Don’t SASS me
Rumor has it that the venerable M24 sniper system used by the US military is on its way out. The military think tanks have decided that the military should use a Semi Automatic Sniper System (SASS) instead of a bolt action operating system and have begun accepting bids. The military has specified that the semi-automatic contenders fire the equally venerable 7.62 Nato (308 Winchester) but some speculate that the military is not opposed to the 300 Winmag (though most semi-autos on the market can’t chamber the large shell because the actions would need to be elongated significantly) or the 300 Remington Short Action Ultra Mag (which, though shorter, is comparable to the 300 WinMag because the case is wider and holds more powder than other rounds with cases of comparable length). These two rounds would increase the effective range of a military sniper from 1,000 yards to 1,500 yards. Armalite has started making their AR10 in 300 RSUAM.
The advantages of a semi-automatic are numerous, but here are few: quick follow up shots, quicker multi-target capabilities, and (perhaps most important) follow up shots can be taken without operating the bolt. The latter is particularly useful as a marksman can give his position away by manually operating a bolt as this requires the marksman to move his arm. Such movement could prove fatal for the sniper if it gives away his position.
Contenders for the project would likely be as follows:
DPMS long range series of rifles
The obvious advantage of this rifle is that it is based on the AR15 operating system and troops would be familiar with it.
Same advantage as the DPMS. Additionally, this is a 300 RSUAM version, though 308 Win is available.
The M1A Tactical:
An excellent reliable weapon and the military has thousands of M1s stored in mothballs somewhere. Cost could potentially be less.
Update: Edited to correct poor wording on my part. Details in comments thanks to Pawpaw.
May 18th, 2005 at 10:19 am
I thought i had read that semi-auto siper rifles were less accurate than their bolt action counter parts.
It was a link from the coridte carnivial this last friday, if i remember correctly.
Is that ture? And if they are less accurate, are they less accurate enough to matter.
May 18th, 2005 at 10:23 am
That is generally true as a rifle with fewer moving parts is typically more accurate than one with more moving parts. However, semi-autos these days are so finely tuned that they shoot as accurately as many bolt guns. A recent Chuck Taylor match was won with an FN-FAL, the only semi in the group. Plus, a review I read on the AR-10 showed that the author repeatedly hit 1/2 MOA groups.
May 18th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
You say that: “which, though shorter, is comparable to the 300 WinMag because the case is wider and holds more powder”
Be careful, you are falling into a common trap. The 300 Win Mag will hold 72 grains of H4350, a common powder for loading that round. The 300 RSAUM will only hold 65.5 grains of the same H4350. What makes the new short action cartridges so interesting is that the chambers are built to specs that make the best use of the available space. Most of them manage to equal the ballistics of the parent cartridge with less powder.
May 18th, 2005 at 2:11 pm
Ooops. Poor wording on my part. I meant more powder comapared to a round of comparable length.
May 18th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
You know, that M1A Tactical looks a whole lot like the even-more-venerable-than-the-M24 M21, except I think the M21 retained the iron sights and the M1A has a fancy new more adjustable stock.
And I’m not sure if they still make it, but don’t forget the PSG-1.
May 18th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
Do any of them have “Have a Nice Day” inscribed on the muzzle?
If not, it should be in the gov’t specs!
May 18th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Having taught both of these weapons systems recently to army shooters here is my 2 cents worth:
1. 7.62X54 is the way to go. It’s in the supply chain. The 118LR with a 175 gr Sierra is more than enough bullet. Anything over 1500 yards is far enough out to call the Air Force…or shoot with a .50 cal.
2. The M24 Bolt gun is a REALLY GREAT gun. Easier to shoot and maintain than the M21. If we are insistent on dropping it, the AR10 weapon is easier to shoot and nearly as easy to maintain, plus it echos the M16 design, which IMHO, is the design that needs to be continued. (XM8 fixes everything NOT wrong with the M16..)
3.1/2 MOA is closer than most shooters are going to hold. It’s enough.
I would enthusiastically support adoption of the AR10 design shooting M852 and M118LR. IMHO it would blend in faster, train and maintain better, and is all the gun the snipers or SDM needs.
May 20th, 2005 at 10:18 am
7.62×54? Do you mean 7.62×51 NATO? 7.62x54R is the wonderful commie rifle cartridge. Granted, I’d take a .30-06 instead, but you can’t beat a $100 mosin shooting $.07 ammo at about MOA. Anyway… off topic.
Of course, another problem with the semi-auto is brass goes flinging out with each shot. So, whereas you don’t have to move your arm to reload, you don’t have any control over how carefully or when you work the action. Yes, you can follow up quickly, but you lose the ability to not leave brass behind and not fling shiny objects into the air, potentially revealing your position. Also, accurate rifles have to be made to fine tolerances. Fine tolerances don’t like dirt/grime/whatever. Granted, it’s not a standard battle/assault rifle so it could be kept cleaner, but making it to tolerances that allow for bolt-action like accuracy will make it less reliable in less than ideal conditions.
Anyway… just my unqualified ramblings.
May 20th, 2005 at 10:22 am
I’ve always heard the 7.62X51 referred to as 7.62 Nato.
May 20th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Valid arguments on both sides v. rifles and semi-autos. I would expect the Gov’mint would keep both in the pipe for different roles.
Sniping from the inside of a room on the 4th floor in a urban environment surrounded by security would require a different weapon than what was needed for crawling thru the weeds in hostile territory to make a body shot at 1000 yards.
May 21st, 2005 at 11:20 am
Why is it that all the new rounds these days have such boring names. I mean, “RSAUM”? Same for the new Winchesters, Rugers, and Hornadys. Yeah, they want their brand name on the cartridge designation, but I think their marketing people could come up with something a little more catchy than “short magnum” or “short action ultra magnum”. It’s not as if I expect a big American company to do use a name like the .240 Page Super Pooper, or the Poacher’s Pet, but these cartridge names which are devoid of anything non-descriptive are getting pretty boring.
May 22nd, 2005 at 5:09 pm
I would think the recoil from a .300 Win Mag cartridge would negate the speed advantages of a semi-automatic action.
So cost wise it makes the most sense to use existing stocks of M-14 rifles, rebuilt to the new standards. I believe this is already the practice with Stryker Brigades, issuing one scoped M-14 to every infantry squad.
The Styker deployment of the M-14 is not the same as replacing the bolt-action M-24 sniper rifle. Are you sure the M-24 is being replaced with a semi-auto as opposed to just supplemented with a semi-auto?
May 22nd, 2005 at 6:09 pm
Could just be supplemental but accounts i’ve read indicate replacement.