Essay on British army new sniper rifle ....

[TonyE]

Naive, ill-informed and full of errors...0.69 inch groups at 1000 yards, "semi automatic rifles exceed the accuracy of the bolt action by far" etc.

I do not know what your agenda is or who the intended audience is, but it looks to me like you have a very large chip on your shoulder about the current british weapon.

Regards
TonyE

[jmoore]

Might just be a High School paper, who knows how much actual experience the writer has? It could be a real smart 14 year old or a rather less "worldly" older person. I just about got mad on the original read, but a little constructive guidance seems better. Ain't gonna write it for him, though! I can't hardly type for one thing....(that's why my posts tend to be short!)

[Beerhunter]

As you have put this document in the public domain for comment please take the following as it is meant - constructively.

If this essay is supposed to be an academic exercise, may I suggest some references. For example, you state that semi-auto rifles have superior accuracy to that of bolt actions. First of all such a sweeping statement suggests ALL semi-autos are more accurate than any bolt action which I am sure that you know is not the case and second you have failed to show any evidence that your statement is correct.

I am afraid that some of your history is a little suspect as well. For example: your date of the No4(T), the fact the the snipers in Aden were Royal Marines NOT Army - who had effectively given up snipers and sniping at that point of history.

As to the your suggestion that: "the design of British Army Riles has not changed" is just wrong. As is your description of how a bolt action cocks. (It depends on the rifle.) The expended cartridge is not 'stripped' it is extracted. (When dealing with a technical subject it is important in my opinion to follow the accepted conventions and nomenclature.)

As to firepower and magazine capacity. That appears to show a lack of understanding of the role of the the sniper. I was taught that one fires one shot (rarely two) from a position before moving to another.

Finally I accept that engaging multiple targets at long ranges with automatic weapons is a valid tactic. For example the the Argentine Army did so very effectively with Browning M2 HBs fitted with night sights in the Falklands War. However it is not sniping.

BTW you need to get the document proof read.

[Gnr527]

Ngib and others

A very interesting thread – a question/comment or two from one with no expertise in sniping – so the following is not intended as ‘knocking’:-

1. Was/is ‘intelligence and gathering information’ a secondary role for snipers – I would have thought it of equal importance in the overall picture.
2. Given the differing situations faced by police marksmen (records of actual use!) and forces snipers, would it be reasonable to opine that police needs are very much less demanding than those of forces.
3. Designing a sniper rifle to cope with the differing requirements of Ypres/Normandy/Aden/Korea/Belfast/Kosovo/Iraq/Afghanistan/future! is always going to be a compromise of sorts.
4. Does a well-designed semi-auto exceed the accuracy of a well-designed bolt-action rifle?
5. I can see the advantages of a semi-auto at closer ranges (say up to 3-500 yds) – but less convinced for 1000yds.
6. I know nothing of the much-reviled SA80 but was told last week by a non-combatant user that the latest version was (at last) a good weapon?
7. And finally presumably there are statistics for historically effective sniper distances/situations etc. Are we designing a single shot 1000yd instrument to deal with 95/300yd opportunities and 5/1000yd chances?

Regards
John

[Peter Laidler]

Phew, as one who works with the sniper wing, I'm glad I'm not saying anything beyond two points.
The words 'Army snipers' should NEVER be used in the same sentence as 'police marksmen'. They are chalk and cheese
Some of you seem to think that snipers engage in battles. WRONG. If a sniper sees something that is not really his realm or something that needs a machine gun, he calls in .........a machine gun and directs the fire. OR, guess what? He'll call in for a couple of rounds of 81mm mortar fire. That usually does the trick!

[Mk VII]

It's not clear to me whether English is your first language, but your final paragraph dissolves into incoherence at the end. What is your target audience?

[gunner]

Ngib,

if you are really interested in understand the way and the reasons what a military sniper differs from a police sniper or the so called idiots
the "Washington Beltway sniper",then there will be a easy written book that is well made for beginners: Illustrated Manual of Sniper Skills, Mark Spicer, Zenith Press ISBN-13: 978-0-7603-2674-9. After reading that you will have a small base of understanding what makes the job of an sniper. And thats not rapid fire or a senseless fireburst.

Regards

Gunner

[Alan de Enfield]

See also Paladin Press "Sniper Training" ISBN 0-87364-829-3 and Paladin Press "SEAL Sniper Training Program " ISBN 0-87364-683-5

Both have excellent detailed explanations of the Snipers role and responsibilities

[gunner]

To add one to Alans list Paladin Press " Target Interdictions Course- Sniper Training and Employment" ISBN: 978-1-58160-043-8
Now i think you have enough stuff to read.

[Peter Laidler]

There's something else I forgot to mention too

And that is never mention the word FN FAL or SLR or L1A1 or even worse, L2A1 in the same breath as sniper rifles. It just reminds me of those who speak of Bren guns as 'sniper accurate...........'