• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

New army sniper rifle?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not a "future weapon"...we just got them in the OR Guard. Had a chance to fondle it (I didn't get to shoot it:( ) during our annual training the last few weeks. They are very, very, very nice.
 
The "future" is 1957. Go figure.
I mean, this is a wee bit more advanced than the AR-10, but not by leaps and bounds...
 
Personally, I would have changed the position of the charging handle. The traditional AR handle isn't the easiest for me to use when prone.
 
what I think is funny is at the beginning when they are listing the army requirements, it sounds like the army went to the drawing board and were totally 'blue sky' coming up with brand new innovations like 'intigral supressor, adjustable buttstock'

In reality, all the features the army requested were pretty common features expecially amongst civilian competative shooters. It may be a case of putting all those features in a single basket, but none of those features are at all revolutionary.

Same way with the M82 Barrett rifle, it was NOT thought up to be a military weapon that all of a sudden civilians started wanting. There was a strong 50BMG long range rifle shooting tradition for years before the military even had the smallest inclination to look at an 'antimaterial rifle' beyond the anti-tank guns of early WW2. The Barrett rifle was produced to be an inexpensive yet extremely effective gun to use in long range competative sport shooting. It was around at least 5 years before anyone even in special forces got interested in it's battlefield capability.

Looking at the newest and best small arms the military has is looking 10 years BEHIND current technology
 
What? No full auto? I thought operators like the future weapons guy could hold on target in full auto at up to 500 yards.
 
Nice rifle. I hear they are going to release it soon to the civilian market. about 15K though.

Isn't the Future Weapons guy a former Navy Seal?
 
Actually I was just reading an article in Army Times how in addition to the M110 and converting some M24s to .300 winmag they are also looking at a larger caliber rifle for 1200 meters and out. From the article they were saying that the Barrett .50s are great but too heavy for anything but static positions so they want something lighter but with similar results on target.

They didn't specify on key calibers, they said anything that works would be looked at. Seems to me then that .338 LM right on up to the Barrett .416 would be the likely canidates.
 
1. Why do we need a fold-down rear sight on a sniper rifle, intentionally added to the rail, folded down under the scope? Particularly when there is no front sight.

2. 220 yards? Sham - WOW!!!!!!

The "future" is 1957. Go figure.

Exactly. Don't you remember - "Back to the Future" means going back to the 1950s.
 
It is 7.62 Nato. Ive had the chance to see these in action and actually these have been fielded for a while now but sadly, I have never been able to play with it.
 
1. Why do we need a fold-down rear sight on a sniper rifle, intentionally added to the rail, folded down under the scope? Particularly when there is no front sight.

There is a front sight on the gun, it folds down to form part of the rail.
 
Last edited:
At roughly $5,000 for the suppressed SR-25... I went the cheap route...

DSC00116.jpg

Armalite Super SASS (it competed against the SR-25 in military trials, but was judged too heavy)
 
I understand the Armalite Super SASS is more reliable and more accurate than the SR-25...
 
So I think this begs the REAL question.

When do we start seeing M24's selling through CMP for $500?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top