Here is philosophical question. If you could chose your rifle for present day battlefield (from low-intensity to high-intensity cenario), which calibre would you chose and why?
Damn, I red my question one more time and I think that if I get good posts I'll ask next about meaning of life :lol:
IMHO -
338LM.
Gun /optics systems for this caliber are some 50% less in weight than those of the .50 systems. .50 rifle usually requires a team to operate on field - 338LM does not.
Moreover, 338LM is perceived to be more accurate and verstaile than .50.
MSa
338LM can be had in rifles. .50 BMG is only available in crew-served weapons looking like rifles made for King-Kong.
So 338Lm because it can be used as a rifle and it is more accurate with generally available ammo out to 1200-1500m.
So if the targets are soldiers 338LM can do everything better than .50 BMG except punching through THICK walls in urban areas. Regular house walls are no match to .338LM especially with AP bullets.
If anti-materia usage is in the plans then .50 BMG and the support crew to given close-in protection. Basically minimum team needs two .50 BMG rifles, two spotters and 2-3 rear guard/close-in protection members with SAWs and grenade launchers. Basically at minimum one needs 6 people of which 4 must be snipers, two can be regular rifle men. An additional rifle men helps if the team meets unfriendlies when moving or in position.
A much more interesting question would be bolt action .308 or bolt action .338LM. Why would any military sniper use a .308 if they could use a .338 ?
Thanks MSa and HJu!
I agree totally that .338 calibre weapon is lighter and more accurate in shooting distances over 1000m.
The fact is that due to the demographic trends peaople are gathering to cities. In the cities it is questionable that you have so long shooting distances. Target is usually bellow roof level if there is some knowldege of safety principles. On the other hand there can be wide open areas, especially In the city outer perimeter. It looks like that .338 is better ...
Cities are full of obstacles. This rises question about terminal ballistics. As HJu mentioned, .50 is better in this criteria.
It looks to me that if we consider ballistics I would shoot .50, because you have more targets that you can destroy. You just have to forget those long range shots that you can make better with .338 and wait tomorrow.
There we come to organisational problem which HJu commented. I do understand that in transport mode the . 50 is dismantled in two parts (if we consider Barret) and it takes 3 people to move by foot. I have always wondered that why 3 people. If in .308 rifle case sniper has drag bag for transportation plus rifle, why not in .50 pair would have two drag bags? I do understand that spotter would be able carry less other stuff, but in urban missions you don't have to carry the same amount of stuff that you need to carry in long range patrols.
HJu mentioned also 6 man formation in anti-material missions. Why 2 teams, not just one team? You mentioned 2 men as security element. Why .308 team has no sec. element and .50 team need security man? Or is this statement based on dispute 2-man teams vs 3-man teams?
Hi Laur,
I'll agree totally on what MSA and HJu said. Thus I won't repeat the same issues.
Now, why .338LM is better allaround sniper rifle compared to .50 BMG. We do have and use both; .338LM TRG-42 (TKIV 2000) and .50 BMG Barrett M82A1 (RSTKIV 2000).
The accuracy is far better with .338LM than with .50 BMG, and thus the ballistics won't differ at long range so much; i.e. still at 1500 meters .338LM outperforms .50 BMG accuracywise. After 1500 meters it is more pure luck to hit man sized target with either .50 BMG or .338LM out there in the field as the accuracy isn't really the best with either calibers, nor ballistics.
Sure one can hit e.g. armoured vehiches or a group of enemy soldiers standing there. .50 BMGs are anti-materia sniper rifles, not meant for pinpointed targets.
The size and the weight are simply too much in .50 BMG rifles compared to .338LM rifles; one has to be King Kong like HJu said in order to be fully operational with .50 BMG rifle same way as normal sized sniper with .338LM.
Furthermore, like MSA put it, .338LM is more versantile.
HJu referred to two .50 BMG teams, because in order to make difference with .50 BMG (mainly due to poor accuracy comapred to .338LM), there has to be two .50 BMG team. These two team can this way engage anti-materia or soft targets efficiently. HJu also said the composition of the teams, so I won't repeat it.
Why not only two guys to carry Barrett. The drag bags would be really heavy with all the gear and still both team members would need close protection weapons - full auto or semi-auto SMGs/rifles. It simply won't work - too much load to hump around woods - hence you need three guys per .50 BMG.
In urban missions you may or may not have less gear, depends on the mission, since gear is mission specific. However, there is still a lot of gear with guys - even if only the basic needed gear is taken into calculation.
Just trust HJu, MSA and me, there's a lot of gear even with .338LM two men sniper/spotter team and there's even more gear with .50 BMG three men sniper/spotter/security team.
.50 BMG maybe even too efficient in urban area - collateral damage and civilian casulties.
One more thing, .50 BMGs are more unpleasent to shoot than .338LMs, thus it (.50 BMG) wears guys more easily (become simply tired plus due to the weight of all the gear) than guys with .338LM.
Carpe Diem,
MJ
.338LM TRG 42 -> 7,5kg
:arrow:
.50 BMG Barrett M82A1 -> 14kg
:arrow:
NSV-12,7 -> 25kg
:wink:
If the question is about MY rifle, I can't handle .50BMG and associated gear by myself. It is a groupweapon... It is impossible to find an allpurposerifle valid in every task, therefore the three weapon concept might be a good solution for countries having enough recources to use equipment and operators they really need in different missions/tasks (light assault rifle with nightvision gear and optical lowpower sight, a conventional .30 caliber sniper rifle and .50 BMG, in one team).
If one already has trained snipers and enough less than .50 caliber rifles, the the next step migh be to add .50 cal firepower to lower level units in infantry. USA has shown us that in urban environment the .50 BMG sniper rifles has multiplied their 'effect' due the psychological effect among enemy, and also among own troops. In such case I might choose the .50 BMG, if the threeweapon concept's lighter caliber weapons already exist in the teams gear. If there is shortage or lack of normal, lighter than .50 caliber equipment, the 338 LM is my choice.
Do I understand you correctly that main problems with .50 are:
1. accuracy in the distances over 1000m
2. weight
1. What is the max distance to engage human size target with .50?
Isn't there some kind balance formula distance vs destruction? .338 can shoot furter but destruction capacity is smaller. .50 can not shoot so far but it destroys more. And there you have to make compromise. Isn't this the rule that if s... hits the fan you need weapon that destroys most.
2. Your .50 team description sounds more like sniper+spotter+mole :)
If mission is mounted patrol or fixed site guarding the weight does not matter. If you need to move long distances in knee high snow it is different. On the other hand. In the beginning of 2002. there was article about Canadian snipers in Afganistan. As far as I remember they were useing botl action .50 rifles in their missions. Somehow they managed with those rifles there.
There should be some kind of matrix accuracy/weight/mission/terrain etc :roll:
: I do understand that in transport mode the . 50 is dismantled in two parts (if we consider Barret) and it takes 3 people to move by foot.
Weight: Barret disassembles in two parts but they can be fit in one bag. A heavy bag. It might be that in real life every soldier needs to has his own personal gear (food, another rifle, ammo, bullet proof vests with hard plates etc.) that the rifle must be carried in two parts by two different men. The third one must be the scout or runner who can sneak and peak easier than people burdened with 10 kg extra equipment.
Target signature: When they shoot from their position with a .50BMG their hide is immeadiately recognised by ALL soldiers within a radius of 2-300m. They need to have ear protection and can not cover their backs at all. They need somebody to guard the rear. With smaller rifles and suppressors this target signature issue is not so big a deal.
: I have always wondered that why 3 people. If in .308 rifle case sniper has drag bag for transportation plus rifle, why not in .50 pair would have two drag bags? I do understand that spotter would be able carry less other stuff, but in urban missions you don't have to carry the same amount of stuff that you need to carry in long range patrols.
Urban mission is something quite new for the .50 BMG. If the wepon is in two parts every member needs serious firepower i.e. M4 carbine or M14 rifle or M249. In urban missions bolt action .308 men need close-in-protection as much as the .50 BMG guys because bolt action is too cumbersome in tight situations. A semi-auto .308 helps and that is what US Army is buying in volume now.
: HJu mentioned also 6 man formation in anti-material missions. Why 2 teams, not just one team?
This is the "traditional" anti-materia team that HAS to put down a SCUD or something else important down in quick succession. Barrets are not very accurate. This antimateria-team consists of two parts that can also operate alone if needed therefore 2X3 + maybe one. Two semi-autos can put 20 rounds in the target in about 20 seconds. Often only one hit is needed if a SCUD is the target but they need that one hit badly. One rifle can put only 10 rounds towards the target in the same time frame. -> So in case something really far out there in the distance must be destroyed with a rifle then two rifles double the chances. Of course this is something I have just read and I am sure the are alot more 1 rifle .50 BMG teams than these "optimum for destruction" teams. Reason is not that 2 team approcah would not be viable but because lack of money, equipment and snipers these big teams seldom are available.
If one is moving 6 men on foot with very expensive equipment it does not hurt to put a seventh rifle men to help them all to carry extra water, food, ammo and keep guard. This kind of "band" needs 360 degree protection when in position and two rifle man can no cover it all if they need to rest in a longer term operation.
: You mentioned 2 men as security element. Why .308 team has no sec. element and .50 team need security man?
First of all a 2-men .308 bolt action team is in DEEP dodo if they meet anyone closer to 300m. They need the third person. Finnish Army has been moving towards this 3-men team a few years. In winter they need the third person anyway to stay operative for long periods in the Observation Post. -> In real life the .308 team needs a security element as well. In cities they need it more because situations in urban areas can change dramatically and very fast.
BUT a 2-man team can move faster than 3 or 4 men and leave less tracks and make less noise in the woods. They are not carrying a 1.5 meter weapon weighing them down by 15 kg. -> Light and stealthy can work sometimes. Heavy and stealthy seldom works in real life.
: Or is this statement based on dispute 2-man teams vs 3-man teams?
.50 BMG is a different animal than a .308. Basically it is hunter rifle against a anti-tank gun. First one can be used even in CQB (especially semiautos) , the bigger one can not. Therefore the bigger one needs additional protection. Because .50 BMGs tend to be less accurate and the shooting distances are often very big, to use two rifles simultaneously is better probablilitywise if the target needs to be put down now. In urban scenarios one .50BMG rifle per team or group is certainly enough.
In Falklands the Brits were having problems with enemy snipers and machine guns. They L42 sniper rifles lacked in range. Therefore the Brits used Milan anti-tanki missiles to shoot enemy positions that otherwise would have been the sniper targets. USA has done similar stuff earlier in Iraq. -> .50 BMG might not always be the best weapon, an anti-tank missile can be better but is typically a lot more expensive. Also anti-tank terams usually have something else to do than bunker busting.
Thanks everybody for good explanations. I just have to print your replies out, read them again and ask new questions tomorrow.
I mentioned Canadian snipers in my previous post. Here is article about them.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004/Jan/Canadian.htm
I found this statement from that article.
"The Parker-Hale 7.62 mm sniper rifle has reached the end of its lifecycle, said Williams. The service is trying to replace it with a rifle than can fire .338 caliber rounds. "That rifle is pretty much the same weight [as the Parker-Hale]. The recoil is the same, but we have farther distances. We hope to get out to 1,200-1,500 meters with this new round," said Williams. The
Does anybody know the stroy behind this statement? Or is this happening for the same reason that espo mentioned, that if you have smaller calibre rifles, only then you can get bigger ones.
: Do I understand you correctly that main problems with .50 are:
:1. accuracy in the distances over 1000m
:2. weight
Add target signature i.e. enormous noise and muzzle blast sending debris all over the palce. The team is easy to find as soon as they start shooting. Hopefully they are so far away from the enemy that they can not react immediately. Unfortunately any mortar crew can start piling ammo over them as soon as they know where they are. Line of sight max 2000 m is no obstacle for any decent mortar crew.
: 1. What is the max distance to engage human size target with .50?
Depends on weapon and ammo. With Barret M107 with regular ball ammo maybe 1000-1200m, if not first round hits then hopefully second round hits. Accuracywise 2 MOA weapon with regular military ammo.
A custom bolt action (Widnrunner, McMillan and similar) with custom ammo like Hornady A-Maxes can strecth the distance greatly to somewhere 1800 m or so.
: Isn't there some kind balance formula distance vs destruction?
I do not know about an official formula.
: .338 can shoot furter but destruction capacity is smaller. .50 can not shoot so far but it destroys more. And there you have to make compromise. Isn't this the rule that if s... hits the fan you need weapon that destroys most.
Very close you can not do much with the .50BMG and that is the problem. Nobody carries Barrets on a sling for extended periods. A weapon in two parts in your rucksack is useless in a firefight. If max destruction is the goal then carry anti-tank weapons. They can take out anything :-)
Besides in modern warfare max destruction is often not desirable because of collateral damage.
: 2. Your .50 team description sounds more like sniper+spotter+mole :)
If mission is mounted patrol or fixed site guarding the weight does not matter.
On a mounted patrol I take M2 QHB .50 BMG machine gun with optics and armour plate front plate anytime over a Barrett :-) A 40mm grenade machine gun would not be bad either.
.50 BMG rifles are meant to to be used by light infantry. Mounted infantry typicall has all kinds of heavy firepower available anyway.
.50 BMG rifle is a special tool that is in some special cases the best tool but in many others cases it is less than optimum. Ammo weigh is also an issue in a longer firefight if you have to carry all that .50 BMG ammo with you.
: If you need to move long distances in knee high snow it is different. On the other hand. In the beginning of 2002. there was article about Canadian snipers in Afganistan. As far as I remember they were useing botl action .50 rifles in their missions. Somehow they managed with those rifles there.
They did. Have you heard about any teams that did not manage ? Me neither. Probably because they are not something you want to print in SOF magazine like: "Pro sniper team blasted to pieces by local AK wielding savages."
Besides in Afganistan and Iraq both USA and their allies rely heavily on helicopters and vehicles when moving. Then weapon weight is not too much of an issue.
Anyway the Canadian team managed to take advantage of favourable conditions. This was an exception and not a rule. That is why it was so widely publicized because it was and is not common to shoot people at over 2000m with rifles and hit them. Ammo probably was also something else than delinked M33 what USMC and US Army snipers often have to use.
: There should be some kind of matrix accuracy/weight/mission/terrain etc :roll:
There are/is. German Bundeswehr has created a new infantry compsotion where they can take M82A1´s with them if the operation demands them or they can take tripod mounted MG3+s with them or they can take Anti-tank weapons for support. They do not carry the M82A1´s all the time to all the places. In Kabul they use G36 as sniper weapons because the AI in .300 Win Mag is deemed too slow to use and too powerful. In countryside the AI is a good sniper weapon.
All in all the use of .50BMG is still in its development stages. USA with vast resources can buy enough Barrets to arm all active snipers with one. Most other countries can buy only a few and the use of them is also often different. Shooting mines or using .50BMG as light anti-tank weapon are much more common than to shoot infantry with the rifle.
I doubt even US Army and USMC have very clear rules of how and when to use .50 BMG rifles and to what purpose. They have them so they shoot them but whether they have found a proper tactical niche for them remains to be seen.
I am pretty sure USA will field a .338LM or .408 within a few years for long range sniping and delegate .50BMGs more towards their proper antimateria role where they excel and these smaller calibres can not really offer too much.
: The
:Does anybody know the stroy behind this statement?
It can mean that their old bolt action sniper rifles are just so plain worn out that they are useless. This is possible. Or he meant that in Iraq/Afganistan their handfull of active snipers use McMillans at the moment because that is all they have. On the other hand this is can not be 100% true because Canada has been buying Armalite AR-10Ts in 7.62 Nato with free floating hand guards for several years. Maybe they use Armalites more like a fire support rifle but they are sniper rifles similar to the USAs new M110 AR-10 version.
In real life no relevant army can work with only .50 BMG sniper rifles. Makes as much sense as saying that an army has only 155mm howitzers because all the lesser calibers are useless or not available.
PGW 338LM should be OK rifle when they get them and is superior in reach and power when compared to Parker-Hales in 7.62 Nato.
Hi Laur,
HJu already gave you a very detailed answers, which I agree, so again I won't repeat same stuff.
Some points about the Canadian Army Snipers Gain From Afghanistan Experience article. It was written already January 2004; that's two yrs ago. At that time Canadians didn't have .338 LMs, as PGW Defence Technologies were awarded the Canadian Forces MRSWS contract to replace the C3 rifle system (the Parker-Hale 7.62 mm sniper rifle system) on April the 18th 2005. However, already at that time Canadians were planning to replace Parker-Hales and conducting .338 LM trials - It is well said in the article itself:
Lainaa
The Canadian army has used 7,62 NATO caliber semi-auto Armalite AR-10Ts and AR-10A4 SPRs as sniper rifles and designated markman rifles since 2002. They used them in Afganistan too.
I really don't think that the McMillan .50 BMG caliber rifles have ever been nor ever will be the main sniper weapons in Canadian arsenal. There simply aren't enough .50 BMG caliber McMillan rifles in Canadian inventory - there many times more Armalite AR-10Ts and AR-10A4 SPRs and there were much more Parker-Hales than .50 BMG McMillans. Furthermore, there will be more .338 LM PGWs than .50 BMG McMillans in their inventory in the near future, so .50 BMG McMillans cannot ever be the main sniper weapons for the Canadian army.
As for nuance, the Canadian army adapted full-auto 7,62 NATO caliber Armalite AR-10A4 carbines with 16" barrel for one of their official aussault rifles beside 5,56 NATO Diemaco C8 Carbines (M4 equivalent) last year (2005).
.50 BMG sniper rifles are anti-materia crew served weapons, which do have great psychological effect on people, like Espo said.
Carpe Diem,
MJ
HJu and MJ, thank you one more time!
The topic is much more clear for me.
Due to your hints I found more fresh articles about Canadian sniper weapon contest.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-c3repl.htm
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-c3repl2.htm
About meaning of life. I'm reading Esa Saarinen now. If I do have additional questions, I'll post them here :lol:
Just curious, can anyone tell if there is on the market .338 rifle that disassembles like this AI Covert model.
http://home.swipnet.se/longrange/accuracy_internationals_covert.htm
... or is this impossible due to ballistic problems (too powerful ammo). That kind of Lego system just breaks down.
Lainaus käyttäjältä: MJ
The Parker-Hale 7.62 mm sniper rifle has reached the end of its lifecycle, said Williams.
Those distances are possible to achieve with 338LM.
I shooted janter -plate (45cm wide, 80cm height) to 1480m with my personal Sako TRG 42. Bullet was 16.2/250 LockBase Lapua.
Finding right elevation took "few" :oops: shots, spotter didnt see bullet turbulence at all (fog, sidewind and mild rain) .
In fact, i had to shoot completely "blind", terrain around plate did not show bullet impacts.
After elevation came out, it was like a turkey shoot, 3 shots in a row rapidly, all hits. "group" size was 35cm wide, but only 10cm high.
I dont know any fact about 338/1500m terminal effects, but torso-hit will at least hurt like hell...
P.S.
Afterwards, i watched a video.
Turbulence was visible, and i was little bit suprised about trajectory cealing.
Max height was over top of the full-size pinewoods...perhaps i´ll try mortar sights instead of zeiss next time... :shock: 8) :lol:
Lainaus käyttäjältä: laur
http://home.swipnet.se/longrange/accuracy_internationals_covert.htm
... or is this impossible due to ballistic problems (too powerful ammo). That kind of Lego system just breaks down.
AI Covert comes only in 7.62 Nato.
Windrunner is available in 338LM and can be dissassembled easily. It has a 30" barrel so it needs a big bag anyway. Weigh is 22 lbs meaning it is closer to a .50 BMG than a .308 in weight.
They do make a .308 version too and that fits intoa small case just like the AI Covert.
Folding stocks are availble to PGM Hecate and TRG-42 both in 338LM.