Rifle can hit target a mile away.

[Del Boy]

British Rifle Can Hit Target A Mile Away


Geoff Meade
Defence correspondent Updated:10:02, Friday March 07, 2008
Britain's military is spending £11m equipping its top shots with the world's best sniper rifle




Weapon is lethal to 1,000 metres
At £23,000, the UK-made Accuracy International L96 is also the most expensive individual weapon ever issued.
They are already in service in Afghanistan and more guns and marksmen are leaving for Helmand this weekend.
It spells a turnaround in tactics. Sniping was being replaced by so-called smart weapons - laser or GPS guided, and claimed to be accurate within metres.
But Nato commanders have found to their cost that air strikes and artillery can inflict so-called collateral damage, killing civilians as well as insurgents.

So the record investment reflects a revival in demand for the skills of a lone marksman, the most discriminating of killing machines.
"We're definitely seeing a renaissance in sniping," said the colonel in charge of sharpshooter training at the Britain's Land Warfare Centre in Wiltshire.
Like all those involved, he asked for his name to be withheld.
Stealthy and deadly, snipers are feared and detested by the enemy. The worry is that marksmen's families could be targeted at home by extremists.
Sniping making a tactical comeback
Equipped with silencer, infra-red night vision and a 25x magnification, the new weapon is lethal to over 1,000m. In expert hands, its high-calibre round will stop a target at nearly a mile.
"It gives us an extra reach to strike much further out. The enemy won't know we're there until we've hit him," said one sniper with 17 years' experience."
Snipers are effective and punch way above their weight in numbers. In the Vietnam War, American forces expended 30,000 bullets for every enemy downed. Its marksmen used just three rounds per kill.
The work is among the toughest. Small teams in Helmand will typically spend six weeks in the field, with only two or three days off between duties.
Most combat units have added a sniper platoon to their strength.
The RAF regiment fields one as does Prince Harry's unit.

 

[Team Infidel]

sweet.........

 

[major liability]

I thought you'd use the L115A1 (Arctic Warfare Super Magnum) to shoot at a target a mile away. .338 Lapua Magnum is vastly superior to 7.62x51mm at those ranges.

 

[Del Boy]

OK Major - I'll tell 'em.:wink: We have to replace our bows and arrows with something. Actually though, it is 8.59mm calibre - the old rifle was 7.62mm.

Here it is:-

Calibre 8.59mm
Wt : 6.8kg.
length 130cm.
muzzle velocity : 936 metres per second.
mag : 5 rounds.
Effective range : 1,500 metres.
Sight magnification: x 25.
Single bullet cost: £2.

 

[Cdt Matteo]

Single bullet cost only 2 pounds, wow.

The high caliber sniper rifle the Americans use is the Barret 50 (.50cal sniper rifle effective of about 2 miles). A single .50cal bullet costs $50 from what I last saw (I believe the plain one).

In Canada we use the MacMillan Tac 50. Also a .50cal and has recorded kill of up to 2430 meters.

Glad the brits got a good sniper.

 

[LeMask]

I think that The .50Cal they use are actually armor piercing incendiary rounds... it explains the cost...

50$ for an accurate anti material bullet? it's not that expensive. It can take a reactor on an airplane/helicopter...

Just think what would a sniper with such weapon can do against a hovering enemy helicopter... He can rip the pilot's head with one shot...

Maybe blind a tank by destroying it's sights...

 

[c/Commander]

.50BMG doesn't cost anywhere near $50 a round...the military pays about $.50 each for the basic stuff, tracer a little more, no more than $5-$10 for API rounds. Main problem with it is size and weight.

 

[Spartacus]

Single bullet cost only 2 pounds, wow.

The high caliber sniper rifle the Americans use is the Barret 50 (.50cal sniper rifle effective of about 2 miles). A single .50cal bullet costs $50 from what I last saw (I believe the plain one).

No way man... fielding the equipment would be expensive, not to mention training on it would be prohibitively expensive..

I think that The .50Cal they use are actually armor piercing incendiary rounds... it explains the cost...

50$ for an accurate anti material bullet? it's not that expensive. It can take a reactor on an airplane/helicopter...

Just think what would a sniper with such weapon can do against a hovering enemy helicopter... He can rip the pilot's head with one shot...

Maybe blind a tank by destroying it's sights..

Reactor what?

Its an Antimaterial weapon, so it is well suited for tearing things apart. obviously the bullet is dangerous in itself, but to softer targets the overpressure will tear you apart. In other words, you may not have to hit your target to damage / incapacitiate it. Just wait till you hear a few fired overhead...

 

[BritinBritain]

I don't know where that correspondent is getting his information or his prices from, unless the MOD is being ripped off big time.

For a start a so called silencer (the correct term is sound moderator) will not hide the sonic boom of the projectile, only the report of the weapon. Even that is a bit suspect. I've done test myself with sound moderators on 223/5.56 LM4 Semi auto's as well as 7.62 NATO and 30-06 bolt action rifles, the amount of report that is reduced isn't worth the effort or expense. To effectively work, the sound moderator would have to be enormous to capture and silence the expanding gasses. The only time I found a sound moderator effective was with sub-sonic 22 rim fire ammunition in a bolt action BRNO rifle and 45ACP which is sub-sonic (830 FPS +/-) anyway.

The 8x59 ammunition (.326” diameter) is an old Italian machine gun round and produced commercially by a number of manufacturers. It should cost cents or pence to produce, if a single round is costing £2 a round, the MOD really are getting ripped off big time. I'd gladly supply them ammo at prices like that, I'd be a multi Billionaire before the year was out. As for each rifle costing £25,000 each, I can supply them for a lot less then that. Someone somewhere is making a lot of money at British tax payers expense.

 

[HokieMSG]

No way man... fielding the equipment would be expensive, not to mention training on it would be prohibitively expensive..



Reactor what?

Its an Antimaterial weapon, so it is well suited for tearing things apart. obviously the bullet is dangerous in itself, but to softer targets the overpressure will tear you apart. In other words, you may not have to hit your target to damage / incapacitiate it. Just wait till you hear a few fired overhead...

Actually, the US ARMY is using the M21/M24 Rifle for it's sniper program. The Barrett is being fielded by a few units who need to rellay reach out and touch someone. In fact the Army is working on fielding the Rafouss round for use against light armor. Just do a wikipedia or google search on rafouss.

As far as the expense of training... Not that much considering the Sniper program already teaches snipers about ballistics, scouting and a bunch of other things. I think they do some shooting too.:wink:

The rounds used by snipers are NOT surplus .50BMG. No way. Likely they are spending about $3-5 per round for match quality rounds. You cannot expect to consistently hit anything with surplus ammo.

Never shot the Barrett, but I have shot plenty of .50BMG through an M2. Here's a tip. Make sure you set the headspace on the M2 before you fire it. When you don't make sure it is set or you trust someone else to do it you may end up shooting the barrel downrange. (Saw it happen).

 

[BritinBritain]

Never shot the Barrett, but I have shot plenty of .50BMG through an M2. Here's a tip. Make sure you set the headspace on the M2 before you fire it. When you don't make sure it is set or you trust someone else to do it you may end up shooting the barrel downrange. (Saw it happen).

While firing a 7.62 BREN, my number 2 did a barrel change, I got up to move, grabbed the gun and the barrel fell off!:roll:

 

[Sven Ortmann]

I don't know where that correspondent is getting his information or his prices from, unless the MOD is being ripped off big time.

For a start a so called silencer (the correct term is sound moderator) will not hide the sonic boom of the projectile, only the report of the weapon. Even that is a bit suspect. I've done test myself with sound moderators on 223/5.56 LM4 Semi auto's as well as 7.62 NATO and 30-06 bolt action rifles, the amount of report that is reduced isn't worth the effort or expense. To effectively work, the sound moderator would have to be enormous to capture and silence the expanding gasses. The only time I found a sound moderator effective was with sub-sonic 22 rim fire ammunition in a bolt action BRNO rifle and 45ACP which is sub-sonic (830 FPS +/-) anyway.

There are four reasons for sound suppressors:

1)
No muzzle flash.
That justifies the troubles.

2)
Distant soldiers have more trouble telling the direction of the bullet's origin.

3)
Special subsonic ammo, useful at short range and when the opponent has acoustic sniper detection devices.

4)
Slightly improved accuracy.

The biggest problem with suppressors is nowadays that the rifle shoots into different directions with and without suppressor - due to different vibration of the barrel.

 

[BritinBritain]

There are four reasons for sound suppressors:

1)
No muzzle flash.
That justifies the troubles..

A sound moderator will also reduce felt recoil in heavy recoiling rifles, yes they can reduce muzzle flash depending on the sound moderator type

2)
Distant soldiers have more trouble telling the direction of the bullet's origin.

This is also true without a sound moderator.

3)
Special subsonic ammo, useful at short range and when the opponent has acoustic sniper detection devices.

This depends on the calibre. One of the finest was the silenced De Lisle carbine or De Lisle Commando Carbine, a Lee Enfield rifle converted by Sterling to 45 ACP calibre, in service from 1943 to 1965. The 45 ACP was ideal, as the standard round was well below the speed of sound and inherently a very accurate calibre.

4)
Slightly improved accuracy.

During my tests, I've never found any evidence that fitting a moderator improves accuracy. I've fitted quite a few to different rifles including 22 lr BRNO, 223/5.56 Ruger Mini 14, 223/5.56 Vektor LM4, 7.62/308 and a 30-06 Mauser actioned hunting rifle, none of which showed any improvement in accuracy. The Mini 14 and Vektor LM4 actually opened their groups considerably. None of the rifles except the 22 BRNO displayed any significant reduction of the sound of the round going off.

The biggest problem with suppressors is nowadays that the rifle shoots into different directions with and without suppressor - due to different vibration of the barrel.

Yes it will, a rifle will also change its mean point of impact if a bayonet is fitted.

Sound moderators fitted to some rifles might have some uses, personally I don't think their value would be that great.

 

[LeMask]

I have poor experience with firearms (just a civilian here)... But I remember one thing clearly... Firearms are noisy as hell... I just hate noise. I get tired very fast and my head hurts when I'm dealing with too much noise... I dont know how soldiers deal with that. How can they put their heads right next to bullets exploding...

So I think that a silencer also adds to the comfort. I'm sure that a gun isnt supposed to be "confortable", it's not a car of a seat... But if a gun isnt noisy, you will be able to hear your surroundings better (it's good if there is enemies trying to sneak on you), you will be able to speak without barking to let the others hear you (better communication), you wont suffer from the echos when your fellow soldiers are shooting from inside a house/fortification etc...

Silencers are good as long as they dont damage the guns...

 

[SHERMAN]

you get use to the noise.

 

[BritinBritain]

you get use to the noise.

Yes but it also makes you deaf, I've lost the majority of my hearing over the years.

An unfortunate occupational hazard.

 

[Wallabies]

You hardly notice the noise, plenty of other things to worry about.

 

[Spartacus]

Actually, the US ARMY is using the M21/M24 Rifle for it's sniper program.

Define program. Like sniper school? Sure. Depending on the unit some have the older M21/24s and some have the M110.

The Barrett is being fielded by a few units who need to rellay reach out and touch someone. In fact the Army is working on fielding the Rafouss round for use against light armor. Just do a wikipedia or google search on rafouss.

I am fully aware of the Barrett being fielded both as a Sniper weapon and as a Scout asset.
I am sure there are lots of rounds being worked on that may or may not be fielded with the weapon system.

As far as the expense of training... Not that much considering the Sniper program already teaches snipers about ballistics, scouting and a bunch of other things. I think they do some shooting too.:wink:

Um I agree. What I was saying is that the Army would not pay $50 per round, particularly when one must practice in order to be proficient.

The rounds used by snipers are NOT surplus .50BMG. No way. Likely they are spending about $3-5 per round for match quality rounds. You cannot expect to consistently hit anything with surplus ammo.

Uh. Yeah.

Never shot the Barrett, but I have shot plenty of .50BMG through an M2. Here's a tip. Make sure you set the headspace on the M2 before you fire it. When you don't make sure it is set or you trust someone else to do it you may end up shooting the barrel downrange. (Saw it happen).

When shooting the Barrett make sure you keep your mouth closed.

 

[LeMask]

Wallabies:
You hardly notice the noise, plenty of other things to worry about.

Well, I was focused on the noise...

boars dont shoot back... They may charge, but most just run like hell...

 

[SHERMAN]

Yes but it also makes you deaf, I've lost the majority of my hearing over the years.

An unfortunate occupational hazard.

Going deaf is sort of getting use to the noise. I know what you mean I lost a little hearing my self, and i only did this **** for 3 years.