Skip to comments.USA Fielding M110 7.62mm Semi-Auto Sniper Rifle
Posted on 06/09/2010 9:10:58 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
In this war, snipers matter in close-quarters urban fights. So does penetrating power. Accurate ranged lethality is equally important for squads in open areas, where engagement distances can easily make 5.56mm rounds ineffective. Bolt-action sniper rifles solve these problems, but can get your best people killed in close-up automatic firefights. Semi-automatic weapons have traditionally been less reliable and accurate, but offer the only reasonable approach that covers both extremes.
The result has been the emergence of a hybrid approach, on both a people level and a technical level. On the human end, militaries like the Americans and British are adopting designated marksman or sharpshooter roles in normal infantry squads, who arent full snipers but do have additional training and qualification. On the technical side, gun makers are fielding semi-automatic systems that offer nearly bolt-action accuracy out to 800-1000 meters, but can also be used in closer-quarters firefights. The British have hurried the L129A1 to their infantry squad sharpshooters, but the Americans have a longer running program, which is beginning to ramp up production and fielding
The M110 is intended to replace the M24 Sniper Weapon System used by snipers, spotters, designated marksman, or squad advanced marksmen in the US Army. In 2006, the Army projected total buy of 4,492 systems. M24 orders continued into early 2010, however, and it seems likely that both will serve together for a few years.
(Excerpt) Read more at defenseindustrydaily.com ...
I’ve heard this all my life—that bolt action was more accurate than semi-auto—but no one can really explain to me why. Is it just a “thing” people just parrot—because that’s what they’ve always heard too—without any proof?
Basically an M-16 in 7.62 NATO caliber.
H’mmmm, I wonder if it will have the range of the old M110 175mm gun?
The answer: An automatic revolver
you can generally get a more consistent âweldâ between the barrel and the forearm with a bolt gun. Bolt guns allow you to use âneck sizedâ ammo which is also much more accurate.
The M14 is still doing the job. I have a Springfield Armory M1A National Match in my defensive arsenal with an ART IV scope.
They are awesome.
Sorry, but if they’re going for 800-1000 yd hits, they need more than a 10-magnification on that 110. I certainly want one of those. Anyone know if there is a civilian version yet?
“Basically an M-16 in 7.62 NATO caliber.”
I believe that would be 5.56 mm NATO.
I believe with a bolt action you seat can the cartridge tighter—the tolerances are necessarily greater when you are mechanically trying to blow out the shell after each firing as with a semi-auto.
At least that’s what makes sense to me. A bolt is a much simpler and cleaner design and since speed of extraction is not an issue....you have the ability to have much tighter tolerances, which equals more accuracy.
Well, what you say does make sense...maybe that’s it after all.
As I've always understood it, a semi-auto has more moving parts. Each of these parts moves in multiple directions, some directions are primary movement while some are just due to mechanical tolerances. With each moving part comes variability and variability is the enemy of accuracy.
The end effect of all this variability is that each round tends to seat ever so slightly differently from the previous round. Head spacing will be slightly different. Gas pressures will be slightly different which results in slightly different functioning of the action. When fired, the firing pin doesn't strike the primer dead on either.
These points of variability and others tend to adversely effect the accuracy of a semi-auto more than that of a simpler bolt action rifle.
7.62 is simply metric for 30 caliber... and the 7.62 X 51mm cartridge here is just slightly smaller than the 7.62 x 54 which was the Soviet rifle round up through WWII. Of course the 7.62x54 was very similar in power to our standard 30.06 cartridge of the time used in the M1 Garand.
After 50 years of pushing the smaller 5.56mm X 45mm M16 cartridge is the brass FINALLY admitting it is too small???
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Semis have a necessarily looser chamber tolerances and parts start moving around as they function.
16 lb ? That's quite a chunk to haul around.
Yes, 16lbs is basically the same weight that the old BAR weighed in WWII and Korea. This weight was bitched about by the men who had to carry one, even though the fire power was great. I want to know what is wrong with the M14, which is quite accurate out to 1000 yrds and is already in the inventory.
I interpret Roklok's post as, "Basically an M-16 [except] in 7.62 NATO caliber [as opposed to the usual 5.56mm NATO round].
Roklok, please feel free to correct me if I assumed wrongly.
We have very few m14s left. Thank the Democrats and Clinton who destroyed MOST OF THEM in the 90s.
If we hadn't given away a bunch of our M-14 rifles and destroyed more, we wouldn't need the M110. However, I think it's interesting that aside from optics and accessories, we seem to have hit a plateau in the late 1950s with regard to military rifle design. This new rifle is an AR-10 redux.
The breech and chamber don’t move at all; after you close the bolt, it’s essentially a single piece that will hold the entire action still until well after the bullet has exited the barrel.
Using the M-14 would be an admission of incompetence, by those who "know" best
16 lb ? That’s quite a chunk to haul around.
WOW,,,7 lbs less than an M-60!!!
Maybe it comes with Wheels!!!...;0)
Top ejection is one thing.
It's plenty effective to ranges out to 200-300 meters; in fact, a 5.56mm round out of a 16" barrel will still penetrate 1/8" plate steel at a distance of 500 meters. That will perforate a body if you strike it. It's a rather lethal round.
The issue is bullet weight versus crosswind. The 5.56mm drifts too much for accurate "reach out and touch some one" use at ranges in the 600+ meter distances. So a heavier bullet is desirable, hence the use of the 7.62mm.
Personally, I'd prefer to see designated marksmen using the awesome .338 Lapua; not a lot more kick than a 30-06, but confirmed kill ranges beyond 2400 meters. It has nearly the same lethality of the 50 BMG, but with much higher accuracy. IMHO, it's the perfect sniper/anti-sniper round, short of this:
Gotta like 1 MOA and 5000 meter range!
You are confused.
Top ejection is one thing.
The brass goes to the side,,,
The top is open so it can be loaded with stripper clips,,,
They are handing out more m14’s as well.
Obsolete weapons such as the 1911A1 pistol and the M14 require extensive modification to make them extremely accurate. Take a really close look at the issued “mil-spec” weapon in both cases vs. the “tuned” competition version. The AR-10 and later M16 as designed by Eugene Stoner did not have the design flaws that got troops killed in Vietnam. In DCM rifle competition, the changes required to Mr. Stoner’s platform are nothing compared to what must be done to Mr. Garand’s platform to shoot tight groups. An AR only requires a barrel tube to take the sling tension off of the barrel and finer sights. The mods to the M1/M1A/M14 are far, far more extensive.
sigh...Read up on the amount of armorer shop maintenance needed to maintain less that 1 moa accuracy on an M-14.
I was on a state shooting team for 3 years. M-14 is the AR-10’s b*%&h. Spec-ops have been using the SR-25 series rifles for years now. They have mucho dinero to pick any weapon they want to use. They picked an AR-10 variant over the M-14...
M-14 is a great rifle, my M1 Garand is a great rifle. For the work in Trashcanistan I’d want an AR-10 variant. Why don’t any shooters winning at Camp Perry use the M1A anymore?
Thanks for confirming my analysis. I was hoping not to have to get into mechanical engineering geekspeak.
Because they use a 5.56 with a heavier bullet.
Because the vastly superior inherently more accurate modern design shoots a 5.56 in it’s as issued configuration as opposed to a 7.62.
Not on the long range course. aka 600-1000 yards which since we’re talking about sniper and DMR rifles you should have considered.
Do you shoot 1000 yard matches with a 5.56? If so, you’re pretty good. Better than the AMU and USMC shooters.
There’s several reasons, but they all cumulate in “looser tolerances of moving parts.”
Some accuracy techniques are applicable in both types of actions - eg, better barrels, with better crowns and better chambers. A technique that is sometimes used on bolt guns that probably wouldn’t be ideal in a semi-auto would be to tighten the case neck reaming diameter. In both types of rifle, paying closer attention to the chambering of the barrel, improving the stock mounting, free-floating the barrel, insuring that the barrel is co-axial with the receiver and bolt all help.
Bolt guns striving for maximum accuracy often sleeve their bolts - something that just doesn’t apply to semi-autos. Likewise, lapping lugs usually won’t make any sense on a semi-auto.
The point comes down to this: In a bolt gun, if you have the time and experience (or your gunsmith does), you can create an environment whereby the bullet is pointed down the bore in line with the bore’s centerline at the point just forward of the chamber. In the bolt gun, you can carry this to the fullest extent by such techniques as sleeving the bolt, lapping the lugs, facing the bolt, facing the receiver, etc, and then using a tight chamber, or fire-forming your brass. The result will be seen downrange, especially if you’re paying attention to your loading practice, which might include setting the bullet seating depth to use up most of the leade. Semi-autos are often shooting ammo that is uniformly loaded to a specification, not custom-made for that particular rifle.
As you try to achieve tighter and tighter groups at distance (say, 1000 yards), the importance of the ammunition loading, the quality of the components, etc all become much more important than at short ranges.
As for proof: Look at the benchrest records for accuracy. There’s no semi-auto that can come close to the current benchrest records. Here’s an example:
The heavier 7.62 surely bucks wind better than the 5.56, and 7.62 is the original caliber of the AR platform. Animal hunters discovered that the .270 has a better ballistic coefficient than the 7.62. The .50 BMG is just a scaled up .30-06’, but the .416 Barret my be the most efficient long range killer.
And that is why Carlos Hathcock was using a bolt action Winchester M70 instead of an M14 or M16. The truth always prevails.
and the .260 Remington has better BC than the .270 etc...
That and $4 will get you a mocha at starbucks.
This thread started as a bash the M-110 re-adopt the M-14.
I attempted to address the fact that the M-14 is not ideal for the specified role.
It has now, in the fashion of FR, devolved into the “my —— is bigger than your —— gun post.”
I leave this thread now to the inevitable hordes of bubba fans to follow.
I was the Med Plt Sergeant and the medics usually ran the pistol course. It was a great swan song firing these the last couple years for qualification. Many were stamped Singer, Colt, Ithica, and Remington(Rand).
We also had three oddball M-3's still in inventory, but only two worked. From their maintenance records, we found they had been in the armory for so long that the only reason we had them was because nobody in the state could figure out how to get them off our property book.....A quintessential Army story, eh? Anyhow, they sure come in handy at the end to fire off the surplus.
But we were talking 1911 .45's.
I almost always managed to fire expert, even with these sloppy old weapons. Almost everyone missed two on the first table, but once warmed up, they made Mr. Browning proud. Being so loosey-goosey, they did quite well when kicked in the dirt. We should look again at that whole M9 thing and other decisions made about sidearms the last 25 years.....Like a 1911 firing +P+ .40 with a staggered magazine.
And anything else that gravity happens to drop in.
I was just supporting you argument with technical information. Ideology over truth is what gets liberals elected, and it keeps selling crap like Harley’s and 1911A1 pistols. I’ve been a mechanical engineer with a gun habit for 20+ years. I’m sorry if my speaking over your head offended you, but it’s guys like me that make weapons better.
AK’s and 1911’s do well dirty, but the accuracy just plain sucks. I have owned a few examples of a quality AKs chambered for .556, and it is truly “best of both worlds”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.