I don’t think I can add anything more to this part of the discussion, so I’m going to butt out now.
Things I’ve learned on the Dope:
Technically speaking, there is no such thing as an assault weapon. Legislators’ attempts to codify popular conceptions suffer from substantial defects, do not hold up to informed analysis and lead to absurd results. This is primarily because despite lay belief to the contrary, there is no such thing as an assault weapon–there are only weapons with various modifications and whatnot that in aggregate give rise to a weapon the general public would consider an assault weapon. The modifications exist in other forms and for other purposes on other weapons the public would not consider as an assault weapon.
Technically speaking, there is no such thing as a sniper rifle. There is the popular conception that such a weapon exists, but marketing terms aside, there is no weapon category called ‘sniper rifle.’ The additions and modifications that people who shoot targets at long range are present in a wide range of weapons. Further, because many of these additions and modifications are the result of technology that was developed long after the term ‘sniper’, none can be said to be necessary elements of a sniper rifle. Because there are no sniper rifle-specific components, and because people who have engaged in hitting long-range targets frequently used weapons identical to those in general use, it is impossible to define what a sniper rifle is.
Assault weapon: a term for a weapon that while having substantial communicative meaning in general conversation, upon closer examination it describes something that does not exist.
Sniper rifle: a term for a weapon that while having substantial communicative meaning in general conversation, upon closer examination it describes something that does not exist.
A sniper rifle is used to hunt snipe. I’m organizing a snipe hunt right now. PM me and I’ll give you the time and place to meet.
ETA: I’ll provide the rifles in case you don’t have one.
Among long range target shooters and varmint shooters, the general consensus is that the best accuracy is achieved when the bullet is spinning at the minimum rate that will stabilize the bullet at the distance where it is expected to be used. Thus, at closer ranges the bullet is spinning too fast to offer optimal accuracy. Once it slows down, “out there,” it comes into the RPM range where it has its best accuracy. Precision shooters tinker with loads to come up with combinations that give the best possible accuracy at the expected distances. They use different loads for close range than for long range. Military snipers, as a general rule, aren’t going to get into this, obviously. A skilled military sniper with US-style resources will have match-grade ammo at his disposal and will segregate it by manufacturing lots which he will test fire to see which performs best from his weapon. Major John Plaster has written extensively on these topics and I recommend his work as being very readable as well as information-dense.
WRT the relatively small bore long range/“sniper” cartridges: their reduced wind drift is largely a result of their high velocity. The more quickly a bullet gets to the target, the less time the wind has to push it around. If you drove a .50 BMG bullet faster, you’d get less wind drift. Of course, the .50 BMG and other heavy cartridges (many of which were originally designed to be fired from mounted machineguns) are already pretty punishing to the shooter even from heavy rifles fitted with muzzle brakes. Adding propellant to up their velocity will only make that worse. Better to opt for a smaller bullet that can be driven to high velocity without beating the shooter to death.
Yes.
However, an assault **rifle **is an actual thing.
I understand that there is a gyroscopic effect on a spinning projectile, but like Bear I don’t see what the mechanism would be for it to make a particular bullet more accurate at one distance than another. Since the bullet isn’t going to start off spinning in one direction, stop, and start spinning in the opposite direction mid -flight, the gyroscopic “drift” is only going to be in one direction and the effect on the MOA will be cumulative.
Technically speaking you (or whoever told you this) is incorrect. Although most likely willfully so for their own political reasons.
To understand what constitutes a “sniper rifle” or “assault riffle”, one must look at the history of military firearms.
Up until about the Vietnam war, militaries issues what are now commonly referred to as “battle rifles”. Examples would be like M1 Gerand, the M1903 Springfield and the M14. These weapons, for all intents and purposes, are not materially different from a civilian hunting rifle, except perhaps being a bit more rugged. They are typically bolt or semi-auto action. They fire a large-ish caliber bullet with a long range (over 1000 yards). They also are heavy and don’t hold a lot of ammo (like 5 rounds).
In those days, a sniper rifle wouldn’t be materially different from a regular infantryman’s rifle, other than the skill of the shooter, maybe the addition of a scope, bipod and other custom modifications.
Some time prior to Vietnam, they figured out that most infantry combat takes place at much closer ranges (around 300 yards IIRC). They also figured out that a small, high velocity round can do as much damaged (squared) as a heavier, low velocity round. So they traded longer range and bigger bullets for more ammunition, full-auto action and lighter materials. So what you ended up with are “assault riffles” like the various M-16 / M-4 and Kalishnakov (AK-xx) families of weapons. Light full / semi auto rifles designed to be carried around all day and spray bullets at people.
This trend has continued into modern times. However, the range and power shortcomings of assault rifles now means the designated “sniper” MOS must carry a different weapon from the rest of the infantry platoon. This weapon can be a modified civilian hunting hunting rifle like the M40 (a modified Remington 700). It can be a modern version of a battle rifle like the M14. Or it can be a purpose-built weapon like the Heckler & Koch PSG-1 or Barett M99.
I should mention that these are all “rifles” since they have grooves or “rifled” barrels
As Scumpup has noted, this would be more accurate as “a faster bullet is less affected by wind”. A smaller (i.e. less massive) bullet is actually marginally more affected by wind, and will typically have a lower ballistic coefficient. But if it’s traveling faster, the wind will have less time to act on it.
If you look at the history of sniper rifles, especially since the Vietnam conflict, you’ll see that they progressed from commercially available weapons, to match grade weapons firing match ammunition to specialty weapons manufactured for that single purpose. Everything is designed for absolute consistency in shot placement, from a larger diameter barrel to trigger pull, etc.
If its true that smaller, higher-velocity projectiles perform more accurately due to wind, etc for long range sniper rifles, then why is the Barret .50 cal rifle such a popular choice for the US military sniper and so effective at the extreme end of long ranges?
The .50 BMG rifles are valued for certain applications because the bigger, heavier bullet is more destructive to materiel than the smaller, lighter bullets. If we are talking about snipers, remember that the end goal is to shoot enemy personnel or damage/destroy high value enemy equipment. Maximizing practical accuracy is one of the means to that end, it isn’t a goal in itself. When your target is a human being, the lighter cartridges are perfectly adequate in performance and allow the shooter carry a lighter weight weapon and a greater amount of ammo. When your target is something like grounded aircraft or other vehicles or perhaps communications hardware, the increased penetration against hardened/semi-hardened targets offered by the .50 BMG becomes of value. However the size and weight of the weapon increase dramatically, as does the size and weight of the ammunition.
Before anybody jumps down my throat, yes, I know that the .50 BMG rifles have been used to shoot individual enemy soldiers. The Barret is in inventory and it is available to snipers should mission parameters indicate its use.
Why are scopes not available for every soldier? What disadvantages are there? Is it slower or more difficult to use a scope for shorter ranges?
Edit: Reply had asked this question earlier and had already received replies.
When shooting projectiles like the Raufoss and API, the .50 BMG is certainly well suited at busting things up. But it is also a great weapon for use in anti-personnel sniping when shooting regular 'ol FMJ. For sniping, its primary advantage over other rounds (e.g. .223, 7.62 NATO, .30-06) is its accuracy at very long ranges (over 1000 yards).
No doubt. However, .50 BMG rifles weigh 20+ pounds empty and scopeless. The bullpup variants are four feet long and the standard versions are even longer. Each cartridge of ball ammo weighs an additional quarter pound. The smaller bore long range cartridges mentioned up thread permit killing individual soldiers out to extreme range from lighter, less clumsy, less punishing weapons. The only good reason to go with the. 50 is because your targets are hard enough to require the insane penetration and destructiveness that AP, API, and explosive rounds offer from the. 50BMG.
So are weapons like the Barrett more accurate with the .50 round than smaller projectiles at extreme long ranges or not? I’m a little unclear. I’m pretty sure the Barrett is used on targeted personnel at distances up to a mile or more away for a reason over other weapons. You say that its often used as an anti-equipment load, which, with a round that size I can believe it. Maybe I’m thinking that weapons like the Barrett are more prolific as sniper rifles against enemy personnel than they really are due to their proliferation and heavy use in video games!
Right - the line about there being “no such thing as an assault weapon” is used in the context of the US gun control debate, because in fact a common civilian in the US does not have access to a real *assault rifle * unless he has one of the very scarce automatic weapons permits.
While their regular grunts pack FAL or AK or H&KG3 or M16 variants; so the specialized sniper in any country still is using a weapon clearly distinct from the ordinary issue, designed from a different perspective, and himself has a different skillset. Yes, defining the Sniper Rifle, capitalized as a proper title, is something of what we may call a “First World Problem” in Doperese. We were using high quality hunting rifles for that role just a half century ago. Today we use specialized gear designed from the start for the role.
The .50 is much beloved of extreme long range shooters in this country who spend a great deal of time and money getting the smallest possible groups at ranges measured in thousands of yards. What suits it to that role, at risk of sounding simple minded, is that it will actually shoot that far. From the military POV, it offers usefully destructive levels of energy at ranges significantly greater than a .308.
Not to belabor the point excessively, but the guns are big and heavy. The ammunition is heavy. In some situations, like firing from a fixed defensive position this can be relatively unimportant. To a sniper in the field, all that extra weight of rifle and ammo is other stuff he could be carrying or just not be carrying it at all. Unless the mission calls for the destructiveness the .50 offers or there is some reason to expect the target will have to be engaged at extremely long range, there is no value in carrying a gun that weighs twice as much and a much smaller quantity of ammo.
In one of John Plaster’s books, he laid out the idea that snipers need to operate at a great enough range to give put their assault rifle armed opponents at a disadvantage while being able to still consistently lethal hits themselves. Thus, they don’t operate at the greatest possible range. They operate at the greatest effective range. Having a .50 doesn’t automatically mean you get to back off a mile and start plinking commies. Those long range hobbyists I mentioned upthread measure their one mile groups in feet. Maybe okay if you are shooting at parked helicopters. Not so much if you are shooting at a man. You need to get closer and the closer you get the less value their is in using a .50 just to use a .50.
Of course, soldiers are like anybody else and if they have some way cool weapon available they get the urge to use it.
Excuse all the typos in that post. Done in haste from an iPod.