USA Fielding M110 7.62mm Semi-Auto Sniper Rifle

Defense Industry Daily ^ | 6/9/2010 | Defense Industry Daily

[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 aren’t 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.

[lowflyn]

Well it looks like a few upgrades for accuracy, but 15 lbs...
I used to pull guard with a 203 and I would always try to find someone else’s m-16 for duty due to the weight - this was when we were “playing” back in the states.

[Tailback]

Thanks for confirming my analysis. I was hoping not to have to get into mechanical engineering geekspeak.

As you can see from the replies to my post following yours...it doesn't matter whether you know what your writing about. When it comes to the M-14 and AR-10/M16 family no amount of logic, technical expertise, or current real world experience matters. It's like talking economics with a liberal...

[NVDave]

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:

http://accurateshooter.wordpress.com/2007/07/09/sarver-shoots-1403-group-at-1000-yards/

[MikeSteelBe]

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.

[MikeSteelBe]

And that is why Carlos Hathcock was using a bolt action Winchester M70 instead of an M14 or M16. The truth always prevails.

[Tailback]

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.

[dersepp]

In the late 1990's, I was in a CA NG unit (2/159 MECH INF) and we had some of the last 1911's in military inventory. We had over 350 M9's also in inventory, but told Sac we would keep them on our property book, but would be turning them in unfired, so that the gaining unit could have them new.

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.

[fso301]

The top is open so it can be loaded with stripper clips,,, (M-14)

And anything else that gravity happens to drop in.

[MikeSteelBe]

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.

[MikeSteelBe]

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”.

[Myrddin]

A few years back there was an improved bolt action that uses electrical current to light the powder. The result was better accuracy because you don't have the mass of the moving hammer and spring imparting motion to the carefully aimed firearm. The "lock time" is the time from when the sear releases the hammer and the firing pin strikes the hammer. The electric version has essentially zero "lock time". The longer the lock time, the more likely that the mechanical motions in the action will move the intended aim point. When you move to a gas operated mechanism, there is usually a large piston set in motion as the bullet passes the gas port. That introduces even more mechanical motion beyond that introduced during the "lock time" of the action.

You can read about the Remington 2000 ETronX rifle where the timing issues are discussed in detail.

[Eagles6]

You may have missed the 90s when CINC billy bob had the majority of M14s in storage destroyed.

[rahbert]

M14 day has come and gone. AR platform has a rail, a buffer,
lots of companies make goodies for the AR10 platform.

Those M14’s would all need to be rebuilt with new innards and barrels anyway, since most were used and bused by
generations of trainees for bayonet drill and badly cleaned and probably shot out to where the headspace is questionable. I know the one I had in basic was no tack driver.

You have to give snipers a new rifle, to break it in properly and take care of it.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Spot on,,,

I put bullet seating depth near the top of the list as well

as powder type,,,

I’ve always used a “dummy” round for seating depth,,,

When it hits the rifling I give the die a 1/4 turn,,,

Some bullets just 1/8 turn,,,

IMR 4350 will fill the case leaving no airspace...

~~~WORK UP YOUR OWN LOADS~~~!...

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

The top is open so it can be loaded with stripper clips,,, (M-14)
And anything else that gravity happens to drop in.
~~~
And if you go prone you get your private little sand storm!

I never had a stoppage in combat(67-68),,,

You?...

[NVDave]

I’ll give you a short answer: the M1 Garand and M14/M1A take a lot more work and skilled manual labor to manufacture.

If you get some experience with machining on lathes and mills, once you start taking apart the older firearms and asking yourself “How do I make this from scratch?” (assuming that you can handle all the heat-treating and other issues in the parts - let’s just worry about getting the dimensions right - you’ll start to see why.

In today’s CNC manufacturing world, arms or parts for same that can be cranked out on CNC machines can be made for the lowest cost, and our government awards contracts to the lowest bidder. With today’s burdened wages (ie, bennies, etc), paying someone who might have actual machining background) to tear down an old rifle, put the parts out on a table and start measuring them for being within tolerances (or dropping them into a jig where possible to gauge tolerances), and then re-fitting the rifle with new parts .... the costs escalate very fast.

In the CNC world, you now have systems where you can put a new billet or forging of metal into a vise or fixture in a CNC machining center, close the door and hit the green button. In a few minutes, there is a new part, done, within very tight tolerances. In the CNC world, you’re paying one guy to load and run the CNC machine, and he doesn’t need to be a machinist - he needs to be a machine operator. In the CNC world, the parts are designed to be manufactured by CNC machines, not manually.

[WKUHilltopper]

good info, thx

[Leisler]

I went though a three month .45 course at Spring Lake, out in back of Ft. Bragg. The close quarter utility, punch, and reliability of the .45 more than made up for it’s fair, but good enough accuracy.

We had our own home built, baiscally un Army authorized target ranges with walk/run live fire popup targets. ( Done single, and later in small fire teams, with the instructors salting mags with duds for unexpected clearing exercises ) For some reason the military only seems to want to train soldiers for fixed position shooting against stationary targets. If the Officer Corps gave a crap, they would at least give the patrolling, first term noob a chance and get him though fire and maneuver, dynamic target courses instead of handing out delusional WWI era match target badges.( granted that is the foundation ).

Of course I am talking about a bureaucracy that took 30 years to get floating LED Aimpoint sights, and fifty year old MRAPs technology to the troops.

[P8riot]

Obsolete weapons such as the 1911A1 pistol.....

Whaaaaaaaaaaaa? The 1911 is the best pistol configuration ever produced.

[libstripper]

When I was at Fort Lee, VA for Officers’ Basic in early 1968, I shot Expert with an M-14. Sweet weapon. If the Army had offered to sell it to me right there they’d have had my check as fast as I could write it. Now I own an M1A that I bought in 1984 for about $650.00.