It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The XM3 Sniper Rifle.

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 02:31 PM

Iron Brigade Armory, under contract to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA], developed and built the XM-3 to incorporate the best available technology into a sniper weapon system that addresses current operational concerns on size, weight, target detection, sound suppression, accuracy, range, day/night operations and the use of titanium. The XM-3 has established the baseline from which DARPA will identify investment areas where new technologies are needed to provide snipers and riflemen the greatest possible advantage on tomorrow's battlefield.

CALIBER : .308 Winchester / 7.62MM
Chambered for Lake City 175 Gr. and/or Black Hills 175 Grain Match
Barrel: 18.5” Hart 416R Stainless Steel (Mil-Gauged)
Rifling : 1:10 RH Twist w/ 6 Grooves
Magazine : Internal / Welded 5 Rd. Capacity Badger DM Trigger Guard Optional
Muzzle velocity : 2530 FPS w/ Suppressor and Lake City 175 Gr.
2450 FPS w/ Suppressor and Black Hills 175 Gr.
Maximum effective range : 1000 yards
Length 40.50” without suppressor
46.25” with suppressor
Day Optic Sight : Nightforce NXS 3.5-15x50 Illuminated Mildot
2lbs. 3oz (with rings)
NIGHT VISION SIGHT: AN/PVS-22 Universal Night Sight (UNS)
Combat Weight :
Complete with sling,
bipod, ammunition
Day operations: 16lbs
Night operations: 18lbs

So the U.S. Army is getting the semiauto M110 rifle while the U.S. Marine Corps wants the bolt action XM3. This rifle is to replace the older rifles, I don't know if its going to replace the M40a3 since its just barely few years old. Jeez look at the price on this new rifle.

posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 02:38 PM
For that price I think Ill stick with the Remington700 PS

$20k is absolutely crazy for a bolt auction rifle althoe if I were rich I would prob buy it

posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 04:23 PM
Thats going to take some serious skills sniping from a boat at targets kilometers away.

posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 09:58 AM
You have got to be kidding me! is the USMC run by rich upper class twits?
An 18.5" barrel and STILL chambered in 7.62mm for 20 grand??? This is bull#, what about a longer (24"?) barrel, .338 round and say oohh... 10 to 15 thousand cheaper. Better still just buy an updated 7.62 rifle for "short" range work and standardize for 700-1000 yards up on a .50cal. Which would still work out less than this obscene price tag. The US tax payer gets bent over the back of the lounge again it seems.


posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 10:15 AM
That is one HELL of a lot of money for what is essentially still a bolt action 7.62mm sniper rifle. Yes you can stick a few extras on it, but you could do the same if you threaded and re-balance the barrel and slapped a few rails on any decent sniper rifle!

At the end of the day it still fires 7.62mm rounds. I believe that the current range of sniper rifles available already take this cartridge to the limits of its' performance for a fraction of the price. If the USMC want to extend the snipers capability, have them look at rounds like the .338 Lapua Magnum, and developing compact and manouverable platforms to launch it.

This weapon will add nothing significant to the snipers armoury apart from a big bill.

posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 12:29 PM
Ah, a fine example of how the black military gets its funding. Do any of you really believe the military is spending all that cash on what is essentially a pimped up bolt-action rifle? Just like money that was spent on $10,000 toilet seats, that cash is going into black projects that we'll hopefully never get to see.

posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 04:36 PM

Originally posted by danwild6
Ah, a fine example of how the black military gets its funding. Do any of you really believe the military is spending all that cash on what is essentially a pimped up bolt-action rifle? Just like money that was spent on $10,000 toilet seats, that cash is going into black projects that we'll hopefully never get to see.

This is what I was thinking.. More funding for DARPA or some black budget projects.

posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 06:10 PM
base rifle is 8,295 in steel 8,995 in Ti no optics

UNS optics plus suppressor adds another 10k roughly.

nothing hidden really in the above nightvision true sight optics are expensive and the rifle cost is a little high but more then likely due to limited run prototyping costs.

posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:50 AM
I am very interested to know exactly what this new system delivers that justifies a basic platform that costs 3 times as much as an M40A3 which costs $3400 US. The M40A3 costs $12000 US fully kitted, which is still just over half the price of the XM3.

With M118LR ammo as used by US snipers, the M40A3 will shoot stupidly small groups right out to 1000m. It weighs about the same as this new weapon. It is 4" longer than the XM3, but has a 24" barrel which increases muzzle velocity and therefore impact energy at longer ranges. It is field reliable and easily transportable.

Add to this the training/spares/accessory costs of a new weapons system and the money starts to get a bit stupid.

Where are the advantages?

posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:38 AM

Originally posted by PaddyInf
Where are the advantages?

There doesn't need to be any major advantages if any when we take into account the Military Industrial Complex, a new rifle might not be needed but spending a whole lot of cash is going to fill the pockets of someone(s).

posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 08:25 AM
Just a note...

The M40a1, predecessor to the current USMC M40A3, WILL make very accurate shots out to 1500 meters, even though the MAX effective range is listed at 1K..

It is almost NEVER the rifle that makes the difference, it is the shooter..

A good sniper is dangerous at 1K with any major caliber rifle..


posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 08:41 AM
Just my opinion...Who is the manufacturer of this weapon? IBA! Who owns IBA? a retired Marine! If I had to guess, this Marine and some people who decide $ allocation are friends, or struck a deal. Pockets are filling up...thats all...

Could some of this money be going to Black operations, sure. I just have a feeling most of it's going to bank accounts...unfortunatly not mine..

posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 11:19 PM
With the $2 Trillion lost in the Pentagon I am not surprised by the price tag. Adding a about $10 g's more for lets say 10,000 guns to be used on some black projects and spread that out to all the other stuff we know about I would assume you will be seeing many more "Special" weaponry coming out of the woodworks shortly.

posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 09:33 AM
What really peeves me is that these jerks think they can fool the average target shooter by claiming they can get groupings the same or better with match grade 175gr ammo fired from an 18.5' barrell as with any other target/sniper rifle available. This is crap, 18.5' is sub optimal for a 7.62mm,. Actually on the calibre subject, why are they not using match grade .308 instead?

Add to this what is so good or different about the Nightforce NXS 3.5-15x50 Illuminated Mildot sight on this rifle as opposed to any other sight or rifle combination of simmilar specification? Ohh wait I forgot, they used the magic word"Titanium". And take a close look at the photo, it uses a standard Harris type bipod not some super duper magnetic bearing gyro stabillized gizmo.

This contract is a sham that should be slapped hard in the face of whichever pork barrelling congressman/lobbyist group thought this one up.


posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:37 PM
To all of you that scoff at the cost.....most of that "cost" is the night vision AN/PVS-22, and since most of the rifle is made from lighter, stronger, and unfortunately more costly material....the end result is an awesome rifle capable of sub-moa accuracy consistantly. As for all the conspiracy idiots, read more books and post less sound like fools. Robertfenix seems to know what he's talking about, that rest of you semper FOOLS need do more research into what is current and actually works.

posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:44 PM
TO: thebozeian,

you are a fool.....stuck in the past, without any background in metals, ballistics, or experience. Do all of us a favor and shut your computer off.

posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 04:52 PM
xm3user, and what are your credentials that make you smarter than everyone else who has posted valid and well constructed OPINIONS.

I just think it's a lot of talk for a new guy who hasn't established himself as anything on the boards. Now if you designed the thing and manufactured it, that might be a little different, that makes you the number one expert on it.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 03:07 AM

Care to post your credentials on the board? Care to give examples of what this weapon achieves over and above the previous breed of sniper weapons? You state sub MOA accuracy, but that should be expected with any sniper level firearm. Hell, the L96 that we use over here shoots at less than .75MOA with service standard ammo. I have seen it shoot regular sub .5 MOA groups all day with match ammo. Bear in mind that this weapon has been in service for over 20 years and is by no means state of the art. It is howvever supremely efficient and reliable, and can take a severe beating.

Just by sticking your user name as xm3user doesn't make you an expert on a weapon system. Please, prove me wrong by posting something useful.

posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 10:42 AM

Same question popped into my mind, even our Tak85s can go sub moa all day long. And those bastards are modified from '91 Mosin-Nagants, yes that's 1891... and they shoot the equally venerable 7.62x54R

You can get a Sako TRG in .338 Lapua magnum with Zeiss optics (that provenly beat the nightforce in quality) for that price and we'll slap a Tikka T3 tactical for the short range job, still below the 20k price tag...

posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 02:08 PM
I had no idea how sensitive you brits are. Calm down guys, wouldn't want you to wet your knickers.

I didn't log on to berate any other countries firearms, as there are many fine firearms still in use, and I'm not here to debate US rifles over anyone else's. As for my credentials, it really doesn't matter, because I could say anything about myself and you couldn't disprove it....

I can say this, with Blackhills 168gr. BTHP, the round from an XM-3 goes subsonic at 1,240 yards (asl), so for all of you that know ballistics, that means 173gr. and 175gr. M118 would travel farther consistently, therefore the data posted here for the XM-3's max range is conservative. I can also say that the rifles have tested by and are currently used by both the West and East coast USMC scout sniper teams deployed, NSW, and the units at Bragg. It is shorter and lighter than the current U.S. SWS's which was the driving force for DARPA to fund it, and there are several variants that obviously none of you have any information on, and unfortunately I can't comment about, but you can use your imagination.

My dog in this fight is about the everyone's issue with the cost of the rifle. If you itemize everything that comes with it, to include the manhours at the armory, where the weapons is entriely built from scratch(not pieced together like a "kit-gun") to included a life maintenance package and support for any end-user deplyed world-wide, I'd say it's a hell of a good gun.

And since Sako rifles, Mosin-Nagants, and 7.62x54R don't carry NSN's, they are obliviously not a good choice for the U.S. pax-payer.

Take a good look at the picture provided by "delta boy", and notice how the extended bolt knob, UNS mount, trigger guard and rail although not obvious necesities all are custom, meaning fitted, machined, parkerized, painted. To the casual eye, it means nothing, but again to end user, it is a durable, accurate weapon platform that takes the old M40 technology to the next level.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in