ACH style serves its purpose just fine and has (maybe lighten it up?). For those forced to lay in the prone while forced to wear the Army's….IOTV(?), that's a fight you guys will have to take up with your service. Could be worse….could have the Brits kevlar style……gross. Hahaha

Reply

Joe June 14, 2014 at 12:21 am

"All external and visible surfaces shall be of a rough, dull, non-reflective Flat Dark Earth."

It used to be black rifles compromising green uniforms….

…Now its UCP compromising FDE guns.

Reply

Distant Voice June 14, 2014 at 1:39 am

Another backdoor for the SCAR to wiggle its way in somehow.

Reply

seans June 14, 2014 at 1:59 am

God lets hope not.

Reply

JP2336 June 14, 2014 at 9:21 am

The SCAR program was handled…..well, very poorly from its inception. However, speaking strictly on the H/17, it is a kick ass platform. Can you elaborate? Or were focusing on the L/16 which……..men, not my cup 'o tea.

Reply

seans June 14, 2014 at 9:53 am

What are you basing it a kick ass platform off of. I have bout 5 years experience with the MK17 and MK20 platform now. More with the MK11s and MK14s. I personally know and have worked with the original evaluators of the SCAR program from the branch I am in. Have even met some of the FN reps who have been sent out to deal with all the problems that have manifested themselves in the abortion called the MK20. My original background was as a armorer before I became a shooter. I have worked with other services SOF forces and I know there opinions also match our services for the most part. And can say the SCAR family of weapons is a giant failure as of right now. Maybe it will fix itself, maybe not. But considering that there were far more proven weapon systems at the time it was adopted, its unacceptable. Its why my services SMUs don't even touch the things. The MK17s are extremely unreliable. Its why you still see SOF units in the Stan running MK18MOD1s. That is a gun with a 10.3 inch barrel firing 5.56. If the SCAR was reliable you wouldn't be seeing that. Not even going to go in depth into the problems with the MK20, but they contain problems such as guns going full auto, POI shifts of up to 7MOA randomly, and a suppressor that has a insane POI shift that was considered acceptable these days. As how it was adopted. A lot of crap went into how it was adopted, people redoing test multiple times until it passed, purposely ignoring user feedback, and the guy who was responsible for its adoption into NSW(and thus arguably all of SOCOM) retired and then was hired into FN shortly after. Ironically the MK16 was the best weapon of the family but was still outclassed by the MK18s.

Reply

jp2336 June 14, 2014 at 11:14 am

Cant, nor will I touch the Mk 20 program, some had high hopes but I would venture a guess that it mainly revolved around keeping the the SCAR program alive. I never really had any opinion on it as I didnt expect it to be pushed to us. Full disclosure….my personal Mk17 operational time is VERY limited. Those I talk to that are still in have had little to complain about. But on the other hand they do not ALL prefer it as a primary, so I guess that speaks a bit about the platform. The Mk18 series being ran does and should raise an eyebrow. As for the Mk17 it appears that my short and semi concise feedback (which is based off of a combination of personal time as well as sober and drunken post-deployment conversations), yet my time with the 17 does exceed a handful of years removed as of today; still feels good to be out. If the platforms have not held up to what was expected that sure is a shame and Id go as far as saying a crime…but I may owe beer to some who nailed it before it left the gate. Those I still run into who have since retired have mixed views, some of which mirror what you detailed….for the Mk20 but details weren’t discussed or they didnt care enough to waste their breath. IDK. No negatives on the 17′s mechanical shortcomings though. That’s a topic I would be interested in. But yes, there is the unequivicable truth that prior to and until the SCAR series was chosen (speaking strictly on a 7.62×51 platform) there were others that beat it hands-down. I concur, but we understand that whats best isnt always whats chosen because it doesn’t person “X” and/or the others associated; hence repeated testing conducted and failed programs. So I guess I can and should clarify that the 17 is still IMO a kick ass platform. But my opinion is now based upon discussions with friends and a few acquaintances, and taking my personal 17S hunting in the mountains….feeding it handloads for Mulies and various 4-legged mammals, which for over 3 yrs has done nothing but impress and average sub-moa accuracy. But this is of course is no longer “third-world country” time, it’s “Im now a free man back in America” time. Learned something new, will have to take what you stated, inquire with some and gather some feedback (mechanical deficiencies from hard use) from some after they get back off leave and see what they can offer. Now its nearly 11 on a Sat and I havent drank anything yet. But that shows how much I care…man my priorities are screwed up.

Reply

seans June 14, 2014 at 11:18 am

I should clarify about the MK17s problems. The guns either run or they don't. The problem becomes that we have been experiencing problems with 50% of our guns. On deployment we sent back 7 of the 15 MK17s that were being used, 3 of the 7 sent back to us had to be returned. The other 8 never had any malfunctions and were accurate. Which for me tells me it is a large scale quality control problem coupled with a not so great design. The problem for users is it takes around 2-3 thousand rounds to start feeling safe about your gun. Not really acceptable. The gun is a acceptable battle rifle if it runs. Its accurate and light. But hard on optics, has probably the worst stock from a factory rifle I have seen in years, and the charging handle is a hot mess for multiple reasons. It just comes down to if your rifle works are not, unfortunately far to many don't. If FN could get the quality control down and tighten up the stock, its rep would greatly improve. And ironically all the civilian versions I have seen typically are more reliable than the military's which also points to a trigger group problem.

Joshua June 14, 2014 at 12:29 pm

Preach on Sean! I still have nightmares of my Mk16 when it was issued to me and my M4A1 taken away……shudders….The Mk17 is also a turd you could say.

CSARmedic June 14, 2014 at 1:05 pm

@seans, what service were you referring too and wasn't the whole purpose of the SCAR to go back to 7.62?

Reply

seans June 14, 2014 at 1:41 pm

The SCAR family was designed as a system to replace multiple weapons systems, the M4/MK18s, MK14s, MK11/12s, and M203/M79(ironically the best designed platform, the FN grenade launcher while not as accurate as the M79, is a great standalone platform due to its ability to collapse and fire enhanced 40mm rounds). The MK18s are far superior to the MK16s, and the MK14 is heavy and expensive to field, and is incredibly long. The MK17 is just a larger version of the MK16, FN tried to do the same trick they did with the MK46s and MK48s and it failed badly. As for my service its the navy.

Joshua June 14, 2014 at 12:31 pm

I’m gonna call it now, this ends with the purchase of K1 kits to turn the M110 to the M110K1 and they get what they want for a whole lot less than a new rifle. I know a few K1 kits were purchased by MARSOC to do just that.

Reply

balais June 15, 2014 at 11:27 pm

Cant have any of that monkey business because that would make *too much* sense…

Reply

Lance June 16, 2014 at 1:52 pm

Dont matter the Army wants a M-110A1 with a 16 inch barrel and M-4 stock . SO they can solve this just goto DPMS and buy alot of uppers.

Reply

The Raven June 17, 2014 at 9:12 am

DPMS…really? LMFAO…

Reply

Eric B. June 14, 2014 at 3:24 pm

I can see H&K getting this contract with their excellent gas tappet piston system. The older M110, with its AR type direct impingement gas system is filthy and HOT after one magazine of 7.62 rounds.

H&K has refined their MR762A1 to the point of being about the most reliable AR type 7.62 rifle to date.
Yeah, competition shooters may say that direct the impingement JP makes the best 7.62 AR type but comp shooters get to clean their rifles often and don't shoot as many rounds as a combat shooter might in a given day.

There are other good AR type 7.62 piston rifles made but I think H&K will have the best entry. That what is my crystal ball tells me – barring the inevitable Army politics and muddling. My crystal ball says that even it can't predict Army decisions because they are not based on empirical evidence – witness the attempt to make an even LARGER Bradley APC replacement!

Reply

Joshua June 16, 2014 at 5:20 pm

You do realize stoner AR systems have beat HK’s offering in a number of trials? The most noteable in a DMR was the L129A1, in which the LMT was not only more accurate than the HK and SCAR, but also more reliable.

I take it you have no real combat experience given you use competition as an example.

Reply

dddawd June 18, 2014 at 2:40 pm

Nemo Arms, 300 Win Mag AR platform. Thats my vote.

Reply

B Perkins June 22, 2014 at 9:59 pm

I put together a couple of H&K's…….both .270 cal, both with 12 power scopes. No compensation needed at 300 yards or less. Flat shooting son of a gun. I hit 4 out of 5 cans at 400 yards. Short barrels will have a negative impact on accuracy involving longer shots. A breakdown rifle would get them the size they need, and a big case to carry it around. No wonder this is flying like a lead Zeppelin…….

Reply

Marauder6 June 14, 2014 at 8:33 pm

Is it just me or does the Army's request basically describe an SPR?

Reply

Airborne June 20, 2014 at 6:33 am

Don't you mean SBR: Short Barreled Rifle?

Reply

Rusty Shovel June 14, 2014 at 8:47 pm

Seems to me the army did this already…and screwed every participant.

If I were a gunmaker I'd be more than a little apprehensive of another competition after which the army isn't obligated to award a contract to the winner–nor is the winner even recognized.

Reply

Rusty Shovel June 14, 2014 at 8:48 pm

Of course, now that Colt owns LWRC the REPR might get a shot.

Reply

bart hooliman June 15, 2014 at 8:16 pm

The army is just looking for some cool toys to play with for a while.

Reply

LRRPIC June 16, 2014 at 8:03 am

This type of AR has been in and around special opps units for quite a long time now and the US Army is on solid ground already done the research, I am thinking this is just news to make news.

Reply

Nevadarebal June 16, 2014 at 4:08 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 less then 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 after 600 meters and 6 LB less recoil for follow up shots if needed. This is a real 21 century round. Also a great Penetrator round to tust me I I have one and there's noting this universal round can't do. 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 yea only need a upper, scope and clip and existing M4's or 16 's go to go at a fraction of the cost for new ones. Bamm…

Reply

jaime airtaz June 16, 2014 at 5:13 pm

thats GREAT as yes a 308 was the standard round in WWII and it has great imp[act , but in Korea and Viet nam the miltary considered the weight and went to a lighter and smaller round
many other countries prefer larger caliber vs 5.56

Reply

CaptainDoc June 16, 2014 at 5:01 pm

This is easily accomplished with a bull pup design and it gets that magazine out of the way of a proper rest. There is no barrel length reduction and can support any sight you want or suppressor. I have no idea why this well known type of firearm is not used more. I have been using bull pups for 30 years and they are great BUT: it might be a problem for left handed shooters and that may be the reason it is not addressed. Anything less than a .300 Win. Mag. is just a waste of money, short barrels in long range slow burning calibers is really sad and anything more is a waste of money also. The 12 m/m rifles are really coming on strong but at a squad level it is adding a lot of gear when you consider ammo for the saw, mortar ammo, mortar and plate, food, basic load and all the other sh-t we carry. There is even talk about 14 m/m guns in the works, what a blaster that would be.

Reply

Joshua June 17, 2014 at 3:31 am

What military are you a part of that is working on issuing 12mm and 14mm rifles?

Reply

CaptainDoc June 17, 2014 at 9:30 am

The USA is using .50 cal. other nations are using 12.7 m/m and some are using KPV14.5 The 14.5's designed for anti aircraft mounted in pickup trucks that are used as heavy weapons for infantry support when modified to point down enough, that is why you see so many of them in the news. The 12.7's are being used by several countries as sniper rifles and also have the same usage that we use the .50's. China has a 14.5 m/m sniper rifle. A person staring at the muzzle of a anti aircraft gun is looking at some serious firepower to overcome. I served 36 years in the US Army and after being wounded in A-stan I'm retired MSG.

Reply

CaptainDoc June 17, 2014 at 9:40 am

If my information is correct the 12.7 is identical to the BMG .50 or is the mm designations for the .50. It has always been called the 50 or the heavy MF in my area of service.

Reply

Joshua June 18, 2014 at 8:14 pm

Maybe I misread your post. I took it as a standard issue riflebin 12mm…..

Reply

CaptainDoc June 19, 2014 at 12:12 am

I may have not understood your post. I am under the impression that the USA is looking to place a long range firearm in the hands of squads. In order to do that the one that makes that kind of decisions desires the mentioned qualifications. I very possibly could be on the wrong track, I have been on a few wrong tracks before so they are not getting the proverbial cherry.

tiger June 18, 2014 at 8:03 pm

The Kel tec RFB seems to fit the need here.

Reply

CaptainDoc June 19, 2014 at 12:00 am

Excellent firearm. The idea is right on track. The 7.62X51 is not what is needed for a long range sniper rifle to be used at squad level. I am led to believe that the .300 Win. Mag. is the cartridge of choice by the USA regardless of opinions of personal choice. This round has been in service by US forces for more than 30 years, including MTU teams at the 1000 meter matches. The recoil of a .300 in this rifle may not be tolerable although the 7.62X51 round is a pretty stout kicker. A muzzle brake does wonders for me and really tames the cartridges to an acceptable level of recoil.

Reply

defensor fortisimo June 21, 2014 at 9:07 am

Reliability issues aside, in matters of pure distribution, you essentially proposed that we ride a unicorn into battle.

Reply

Violater June 17, 2014 at 6:19 am

Interesting, no one has mentioned the IDF Tavor TAR-21. It replaced the M4 and is truly an impressive weapon.

Reply

300 Win Mag June 17, 2014 at 9:05 am

Stupid is as Stupid does

That is not a sniper rifle, or even a rifle

Reply

Charles Krohn June 17, 2014 at 11:58 am

Ceramic barrels would be useful. Are we there yet?

Reply

BDH June 17, 2014 at 1:20 pm

For $12K + per rifle/kit you should also get a hot breakfast with it. As common as the AR platform is, I'd think the costs should be much lower per unit.

Reply

Charlie June 17, 2014 at 5:10 pm

It seem to me to be an extremely high cost for a rifle. I feel our servicemen should have the best and latest in in weapons but how do you justify $12K for a rifle????? PS: I'm former ARMY guy, a vet.

Reply

Joshua June 18, 2014 at 8:16 pm

It’s not just the rifle. That proce includes all ancillery items….including the very expensive optic.

Reply

Jake June 17, 2014 at 2:44 pm

Let me get this straight… they are asking for something 36 inches long without suppressor to replace something 46 inches long WITH suppressor???

Something not more than 9 pounds without compared to something 15 pounds WITH tin can and loaded magazine?????

WT FLAMIN' F?????? I don't see ANY advantage to the 'compact" – what am I missing???

Reply

Joseph June 17, 2014 at 5:01 pm

$12,000+- per rifle?? Am I missing something? Does that come with a $2,000 scope? Or even thermals? Sounds like another $5000 hammer and $3000 toilet seat……

Reply

D4T8 June 25, 2014 at 9:17 pm

Amen Joseph, how many off the shelf or other service, country adopted weapons would work at a fraction of the cost? sounds like blowing lots of our tax dollars. how many snipers do we have? 3600?

Reply

gunluvr June 17, 2014 at 5:05 pm

It would be easier to come up with a shorter, interchangeable and more accurate barrel than to create a whole new system. This request, except to accommodate a small group within the army does not make sense. Did anybody ask the snipers?

Reply

Nick Gallup June 17, 2014 at 5:23 pm

The sad truth is some general probably wants it. A compact version of a sniper rifle? It's a contradiction. The beauty of a sniper rifle is it can be shot hundreds of yards away. I've read of snipers getting kills from over a mile away. If you make it compact, you will have to sacrifice distance and accuracy. Why? Just use the issue rifle. It's academic anyway. They will argue for ten years before they okay it for production, and the USMC will opt out as it always does.

Reply

T.Harden June 17, 2014 at 5:45 pm

18 inch barrel with a UBR on the current M110. Too easy.

Reply

William Page June 17, 2014 at 5:50 pm

Why not make this rifle in a bullpup model, with the buffer behind the reciever?

Reply

CaptainDoc June 19, 2014 at 12:04 am

excellent right on remark. This can be done very easily.

Reply

Redline June 17, 2014 at 6:19 pm

what they described was an SBR configured DMR. A semi automatic rifle for precision marksmanship is a Designated Marksman's Rifle. This is the mission it is fit to. The only other task is mutlitasking with a special service operations unit who requires a shorter rifle that can be used equally well in CQB missions as well as set up for perimeter security detail.
As to a new rifle, it is much simpler and cheaper as already mentioned to use a shorter lighter upper, and different stock and pistol grip. Anyone who contracts this new rifle isn't going to be making new rifles, they are only going to swap out parts on the same basic receiver and paint it tan with some good baked on finish.
By the time the silencer, optics, laser etc are placed on it, it's still a 15 pound rifle

Reply

Jerry Lukem June 17, 2014 at 6:49 pm

Why not bring back the Old Springfield 1903, one of the better sniper rifles the Army had.

Reply

Lil' Wolfe June 21, 2014 at 10:28 pm

There is no relevant role for a bolt action, legacy cartridge system in the 21st Century, since we can chamber bolt guns in .338 LM and enjoy significant reach with them.

Anything .30 bore with a late-1800's case volume is dead.

Reply

daveginoly June 17, 2014 at 7:02 pm

A few days ago, the Washington Times reported that the US military is studying civil unrest (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/13/us-defense-department-studying-protesters-prep-mas/).

I left the following comment at that article:
I don't see the US military involved in large scale suppression of civil unrest in foreign countries. The suppression of civil unrest by a foreign military/occupying power is too fraught with potential problems – real, practical, and political. Generally, you employ indigenous forces to counter civil disturbances. That leads me to believe that this planning is for the application of military power against civil disturbances within the United States, situations in which the US military is the afore-mentioned "indigenous" force.

Now military.com is telling me that the Army is looking for a new sniper rifle "to counter constantly changing threats particularly in urban environments." Does anyone else see that the US military appears to be preparing to fight on US soil?

Reply

luis June 17, 2014 at 7:22 pm

Got money for weapons but you cant pay the hundreds of veterans like my self and my fellow brethren. 1 house 2 car 3 and our compensation. Lately you bail out bankers and leave the working class stranded.

Reply

foo June 17, 2014 at 11:04 pm

I vote Larue OBR …

Reply

Rou Holbert June 18, 2014 at 11:02 am

The military is always seeking newer, if not better toys. Used the M-14 accurized version with Match Grade ammo.
Have used 'turn-bolt' Remington. Both were great rigs and accurate. Our young men deserve the very best our country can provide, but sometimes 'old school' is better . Got 600 meter hits with one and 1000 meter hits with the
other in 7.62 (308). Someone mentioned the 6.5 Grendel, possible, have heard good things about it, but a .25 cal.. Never used one. What is it's terminal velocity at 300, 600 and 1000 meters.

Reply

Li' Wolfe June 21, 2014 at 10:35 pm

Used them both as well. They are both dead and albatrosses on the soldier's ability to maneuver.

An M110K with 175gr SMK will smoke an M14 all day long when it comes to accuracy, let alone maintainability, return to zero, but most importantly, fighting with.

6.5 Grendel is an awesome little cartridge that fits within the AR15/M4 receiver set, so weight can come way down, with less wind drift than .308, and half the recoil. Army will resist it based on logistics.

With LSAT in the pipe, it makes sense to squeeze what they can out of metallic cartridges before stepping into a whole new set of game-changing technology. Combat endurance is going to change radically with LSAT.

Reply

Nevadarebel June 23, 2014 at 2:32 pm

Rou

Here are some info and other locations if you what to see that this round can do. in a M4 thru M16 format and on required a small cost for upgrading existing rifles. I have one, used and seen this it a all in one round and rife combo and hits and destroys what it pointed at . Whether its 10 meters or 1000.

IIRC shooting the Scenar 123gr you are still 1275fps at almost 1100 yards (1000meters)

Max yards Supersonic by caliber…

308 FGMM 175gr SMK 1075 yds
5.56mm 77gr OTM 875 yds
6.8 SPC 115gr OTM 825 yds
6.5 Grendel 100gr 1150 yds
6.5 Grendel 108gr 1175 yds
6.5 Grendel 123gr 1275 yds
6.5 Grendel 144gr 1350 yds

Hope this helps…

Also see
Ballistic Charts for all three rounds see PDF first entry in blog http://www.shootersforum.com/rifles-rifle-cartrid
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archiv

Reply

Gary Et June 18, 2014 at 8:50 pm

The Army is like any other government business. Colleges also. They get an annual budget. If they come in under budget, their budget will be cut. So they always spend that money (waste) to come in at or above budget. The gov't should cut all of their budgets by at least 15 – 20%.

Reply

nighthawk June 19, 2014 at 11:47 am

M14 (M1A! with modern stock is still the best sniper rifle out to 1000 yards beyond that . The .338 lapua made by savage arms with the accutrigger is capable of 1400 yard head shots. For urban sniper 7.62 with 18 inch barrel is adequate. Compact sniper rifle, why bother?

Reply

Lil' Wolfe June 21, 2014 at 10:39 pm

I can see you haven't had much experience with the M14. It's one of the most disappointing rifles I've ever used. It certainly isn't 1000yd rifle. Not even the M24 is a good 1000yd rifle, and it blows the M14 away in the accuracy department. There is no real logistics support for the M14, and it is probably one of the least user-friendly rifles when it comes to maintenance, especially for an optically-equipped DMR.

The CSASS is a very valid, and long overdue system.

Reply

Ravinginfidel June 19, 2014 at 1:47 pm

Saiga sells a bull pup 308 for about a grand. Don't know accuracy but with a little development in 308 or 300 mag I would think a solution could be found.

Reply

Vet June 19, 2014 at 5:31 pm

That's over $12,000 per rifle. Pretty expensive.

Reply

Tim Leebody June 20, 2014 at 12:32 am

It will be the LMT MWS. Yes there are several manufactures that produce excellent weapon systems. But not everyone can deliver on large quantity. Colt certainly can but LMT's quick change barrel In multiple calibers I think puts them over the top. Even more, they have proven themselves In there contract to the UK, New Zeeland just to mention a few.. I'm hoping that an American Company can secure the contract. LMT, COLT or NIGHT"S get my vote. Politics aside…..This will be interesting

Reply

Lil' Wolfe June 21, 2014 at 10:42 pm

Ever hefted the beast that the LMT is, even the 16" MWS? It doesn't meet the weight requirements right off the bat. Barrel shank is full 1.25" for at least 4" to interface with the MWS monolithic upper receiver clamping system.

Way too heavy for a fighting rifle, even with the given that the UK and some others have been using it somewhat effectively as a DMC/CSASS for years now.

Reply

rayber5901 June 21, 2014 at 12:19 am

Like a lot of the other JUNK that we have had to deal with…the death trap Bradley was a death trap upon conception but Congress needed to pay off the manufacture and we are still getting killed in the POS. The run of junk NATO 9mm Beretta's blowing up after 2000. The 1911A1 assembled from parts from a barrel will fire 90,000 rounds and be purchased to a competition shooter. There's other handguns being used by groups that have a politician in their pocket so they can try new toys but a version of the 1911 will always in war. The 50 cal sniper rifle is well liked. You have to be a man to carry it but then you have to be a man to be a sniper. The 50 has a lot of toy ammo to go with it. The 308, 30-06 and 300 win mags did well in 'nam. Some one mentioned the 6.5 Grendel.. all these rounds in a $500 commercial rifle will produce kills. The weapons are there, we have the shooters. DO we need to pay out another manufacture millions of dollars for what we already have. The hottest long shooter around, the 6.5×284 with a 140gr Sierra boat tail will kill well at 1000 yds. They have finally taken them off the bench rest and manufacture them for hunting. (About time.) We're just paying for another $5000 hammer as mentioned earlier.

Reply

rayber5901 June 21, 2014 at 12:29 am

Any idea where the M-16 round, the .223 round came from. Millions of dollars in testing and design…WHY..the 222 shoots flatter and has more energy down range then the .223. The 222 was (is)an excellent very old Varmint round but we couldn't get corporate campaign funds with out fat contracts.. Sorry about the sarcasm but the truth hurts.

Reply

Lil' Wolfe June 21, 2014 at 10:47 pm

6.5×284 is a non-starter right off the bat. Barrels would need to be pulled after one-two weeks of Sniper School.

When you look at training logistics, and calibers in the system available on the DODAC, you have what you have. Competition shooters with wildcats does not equal tested and vetted for military use.

The development of a military cartridge in the US and NATO is a very involved process, including temp sensitivity mitigation, flash signature reduction, optimum performance within constraints of the case volume and gas system in the rifle or carbine, and accuracy requirements for a sniper load.

This is not another $5000 hammer, unless you're using the definition of hammer that shooters are used to.

Reply

Lil' Wolfe June 21, 2014 at 10:24 pm

This is totally an end-user driven program, not Generals and typical Army weapons procurement. The reality is that 7.62 NATO does not benefit a lot from longer barrels at distance, especially when talking about the 175gr SMK, which does plenty well from 16" pipes.

Contrary to many people's beliefs, shorter barrels of the same diameter have more inherent accuracy in terms of whip compared to longer barrels, but that isn't what is driving this. Being able to shoot from positions and use the carbine for other tasks is. Somebody forgot to drop a flat range in before every firefight, so prone/bipod is used in very few engagements at distance, and the carbine needs to be able to cover down as a fighting system the rest of the time.

This was one of my biggest complaints with the M24, which I carried and used for years across several different units in Scout Sniper Platoons. I was opposed to the M24's adoption back before I joined the Army, and wished they had gone with an improved semi auto back in the late 1980's. The SR-25 came just a few years too late for big Army, but was immediately absorbed by JSOC and SOCOM as a semi-auto sniper system. Big Army took 20 years before it jumped onboard with the M110 SASS, after being told for decades that we needed a SASS, only to hold onto the M24.

The CSASS or DMC/M110K1, has already been converted to by several units in the SOF community, to include MARSOC Regiment, so almost every comment I have seen so far is totally unfounded in reality. This is an end-user driven program, and quite valid. The comments about HK417 are out to lunch based on weight alone, let aside accuracy.

Reply

Punisher1 June 22, 2014 at 6:16 pm

So here we go again. The pencil pushers cannot decide on a new Infantry rifle but thet are looking for a shorty sniper rifle….. two choices shorten the barrel or bull pup design. One going to limit your engagement ranges the other is not going to be a M16/4 clone. I wonder if this will end like most other weapon procurement stories.

Reply

Ken Ferguson June 22, 2014 at 9:09 pm

Me thinks I see the new "Girl Optimized Sniper System". Light, quiet, small, in designer colors… Now you can't expect them to do everything a man can do if they have to carry all that weight, can you? Now if we can just get the weight down to 5lb+ so my 12yr can meet the min standard for the new MOS: CQB Ninja Sniper. And the hit's just keep coming. :(

Reply

Autumn Eagle June 23, 2014 at 12:24 pm

I smell a RAT. Why publicly advertise a new sniper platform in the first place? Does anyone remember the Air Force seeking bids for a stealth fighter or bomber before the original B1 bomber? Who specifically within the Army is asking for the new rifle and why? With DoD budgets tightening, does it make sense to introduce yet more overhead in the system, when we can modify existing hardware and save money in the process? I'm no weapons expert, but I would think that if there is a mission capability requirement that needs to be filled, why not check the currrent inventory first?

Skepticism in the Obama era is not only healthy, but a wise default setting considering what we have seen to date. For those folks who think that criticism of the current President is nothing more than right-wing paranoia clearly haven't been paying attention to events in the last five years.

Ugh. Whatever happened to the days when we could all have healthy discussions about whatever without resorting to personal attacks (or did such days ever exist in the first place)?

Reply

Rob Jones June 23, 2014 at 7:55 pm

The short comings of this rifle lower effectiveness and expose the army to the enemy that would have been taken out by our present sniper rifles. Sounds like a loser all the way around. The point is it more effective and the answer NO is obvious.

Reply

Chris June 23, 2014 at 9:57 pm

Jeez, lots of silly comments about such a thing not being possible. Think Bulpup like a Walther WA2000 or KelTec RFB. Its doable, just going to take some work and thinking outside the box.

Reply

ConcernedAmerican June 24, 2014 at 12:04 am

At issue is the range of the 7.62 AK round vs the nato standard 5.56. Our troops have to risk a lot of movement within the enemies firing range before they can get into a position to retaliate. The enemy has learned to engage at distance and disengage when the our troops get into their firing range. Since they employ ambush strategies, they have learned to pick suitable locales and know what their engagement safe zone is. Thats why the army wants a 7.62 lightweight sniper, its not for snipers but to make up a deficit in our own weapons layout that is being exploited by the enemy.

I think is sucks, there should be a way to upgrade our existing weapons, perhaps by being smart on the ammo front, just insert the 'blue ammo clip' and engage the enemy is probably a better strategy.

One sniper rifle per squad may not do the trick, its too simple an obstacle to plan for.

Reply

rafael June 24, 2014 at 3:01 pm

not really you can compact the sniper rifle without changing any of its statues they wants it so the can be hidden in a more camouflaged area without things being in the way of the sniper rifle and they want it light so they can transaction from their location to different location in a matter of minutes but if they want a lighter and a more stronger sniper rifle they could just make it out of carbon synthetics and it still will be able to with hold the raw power of the M110

Reply

Mike11C June 26, 2014 at 5:00 pm

I'm calling BS!!! They're spending $44.5 MILLION on 3600 rifles? That averages out to $12,361 EACH! WTF?!?!? That bitch had better be gold plated for that! Who is in charge? They need to be fired AND have their ass kicked!

Reply

david July 18, 2014 at 11:18 am

There is a new rifle designer who could build this weapon in 308, folding, and color oriented, multiple calibers, long stroke gas piston, and a whole array of other combat oriented capabilities and the manufacturing to make it hands down in the USA, machining company ….FAXON FIREARMS…..

Reply

JP2336 June 15, 2014 at 7:47 am

Ahhhh…..I see. Very unsettling indeed, well more shit to stir at the next cookout; busted optics WAS always a hot topic. Although I will say that as peculiar as it sounds (or doesn't), recently some MSOT guys dropped the 17 and were running 16" EBR's from the Army.

Reply

Guest June 15, 2014 at 5:27 pm

Major Rod – As You were a leading "Cheerleader" for President Bush's 2003 Invasion of Iraq, how about telling us what went wrong and Why??? = ____________________
Keeping in mind of course, that there were NO WMD's in Iraq, or al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, in 2003.

Reply

Big Daddy June 15, 2014 at 6:11 pm

There are NOW.

Reply

Stormcharger June 15, 2014 at 6:17 pm

Obviously it was the fact that Bush didn't issue short barreled M110's, and he would have called the color khaki not FDE because the President just wasn't tactical enough. Though he was smart enough to get the fool you voted for to go along with it, so whatever.

Reply

majr0d June 15, 2014 at 7:49 pm

Anonymous "Guest". Cheerleader? No. I just don't jump on the partisan bandwagon. Bush had PLENTY of blemishes.

There were a lot of mistakes in '03 like not sending enough troops but why go that far back? The current crisis is a direct result of what happened in 2011 when this administration failed to negotiate a residual force.

BTW, there were Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq in '03. Both the men that would lead AQI had finished their training inAfghanistan and were living in Iraq. The link between Saddam and AQ has never been definitively proven but considering we couldn't emplace CIA operatives and AQ could isn't inconsequential. Neither is Saddam's support for terrorists before the invasion.

Besides illustrating your ignorance what does this have to do with the M110?

Reply

jose June 15, 2014 at 8:46 pm

Don't forget the WMD"s sent to Syria at the onset of the invasion, the same ones Assad recently used.

Reply

SFODA2011 June 19, 2014 at 10:21 am

Are you serious? The problems in Iraq can be attributed to the current sorry CiC sitting in the oval office. He was the one who pulled out of Iraq without a status of forces agreement. He bent over backwards to please the liberal progressive idiots in our country. As for the WMDs, they were moved to Syria, hence the chemical weapons being used now to kill civilians.

Reply

stpaulchuck June 20, 2014 at 1:46 pm

really? then what's the massive WMD factory the ISIS crowd just took? What about the 500 metric tons of uranium we repatriated to Canada? etc., etc.

al Qaeda terrorists were training at Salman Pak (along with others). The insurgency was al Qaeda.

BTW, we won the war in Iraq and had them stabilized until King Putt showed up and changed all the strategies. Mow it's folding like a house of cards because of that.

Reply

seans June 15, 2014 at 9:49 pm

Not trying to be sarcastic at all, what men are you referring to that were going to lead AQI Iraq that had trained in the Stan were living in Afghanistan. As much of a douche as Saddam was he was a secular douche and had no place for any Al Qaeda guys in his country.

Reply

Guest June 15, 2014 at 10:30 pm

seans – I have been reading Major Rod's comments for about 5 years and I can tell you this much. – Major Rod will NEVER admit when he's wrong!

As we both know, Saddam was loathed by the al Qaeda terrorist network. The 2003 Invasion of Iraq was a massive blunder for the Country and the Republican Party.
America and Western Europe are in much greater danger today then we were in 2003.

Reply

majr0d June 15, 2014 at 11:55 pm

Seans – Al-Zarqawi and Abu Ayyub al-Masri. both of these men arrived in Iraq before the invasion and stood up AQ cells and even a training base.

Saddam didn't want a significant AQ presence in his country because of the threat they may pose to him but he was not beyond working with them. Here's a short list of Saddam's terror links. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategor

Reply

Tangodown June 15, 2014 at 11:51 pm

Amen brother! It's AMAZING how some moron will inevitably get on here and start some crap having NOTHING to do with the actual subject. As IF we could reboot the invasion. Man. Jose nailed it. After all the 'discussion' and voting in Congress, (14 RESOLUTIONS for Saddam to straighten up for those who are counting), we DETERMINED collectively as a democracy often does, to whip his ass, we did.

Reply

W.R.Monger June 18, 2014 at 2:20 pm

Nobody ever wants to admit to those but they were one in the same.

Reply

Scot B June 22, 2014 at 6:20 pm

Assad wasn't the one to use chemical weapons in Syria–I had read that it was determined to be a faction from Turkey that used them in an effort to get the US to join the war.

Reply

majr0d June 16, 2014 at 12:02 am

Mr Anonymous (who has a "Policy Wonk" style). People who frequent kit up know I've acknowledged any misstatements or errors. As far as the two of us are concerned I've never been wrong.

AQ didn't like a lot of other Muslim leaders to include those in Iran. That didn't mean they didn't work with them or seek and receive sanctuary after they were kicked out of Afghanistan.

I agree, America and Western Europe is in much greater danger now. The Ukraine, rebels in Syria returning to their home countries, ISIS establishing a state on those Iraqi oil fields are all threats all thanks to our current "lead from behind" foreign policy.

Reply

Guest June 16, 2014 at 12:26 am

Thanks for your impute Major Rod. Many retired Military Officers, both British and American, have came out in recent days and called the 2003 Invasion of Iraq
a blunder by President Bush & Tony Blair.
I always respect your viewpoints but this time I think You are "off base". That being said, this is the wrong spot to debate the current disaster in Iraq, so until next time.

Reply

W.R.Monger June 18, 2014 at 2:11 pm

Leading from behind… isn't that following?!? He's been a joke since day one and the world has known that before he even usurped the office of POTUS (for him it's POTUSINO). Our troops suffer for his follies and lack of experience. He seems to care more for the well being of our enemies than for our own people and allies.

Not trying to get political but since he is playing at being the CiC that in itself makes him a target in any military forum.

Peace through superior fire power is no longer applicable without the knowledge of how to use it or the will to do so. He has no such knowledge or will…

Reply

majr0d June 16, 2014 at 12:32 am

As there are just as many officers that would disagree with them. The devil is in the details.

I agree. Iraq is currently a disaster.

Reply

BigTex June 16, 2014 at 11:44 am

And we did it for HalliBush, Inc., big oil’s best friend ever.

We got lied to by the ex-CEO of Halliburton (the Dick, cheney) and a failed Midland, TX oilman, “W”.

Reply

Lance June 16, 2014 at 1:51 pm

Dont matter the Army wants a M-110A1 with a 16 inch barrel and M-4 stock its not a crappy SCAR its another smaller AR-10.

Reply

jose June 17, 2014 at 4:00 pm

Big Wreck…. errrr…..Tex

give it a rest. IF obama had done what he should have done and left some forces there, it wouldn't even be an issue. Since obama is so inept, you have what you have, a sh!tpile of trouble.

Take your conspiracy crap somewhere else, homos like you and "guest" will ruin another good site.

Reply

Rogue Male June 17, 2014 at 10:03 pm
W.R.Monger June 18, 2014 at 2:24 pm

:)
You and majRod had better not leave this site because of those few idiots. I'd leave if that happened…
"They" are trying to invade every corner of the net…

Reply

W.R.Monger June 18, 2014 at 2:18 pm

We are witnessing the fall of Saigon all over again only this time it's Bagdad. Those who worked with us will fare no better than those in Vietnam.

The Sec.of State said teaming up with Iran is the same as when we teamed with the Soviets in WWII, look how well that turned out. How much of the Middle East will we cede to Iran for their "assistance"? No matter how we run the numbers this will go very poorly for us with the current admin in charge. We need a "leader" who has a military mind not a politician.

As for the new sniper rifle it sounds like another bid to spend taxpayer money to fill up some politicians pockets.

Reply

Guest June 20, 2014 at 1:17 pm

Still drinking the Bush Kool Aid? Everywhere else, the Iraq Pro War crowd is in full Retreat!
Megyn Kelly has slammed Dick Cheney on Fox News, over the Iraq War. Tony (the tiger) Blair is being hammered in the British Press. Glenn Beck has admitted, "the Iraq War was a huge mistake". "W" is in hiding. Wake Up and smell the coffee, it's 2014!

Reply

Guest June 20, 2014 at 6:50 pm

Iraq and Iran fought a brutal War between 1980 & 1988. That so-called WMD Factory is from that Era. By the way, the US "favored" Iraq in that War. Note the pics of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands in Baghdad, in the 1980s. Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988, while still on friendly terms with the US. (Turkey, a US alley, has killed far more Kurds
then the Iraqis.)
We all know what happened after the 1991 Gulf War. The NO FLY ZONE and the US Embargo on Iraq. (In which hundreds of Iraqi children died, do to a lack of medical supplies)
The Iraq War of 2003 was started on Outright Lies and "half truths". President Bush kicked the UN Inspectors out of Iraq in early 2003. Bush wanted a WAR.
All Governments LIE, including Our Own. Two Examples are the so called "Gulf of Tonkin attack" that King Sized the Vietnam War and and the attack on the USS Liberty that was covered up by President Johnson. Iraq is a much bigger danger to the US and Western Europe now, then 2003. Thousands of Islamic terrorists now control parts western and northern Iraq.

Reply

stpaulchuck June 20, 2014 at 7:54 pm

trains of semis loaded up his munitions and hauled them to Syria and on to the Bekaa Valley. We watched for 14 months while that went on.

President Bush kicked nobody out of Iraq. Saddam did. I don't know where you got that bit of misinformation. On top of that they were UN and IAEA inspectors not US. Kofi Annan was Sec.Gnl. then and he commanded it along with the embargo.

The Iraqi children died because of Saddam and the UN. President Bush had zero control of that.

The "lies" were validated by the spy services of 16 different countries, some of them not very friendly to the US. There were WMD's until the semi's hauled them away. We did find 500 metric tons of uranium, not likely to be used for power. I'd say a nuclear bomb agenda and centrifuges, etc. qualified as WMD research and development.

Your knowledge of geo-politics is sadly deficient. The idea of taking Iraq was two fold. First it got rid of Saddam and his Sunni minority wiping out several other ethic and religious "others". Secondly by holding Iraq and Afghanistan we put Iran between a rock and a hard place. That strategy actually worked. That is it worked until Obysmal got into the White House and totally screwed up when the Iranian dissidents asked for political backing if they rose up and kicked out the ragheads ruling and ruining the country. Bathhouse Barry turned his back on them thus trashing the entire investment. If we had supported an uprising in Iran together with democratizing Iraq it would have signaled a new era of peace in the ME. We control the Saudis with our oil purchases (generally) so with the Sunnis and Shia at heel we would have had decades of peace.

Now of course King Putt's continued stupidity in foreign affairs is compounding the screw-up and the results are visible in the rise of ISIS.

Reply

Guest June 20, 2014 at 8:58 pm

After the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War and the 1991 Gulf War, the sad sack Iraqi Military was hardly a threat to the USA. The 1990's saw a US Military Fly Over of Iraq and a Embargo of Military supplies. Han Bilx and other UN Inspectors found No evidence of WMDs in Iraq and were kicked out of Iraq in Feb (2003) by President Bush.
Richard Clarke said that within days of 9/11/2001, Bush had Military Planners drawing up Plans to Invade Iraq. In Fact, not "only" Iraq but 7 Muslim Countries.

No less then Colin Powell has admitted that, "His speech in front of the UN on Feb 5, 2003, about Iraqi WMDs was a pack of B.S."
In Fact, the Iraqi Military was so weak in 2003, that they were defeated in a matter of Months. You do Re-Call Bush's Mission Accomplished Speech. The real War started when the Iraqi people tried to kick the US Military out of Iraq.
The only Country that the Iraq War "put between a Rock and a hard Place" was the USA. A two Trillion Dollar Cost price tag, the Iraq War gave the Taliban time to Re-Group, and a huge cost in US dead and wounded. Not counting the 500,000 dead Iraqis of course. Who cares about them?
By 2011 the American People "had it". Most wanted out of Iraq and Obama agreed.
(I am a Republican and No Fan of Obama) But Bush and Cheney have to take the blame for this disaster, they earned it.
And last but not least, if Mr Bush feels he "was right about Iraq", why isn't He on TV
making His Case? Why is he hiding?

Reply

Guest June 20, 2014 at 9:28 pm

One item I forgot. The Saudis whom you seem to think "we control", are the Worldwide Leaders in founding Sunni terrorism. Including ISIS, the group of Sunni funded killers in Iraq and Syria.
15 of the 19 9/11/2001 high jackers / terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, none from Iran or Iraq.
We control NOBODY in the Middle East. We use Bribes, Military Threats or a Military "Protection Deals" to get our way in the Middle East. We took over from the British who lost their Empire shorty after WW II.

Reply

Guest June 20, 2014 at 10:55 pm

Have you watched Megyn Kelly, the Fox News Anchor, taking on the two Iraqi War-hawks, Dick Cheney & John Bolton, in recent days.
Kelly torn up both Iraqi War-hawks on her show. I bet the War-hawks won't debate Ms Kelly again, any time soon! While Mr Bush hides, Tony Blair is taking a real pasting from the Brits.

Reply

Marinevet June 23, 2014 at 11:56 pm

The so called bush kool aid has been gone for 6 years. When are you progressives and democrats start to take responsibility for the crap your president does now? My guess is never. obama is nothing but a country dividing racist. He will be remembered as the Great Divider. No one has ever divided this country as bad as Obama.

Reply

Gust June 24, 2014 at 9:30 pm

The 2003 Invasion of Iraq by Pres Bush. = The biggest Foreign Policy Blunder in US History!!!!!!!

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: