Most accurate rifle + telescopic sight setup for wartime field use?

[astro]

What is currently the most accurate, long range rifle and telescopic sight combination that is reliable and practical enough to used as a sniper's field weapon in a wartime scenario? I would imagine (possibly incorrectly) this eliminates the trophy competition and olympic guns due to lack of portability and ruggedness.

Oh.. and what would it cost approximately?

[Shiva]

Well, this could turn into a Great Debate, but many shooters would name the Winchester Model 70.

http://www.winchester-guns.com/prodi...70_stealth.htm

[TBone2]

A lot depends on what you mean by "long range." The range has a direct effect on the caliber -- the longer the range, the heavier the bullet must be, and the larger the caliber too, generally speaking. Assuming that you want to consider other factors, such as weight (portability), you're probably looking at something in the .30-caliber area.

This could easily fit into GD, were it not for the probable lack of posters. The possible combinations of high-quality rifles and scopes that would appear superior is almost endless!

Something often overlooked in discussions of this type is the load used in the rifle. Years ago, I bought a Remington Model 788 rifle from a fellow in southern Ohio. Those who know guns will tell you that the 788 was Remington's "poor man's rifle." Bolt action, sloppy as could be. Five-shot detachable magazine. Birch stock, ugly metal, not a gun to write home about. Mine was in .222 Rem caliber. With a 12X Simmons scope attached and shooting from a sandbag rest, every factory load I could find shot 5-shot groups in excess of 1 1/4" at 100 yards. After weeks of handloading experimentation, I was able to reduce that to between 1/2" and 5/8". I used once-fired military .223 brass resized and trimmed by me to .222, CCI small rifle primers, 19.5 grains of DuPont IMR 4198 smokeless powder (hand-weighed charges), and Hornady 52-grain hollow-point boattail match-grade bullets. The result from that "poor man's rifle" was literally a single ragged hole in the paper that I could cover with the tip of my index finger. Dozens of groundhogs met quick, clean, one-shot ends at the business end of that rifle, at ranges up to 330 yards.

My point is that there are many things to consider other than the "best gun" or the "best scope."

[Padeye]

I won't argue with Shiva's opinion of the fine Winchester model 70 but the rifle the US military has used as a sniper weapon for several decades is not much more than a finely tuned version of the Remington model 700, one of the more common hunting rifles in the country. I hate to disappoint you but though the current vertion of the M40 looks pretty tricked out and in some opinion too heavy to be an effective field weapon, there is nothing terribly exotic about it. It's a simple heavy barrel, bolt action rifle in a common caliber, .308 Winchester/7.62mm NATO. They use Fedral match ammunition, common target ammunition available over the counter just about anywhere. The scope it very hight quality, a Unertil, but fixed 10 power magnification.

Cost is hard to estimate because the miltary has their own armory to do the customizing. They go far beyond what a typica civilain custom riflesmith would do. For example they weld the magazine box to the reciever to make everything more rigid.

So what do you want this "sniper" rifle for?

FWIW the only rifles shot in olypic competition are .22 long rifle rimfire.

[mangeorge]

This came up in another thread a long time ago. I knew a marine sniper who used a 50 cal. military sniper rifle, and claimed to be able to kill a person at a range in excess of one mile. Those in the know backed his claim, saying "No Problem". Apparently, hitting a man-sized target at a mile, center mass, wouldn't be that much of a challenge for a skilled rifleman equipped with such a gun.
Several posters were familiar with the type of rifle I described.
Experts?
Peace,
mangeorge

[Gunslinger]

mangeorge: That'd be a Barret model 82, IIRC.

.50 sniper rifle at a mile's nothing, though, in comparison to a shot made by the legendary Carlos Hathcock:

When in camp, the snipers would have the machinists build mounts to put their sniper scopes on the Browning M2HB .50 machine guns, for long-range plinking. The guns had a slow enough cyclic rate that you could squeeze off single shots. Hathcock hit a person at about two miles with a single shot from this setup.

[Reeder]

During the war for southern independence they could hit targets at 1500 yards with a bolt! I see things haven't got much better.

[astro]

Much thanks to all for info.

[tpcutter]

I don't know if there'll ever be a single answer to your inquiry, but I do know that a mile is 5280 feet, or 1760 yards. The most commonly used military sniper rifle cartridge is the .308 Winchester (also called 7.62 NATO). Federal Gold Medal Match Target Ammo is listed in the Federal Cartridge Company website as having a trajectory drop of something like 40-50" at 1000 yards (I can't find it right now). At 1000 yards, I'm told that a 1 mph wind will cause 10" of bullet drift. That means that there's no such thing as an EASY shot at those ranges. Anybody who can hit a man-size target ANYWHERE on the "man". is truly an extraordinary shooter.
However- the pursuit of such perfection is great sport, and occupies the time and energy of a great many very brilliant and talented men and ladies. Try it.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by Reeder
the war for southern independence

Don't start with me, rebel.

I don't think getting hit ANYWHERE with a .50 MG round would do you much good. That would be some stopping power, even after a mile or two.

Which raises the question: how much of its original velocity does a bullet retain after traveling that far? On the one hand, a fellow got killed at a 4th of July fireworks around here a few years ago. Cops traced the round back to another guy who was (inaccurately) plinking cans with his Nine a mile or so away. On the other hand, I knew a former Cuban revolutionary who claimed he took one in the butt from an M1 carbine, but it did little damage because it had come from pretty far away. On yet another hand, a guy who should know better than me says that weapon wouldn't do much damage regardless the distance.

[Padeye]

Originally posted by Reeder
During the war for southern independence they could hit targets at 1500 yards with a bolt! I see things haven't got much better.

IIRC they sent bullets downrange, not bolts. I'm also not aware of any bolt action rifles used during the U.S. civil war as cartidges were still in their infancy. I'm not aware of any metallic cartidges other than the Henry flat and Spencer, both were short rimfires used in short range repeating rifles.

Long range accuracy with later weapons like the trapdoor springfield is remarkable even by today's standards but hitting a target and hitting a man size target at 1500 yards are two different things. Look at a standing human a mile away and you'll see how difficult that shot would be with open sights. Getting 1MOA accuracy with a 10X scope is a challenge. I've read report of the Springfield Armory conducing long range tests but the targets were the size of billboards.

[Turbo Dog]

[quote]Originally posted by dropzone

Which raises the question: how much of its original velocity does a bullet retain after traveling that far?

I'm going on memory here, but at 2500 yards, which was the maximum range Hathcock ever sniped a person (one time, by the way), the .50 loses more than two thirds its velocity and retains about 10 percent of it's energy. Still more than enough to put a hurt on you (around 1500 ft/lbs), since the .50 has such a huge amount of energy (about 17,500 ft/lbs) to begin with.

As far as the ease in shooting a human target at that range with a .50, with a stationary target, and no crosswind, the bullet drop at that distance, with a 1000 yard zero, is over 1400 inches. So with no wind at all, no thermal gradients, you have more than 100 feet of bullet drop to compensate for. Throw in a 10mph crosswind and you are talking about upwards of 30 feet of drift. The .50 is one of the most stable small caliber projectiles at that distance too.

The main reason that Hathcock was able to score his target at that range is because, as he said himself, the target was standing on the exact spot that he had the M2 zeroed. Had the target been 10 feet fore or aft of that spot, it would have been a chance shot. Basically, anything over 1500 yards is a very tough shot, with very few skilled snipers who can consistenly make a shot at distances like that. Generally, if a target is more than 1000 yards out, a sniper will not take a shot due to the low odds.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by dropzone

On the other hand, I knew a former Cuban revolutionary who claimed he took one in the butt from an M1 carbine, but it did little damage because it had come from pretty far away. On yet another hand, a guy who should know better than me says that weapon wouldn't do much damage regardless the distance.

I wouldn't doubt it--the M1 Carbine was a notoriously crappy round: rifle caliber (small, light bullet), pistol-sized powder charge (low power). My grandfather, in WWII, once picked up an M1 Carbine off a dead officer because it was half the weight of the M1 Garand (.30-06 cal.) he'd been issued. After one short firefight, hethrew away the carbine and scrounged up another big, heavy Garand. According to him, when you hit a guy with an M1 carbine, he kept on coming; when you hit a guy with the .30-06 Garand, it flipped him over backwards.

[Reeder]

Padeye...A bolt was a six sided bullet...

The Whitworth rifle shown
here was of British
manufacture and was used
primarily by the Confederate
army. It was a muzzle-loading
weapon with a 33 inch barrel (49 inches overall) and a .451 inch bore. What made this rifle so
popular in the South was it's remarkable accuracy. It's long range precision was the best of all
weapons used in the war. When the telescopic sight was used, the rifle had an effective range of
about 1,800 yards. This rifle, as with the cannon which the English company also made, had a
hexagonal bore which required a hexagonal bullet. Both sides called this bullet a "bolt". In fact, it
was a six-sided bolt from a Rebel sharpshooter that killed Union General "Uncle John" Sedgwick
during the fighting at Spotsylvania Court House just after he had remarked to a frightened soldier
that Confederate sharpshooters could not hit an elephant.


http://myhome.shinbiro.com/~PMOADE/wpns.htm

[Glenoled]

Reading this thread, I became curious... what's the bullet velocity for these rifles?
I used to have a pellet gun made by Ruko, when I was a teen... in the books, it was posted as having a velocity of about 500fps (IIRC)
I'm just wondering, for comparison's sake...

Glenoled

[Turbo Dog]

Glenoled,
average muzzle velocities, depending on bullet type are around 2800 fps for a 7.62 NATO and about 3100 fps for a .50 BMG. Some calibers/rifles can go a little over 4000 fps.

[Padeye]

Thanks for the correction I hadn't heard that term for the polygonal bullet used in the Whitworth.

I still contend that spectacular shots like the one that felled Sedgewick are more a matter of luck than something that can reliably repeated in the field.

[Scylla]

I'll second the .50 caliber, as ultimately being the most accurate long-range weapon.

Weight constraints make it a difficult field weapon though. Properly scoped and bipoded it would be quite a load.

It does have the handy advantage of being able to shoot people who are hiding behind trucks or concrete walls.

My father, an ex-recon Marine Sniper, uses a Tikka .22 hornet with peep sights when he wants to show off.

He taught me how to shoot, and I used to use a .22-250 or a .25-06 for shooting groundhogs at long range.

Both lose any advantage they might have in range and flat trjectory due to the easy deflection of the bullet, IMHO.

I went to .223 bullbarrel with an 18x scope, and bipod, and even that's too much and too heavy.

I'm looking to trade it for a nice hornet or .222, which would be fine up to 250 or maybe 300 yards if I get comfortable with it.

The bottom line and the final factor is that it's very difficult to shoot at the extremes of your rifles performance. Human error and unfamiliarity will drag down your ability.

Your best bet is to find a rifle and caliber you're comfortable with, and really know that rifle and round.

Once you really know it, you'll be surprised at what you can do, and the shots you can make with a nice light rifle/scope combo.

[astro]

Originally posted by Reeder
This rifle, as with the cannon which the English company also made, had a hexagonal bore which required a hexagonal bullet. Both sides called this bullet a "bolt". In fact, it
was a six-sided bolt from a Rebel sharpshooter that killed Union General "Uncle John" Sedgwickduring the fighting at Spotsylvania Court House just after he had remarked to a frightened soldier that Confederate sharpshooters could not hit an elephant. [

IANAFirearmsExpert and obviously I'm mis-understanding some basic principle of ballistics. How could a hexagonal bullet maintain accuracy over an extended distance? I thought a bullet had to be spinning out a rifled barrel to maintain stability over distances. Wouldn't a (assumedly)non-spinning 6 sided bullet be more subject to tumbling.

[Turbo Dog]

The hexagonal bullet isn't like a nut, which you may be thinking of. It was, for all practical purposes a long, tapered bullet, similar to current types, except it had flats machined on the sides to match the flats of the barrel. The concept is still used today in many weapons where instead of using rifling, they use a polygonal bore, where the bore compresses flats onto the bullet and imparting spin that way. It is believed by many to be a more accurate method than standard "land and groove" rifling, but more costly to manufacture.

[Turbo Dog]

Seconding what Padeye said, that Sedgewick was killed at 1800 yards by the Whitworth more by luck than anything else.

In 1857 the Army conducted many field tests, and in one of those tests, the Whitworth was shot alongside the Harper's Ferry. Although the Whitworth outperfomed the HP by a margin of 20 to 1 in all areas, the group dispersion of the Whitworth at 1800 yards was nearly 12 feet. The HP, by the way, never struck the target beyond 1500 yards.

Given that the bullet would impact anywhere within a 12 foot circle, striking a one foot circle (Sedgewick's head) from that distance was more luck than accuracy.

[Billy Rubin]

I have a Ruger falling block in 30-06 which will drive tacks. The very venerable falling block action is stabile, incredibly strong, and available from Brownell's http://www.brownells.com/homePage.asp as a barrelled action in just about any caliber, including a few wildcats.
If I had to rely on a rifle to feed me, or to take out "opponents" at long range(no, I'm not too excited about the idea of killing anyone) it'd be the ruger. It WON'T misfire, it WON'T jam, it doesn't need a scope to give tack driving performance, a good reliable peep sight works extremely well, and it will take amazing amounts of abuse without causing a moment's trouble.

Oh, and I think it's pretty, too!

b.

[Sofa King]

This article mentions a number of sniper rifles used by the Marines throughout the 20th C. That prompted me to take a look at them individually.

M1903A1

M1903A4

M1C

M1D (sort of)

M40A1

M40A3

For the Marines, at least officially, the maximum effective range of their sniper rifles has increased by well over 50% since WWII.

Be sure to check out this impressive list of sniper rifles at http://www.snipercentral.com/rifles.htm .

Yep, that's Sniper Central, a clearinghouse for all of your sniping needs, which just goes to further show that just about anything is to be seen on the Internet. Except that damned May 33rd thing.

[astro]

Thanks for the link Sofa King !

The M40A3 cited as the latest and greatest USMC sniper rifle is ummm... an interesting looking baby. It may be (one of) the best sniper rifle(s) out there and it sure does look dangerous but (esthetically) that is one butt ugly firearm. Guess it's "pretty" to the user if it works though!

http://www.snipercentral.com/m40a3.htm

[red_dragon60]

I am suprised no one has mentioned the PSG-1, pride of the Heckler and Koch company. This is a standard NATO sniper rifle I believe.

The Walther WA2000 is the only bullpup style sniper rifle that I know of. It is pretty tiny compared with other rifles, but still manages a 26" barrel by putting the magazine and firing mechanism behind the trigger. Only 72 were made though.

Plan on killing any politicians?

[mangeorge]

red_dragon60 asks (tongue in cheek, I hope);

Plan on killing any politicians?

GAH!
You can't say that!
He's only kidding, spook-type dudes.
Peace,
mangeorge

[zen101]

I was going to mention the PSG-1 as well as the Dragunov SVD. Both rifles using the 7.62 (NATO 7.62x51/WARSAW 7.62x54 variations. There is a NATO version of the SVD. I'm unaware of how the NATO version compares.)

I'm under the opinion that bolt action rifles have some inheirent stability over semi-auto rifles but that could be prejudice and according to Janes and other sources both the SVD and PSG-1 are top notch weapons for accuracy.

The design intent of the Dragunov and the PSG-1 is for moving targets at at an average range between 600 and 800 meters (according to those who have used the SVD the shooting gets a bit dicey at greater distances but can drive nails at medium range). One should note that the PSG-1 is not often used for military ops because a) the shell eject sents the casing out about ten feet in an arc that would tend to draw fire and b)it can ONLY be fitted with a Hensoldt 6x42 sight. This alone prevents it from being used by many military agencies. The PSG-1 Hensoldt sight is set up for about 600 meters so it's designed for medium range sniping (you may ask then how can you compare accuracy with weapons designed for twice that range. The answer is extrapolation.) The PSG-1 has a barrel length of 25.59" with 4 deep grooves and fires a round with comperable ballistics to rifles such as the Dragunov. Also the PSG-1 has to be able to put 50 match grade rounds into an 80mm circle, thats about 3 1/2 inches in diameter, at 600 meters. Thats' one hell of a shot group.

Dragunov http://www.impactsites2000.com/site3...%20History.htm

There is a new variant called the SVD-S which is purportedly a vast improvement over the original. Don't know much more about the new one other than it can be had in Winchester .308.

PSG-1 http://www.remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/psg1/psg1.htm

At five grand the PSG-1 is possible the most expensive UN approved sniper weapon in use today. The fifty-cal long round is supposedly verboeten by the Geneva accord for use on anything other than anti-equipment use.

p.s. Apparently Sig has a new one (SigArms model 550) that goes for around ten grand. I know nothing about it but saw a picture. This gun looks like a match weapon in high caliber. It has every doodad you could think of but adjustable cheekplates do not make for a military weapon. Still if it shoots to match it's price it must be hella accurate.

[Reeder]

A bit off the subject..but not much.

Does anyone know where the term "sniper" comes from?

It comes from shooting snipe!

Don't know about anyone else, but when we sent people snipe hunting, we didn't give them a gun. Just a bag..

[red_dragon60]

The Barret M82 comes in at $7300. I don't know if NATO uses it though. .50 Cal is hard to pass up, however.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by astro
What is currently the most accurate, long range rifle and telescopic sight combination that is reliable and practical enough to used as a sniper's field weapon in a wartime scenario? I would imagine (possibly incorrectly) this eliminates the trophy competition and olympic guns due to lack of portability and ruggedness.

(Italics mine)

I've seen lots of exotic and heavy-duty weapons posted in this thread, but let's not forget the constraints of the OP.

If I were a sniper I sure wouldn't want to have to lug a Barrett .50 across a desert or fiddle around with a semi-auto carbon fiber stocked forged unobtainium barrelled whizbang one-off special while slogging through a jungle.

Bolt action .308, please.

BTW, no one has really addressed the scope issue. Bueller? Anyone?..

[mangeorge]

Shiva;
You must've missed Sofa King's post above.
Good links, and they got your .308, and scope, covered.
The last link, "Sniper Central", does make me a bit nervous, though.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Shiva]

Yeah mangeorge I caught Sofa King's links above. Good workingmans rifles there. I was just grumbling about the heavy/exotic stuff 'cause I'm a Luddite and a stickler.

Prepare to be nervouser(?): http://www.snipercountry.com

[mangeorge]

Sorry, Shiva, couldn't get past the "In-Country Briefing".

Nervouser than ever.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Alessan]

Oh, I don't know how heavy the Barret .50" would be. Let's see - about 15kg for the rifle, another 10kg for the ammo, maybe a CAR-15 and five or six magazines totalling 5kg... about as much as a machinegunner would carry back in the 7.62mm days. You'd have to be a big guy, but you could do it.

[zen101]

Originally posted by Alessan
Oh, I don't know how heavy the Barret .50" would be. Let's see - about 15kg for the rifle, another 10kg for the ammo, maybe a CAR-15 and five or six magazines totalling 5kg... about as much as a machinegunner would carry back in the 7.62mm days. You'd have to be a big guy, but you could do it.

The Light .50 weighs 28lbs so you are pretty close on the weight of the gun itself, as well as the ammo weight but otherwise you are comparing apples and watermelons.

The role of the Barret is not the same as the role of the machine-gun or even the light machine-gun. Machine guns are typically anti-aquipment and supressive fire tools, LMGs'are pretty much supressive fire tools. The Barett L .50 is a precise weapon for lightly armored targets. A heavy machine gun like the Browning M2 (ma-deuce) often fires a SLAP round (Sabot.Light.Armor.Piercing. Teungsten Carbide dart moving at over 4000 FPS) which has great penetration on billet armor up to and above 4 inches w/o much spalling, wheras an LMG like the M-60 (7.62MM NATO) usually uses FMJ ammo which can be stopped by sandbags effectively. The Barett Light .50 fires three types of ammunition, BMG (Browning Machingun. 660 Grain bullet at 2800 FPS muzzle velocity) which is pretty much standard FMJ ammo, then there is the M8 API (Armor Piercing Incindeary. Good on light armor or LAVs'), the primary round used by the Barett is the MK211 RAUFOSS (it's made in Raufoss Noroway). The RAUFOSS is AP Incindeary and HE (wow!). The RAUFOSS is almost like a multi-stage rocket. First you have the incindeary package, followed by a C-4A charge, which is then followed up by a tuengsten carbide 7.62 penetrator round. Basically if you want to hit someone/thing inside a lightly armored vehicle or inside a light bunker you use this round.

Also with machineguns you have a crew to operate and carry them, wheras with a sniping "team" working in the mode of traditional snipers you may have a crew of two but you are not going to want to lug 60 lbs of sniping gear on top of your personal weapon/gear.

The USMC does use this weapon in the infantry/scouts but apparently not in the same manner as more traditional sniper weapons are used by Army sniper teams.

[Alessan]

Umm, Zen.. I wasn't talking about roles. I know what a machine gun is for. I'm talking about what an infantryman cares about the most, weight.

Now, I used to carry an FN-MAG, 550 rounds of 7.62mm ammo, a spare barrel and assorted gear myself for forced marches of up to 60km, at one point in my life, so I know it's possible for a guy in good enough shape to carry that much around (BTW - what crew? All I got was an assistant with 300 rounds and a pair of binoculars). Yes, I know that the Barret isn't used for close fighting, but then neither are those TOW missiles I've see AT troops strap to their back, and they can't weigh much less.

All I'm saying that as an infantry weapon (and by infantry, I mean guys who get where they're going by foot) a 0.5" sniper rifle is quite viable.

[zen101]

Originally posted by Alessan
Umm, Zen.. I wasn't talking about roles. I know what a machine gun is for. I'm talking about what an infantryman cares about the most, weight.

Now, I used to carry an FN-MAG, 550 rounds of 7.62mm ammo, a spare barrel and assorted gear myself for forced marches of up to 60km, at one point in my life, so I know it's possible for a guy in good enough shape to carry that much around (BTW - what crew? All I got was an assistant with 300 rounds and a pair of binoculars). Yes, I know that the Barret isn't used for close fighting, but then neither are those TOW missiles I've see AT troops strap to their back, and they can't weigh much less.

All I'm saying that as an infantry weapon (and by infantry, I mean guys who get where they're going by foot) a 0.5" sniper rifle is quite viable.

sure that may be acceptable for Canadians to lug around a 10.85 (not to mention the 10+ kilo tripod if you used it. with the bipod it's not that bad) kilo gun and 25+ kilos of ammo but you people are used to suffering like that (what with your huge tax rate and having to bear all those Keanu Reeves and Michael J Fox jokes). Normal people would never carry that much weight on top of your pack and gear (let alone the indignity of carrying a firearm made in Belgium).


Seriously though, the role of the gun does have a lot to do with it. You can carry a lot of weight if you want to, but it just isn't that acceptable to do so in a highly mobile job like recon or regular sniping. Hell three guys can lug a MK-II and a few hundred rounds but that does not make it a good idea to do so if you are deep in the poop with just the three man team.

[Alessan]

What, do I write with a Canadian accent?

While I have the greatest respect for the Canadian people and the Canadian military (if, in fact, Canada has a military; I'm taking your word for it) the closest I have ever been to the world's second-largest country is Upstate New York.

Frankly, as the SMDB's token Israeli (currently expatriate), I'd think that my nationality would be fairly well known by now. Maybe I should go down to MPSIMS and start flirting in Hebrew (hi buba, ma koreh?).

Anyways...

I don't know why you're so shocked by the weight. I mean, in an infantry unit everybody carries something - be it radio, M-203, mortar, RPG, stretcher, jerrican or more - and the MAG is only the heaviest (BTW - that much ammo is only 15-17kg, not 25, and we used the bipod). They tend to give you equiptment to match your size and strength, and if you're in good enough shape, you can handle anything. As for recon - if your talking about recon troops, special forces, then there's no need to worry about their mobility. Those guys are animals.

Maybe the U.S. military does things differently, but according to IDF doctrine, the machine gun (formerly the MAG, currently the Negev 5.56mm) is a crucial squad-level weapon, used both for suppressive fire and close assault. No unit would go out for an assault, raid or ambush without at least two per platoon. In fact, the machine gun is considered the gunner's personal weapon, and while he generally isn't expected to take it on guard duty, he'll take it everywhere else.

As my Lieutenant told me once, during Basic Training: "If we could issue a MAG to every soldier in the army, we would". Now, I assume he was just trying to make me feel better, but he still made his point.

One more thing:

(let alone the indignity of carrying a firearm made in Belgium).

1. Like the Minimi, also known as the SAW?

2. At least the MAG was based on Browning's excellent BAR, and is a much better weapon than the M-60.

3. Shalom, Opal!

[zen101]

Originally posted by Alessan
What, do I write with a Canadian accent?

While I have the greatest respect for the Canadian people and the Canadian military (if, in fact, Canada has a military; I'm taking your word for it) the closest I have ever been to the world's second-largest country is Upstate New York.

Frankly, as the SMDB's token Israeli (currently expatriate), I'd think that my nationality would be fairly well known by now. Maybe I should go down to MPSIMS and start flirting in Hebrew (hi buba, ma koreh?).

Anyways...

I don't know why you're so shocked by the weight. I mean, in an infantry unit everybody carries something - be it radio, M-203, mortar, RPG, stretcher, jerrican or more - and the MAG is only the heaviest (BTW - that much ammo is only 15-17kg, not 25, and we used the bipod). They tend to give you equiptment to match your size and strength, and if you're in good enough shape, you can handle anything. As for recon - if your talking about recon troops, special forces, then there's no need to worry about their mobility. Those guys are animals.

Maybe the U.S. military does things differently, but according to IDF doctrine, the machine gun (formerly the MAG, currently the Negev 5.56mm) is a crucial squad-level weapon, used both for suppressive fire and close assault. No unit would go out for an assault, raid or ambush without at least two per platoon. In fact, the machine gun is considered the gunner's personal weapon, and while he generally isn't expected to take it on guard duty, he'll take it everywhere else.

As my Lieutenant told me once, during Basic Training: "If we could issue a MAG to every soldier in the army, we would". Now, I assume he was just trying to make me feel better, but he still made his point.

One more thing:

1. Like the Minimi, also known as the SAW?

2. At least the MAG was based on Browning's excellent BAR, and is a much better weapon than the M-60.

3. Shalom, Opal!

Sorry for assuming you were a Canadian, I honestly thought that the SOG folks were the only people other than some smaller south American units still carrying that weapon. And while many people denegrate the combat effectiveness of the Canadian military the North American Special Operations Group are pretty bad-assed people person for person.

And the "made in Belgium" comment was in jest, I have carried (among other things) the M-249 (actually jumped with one tethered to me about a meter below my feet more than once). And while the SAW is not my favorite weapon (I prefer the M-4 with M-203 for rolling around in the dirt.), it still weighs in at only about half what the MAG weighs, not to mention that the MAG of today is pretty much the same gun as designed and implemented in 55'.

Seriously I don't want to put down the MAG, or the Barett for that matter, but my training and experience has always leaned towards "lighter is faster and faster is better". Units that operate in squad or platoon strenght can certainly benefit from medium to heavy weapons support but when your biggest compliment is usually smaller than a light platoon you get in the habit of counting those kilos against ground you can cover.

I don't think we are that far off from each others opinions really, I certainly agree that such heavy weapons are indeed man-portable, but I think that the definition of "sniper" varies widely from unit to unit and theater to theater, as you served with the IDF (an admirable group of tough men and women and a credit to Israel) your day-to-day combat readiness roles are quite different from those of typical US SF or Ranger groups who typically train to fight on someone else's lawn and focus heavily on functioning behind enemy lines with little or no resupply. In those situations every Oz you spend on weapon weight costs you time that could be spent doing your job.



It's funny that you expatriated from there to here, I had planned to do the reverse myself in 94 but was unable to do so at the time. I had made a friend in Sayeret Egoz and hoped to serve with him if posible(of course now it looks like Egoz might be disbanded or possibly turned into a reserve unit like Rotem.).