Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

T

TomS308

Sergeant
Minuteman
Oct 12, 2008
93
0
#1
I was reading this article and started thinking about todays Sniper Rifles.. There not very practical.. Sure there wonderfully accurate.. but there to God Dam Heavy.

They may be fine if there transported in a vehicle, and only carried a short distance to a buildings upper floor window, or roof top for example. But i doubt any one here would want to lug one around on a 10 to 14 hour patrol in the rugged mountains of Afghanistan. I dont think Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock would have wanted to lug around a heavy rifle in the jungles of Vietnam for weeks at a time. I remember reading the Marines were complaining about the weight of there M40A3`s. People are designing these rifles without regard for the soldiers who have to carry them.

I think manufactures need to start designing lighter weight rifles, with input from actual Snipers. Use Titanium for actions, scope mounts, bottom metal, or other strong light weight materials. McMillan at one time made Titanium rifle barrels. Does a Barrel really need so heavy.. i think barrels could be a lighter contour with out sacrificing accuracy. Stocks dont need to be so heavy and bulky. I think the M40A1 stock is closer to being ideal, or a classic sporter rifle stock made for heavy duty use, with a slightly wider forend for heavy barrels. Combine that stock with a Remington Titanium Receiver.. Titanium or aluminum scope mounts and bottom metal. A lighter weight barrel or fluted barrel. A 308 barrel doesnt need to be over 24" long. Todays heavy rifles i see being built here are closer to being Tactical bench rest guns then carry Sniper Rifles. I think i`d rather carry a accurized Rem. LTR than a 16.5 pound M40A3 if i was deployed in Afghanishan.

Scopes are getting to long, heavy, and bulky too. Turrets stick out way to far on Leupold Mark4`s and some other scopes. Todays scope mounts are very strong.. But there only held on with 4 dinky little 6-48 ot 8-40 screws.. There has to be a better, stronger way.. An integral base with the receiver would be ideal, but also costly. Dovetails like on CZ`s, Sako sporters and TRG`s are excellent, and get away from 4 tiny screws. The latest Browning X-Bolt uses Talley Rings with 4 screws per base, one on each corner. Can that be adopted for a Rem 700.. Has any one tried silver soldering the picatinny base to the receiver ?

Back in the late 1980`s, and 1990`s.. Light Weight hunting rifle were the trend.. They called them Mountain Rifles. I think we need to come out with Mountain Sniper Rifles now.

Here is the article i spoke of at the beginning of this post.. Title.. Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll on our Combat Troops..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101717.html
 
#3
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

The Chandlers did a similar article for Precision Shooting a while back to point out this very fact and to launch their XM3 concept rifle. There is much truth to the assertion that current issue military sniper rifles are quite heavy, but there are a number of factors as to why.

Stocks: stocks have to endure the rigors not only of battle, but of being issued to soldiers, sailors and Marines. Travel, whether in aircraft, boat, truck or afoot, will provide numerous opportunities for a stock to be bent, dinged, scratched and broken. To make a stock "Marine-proof" it will necessarily be heavy.

Barrels: heavy barrels are stiffer and more resistant to changes in performance due to heat, than a slimmer, lighter profile. Fluting helps, but rarely is enough weight "saved" to justify the extra expense and cost. A military sniper may be called upon to engage multiple targets and fire numerous times in succession - thus a fairly heavy barrel that will not change POI as it heats, is required.

Scopes: See above on Marine-proofing.

Scope mounting systems: The Picatinny rail system is the standard. All other optical equipment is designed to use a Pic rail so Pic rails are here to stay.

Titanium: weight savings have not proved to be worth the increased cost of raw material and the increased machining costs.

Back when Jack O'Connor was beginning to write of hunting mountain sheep and other critters that required a good deal of very difficult stalking, the Mountain Rifle as it became to be known, really came into its own as a purpose-built weapon system. Actions were machined to remove any "excess" metal that was not absolutely necessary to maintain structural integrity (like the G33/40 the Nazis turned out for the Alpenkorps). Barrels were light little wands, which was fine, because they were usually only employed for one shot - maybe a quick follow-up. Stocks were pretty minimal and made of the strongest and lightest wood available - maple and myrtle being popular, but mostly dense walnut. This was the heyday of Al Beisen, Dale Goins, and artists of that style and time. BUT, mountain rifles were never intended to be extremely precise, sustained-fire weapon systems.

Mel Forbes of Ultra Light Arms seems to have hit on a winning combination. Mel makes actions that are virtual M700 clones, but scaled to the family of cartridges that will be chambered in them. He also uses lightweight components wherever possible. Still, I would not say the military needs to place a huge order with ULA - I do not think they would adequately address the majority of military mission needs.

What might work is an action that consists of a steel cylinder in which the bolt will travel and to which the barrel will be mounted. That cylinder could be secured in an alloy action sleeve that would feature an integral scope ring rail on top and recoil lugs and so forth on bottom. In other words, something like a Stolle action as made and marketed by Kelbly's. To that could be mounted a lightweight barrel like an ABS or Lothar Walther's new sleeved barrels (22 inches would suffice - shorter if a can is to be used). A DBM system like any currently on the market as most are alloy, and drop it in a McMillan Edge or Manners carbon fiber stock.

Making a lightweight rifle isn't the problem - making a lightweight rifle tough enough for deployment in a combat zone, seems to be the problem.

Just a few observations and opinions to contribute to the dialogue.
 
#4
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

hah, sorry for the quip. i crack myself up sometimes.

i also wish there were more compact scopes like the NXS 2.5-10
i also know that im glad i have left mounted flush cups to carry more comfortably
i also am not a solider. so tactical bench rest is about right for me because of range rules.
i also, in hindsight, would rather have built a heavy 260 for range time, and have a lighter shorter 308 for whatever wildnerness excursion i would come across in the future.

oh well, when theres a will theres a way!
 
#5
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

A few years ago I was at a manufacturers facility that everybody on this site is very fond of and while getting the gun vault run down I picked up an odd colored action.

I was amazed at how light it was and asked a few questions, but in the end I was told that it was manufactured out of Titanium and that the actions that they tried to produce did not shoot as consistently or as accurately as their standard steel actions.

Maybe there are manufacturing and performance reasons that most of us are unaware of with going the Ti route for super light components.

Brian
 
#6
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

I agree; 99% of the guns on this website are too heavy. The stock and the barrel are were most of the weight can be saved. Give me a McMillian edge HTG w/ a 20" light palma barrel chambered in anything other than .308.
 
#7
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 051F</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.goldsgym.com/</div></div>

My thoughts exactly. I'm sure the SAW gunners would love to hear the snipers complain about the weight of their rifle.
smile.gif


Seriously, though, we need to get the troops the lightest and BEST equipment for the job, however, more focus needs to be placed on physical fitness, as well. Apart from the Marines the services do an appalling bad job of promoting physical fitness and good diet. Anyone who's ever set foot in a CENTCOM DFAC can attest to the latter. And high jumpers, arm circles and slow jogs are not the answer.

Not disagreeing that the weight the troops are carrying might need to be reduced, just pointing out that losing 10 lbs from the waist line will go a long way, as well. Some proper core strengthening exercises would do wonders to prevent lower back problems, too.
 
#8
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mammal</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 051F</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.goldsgym.com/</div></div>

My thoughts exactly. I'm sure the SAW gunners would love to hear the snipers complain about the weight of their rifle.
smile.gif


Seriously, though, we need to get the troops the lightest and BEST equipment for the job, however, more focus needs to be placed on physical fitness, as well. Apart from the Marines the services do an appalling bad job of promoting physical fitness and good diet. Anyone who's ever set foot in a CENTCOM DFAC can attest to the latter. And high jumpers, arm circles and slow jogs are not the answer.

Not disagreeing that the weight the troops are carrying might need to be reduced, just pointing out that losing 10 lbs from the waist line will go a long way, as well. Some proper core strengthening exercises would do wonders to prevent lower back problems, too.
</div></div>

1229515608769.jpg


My cousin is a SAW Gunner in the USAF Security Forces. He's only bitched to me ONCE about the weight of his weapon. Mostly it's more about all the extra ammo that's the killer.
 
#9
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mammal</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 051F</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.goldsgym.com/</div></div>

My thoughts exactly. I'm sure the SAW gunners would love to hear the snipers complain about the weight of their rifle.
smile.gif


Seriously, though, we need to get the troops the lightest and BEST equipment for the job, however, more focus needs to be placed on physical fitness, as well. Apart from the Marines the services do an appalling bad job of promoting physical fitness and good diet. Anyone who's ever set foot in a CENTCOM DFAC can attest to the latter. And high jumpers, arm circles and slow jogs are not the answer.

Not disagreeing that the weight the troops are carrying might need to be reduced, just pointing out that losing 10 lbs from the waist line will go a long way, as well. Some proper core strengthening exercises would do wonders to prevent lower back problems, too.
</div></div>

couldnt agree with this more. Although i do believe that the load out we carry should be a little lighter given our mission parameters sometimes, i still dont mind the weight of the 40. Its all purpose built and it wasnt built for benchrest shooting. But i will bitch to a SAW gunner all day and not think twice, i guarentee i have carried far heavier loads than a saw and 600 rds. But what was said about stuff being "Marine Proof" is true as hell. Sometimes we break stuff just to see if we can, i know not the best logic, but hey its not mine and im not paying for it. I think the weight issue would be solved by developing lighter body armor, lighter radios and batteries. Or batteries with a doubled life span. There are ways to cut weight and i dont think doing it on a purpose built weapon are the way to go. Notice i have said nothing about the precision rifles on this site, yes some are overly heavy, but a true sniper rifle is purpose built and the weight is there for a reason.
 
#10
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

The Brits have been lugging the AI rifles around the big sand box also. Those AI rifles are not known to be light that's for sure.
 
#11
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

Looking at the combat load out as an engineer who has led the development of some fun systems in Iraq and Afghan I think a lot can be done in the are of power sources other than just batteries. Too many systems need different short lived batteries, and there is equipment being added everyday with different batteries.

Free advice and maybe worth half of what was paid,
 
#13
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

That article has absolutely nothing to do with the weight of weapons systems and everything to do with BS that the Army thinks are "requirements" like DAPS.

If the Army had never added all of the extra stuff to the original interceptor vest they wouldn't need to be looking at a "lightweight plate carrier" because it wasn't that heavy to begin with.

The problems arose when some idiot thought that adding a bunch of pieces to the vest was a good idea, then some other idiot thought that mandating the use of the extra pieces was an even better idea.

IMO, as somebody who has worn an interceptor, IOTV, and plate carrier in the box.
 
#14
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

Ahhh the advantage of having served in a poor army. Not a lot of gear, so not a lot of extra crap to carry. We didn't have vests at all, and the only thing battery powered in the whole section was the PRC77 (figures I always ended up carrying that or the LAR (SAW))
 
#16
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TomS308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was reading this article and started thinking about todays Sniper Rifles.. There not very practical.. Sure there wonderfully accurate.. but there to God Dam Heavy.

They may be fine if there transported in a vehicle, and only carried a short distance to a buildings upper floor window, or roof top for example. But i doubt any one here would want to lug one around on a 10 to 14 hour patrol in the rugged mountains of Afghanistan. I dont think Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock would have wanted to lug around a heavy rifle in the jungles of Vietnam for weeks at a time. I remember reading the Marines were complaining about the weight of there M40A3`s. People are designing these rifles without regard for the soldiers who have to carry them.

I think manufactures need to start designing lighter weight rifles, with input from actual Snipers. Use Titanium for actions, scope mounts, bottom metal, or other strong light weight materials. McMillan at one time made Titanium rifle barrels. Does a Barrel really need so heavy.. i think barrels could be a lighter contour with out sacrificing accuracy. Stocks dont need to be so heavy and bulky. I think the M40A1 stock is closer to being ideal, or a classic sporter rifle stock made for heavy duty use, with a slightly wider forend for heavy barrels. Combine that stock with a Remington Titanium Receiver.. Titanium or aluminum scope mounts and bottom metal. A lighter weight barrel or fluted barrel. A 308 barrel doesnt need to be over 24" long. Todays heavy rifles i see being built here are closer to being Tactical bench rest guns then carry Sniper Rifles. I think i`d rather carry a accurized Rem. LTR than a 16.5 pound M40A3 if i was deployed in Afghanishan.

Scopes are getting to long, heavy, and bulky too. Turrets stick out way to far on Leupold Mark4`s and some other scopes. Todays scope mounts are very strong.. But there only held on with 4 dinky little 6-48 ot 8-40 screws.. There has to be a better, stronger way.. An integral base with the receiver would be ideal, but also costly. Dovetails like on CZ`s, Sako sporters and TRG`s are excellent, and get away from 4 tiny screws. The latest Browning X-Bolt uses Talley Rings with 4 screws per base, one on each corner. Can that be adopted for a Rem 700.. Has any one tried silver soldering the picatinny base to the receiver ?

Back in the late 1980`s, and 1990`s.. Light Weight hunting rifle were the trend.. They called them Mountain Rifles. I think we need to come out with Mountain Sniper Rifles now.

Here is the article i spoke of at the beginning of this post.. Title.. Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll on our Combat Troops..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101717.html </div></div>

Found the solution to all your girly problems!
http://www.tampax.com/products.php?id=11

smile.gif
 
#17
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

TomS

Man you are so right! My A5308 weighs in at around 15lbs and at my age, that's a LOT of weight! I've often thought that in a few years, in combination with a chronic shoulder injury, I won't be able to hump this thing out into the field.
 
#18
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 051F</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.goldsgym.com/ </div></div>

I don't know most of the strongest guys I see in the gym can't run a half mile on the treadmill much less do a 10 mile strenuous hike at 8,000'-12,000' if someone ELSE carried their gear. Give them a 40lb pack and they wouldn't make it a half mile. Lifting heavy weights isn't going to do anything for you humping a heavy kit all day in extreme terrain.

Anyone that spends any time doing serious high elevation multi-day hiking/hunting knows that you go faster, longer, with less issues, the lighter gear you carry, no matter how good of shape you are in. That has to be good for the military as well. Even if you have perfectly conditioned soldiers if they can go longer, faster, and be less fatigued when they get there because their gear is lighter there's no downside.

Of course if there's no good way to lighten the sniper rifles and still have them perform and take abuse in all conditions at a reasonable price then that's the breaks. However, I'd be willing to bet that if you gave Mcmillan/GAP/etc. the task of putting together a lighter sniper rifle that still performed and was as durable they could do it easy and drop significant weight.

Most guys don't care about the weight because all they do is lug it from their truck to the bench.
 
#19
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

I carry an m240B around. With the thermal sight on it it is easily over 30 lbs. I carry that thing day and night and up and down hills. I'm expected to keep up with everyone else. I also carry 400 rounds of 7.62 ammo not to mention armor, secondary weapon, day pack, etc. I use to think precision rifles were heavy...not so much anymore. I'm not tootin my own horn, I'm just saying, if my skinny rear can lug that thing around then I don't see why everyone else wouldn't be able to either. I'm willing to carry heavy if it means a durable,accurate, and reliable weapon. I think most of the others would agree.
 
#20
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

I agree 100% that lighter equipment would be better. Give me the choice between an M24 and an LTR and I'll pick the LTR 10 time out of 10. Sure you can go to Gold's Gym and work out but think of how much better you would perform if you went to Gold's Gym <span style="text-decoration: underline">AND</span> had a light rifle.
If you're in shape and can lug heavy stuff around, more power to you. But making things heavy for minimal trade-offs is just plain silly.
 
#21
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TomS308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was reading this article and started thinking about todays Sniper Rifles.. There not very practical.. Sure there wonderfully accurate.. but there to God Dam Heavy.

</div></div>

They are only heavy if your a wee little man, maybe one day you will grow up to be big and strong and wont think that way anymore. Til then, maybe you should stick to BB guns.
 
#22
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ToddM</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 051F</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.goldsgym.com/ </div></div>

I don't know most of the strongest guys I see in the gym can't run a half mile on the treadmill

</div></div>

You failed to mention they cant do it after they just bench pressed 400lbs. for 4 sets of 10, deadlifted 800lbs. for 4 sets of 8 and god knows what else. You must not be a weight lifter either, Im guessing your workouts consist of an hour on the treadmill and call it a day. or a 7 mil run ect... the point is if you get one of those guys on a treadmill before they pump thier brains out, you would be surprised at the stamina.
 
#23
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hibc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
the point is if you get one of those guys on a treadmill before they pump thier brains out, you would be surprised at the stamina. </div></div>

I wouldn't. I went head to head with a friend of mine that not only was massive, but also did steroids and jogged. I mostly did hiking, baseball(third base), JuJutsu, Shotokan, and cycling at the time(200-250 miles a week). We are both about the same height, as well. We ran the track at the local high school on occasion. One of the last times we did so, I lapped him miltiple times in about 30 minutes of running, and I still could have ran more if I had the time as I wasn't pushing myself.

Today, we are both fat bastards.
wink.gif
Nowadays I'm more afraid for my knees and back than getting tired. I spend much more time lifting whiskey than lifting a pack.
 
#24
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mammal</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> .... more focus needs to be placed on physical fitness, as well.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DesertHK</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Brits have been lugging the AI rifles around the big sand box also. Those AI rifles are not known to be light that's for sure. </div></div>

+1

You may also find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yomp

That after all but one of the heavy lift Chinooks allocated to the campaign were lost when the Argentinians sank the Atlantic Converyor on the way down to the Falklands...and I think that 80lbs may have excluded weapons/ammo - i.e it was their bergens.

A favourite saying in The Royal Marines is "Train hard, fight easy!"

Aged 13, 14, 15 in Cadets we were regularly doing hill orienteering exercises over 8 to 10 miles in a day and 20 mile walks with full kit (clothing, bedding, tents, rations) in 6 "man" patrols.

True, we didn't have to carry weapons and ammo.

But I guess it is down to what your mind and body are prepared for?
 
#25
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BasraBoy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mammal</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> .... more focus needs to be placed on physical fitness, as well.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DesertHK</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Brits have been lugging the AI rifles around the big sand box also. Those AI rifles are not known to be light that's for sure. </div></div>

+1

You may also find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yomp

That after all but one of the heavy lift Chinooks allocated to the campaign were lost when the Argentinians sank the Atlantic Converyor on the way down to the Falklands...and I think that 80lbs may have excluded weapons/ammo - i.e it was their bergens.

A favourite saying in The Royal Marines is "Train hard, fight easy!"

Aged 13, 14, 15 in Cadets we were regularly doing hill orienteering exercises over 8 to 10 miles in a day and 20 mile walks with full kit (clothing, bedding, tents, rations) in 6 "man" patrols.

True, we didn't have to carry weapons and ammo.

But I guess it is down to what your mind and body are prepared for?
</div></div>

BasraBoy,

I think you hit the nail on the head with this. When I was in, I saw some skinny bastards man-up and hump just like everyone else, but they were just mentally tough. Most of the snipers that I've worked with weren't really muscle-heads, just tough guys that knew what had to get done and did it. Granted, when I was in Iraq we were in cities so there were no real long patrols, but the last thing on my mind was, "I wish this M40A3 was a little lighter."
 
#26
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

I totally agree with TomS308. Todays rifles are not only to heavy, they are also "off balance" if they are shot off hand without support or with a sling. Most of todays rifles are only designed to be shot off bipods or benchrests. What do you do if the snow depth are higher than the bipods?

I have got rid of all my heavy rifles. I now have a rule: I like to be able to hunt in the mountains with all my competition rifles. As a result most of my current rifles looks like standard varmint rifles with a max weight limit of 4.5 - 5kg.

Other shooting events with weight limits on their rifles, like metallic silhouette and moving target/fieldtarget rifles in Europe, bring creativety into rifle design. Many of the rifles I've seen could go straight into combat side by side with any formal sniper rifle with a slight modification like changing the scope.

 
#27
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

your max weight of 4.5-5 kg is 11 lbs. Thats still heavy persay. I had a Rem 700 with a shilen #7 McM A5 sniper fill BO M5 and it weighed in at 14.5 with the scope(PH 5-25) and atlas bipod. But in a combat sense the weight is put in a rifle for a reason. There are other places for combat operations to cut the weight
 
#28
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

Is this thread about what the military should do, or what the shooters in this forum should do? I thought the latter. I could careless what the military does...they can't even get the caliber right.
 
#29
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

i believe that the OP was talking about the military. But you are right we cant get the caliber right. If it were my decision, i would get rid of the gas gun piece of shit Mk11 or M110 and replace it with a 18-20 inch 308 bolt gun for urban situations and then for the longer stuff such as mountains of afghanistan i would want a 338 lapua.
 
#32
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

ill carry a heavy rifle and gear all day. its the armor that makes it annoying and akward. its always some guy driving around all day in an mrap or hmmwv with a 6hr patrol load out saying you have to look like a turtle while humpin a ruck to a hide site.
 
#33
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

some of the shit i dont mind humping to the hide, its the 8 batteries and 49 MREs and 80 bottles of water that i hate carrying. But you are correct, we wore Eagle plate carriers and had a pretty even distribution of load out between us so the 40 was the least of our worries. My point is that weight can be saved, standardize radio batteries, make radios that are smaller and have a greater performance, design some lighter gear. We would always strip down to the bare minimums plus a few extra mags but that was it. Our rucks still tipped the scale at around 90lbs a piece
 
#34
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

There's an old backpacker's saying -- "An ounce in the morning is a pound at night."

Good info I picked up from a wizened old man. I agree that the lighter the entire weight of the gear, the longer the individual can move with it. Technology is continuing to move ahead, and the requirements of military optins slow the field use of that technology by a significant bit. But I agree that the weapons system is not the place to remove the weight. Food and water are not places to reduce weight, other than excessive packaging. The CQB weapons can be lightened in some areas, grips, mounts, lighting...the parts of the weapon that do not affect the functionality of the weapon. Precision weapons should not be included in the family of CQB weapons.

Batteries and radios are heavy and have no need to be that heavy. Armor is heavy but not without benefit; if the armor could be lightened while providing the same protection, then the lighter armor should be employed.

The weight of the precision weapon, such as it is, is not that big a part of the entire load as to focus a great deal of time on that small part. Reducing the weight of other parts of the kit should result in a kit that is lighter, smaller, and allows the fighting man to be more effective on the field.
 
#36
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hibc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

You failed to mention they cant do it after they just bench pressed 400lbs. for 4 sets of 10, deadlifted 800lbs. for 4 sets of 8 and god knows what else. You must not be a weight lifter either, Im guessing your workouts consist of an hour on the treadmill and call it a day. or a 7 mil run ect... the point is if you get one of those guys on a treadmill before they pump their brains out, you would be surprised at the stamina. </div></div>

Actually my typical week consists of 3 days of lifting/running, 2-3 days of mountain/road biking, swimming, climbing, and now with elk season approaching at least 3 days a week of 10+ mile hikes from 6000-11000' with 40-50lb of gear. Yep that means pretty well every day consists of at least two of those.

When was the last time you seen a 250lb guy win the tour de france, marathon, triathlon, endurance swimming.....never because in endurance sports you can't increase your cardio and stamina enough to compensate for the extra weight of the muscle, lighter is still better.

250-300lb ripped massive mountaineers.....don't exist. Bring on the big boy heavy lifters, I'll be happy to take them on a 5000' elevation gain hike with a 50lb pack and I'll even get them the flying meat wagon on the satellite phone when they tip over. Some of the big boys are in ok shape, but for the most part few if any do any endurance training, stick some more weight on them and make them push endurance in the mountains at elevation and they drop like flies.
 
#38
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

What defines "precision"?

The problem with most of the super-duper rifles so many aspire to own or have built is WEIGHT. Weight is the price of repeatable precision. So we are told...

Best scopes in the weight dept are Leupold Mk4 4.5-14 at 20oz and the Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x at 17oz. You want 34mm tube German Glass? Expect to double almost tripple the weight.

How heavy a stock do you want? That Accuracy Intl AICS is 6lbs... Before you hang a tripod, spacers, sling etc on it.

How heavy does a barrel have to be to not walk shots?
How much fill weight does it take to balance your Mc A5 stock when that 26" .960 muzzle diameter barrel hangs there?

Really need that steel floorplate or DBM system?

Lots of precision shooters use aluminum bases and rings. Is the extra almost half pound really worth it?

How many .308s are there on this board that weigh over 18/19 pounds? Lots!

Is a rifle built to that weight really tactical much less field-ready? Maybe if you are deploying from some Holiday Rambler motorhome and have some bikini clad babe roll your rifle over to the line using a modified golfbag stroller; but if you are carrying other gear?

How vital is it to deploy with a rifle that will thread a button at 1000yds versus one that will hold .75moa at same distance?

Does barrel weight influence bullet trajectory?
How many rounds you gonna fire from your firing position/hide anyways?

How much more identifiable as priority target is a guy carrying a outfitted to the max sniper rifle to the casual enemy observer in the field? Sure, the sniper doesn't get seen/made, but there is the real world and modern battlefield.

So much of shooting is mental confidence.
Maybe the ticket is to train on the heavy gear to build confidence in making/calling shots and then move to a lighter platform which tops out at 12lbs???

Sniping was traditionally about the shooter not the gear.

Contemporary sniping seems fully absorbed with the one shot, one kill guy behind the scope shooting from fantastic distance thing. How much more can a man do with a rifle if he has the capability to make those long shots but also take fast reaction shots on moving targets of opportunity?

Ever swing a 19lb rifle on a mover, from standing? Unless you are wearing a shooting jacket and cuffsling, good luck! But a hasty sling on a 12lb rifle has the quick reaction potential the other lacks.

How many shots it take to heat that barrel up so it walks?

I'm thinking if your scope is all about fast reaction, IE no parallax adj and light, you are not going to notice how poor the glass is compared to S&B or March. Are we trying to thread a button or be inside MOA? As a man's chest measures about 18"x24" being able to hit 1 moa puts you effective at 1800yds? 900yds if you figure 1moa either way from crosshair placement???

If you can hit a 9x12 plate at distance with a sporting rifle, (and why not if it is built of best components?), what more do you really "need" if you aren't threading that buttonhole?
 
#39
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

All I know is that I like my new barrel much better than the old 28" heavy varmint #8 contour,too heavy for me.I put a shorter 26" Tubb contour barrel on my MAK 6x47L this time around and the gun balances nearly perfectly now and handles great in offhand.

I'm a convert now in the "shorter and lighter" mind set.

If I do a 7mm in the future it will be a 21-23" Tubb contour.

Steve
 
#40
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

Interesting thread.
My 20" Armalite AR10T, Magpul PRS stock, stainless barrel, lightweight rail, Harris bipod, Millet TRS-1 scope(a little on the heavy side)and a loaded 20rnd mag weighs in at 16lbs. Looking at that package, considering all the features, I'm not sure where you'd save a lot of weight. It's probably close to typical for a SA sniper weapon, effective to say 800m. You could:
Flute the barrel.
Lighter optic by a pound or so
An A2 stock would be a little lighter, but with no adjustable features.
Maybe get the rifle down to 14lbs. That's also with no can.
The receivers are aluminum.
Titanium bolts don't work. There's no mass to them and Ti is the wrong material for that app.
The rail is solid and modular...not sure how important that is for a sniper rifle, but it doesn't weigh anything more than plastic handguards. The bipod has to mount to something reliable.
My 16" Ar10 SASS rfle with a VLTOR Emod stock instead of the PRS, same scope, ammo, rail (mid length instead of rifle), bipod, and a Vortex FH weighs 14lbs. Most of that 2# delta is the 4" of stainless barrel.
My CQB rifle is a 16" mid length CMMG with a DD Omega rail, an Aimpoint M3 and a VLTOR stock. With a loaded mag it weighs in right at 6lbs. Thing's a toy, but with a small 4x scope it will pop a mellon at 300m.

I have no dog in this fight except to say war is hell. I just thought I'd offer some references since I'm sitting here doing nothing.
cool.gif
 
#41
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How vital is it to deploy with a rifle that will thread a button at 1000yds versus one that will hold .75moa at same distance?</div></div>.1 or .2 MOA @ 1000m = 1"-2". .75MOA @ 1000m is more like 8". In a <span style="font-style: italic">perfect</span> environment, that can clearly be a miss regardless of the shooter. I don't think accuracy should ever be a compromise, especially when the target can shoot back.
JMO
 
#42
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

The 1,000 yard combat shot is FAR from routine.

System accuracy and precision potential is moot if the Soldier can't get to where he can take the shot.

If it's too heavy to hunt with it's probably too heavy to snipe with.
 
#43
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 1,000 yard combat shot is FAR from routine.

System accuracy and precision potential is moot if the Soldier can't get to where he can take the shot. </div></div>Sure. Well, it's not like a sniper runs from the truck to his hide, takes the shot, and leaves...sometimes these things are days (or more) in the making. I don't think the weight of his rifle is going to determin weather or not he gets to his spot. I just know when he gets there, he has one single objective. To make a critical shot.
 
#44
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

Tom is right; these rigs are too damned heavy. I'm 5'10" 185lbs and visit the gym 4 days a week so the www.goldsgym.com thingy does not apply.

During high school in the late 70's my shooting mentor had a collection of 600 guns, handloaded all ammo and had a full size Metallic Silhouette range. We loaded ammo and shot every weekend. The heaviest thing I remember shooting regularly, that was not a prone or bench target rifle, was the Varmint Specials by Remington and Ruger. With scopes, I believe they weighed around 12 lbs and they were heavy. A few years ago I returned to the sport, having quit in college, to find these freakin' heavy ass so-called sniper rifles with heavy ass scopes and AR15 lookin' magazines swinging from the trigger guard. And I bought one, succumbing to the Super Size Me mentality.

All this is just tacticool; shit to spend money on while looking cool and tough while companies that didn't exist 30 years ago get very rich making oversized and over-priced scope rings, DBMs, barrels and stocks. Vendors are loving it.

Folks, us, with money to spend feed the mill by participating in the consumerism of sport tactical by buying all this heavy over-built stuff. Match organizers are encouraged by us to design courses of fire requiring large sums of ammo requiring big guns with big barrels with big magazines and big scopes with big knobs.

Physical fitness cannot be ignored. I read several eye-witness accounts in the form of books about Operation Anaconda. A Chinook and its team were shot up and stranded on a mountain close to where the timber line might have been in terms of elevation and it was early Spring so there was snow on the ground, some of it deep. The QRF landed in the wrong place, at a lower elevation, too far from the trapped guys to do any immediate good. While the enemy ran around all over the mountain shooting at us, the QRF experienced extreme difficulty negotiating the terrain, shedding gear as they trudged their way upward. Point is two things: toting too much heavy stuff, and not being acclimated to the environment, read out of shape. I had this experience myself recently mountain biking in Durango. It wasn't the boys' fault, by the way.

For a while now I've been scheming about replacing my heavy bolt gun with an upper in 6AR or Grendel to match up to a standard AR15 lower using alloy mounts etc.

Tom is right; our rigs are unnecessarily heavy. As for the weight of special operators' weapons; I expect the mission dictates the configuration. Let's pray those we pay to provide reliable tools provide them.

For us pretenders, we should compromise; get in shape and stop feeding the mill.
 
#45
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: steelcomp</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How vital is it to deploy with a rifle that will thread a button at 1000yds versus one that will hold .75moa at same distance?</div></div>.1 or .2 MOA @ 1000m = 1"-2". .75MOA @ 1000m is more like 8". In a <span style="font-style: italic">perfect</span> environment, that can clearly be a miss regardless of the shooter. I don't think accuracy should ever be a compromise, especially when the target can shoot back.
JMO </div></div>


Are we talking anti-sniper, sniper stuff here? I mean, if you are shooting at center mass of a soldier, a tag is as good as a hit "on target". Kind of is like horseshoes. 175gr bullet impacting at 1000fps anywhere in chest region makes you a casualty.

Not trying to hit the button, you are shooting to impact your target. A hit anywhere within 9" either side of center-mass is still a disabling blow.

Accuracy is not compromised by using a .75moa rifle rather than a .35moa rifle. What happens is your ability to use the weapon offhand and in fast response increases.

Other factor not discussed is Bullet Velocity. Look at the .338 Whisper for a precision round that initiates at low velocity but still has great accuracy.

One argument for the heavy rifle is gotta have weight to handle the .338 Lapua, Edge, Chey-Tac etc. Actually, what should be even better than those heavies, UNLESS one selected target must be hit at 1700yds etc, is a .338 short magnum or .338/284win. Shooting that .300gr SMK or other accuracy bullet like Lapua at 2600-2700 fps is going to deliver more hits and be more field-worthy.

Want to make an AR-10T field-worthy? Lose that magpul stock and heavy scope. Go with a JP Entps float tube. Use a 10T or lighter profile barrel WITH a short OAL chamber. (Are you really ever going to shoot ball ammo in your 10T?)

Why presume to always even need a scope? Look at an AR-10T setup as an A2 using a White Oak Precision sight system. The 10 A2 has a lower profile carry handle so you can use a scope on a ch mount pretty easily. Who needs a scope if you are inside 600yds?

Just because you might hit at distance, is it smart not to get closer? Can you outrun mortar, artillery, or heavy machinegun fire? Air support? The closer you are the less your enemy is able to rain hell down on you without catching a dose themselves....

A 24" standard 10T in above configuration with 20rd mag, loaded, weighs about 12.5lbs. Want to get better precision? Look at the Geissele trigger.

Want lighter weight? Look at a varmint AR-15 upper with 1:7 twist barrel and shoot the heaviest mag-length match bullets, or single load vld and SMK 80 or bergers... Look at an A2 from Whiteoakprecision and replace the service rifle float tube with something lighter. BINGO! Go with a Pac-Nor or Krieger and get that .5moa or .4moa performance at about 10lbs w/mag...

In the real world, there are few 800yd shots ever going to present themselves. Being able to put fire on something that jumps up and runs across the road at 400yds and hitting it is the art of the rifle...
 
#46
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

ToddM, you're confusing strength training with body building. No one said lifting weights meant you have to be 250+ with poor cardio. Since you're a lifter I'm sure you'll agree that muscle growth has a lot to do with diet, so just lifting won't make you bulky and un-athletic. It's possible to develop strength without adding large amounts of muscle to one's frame. Even top ultramarathoners lift. The key is to develop usable, functional strength. The Marines are starting to do this. Other services mostly suck...unless you're a SOF-type.
 
#48
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

I started to address the points in this thread, then I realized it would be a waste of time. The boys who do this for real know what they need. I will say that I never thought my M40A1 as "too heavy". I was also glad for the "built like a tank" design a time or two when I was taking the unintended fast route down the side of a mountain.
 
#49
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I started to address the points in this thread, then I realized it would be a waste of time. The boys who do this for real know what they need. I will say that I never thought my M40A1 as "too heavy". I was also glad for the "built like a tank" design a time or two when I was taking the unintended fast route down the side of a mountain. </div></div>

I've been waiting for someone that knows to respond.

Sorry if I missed someone.
 
#50
Re: Todays Rifles are to Heavy and Bulky

Unless you're ripped, you can lose two pounds a week just by cutting a couple of beers out every night and not eating desert. Or you can spend a month and a grand thinking about how to make your rifle lighter. For most folks, it ain't your gear that's the problem. It's your ass. There's no point having a 6 pound rifle if you're 50 pounds overweight. Or even 10 pounds overweight.

You can drop your money on your gear or you can drop your money on a new set of running shoes. Get the shoes. It's a pretty rare situation in life where it's the machine that needs to be improved, rather than the operator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Lightweight, heavy cal hunting rifle thoughts?
Replies
36
Views
920
surgeon260
surgeon260
S
Savage 3 year update
Replies
1
Views
318
Slides
Slides
A
Options for balancing rifle.
Replies
5
Views
265
Taylorbok
Taylorbok
D0ntTr3@d0nM3
Howa 1500 22" Heavy Bull Barrel SA .308
Replies
36
Views
2K
308pirate
308pirate
C
?? advice on selecting 300 prc rifle ??
Replies
12
Views
612
cellular
C
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts