 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Wired: Snipers Will Soon Shoot Taliban Three Quarters of a Mile Away
Wired: Snipers Will Soon Shoot Taliban Three Quarters of a Mile Away
Snipers Will Soon Shoot Taliban Three Quarters of a Mile Away | Danger Room | Wired.com
-- most useless grab-quote, talking about other new weapons: "The [new, grenade launcher] XM25 has a range of 2,300 feet, so it’s clearly not sniper-grade..."
MrB(+)
I like how the picture in the wired article is just an old M24. 10 bux says they just picked the first "sniper rifle" picture they found.
I dunno if it will make it possible for them to shoot farther, but it does make it more modular I guess. http://www.northwestfirearms.com/for...dated-m24.html
LOL - considering Carlos Hathcock's record from 1967 was 2500 yards or a little over 1.4 miles and the record has been broken for the 3rd time making the current mark to beat 2707 yards or a little over 1.5 miles (this time it was done with a .338 Lapua Mag.). It would appear that they aren't aware of sniper capabilities. Well either that or there is a hidden message in the article title that the new XM2010 will reduce our snipers range to .75 miles. I wonder if the stated range of the XM2010 was misstated as feet instead of yards...
You're talking about non standard sniper rifles.Originally Posted by Swedish K
The article is specifically referring to the M24. The standard sniper rifle.
Looks like the key improvements are .300 Win Mag and a bigger scope.
Special Ops will still have the big toys. This upgrade program sounds like it will help snipers Army wide.
Fair enough - considering Hathcock was using a M2 belt fed that he had a navy machinist convert to single shot and had the guy build a scope mount to his specs I would consider that a non standard. The 3 sniper confirmed kills that have broken his record since were 2 Canadians using McMillan Tac 50s and a Brit using a L115A3.
I like that they went with the win mag but wonder if they considered any of the 338s
Yeah I guess these will have more range for every sniper, but there's a lot of 50 cals over there that go even farther. Why not just have those available. Most situations your not going to need to shoot 3/4 mile away. Especially in an urban setting.
Who knows.
It may have simply come down to cost/benefit.
.338 would be better, but is so much more $$$ it wasn't worth it?
I've been considering a Remington 700 recently, and I can't make up my mind between .300 WM and .338 LM.
In Iraq a marine sniper broke the record for the 7.62 at 1268 meters. I say that is pretty effective. The effective ranges given by some are pulled out of their @##.
Just because one dude set a record, doesn't mean s**t.
Max effective ranges in a lot of cases are purposely set low, well within the standard performance envelope of the weapon.
For example, the M16A2 was listed as 550M. That does not by any stretch mean that kills could not be made outside of 550M.
It means that generally speaking, an average Joe should be able to be effective to that range with that weapon.
I think setting a record shot is pretty damn good and it does mean something. I wish I could shoot a .308 1268 meters and drop someone. That is about 4160 feet which I consider a damn good shot. Sorry you don't feel the same.
It means nothing as far as setting a commonly achieved "maximum effective range".
Of course there have been some amazing shots in the past several years, from various caliber sniper rifles.
Just because one dude whacked a guy from 1268M does NOT however, mean that the max effective range of an M-24 suddenly becomes 1268M. Just like the Canadian sniper hitting at 2475M doesn't instantly change the max effective range on an M-107 to 2475M. It's still 2000M.
It means that they were exceptional shooters, as in, shooting well above the baseline standard for the weapon platforms they were using.
Well, now we know what the Fedgov will be deploying in CONUS when the Peons get uppity.
I never said it was the standard. I said the dude set a record with an awesome shot. Thats it. To me still an awesome shot.
It means nothing as far as setting a commonly achieved "maximum effective range".
Of course there have been some amazing shots in the past several years, from various caliber sniper rifles.
Just because one dude whacked a guy from 1268M does NOT however, mean that the max effective range of an M-24 suddenly becomes 1268M. Just like the Canadian sniper hitting at 2475M doesn't instantly change the max effective range on an M-107 to 2475M. It's still 2000M.
It means that they were exceptional shooters, as in, shooting well above the baseline standard for the weapon platforms they were using.
Uh, sorry to p&ss in your hat, but in OUR Army the Accuracy International .338LM IS the longer ranging of the two issue standard sniping rifles - the other one is the AI 7.62x51 version for the 'close-up stuff' out to 900m.
To rub it in, Corporal of Horse Craig Harrison, the sniper concerned, fired three cold barrel consecutive shots, hitting two taliban and then their MG.
And he isn't even an infantryman, just a modest donky-walloper. Corporal of Horse is a Sergeant rank equivalent in the Household Cavalry. Y'know, the guys you see wearing those shiny breastplates and helmets with the horse-tail plumes - swords over their shoulders - whilst sitting on fine-looking horses at Horseguard's Parade in London's Whitehall, and clattering around the square at the Trooping of the Colour ceremony.
Seems they don't just sit there and look pretty, eh?
tac
supporter of the Cape meares Lighthouse Restoration Fund
You're not p**sing in anything.
Since the article is referring to U.S. troops and equipment, what the U.K. uses as standard isn't really relevant.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks