You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
Snipers Seek More Range - Strategy Page
2008-08-05
There is a big push in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps to get a sniper rifle that can consistently get kills out to 1,800 meters. The current 7.62mm round is good only to about 800 meters. There are three options available here. The most obvious one is to use a 12.7mm sniper rifle. But these are heavier (at 30 pounds) and bulkier than 7.62mm weapons, but can get reliable hits out to 2,000 meters.

Another option is to use more powerful, but not much larger round. For example, you can replace the barrel and receiver of the $6,700 M24 sniper rifle for about $4,000, so that it can fire the .300 Winchester Magnum round. This is longer (at 7.62 x 67mm) than the standard 7.62x51mm round, and is good out to 1,200 meters. Another option is to replace the barrel and receiver of the M24 sniper rifles to handle the .338 (8.6mm) Lapua Magnum round. Thus you still have a 17 pound sniper rifle, but with a round that can hit effectively out to about 1,600 meters.

Snipers in Iraq, and especially Afghanistan, have found the Lapua Magnum round does the job at twice the range of the standard 7.62x51mm round. The 8.6mm round entered use in the early 1990s, and became increasingly popular with police and military snipers. Dutch snipers have used this round in Afghanistan with much success, and have a decade of experience with these larger caliber rifles. British snipers in Afghanistan are also using the new round, having converted many of their 7.62mm sniper rifles.

Recognizing the popularity of the 8.6mm round, Barrett, the pioneer in 12.7mm sniper rifles, came out with a 15.5 pound version of its rifle, chambered for the 8.6mm.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#8  Yep .338 lapua was purpose designed to be the 1200m sniper round. PRoblem is we are needing 50% more. And yes recoil is a pain but not nearly as bad as the 50bmg Barret (which I fired one time and it was harsh, plus I've used M-2 in the service). But its good to 1500m with a good sniper and is a compromise between weight size range recoil and effectiveness.

Ballistics/recoil is going to be a pain at 1800m+ given that it needs to be kept portalbe enough for a sniper team to carry it and set it up, etc.

For now, I'd say go with the Lapua (its proven), and purpose build a military sniper rifle around that round.

The .416 is interesting though, and probably worth a look.








Posted by: OldSpook   2008-08-05 16:34  

#7  I've read good things about the Barrett .416. The rifles are smaller and lighter than the M107 (.50 caliber - military grade of the M82A) The round also flies flatter and longer - could be a real boost to the long range wars in Afghanistan and the Paki border.
Posted by: Rob06   2008-08-05 15:54  

#6  can consistently get kills out to 1,800 meters.

I don't think the .338 Lapua can do that range. If the US going to introduce another caliber, then why not go with the best? .408 Chey-Tac gets consistent hits on man sized targets at 2500 yards and the necked down .375 is, AFAICR, supersonic to about 3000 yards. The down side being is the rifles are in the heavy class.
Posted by: ed   2008-08-05 15:36  

#5  There's a generally unmentioned problem with sniping using any rifle or calibre that has a heavy recoil and that is the problem of retinal detachment.

The shooter has to shoot a fair number of rounds to become comfortable with the rifle, then he has to keep it zeroed which again takes a fair number of rounds.

The sniping itself only takes one shot but there are many hundreds/thousands of shots taken before that solitary "interest" shot. In time and after enough tough jolts the shooter's eye(s) can fail via detached retina problems. That marks the end of heavy rifle shooting.


Posted by: Canuckistan sniper   2008-08-05 14:28  

#4  'moose, isn't the 12.7mm rifle they mention the .50 caliber? I've shot them and they are HEAVY, not to mention the weight of the ammo.
Posted by: AlanC   2008-08-05 13:48  

#3  Why don't they go for the gold standard, the fifty caliber rifle? The long range Sharps rifle was able to accurately hit targets at 1000m with black powder, in the 19th Century.

With modern propellants and laser scoping, 2000m is not unrealistic. And there are some sweet fifty cals out there, off the shelf.

Ironically, if you want even better performance, you might realistically use a rail gun type weapon, with a round propelled by a conductive plasma, not chemicals.

But that would require carrying along a suitcase sized generator-capacitor-inductor. But if you're taking out targets at 5000+m, what's your hurry? The round will hit its target at that range with a speed of about 3-5km/sec, vaporizing a hole the size of a basketball in the target.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-08-05 12:07  

#2  Wouldn't the 6.5mm Grendel (made by Alexander Arms) be something to look at? I'm not sure of its max range but I know it's more accurate to 800M than any 7.62mm or 5.56mm round, and has more stopping power at that range.

Does anyone know the max range on the 6.5 Grendel?
Posted by: DLR   2008-08-05 11:59  

#1  338 lapua will work out to 1500M, Canadians have put it to good use from what I recall reading. Its purpose built for killing humans in one shot at extreme range. But speaking as a former normal rifle toting guy, it kicks like hell - I've shot some from a civilian rifle, and it punches pretty hard.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-08-05 11:27  

00:00