Vain teksti | Teksti ja kuvat

TARKKA-AMPUJAKILTA

Avoin Keskustelu => Tarkka-ammunnasta yleisesti => Aiheen aloitti: laur - maaliskuu 12, 2012, 12:57

Otsikko: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: laur - maaliskuu 12, 2012, 12:57
Hello, TAK!



Sorry that I'm using English, but my Finnish is too weak :)



Could someone explain me why Finnish Defence Forces chose bolt-action rifle .338 TRG as company level marksman rifle? Isn't it too big boom for too low level unit? Isn't precision semi-auto 7,62x51 better choice for company level tulituki-tarkka-ampujalle? Especially in case that in Finnish structure you don't have spotter, LEM etc to achieve best results from Magnum ammo?



Feel free to answer in Finnish!
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: HJu - maaliskuu 12, 2012, 16:12
For DMR use we have SVDs and Rk95s with ACOGs. A 7.62 Nato semiauto is probably coming at some point. TRG-42 was adopted already in year 2000.



Zeiss spotters and LRFs are available in limited volumes.



Edit: 338LM is very forgiving for small mistakes in distance and wind estimations. Additionally it penetrates with AP bullets all vests and plates commonly used to protect personnel -> "center of mass" hits are preferrd making hitting targets even easier.
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: laur - maaliskuu 14, 2012, 11:21
HJu, thanks!



It's hard to deny that .338 does things better: flies flatter and further, tears bodymateriel, penetrates deeper etc at any distance. But at what distance it achieves the real superiority (destroying targets) against 7,62x51? 600 m distance? By the book this distance shows that company in prepared positions is under intense attack and maybe in intense situation the semi-auto helps to compansate adrenaline rush and high heart beat factors? Does adding couple hundred meters make significant difference?



(//%3C/s%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22http://s18.postimage.org/68ackmkex/Brig%20...%20mation.png%22%3Ehttp://s18.postimage.org/68ackmkex/Brigade_pre_battle_formation.png%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3Ce%3E) (//http)

image hosting gif (//http)



As far as I understand new Finnish concept says that local unist have to act more dispersed formations, flexible and active. Does this attitude support long single shot .388 rifles? Constant moving (especially dismounted) with possibility meeting opposing force recce units dictates good physical condition. Doesn't semi-auto that works as marksman's rifle and CQB rifle look better choice? Especially for local reserve forces.



(//%3C/s%3Ehttp://s17.postimage.org/5omf90ij3/maav_Rem.jpg%3Ce%3E) (//http)

image host (//http)
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: HJu - maaliskuu 14, 2012, 13:57
In Finland doctrine changes much faster than equipment. Military and especially infantry will have to cope with whatever material is given to them.



A semi-auto SVD is so far available therefore a semi-auto Ar-10 at this point does not bring anything worthwhile to the equation. Trg-42 weighs about the same than Tak-85 so a Trg-shooter can not loose when changing from Tak-85.



Typical hard plates used with personnel protection stop up to 7.62x54R and 7.62 Nato AP ammo. No match against 338 LM especially if loaded with AP ammo. 338 can be used to destroy soft equipment like radar dishes, aircraft and helicopters on the ground, fuel tanks etc. with API ammo. With an SVD or Tak-85 this is pretty hard to do because of ammo limitations.



Whether the snipers are used to fully utilize the capabilities of their equipment is open to debate but the capability exists.



Equipping infantry in Finland has always been a somewhat chaotic process. The decision to field Trg-42 is a good one and  happened 10 years earlier than with most other armies.



EDIT: Trg-42 are used on company level because all snipers are in companies. There are no battalion level sniper groups. A sniper is a sniper in a rifle or jäger company. Basically snipers are always there where the figthing is. Of course special forces have snipers too but special forces are also formed in companies.



In addition to army gear we have probably +200000 hunting rifles in Finland with scopes and people who know how to shoot them. Ammo supply could be a problem but having a hundred thousand shooters who know how to shoot with optics equipped rifles never hurt any army :-)
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: laur - maaliskuu 14, 2012, 14:31
LainaaA semi-auto SVD is so far available therefore a semi-auto Ar-10 at this point does not bring anything worthwhile to the equation. Trg-42 weighs about the same than Tak-85 so a Trg-shooter can not loose when changing from Tak-85.


With additional rails for night vision AR-10 may bring 24h operational capacity + couple hundred meters additional distance (grip + sock + optics + trigger + western ammo).  


LainaaEquipping infantry in Finland has always been a somewhat chaotic process. The decision to field Trg-42 is a good one and happened 10 years earlier than with most other armies.


You are right that in most armies .338 is not down in company level. Sniper platoon dispatches those hard hitters to lower levels. Having .338 at company level, is this clever choice by Finns (knowing that batallion level support may never arrive to lower levels) or is this reserve officers lobbying result (If I remember correctly reserve officers helped choose TRG) to change one bolt action to better bolt action? I do ask those questions because I found this picture below that describes 1 Ranger unit preparing to mission. I suspect (I may be wrong, correct me if you know better) that this is sniper unit. What I can't see are long barreled bolt action rifles.



(//%3C/s%3Ehttp://s7.postimage.org/ve4346jjf/Rangerid_optikaga.jpg%3Ce%3E) (//http)

image hosting gif (//http)



And why Army's sniper competition was in this weapon format? After being over 10 years in war, loosing fat from organisation's bones, they can't do/have better?



//http://www.knightarmco.com/blog/?p=457


LainaaIn addition to army gear we have probably +200000 hunting rifles in Finland with scopes and people who know how to shoot them. Ammo supply could be a problem but having a hundred thousand shooters who know how to shoot with optics equipped rifles never hurt any army


Absolutely right. Question arises when in voluntary organisations (example Eesti Kaitseliit) people start buying their first, one and only rifle. People with unlimited commitment or huge wallet want to get what Finnish tarkka-ampujat (who are to my knowledge more Designated Marksmen than those real western snipers) have. You have set the standard the people want to achieve and that's why I'm asking explanation why this choice and why not that choice :) We one volunteer must pay 15 000 EUR for modern sniper set and why he just can't be happy with Galil SWS, modified semi-auto Ak4 or M-14 :)
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: HJu - maaliskuu 14, 2012, 19:29
Rk95s already have NV capability as well as Tak-85s and Trg-42s.



If we started from a clean paper an AR-10/HK417 would be a good choice. Because we have SVDs and the biggest defence cuts in Finnish history an AR-10 weapon system is not in the cards for a very long time if ever.



On your "problem" I would say that if you have access to free/cheap M14, scopes and mounts then you have everything you need for a DMR rifle.



For accurate LR shooting Tikka T3 Varmint in 6.5x55 is VERY sufficient.



Affluent hobbyists will buy an IA AX in 338LM and the most expensive tactical scope available. Only because they can :-)



In Finland many long time sniper enthusiasts have been selling their 338LMs lately because of weight, recoil, cost of ammunition and "lack of challenge" when shooting at targets less than 1000m away.
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: laur - maaliskuu 15, 2012, 10:17
LainaaIf we started from a clean paper an AR-10/HK417 would be a good choice. Because we have SVDs and the biggest defence cuts in Finnish history an AR-10 weapon system is not in the cards for a very long time if ever.


HJu, what rifles would you change with AR-10/HK417? Would you change RK-95, SVD and TRG-42, from squad level to company level?
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: laur - maaliskuu 16, 2012, 19:21
Cant confirm how reliable this information is.
Lainaa
As of last year the majority of Marine scout sniper kills in AFG have been under 500 meters. That huge problem right now, were doctrinally they are suppose to be masters of the 800-1000 m region, the lack of long range effects has caused concerns, so much in 08 LtGen Magnus directed an initiative to fix the scout sniper community. One thing that the infantry advocates really started to look at was there is almost a fetishistic desire for longer range capacity, to include the requirement for the SSR-21 being able to engage to 1500 meters, but there really aren't the numbers of engagements to justify the costs. Similarly one of the reasons the Mk11s were accepted they worked better in the typical engagement range than the bolt gun and the places the bolt guns worked better were in such a small number of engagements that it was a no-brainer.



I see much of the same problem in fulfilling the already defined requirement to provide semi-precision fires from 300-600 meters without having to invest the amount of time in training as required for snipers.


//http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=70417&page=13
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: HJu - maaliskuu 16, 2012, 20:31
Lainaus käyttäjältä: laur
LainaaIf we started from a clean paper an AR-10/HK417 would be a good choice. Because we have SVDs and the biggest defence cuts in Finnish history an AR-10 weapon system is not in the cards for a very long time if ever.


HJu, what rifles would you change with AR-10/HK417? Would you change RK-95, SVD and TRG-42, from squad level to company level?


SVDs could be replaced due to ammo challenges. Replacing Rk95 with optics depend on the troops on ammo compatability needs. With armored troops RKs with optics could be replaced easily with a new semi-auto sniper rifle but local troops with weaker logistics would be better off with same caliber rifles in addition to TAK-85s.



I do no see any reason to replace TRGs with anything but the sniper team mate migth have good use for a 7.62 semi-auto sniper rifles.



Besides there are not a TRG for every sniper so all new sniper rifles could be given to fire support snipers or designated squad marksmen.
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: HJu - maaliskuu 16, 2012, 20:49
Lainaus käyttäjältä: laurCant confirm how reliable this information is.
Lainaa
As of last year the majority of Marine scout sniper kills in AFG have been under 500 meters. That huge problem right now, were doctrinally they are suppose to be masters of the 800-1000 m region..



I see much of the same problem in fulfilling the already defined requirement to provide semi-precision fires from 300-600 meters without having to invest the amount of time in training as required for snipers.


//http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=70417&page=13


USMC and US Army have lots of ACOGs and M16A3s in use. If they can not hit enemy out to 500-600m with that gear then it is not because of lack of gear but lack of training. One can not replace training with gear.
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: laur - maaliskuu 16, 2012, 22:13
HJu, sniper team is 3 guys with TRG's. According to manual there are no close protection arms.

If I do understand correctly TA-kilta supports idea, that sniper has his own RK. According to manual

snipers may ask from superiors to find spotter. Hopefully he Will be tarkka-ampuja trained. HJu, will he

get new 7,62x51 semi-auto sniper rifle? Then there will be for small team 3 different rifle calibres and in case of

pistols, then four. Quite serious logistical challange if situation get really hot.

In case of local defence troops, did I understand you correctly, that you support idea, that Company level

snipers have the same rifle calibre, that rest of the troops have? ... and in case of plenty of money you would give the guys semi-auto precision rifles instead of bolt-action rifles :)
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: HJu - maaliskuu 17, 2012, 08:36
Do not believe everything you read in a manual :-)



Fact is that bolt action equipped snipers have basically no real firepower in close encounters.  Having three guys move alone with bolt-action rifles would be stupid.



On the other hand Finnish sniper teams would very rarely move around on their own or leave their companys safety. Maybe as scouts they would but then they would have maybe one TRG and more Rks and SVDs. The main asset snipers have is the head on their shoulders. Doing everything by the sniper manual available to anybody would make them too predictable and would get them into trouble.



A modern semi-auto sniper rifle would be better than TAK-85 but it is not in the cards no matter how much it is being rationalized.
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: HJu - maaliskuu 17, 2012, 08:51
BTW TA-Kilta does not have any "official opinion" on these issues.



FDF does what they see fit.
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: laur - maaliskuu 17, 2012, 09:27
It was nice to head your opinion. Thanks, HJu!
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: polarlander - heinäkuu 23, 2012, 21:28
In finnish military doctrine and reality may miss each other. In new military police manual there's an "idea" to use spotter and 1990s when I was introduced to TAK-85 there was guy/girl with binos as spotter when "combat" shooting.

On my perspective TRG-42 are not really company level rifles, we have SVDs and TAK-85 for "bulk" snipers/dmr and TRG is used with higher level teams. For example on sissi (or guerilla) units SVD is the best as they aim to operate against mobile enemy with IED ambushes. And for example military police has far too many rifles with optics on their structure chart that we could possible raise money to have all of them as TRG.

On finnish geography 338 Lapua main advantage over 7.62x53r is anti material capacity without bulkiness of 50 BMG. One can ignite arctic aviation fuel with 338 Lapua round in very cold conditions, this is not possible with lighter rounds. My opinion is based on traditional defence doctrine where Finns are fighting on highly mechanized enemy which has material and troopwise superiority inside our own territory. Too bad that these rifles were not bought with suppressors, only with muzzle brakes, making them bit challenging to use in real world conditions
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: HJu - heinäkuu 23, 2012, 23:44
Using Trg-42 with a suppressor creates its own difficulties in real world too. Its a beast to carry and use in the woods.130cm with close to 700 gramms extra weoght upfront which will glow like a lamp with thermal imaging after the first round. It does have its place but it's not allways the best option. Even recoil becomes bigger when compared to the muzzle brake.



Anyway suppressors can be bought easily if needed. Why FDF has no suppressors for the Rk95 is a good question too.
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: polarlander - heinäkuu 24, 2012, 14:18
Still TRG+suppressor+ammo is not bulky compared to many 50 BMG systems. I would not consider heat signature huge problem with trained sniper, there are still insurgents in Afganistan and Iraq fighting against troops who have tons of thermal imaging equipment.

338 LM has very big sound and blast signature and significant flash, with suppressor one can use more easily ad hoc positions. Beside lowered combat capacity if half deaf because of zero hearing protection.

Best option would be Accuracy International type break+suppressor, where recoil shy and high rate of fire personnel can remove the can and those who need more concealment use it. Ase Utra new borelock is very nice option. I think as armchair theorist that since US has started deploying suppressors on semi-automatic sniper rifles, technology might be mature enought after 100+ years.

As far as I have understood assault rifles didn't get suppressors since there were barrel breakage (weight on the end of the barrel and telescope suppressor over the barrel) problems only with couple hundred rounds (means that you change magazine 6 times) of fully automatic fire. Normally one can run 700-800 before total system crash. Probably those who were making the acquiring that it's not conscipt proof as it is with suppressing TRG (one more small separate part to be lost by end user).

This is partly "matter of preference", I'm huge suppressor zealot and see no advantage on muzzle flash. One can perform most of the tasks without it, but I believe it will make user perform better.
Otsikko: Re: Rationale behind FI company level .338 choice
Kirjoitti: HJu - heinäkuu 24, 2012, 14:40
I have shot 338LM both with suppressor and muzzle brakes for over 10 years. Suppressor is nice when shooting but not so much when carrying the rifle if attached. AU Borelock is workable solution but POI changes must be taken into account.



Muzzle flash is not a big problem with TRG-muzzle brake IMHO.



Professionals use electronic muffs also in battle because integrated radios and  better communications improve battlefield performance. Same goes for 50 BMG teams. A deaf soldier is not a very beneficial asset for his team.
Vain teksti | Teksti ja kuvat