Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The XM3 Sniper Rifle.

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Yes, but was it necessary?

Does this rifle offer the Marine Corps a significant advantage in capability over that of their current system? I would say no. Cost benefit analysis often escapes the militarily minded person.

When I heard that we spent 10,000 dollars for a new bolt action sniper rifle I was upset to say the least. We have Navy Corpsman still trying to treat marine injuries with Vietnam era medical technology and the Marine Corps decides to buy another bolt action rifle.

Do you mean to tell me that the Marine Corps couldn’t have found a better and more important use for 10 grand than another bolt action rifle? Bull. This is nothing but a case of “Big Boy Toys” at the expense of the American tax payer and the average Marine who will not benefit at all from the extravagant expense paid for something that the Marines all ready have, a working bolt action sniper rifle with night vision capability.




posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Agreed. My main point is that the rifle offers no more significant tactical or operational advantages over systems already in use at a fraction of the cost.

At the end of the day we are still talking about a 7.62mm weapon. While the 7.62 has been pushed further than it was intended, it still has limitations at long range. No matter how much you spend on a weapon system, it is the ammunition that does the damage. The weapon can push the rounds to the limit of their capability, but there is still that limit. Current weapon systems in use already push 7.62 to the limits of its' useful range with sufficient accuracy and reliability.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Hot_wing: please do some research in DARPA-Defense Advanced Research and Projects Agency, and you'll see that although the rifles are costly, DARPA paid for every last one, not the Marine Corps.....thats what DARPA does----Advanced Research. And if the COMPLETE XM-3 rifle package is half the weight fully loaded than the M40 or M24 is bare....than that means the sniper team can carry more batteries, bullets, and beans----stay in the hide longer....and gather more intel without compromise which tends to keep other Marines alive. And as for the medical technology---you must be retarded....the medical teams Iraq and Afghanistan have FAR FAR better technology than Viet Nam....



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
For PaddyInf: The reason the rifle was produced in 7.62x51, is because that is the current NATO SWS in both theaters, and since there is ample data for that caliber for all grains in all conditions, that would produce the best "TEST" results for ALCON( All Concerned). As for cost.......most of it AGAIn is the night vision unit.......the collateral costs for the rifle are due to production upgrades.....like the bolt knob, rail, UNS mount, trigger guard, barrel channel, stock reinforcements, etc. I'm sure the first production guns like MP-5's and SA-80's had hefty price tags before the the common soldier got issued one.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
SPROOOX: You must be retarded or French......The reason they are shooting from a ship is not to hit targets on land.....What they will do is take an object that they know the size of, usually an object about one meter in size, or a floating target borad.....and shoot at it. This is called Unknown Distance, it helps the spotter and shooter gauge the distance to an unknown target, shoot at it, and adjust accordingly. This gives them data they use later when they get to land. I am amazed at the ignorance of most you "EXPERTS"......obviously most of you are wanna-be's or REMF's, or French.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Buddy I detest the French as much as the next American but you're not doing anyone good by adding in unnecessary insulting remarks. To be quite honest I found your posts quite informative as you seem to certainly know your stuff. However if you keep posting this way sooner or later you will get banned, and over petty stuff no less. We all appreciate your contributions to the board thus far and it would be a waste to lose an otherwise 'good' member over personal references…



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Thanks for the advice. I only became a member to dispell the crap about this weapon sysytem. I have used it, and it is effective. I have met the owner of Iron Brigade Armory as well, and firmly believe he only wants the very best for end user, and I found it insulting that many of the people posted opinions on his ethics, morals, and business practices, when they neither build, research, or work with the people in this industry or the operators that the equipment is made for. This site is about the XM-3, so lets talk about that, not the corporate military agenda or the so-called "Black" Military. As for DARPA, they fund Advance Research for all aspects of the DoD, both good programs and bad, again in order to get the best possible equipment to the end user. NASA used to be a DARPA Program, and because of the leaps made in the past 50 years, our Air Force is the finest in the world, we have better ground equipment, intel capabilities, communications, composites, fuels, medical science, and geodetic information than we ever had, all thanks to DARPA. I'll tone down the insults as I've said everything that needed to be said.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
That night vision system better shoot multiple LASERS that shoot down enemy aircraft for that price.

What's the difference between a a simple cost-effective weapon putting a bullet downrange at its limits between a high-cost high-end electronic's package?

Well the electronics bit of the weapon can just easily succumb to the environment as any other bit of electrical equipment and at what price? Yeah sure you can add extra weight and make it bulkier to make it tougher and more rudimentary, but at that point wouldn't that defeat the purpose of a sniper being a sniper?

Obviously the XM3 is still a prototype. To me it looks like another bolt-action rifle itself no better than any of the other modern bolt-actions only with a very, VERY expensive electronics complement. Saying "It's not the rifle that's expensive, it's the night vision!" To me is absurd because the complement makes the rifle expensive. So in retrospect... yeah the rifle is expensive.

As Paddyinf states, the rifle itself offers very little advance. How about creating a super silent, recoilless, high-caliber weapon instead? There's a sniper's dream!

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Shattered: Please don't say that it looks like another bolt action. Yes, you are right, but again, looks can be deceiving since the composites in the stock and bedding are very expensive, but they are extremely light and extremely strong. The rail that the scope sits on is made of a solid bar of Titanium, which costs alot, not only for the material, but also to machine and finish, and the amount of man-hours that are put into a single rifle add to it's accuracy and durability, as Quality Control is a must, and necessary at every stage of production. In an A-10 Warthog, the pilot sits an a complete tub of Titanium, which costs alot, but the rationale is that the pilot is worth the money, but you can't see that tub with the naked eye either.

As for the night vision, before a sniper takes a weapon into combat, he must zero that weapon to gain as much datat on the that weapon as he can, so he should shoot different types of ammo, at different temperatures, both day and night, rain or shine. Because of the a special tube, called a Pinnacle Tube, built inside the AN/PVS-22(UNS), when the sniper shoots the weapon without the UNS, and gets his zero, when uses the UNS at night, he doesn't need to re-zero. This saves time and allows the sniper to be far more versatile than before. If you check into all of the other NOD's on the market(like the SIMRAD,BNS,etc.), although they say they hold their zero, they in fact do not. The UNS was the that was selected and performed the best over-all, and therefore was included into this SWS.

As for the recoil you mentioned, obviously you have never fired a suppressed weapon. Most of the recoil is generated when the hot gases escape the crown, behind the bullet, and push the bullet forward and weapon back. Since the suppressor captures most of that gas, and lets it expand, there is considerably less felt recoil, which means better accuracy on follow on shots, as well as sound reduction and hiden muzzle flash.

So again, when you take all of these characteristics, and roll them into one solid package you get an awesome weapon. By the way, the XM-3 is no longer a "prototype", as it is fielded with units deployed right now, and has been in use for some time.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Then why does it still hold the designation XM-3?

The XM-8 was underway and nearly fully developed with actual field data, but it was still scrapped as a prototype. You can field a weapon, doesn't make it production though.

But you still suffer recoil... I did state recoilless (I was alluding to laser weaponry in case you didn't get what I meant).

And it's still very expensive as a WHOLE. That's just it, you get the weapon, but at the end of the day, you still spent that 10-15 grande on a single weapon. It doesn't matter if it's the electronics suite, or if it's the rifle itself, you still spent that much. As compared to it's other contemporaries which can possibly do the same job, possibly not as effective, but still gets the job done.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by xm3user
 


I believe that the XM3 is a great rifle, but i still can't see that it is any different from other modern purpose built sniper rifles. And i can't see why you need some super high grade beddings, as the aluminium frame used by both AI and SAKO is a simple, reliable, light and extremely accurate, with a decent pricetag.

Point that most here are trying to make is, that this offers the Marine corps only a marginal increase in capacity. The sight system could have easily been integrated to existing systems.

Ps. I'm Sniper certified in Finnish army, but as i saw what you wrote about the French, i think that you will only approve american credentials.

PPs. Please remember that americans are not best in everything and sniping is one of those things



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Opinions are like A**holes, everybody has one, and they ALL stink. I've said everything I could possibly say about the weapon system. If anyone out there wants to know more, I'll provide what I can, but the pissing match is over. As for Finnish and the Brits, I've worked with guys from both places, and haven't had any major problems, so if you've been through some good schools, good for you. I'm not as "pro-american, F*** everyone else" as you assume but if PaddyInf thinks that recoilless shoulder fired laser beam guns are going to less costly, than there isn't anything I can say to him.
And I don't see why so many Brits, Finns, Australians, and "others" have such strong opinions about what is built here, for use by US soldiers and marines. Seriously, create a thread about how "Finland should be a super power" because of your massive combat experience and huge standing army, or about how there are more American CIVILIANS in combat roles than the entire British contingent in Iraq....I really don't care what you talk about....just do it someplace else. Again, I logged on to discuss THIS SWS, and not to compare it every other gun in the world.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Spending $20K on a rifle is mouse nuts, they spend $700,000 per every Iraqi they kill and thats a fact.

Don't believe me simply take the $450 Billion spent thus far and / Divide it by the 650,000 estimated dead Iraqis.

If people try to debunk this they only look worse, if you say fewer Iraqis were actually killed, then it makes the number CLIMB - ie $1 million dollars per Iraqi.

US soldiers asking their family members for Brita Filters so they can drink the $10/gallon sewer water that Halliburton is charging YOU the US taxpayers for...




[edit on 24-10-2007 by XR500Final]



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Northwolf: please read all of my posts. I posted that because this SWS as complete package is both lighter and shorter than the M40or M24 rifle only, the team can carry more bullets, batteries, and beans----which means they stay in their hide longer and gather more intel. Although a sniper can kill enemies, his primary responsibilities are recon and intel, that is why our sniper teams are usually attached to the S2 side of the house. If a company developed a faster, safer, lighter main battle tank, everyone would applaude, but when they try to give our sniper teams better, lighter, upgraded equipment, everyone scoffs. Let's agree to disagree, and leave it at that.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Ahh, the "I'm right, everyone is wrong" maneuver. Nice.

To XR500... you assume the United States is directly responsible for the deaths of 650,000 Iraqis.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Shattered: Always the consummate professional, arguing over body counts. You must make the british army proud.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by XR500Final
Spending $20K on a rifle is mouse nuts, they spend $700,000 per every Iraqi they kill and thats a fact.

Don't believe me simply take the $450 Billion spent thus far and / Divide it by the 650,000 estimated dead Iraqis.

If people try to debunk this they only look worse, if you say fewer Iraqis were actually killed, then it makes the number CLIMB - ie $1 million dollars per Iraqi.

US soldiers asking their family members for Brita Filters so they can drink the $10/gallon sewer water that Halliburton is charging YOU the US taxpayers for...




[edit on 24-10-2007 by XR500Final]

That's just linking unrelated facts. The actual number of iraqis that the US is thought to have killed directly is MUCH smaller, though a newer independant study suggests that 1.2 million Iraqis have died from the conditions brought on by the US invasion, though most of those deatsha re attributed to collateral weapon damage, about 600,000 people thought to having been killed by stray bullets.



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
If anyone has any intelligent, insightful, or otherwise inquisitve comments about this SWS, hit me back.



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   
check out this months Precision Shooting magazine, huge article on this rifle.



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   
M24- weight 12.1 lbs---bare unloaded with no scope/length 43 inches, no suppressor
M40A3- weight 16.5 lbs---bare unloaded with no scope/length 44.24 inches no suppressor
XM-3- weigth fully loaded for day operations 16 lbs, night 18 lbs/length 40.5 inches w/o supressor, 46.5 with.
****Fully loaded in this context means the complete rifle, 5 rounds 175gr ammo, stock with all shoulder shims, sling, bipod, scope, UNS w/batteries, and suppressor.

The M24/M40 data can be verified through wikipedia, the XM-3 data can be verified through IBA's webpage, that also contains links to army and marine articles that also did studies.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join