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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 01:50 AM

Originally posted by xm3user
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.

I never suggested anything that you state, and anyone who has read my posts for the last few years would know my feelings on such things. I'm a fan of keeping it simple. My suggestion is if you are going to spend this amount of money then give the troops something that will improve their fighting chances. This rifle doesn't improve anything. It is simply a new toy that does what current weapons already do.

Look, I'll spell it out for you in easy to understand phrases.

The XM3 is 7.62mm. It does not offer any significant tactical advantages over 7.62mm sniper rifles currently in service. This is because it fires 7.62mm ammunition which is limited in range by the design of the ammunition. The other rifles in service take this round to the limits of its' abilities at less cost. There was no need to introduce this weapon as simply upgrading in-service weapons would have been a more cost-effective option with similar results.

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.

This is how this forum runs and has done for years. It is multinational. One of the main strengths is that it takes opinions and experience from all over the world to create discussions about a given topic. There have been plenty of threads about Brit kit etc that have been full of US posters. That is the beauty of the site.

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.

I think you have forgotten that YOU came onto this thread. You didn't start it. Threads are started in the most part to create a forum for debate and discussion, not just to look up wiki and throw in a few facts and figures while mouthing off at other members. You came onto this thread giving abuse to members who have been posting for a long time. Is it any wonder you are not being taken seriously and have recieved a warning in your first month?

[edit on 26-10-2007 by PaddyInf]

posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 11:45 AM
reply to post by PaddyInf

Paddyinf: First, let me thank you for using small words and breaking everything down into simpler concepts for me. Much Appreciated. In looking back through the posts, I must admit you are actually right on one thing, it was "shatteredskies", not you who posted the "shoulder fired laser weapon" comment.
As for tactical advantage of this weapon, if it is lighter and shorter fully loaded and equipped, than the current U.S. sniper sticks are empty and bare, I would call that a tactical advantage. And you keep pushing the limits of the 7.62x51 Nato, without any concept of the operational limits put on sniper teams. Hell, for awhile most the teams in Iraq and Afghanistan had to beg, barrow, and steal ammo due to shortages, and that is a relatively common round, so yes, lets make a gun in 45-70 or some other crazy off-brand caliber, so the teams can't get ANY ammo at all, that seems like it would be a huge advantage tactically. I won't even get into the ROE, ROI, and Law Land Warfare restraints put on these men incase one of their bullets misses an intended target and hits an unarmed civilian. But again, for a REMF, you wouldn't understand.
And as for me logging into this site, I did it because I saw ignorant, uneducated, or otherwise immature comments being thrown out about this gun, the gun manufacturer, and the marine corps. To call the owners of IBA corrupt, the USMC Commandant a twit, or this gun(that none of you have used) an over-priced waste is Bull**** to me. So all of have the freedom to express your warped opinions, and I must edit my replies to protect your delicate sensitivities.
Somehow this has become a pissing match agin. I'm done with this ignorant banter....
As for the weapon characters, I added those to help people compare certain benefits.......from a source everyone could access. Do you really have to take everything out of context and pervert it?

posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 12:25 PM
You know what? I actually agree with you on the calibre issue. I think that 7.62mm is a decent round and is handy for resup reasons. I made the exact same argument a while back on another thread. We're currently in the process of droping 7.62 for snipers in favour of the .338LM because of incidents that have arisen in Iraq and Afghanistan. The insurgents basically learned the limits of the 7.62 systems in use and adapted by moving further out. This was countered by using .50BMG AWMs, but these were heavy and cumbersome, and were a bit of overkill. We now have a number of .338AWMs which we designate the L115A1 LRLCR. These have the range of the .50 without the weight and recoil issues. Having used this weapon, I'm well impressed. I personaly don't think it is a good idea removing all 7.62 sniper systems though, but time will tell.

From personal experience I don't find the weight of a weapon to be much of an issue. However, this is coming ffrom someone whos' personal weapon weighed 6.5kg (about 16lb) plus ammo for severlal years (I was a LSW gunner for a while). I also carried the L96 with 50rds for a while as a sharpshooter in conjunction with my SA80 and 180rds. The weight of the system never bothered me, but that's probably because our weapons have been a bit heavier than the US weapons for a long time now, so we don't really notice it.

Oh, as for the REMF Comment, my credentials

1990-1996 – Op BANNER, Belfast, 7/10 UDR & 7 R. Irish, Belfast
1996 - re-enlisted to 1 R. Irish
1997 & 1998 – Op BANNER, Co Tyrone
1999 – Op AGRICOLA, Kosovo (C Coy), policing Pristina
2000 – Op BASILICA, Sierra Leone (C Coy), Training SLA and jungle patrolling
2000 – 2002 – Op HAWKER, N. Ireland (Special Duties).
2003 – Op TELIC 1, Iraq (C Coy), Guarding Al Rumaylah
2005 – Op TELIC 7, Iraq (B Coy), VIP Protection & Logistics convoy protection
2006 – Op HERRICK 4, Afghanistan Musa Qual’eh
Currently on build up training for Op HERRICK 8.

Basically been an infantryman for 17 years. Curently a 2IC of an infantry platoon. Get your facts together before you throw personal comments about please.

Oh, and no-one said that the XM3 is useless, just that it is of no more use than what's already out there for less money. You must have shares in the weapon or something fella.

[edit on 26-10-2007 by PaddyInf]

posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 09:39 PM
PaddyInf: I feel real bad that you felt it necessary to tell me and everyone else your OMPF, but I do have one question......What color IS the boathouse in Hereford? Obviously I was wrong about the British Army, because if you've done soo much overseas and still have time to be a such a contributing member on this site for years, then you Infantry Brits must get internet access everywhere and carry laptops in your bergens. I really don't see a need for a pissing match about this rifle, if you don't like it because of something you've read, then tell the Queen that your army doesn't need to buy them. At this point the only thing I really care about is dispelling rumors about this stick, and answering educated questions about it without having to conduct classes on metallurgy, chemistry, machining, ballistic coefficients, trigonometry, unknown distance, shooting fundamentals, barometric pressure, wind speed, or anyhting else having to do with being a sniper. Just questions about the XM-3 would be cool. Again, lets just agree to DISAGREE, mark me a "Foe" on this site, or complain that I'm too rude or I hurt your feelings, whatever! Lets just drop this useless banter.

posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 09:40 PM
Oh Yeah---Tell Andy McNab I said Hi

posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 11:06 PM
You're the only one that makes it banter really.

So you want a question, ok, why is still designated XM-3 if according to you it's in full production? X in the designation meaning prototype.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 02:28 AM

Originally posted by xm3user
PaddyInf: I feel real bad that you felt it necessary to tell me and everyone else your OMPF

I put the above down in response to your REMF comment. Anyone who has seen me post for any amount of time will be aware that I don't care who knows what tours I've done. I'm proud of my time served and it's where I draw my experience from.

If you've done soo much overseas and still have time to be a such a contributing member on this site for years, then you Infantry Brits must get internet access everywhere and carry laptops in your bergens.

I only started posting a couple of years ago. We do actually have internet access in many of our operational theatres, particularly in Iraq and N. Ireland (which is part of the UK by the way). My last posting to Iraq was from SLB, which is an american post and has pretty much everything the UK has. We didn't have it on HERRICK 4. However, we also didn't have enough food, water or ammunition on HERRICK 4, so internet access is a bit of wishful thinking! Seriously though, internet access is one of the small mercies that helps keep the lads from going bonkers on tour.

Oh, and if 5 overseas tours in 17 years seems like a lot to you, then you need to move to a different unit!

Again, lets just agree to DISAGREE, mark me a "Foe" on this site, or complain that I'm too rude or I hurt your feelings, whatever! Lets just drop this useless banter.

Happy with that one. You have your opinions, Everyone else on this site has theirs. No point marking you as a foe, I think you may have something useful to offer if you keep posting. You just have to tone it down a bit. The mods are quite hot on this and will be happy to ban you for it. To be honest I agree with much of what you say, just not how you say it, particularly in your first couple of posts on a site.

Tell Andy McNabb I said Hi!

LOL, nice one! He's a tour dodging wnaker anyway! The SAS only wish they'd done as many tours as 1 R. Irish! We're part of 16 Air Assault which is the spearhead brigade of the British Army. It also contains a couple of Para Battalions, some Air Corps, loggies, engineers, gunners, medics and all the other associated stuff. Because of the Brigades high profile, we get deployed more than the average line battalion.

Yea, lets wind it up mate.

[edit on 27-10-2007 by PaddyInf]

[edit on 27-10-2007 by PaddyInf]

posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 02:18 PM
PaddyInf: You hold your own pretty well, I guess I should've saved that REMF comment for shatterskies. I worked with some your blokes that came down from training in Gambia to help us out in Nigeria. I guess they were out of Gibraltar, good guys.
Shattered: I can't speak for the company that makes these weapons, as I am only an end user, not an armorer, but I would assume that this weapon was first built to see if it even worked well, and when it performed as well as it did, the big boys at DARPA decided to push it farther, so even though this stick is in full production as it stands, the "x" designator remains so testing of different variants can be acheived with the XM-3 as a standard(baseline) to test against. Hope this helps clear things up.

posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 01:10 AM
To Xm3 User

Nice rifle but not up to the hype.

It’s on a Remington M700 action, has Remington trigger (why not include a Timney for that price?), McMillan Stock, Hart Barrel, Harris Bipod. None of these in exotic materials (i.e. titanium).

What’s titanium on this? Picatinny Rail, Recoil Lug and Scope rings. Hardly groundbreaking for a DARPA project, how much weight did it save?

The thing weighs 16 pounds for Day Ops. Is that a joke or something?

My M700 LTR weighs 7.5 lbs
Loaded w/ Springfield Armory 3rd Gen4X14X56 Scope, Sling, Harris Bipod 11.2 lbs
Add the Gemtech HVT suppressor at 1.75 lbs
Total weight suppressed 13 lbs
Shot just over .5 inch groups @ 100 yrds w/ Federal 168 gr match right out of the box.
Rifle $895 Scope $845 Suppressor $865 Bipod $45 Sling $35 Sunguard ARD $ 25
Total $2710.

Before anyone else says it Yes, the SA 3rd Gen scope is crap.

Point is the XM3 is heavier than the LTR and has a shorter barrel (which means lower muzzle velocity = shorter range)

Also, for your info the M24A3 weighs 8.9 lbs loaded w/scope, sling, suppressor and has a 5 or 10 rd detachable box magazine (important for urban ops)
Lighter, longer range and more rounds downrange quicker.

If this was a real good DARPA project they would have simplified the tools for this system you need at least 5 different wrenches for it (a mix of allen and torx) and not lowered themselves to including the Eagle cheek piece. Honestly, I’ve been out for 14 years, do you guys actually expose your brass on the buttstock now? Shame, Shame.

posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 09:38 AM
Exmar: Well, first off, thanks for your service, but you should've really had your eyes examined during your exit physical. The brass isn't hanging out on the stock, it's actually stored inside the cheek peice, which is open in the photo "deltaboy" provided. As for LTR, if the XM3 had a hollow stock and fluted barrel, I'm sure it would weigh less too. Does the LTR have the UNS mount, bolt knob, adjustable LOP, surefire adapter, and custon receiver work out of the box, I can't seem to recall(sarcasm). And I'm sure the M24A3 data is correct, I pulled generic M24 data offline just to help the average member compare the weapons. In previous posts, I think I wrote that the XM-3 has a range of 1,240, with 168 Fed., before the round goes subsonic, which makes the XM-3 data provided to be conservative, and since you know about ballistics, which I have no doubt that you do, then M118 173gr. or 175gr. would travel out passed that. I wouldn't make fun of your scope though, if it works for you...GREAT. The XM-3 seems to work for me, oh, and the Marines. I guess you should've called the Commandant with your blistering facts before they bought some. Maybe next time.........

posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 04:39 PM
I just saw a piece on discovery channel about the barret m107 a .50 cal sniper riffle which could shoot 10 shots within 10 seconds. found that to be really impressive but I have never took a shot with a sniper riffle so i am not really i my right to give a real opinion about it , but for as what i saw i liked the weapon

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 09:56 PM
I can't post pictures but there are a number of other sniper rifles available to the military that do not carry such a hefty price tag. Though most need to be customized for obvious reasons, paying $20K for a rifle is crazy.

posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 02:52 AM
Just popped into this thread out of interest, and while i dont know anything about sniper rifles i know a lot about people, and why they act the way they do. I cant help wondered xm3user, if you're so rude, not because you are right but purely because you're defending the rifle you use.

In the gaming community we have this thing called "fanboys" basically if you own a ps3 and you're immature, you make disparaging comments about an xbox360, and vice versa. The main reason for this is that most people can't afford to buy two gaming systems, so they feel the need to reinforce the idea that their system is best, purely for their own ego. The need to defend one's own "stuff" as the best stuff, is something unavoidable in human nature. When the difference between the quality of stuff is obvious, the rational mind does override the ego and say "you're wrong" but when the difference between stuff is minimal to the point of non-existent, that is when fanboyism really ramps up.

In your case i would hazard a guess you're a marine, and that pride in your kit (which you're basically stuck with and cant change) is your real motivation for coming here and defending the gun, and once you have a defending standpoint you have lost all crediblity when it comes to being objective.

[edit on 13-11-2007 by unnamedninja]

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:29 AM
If I may chime in to your little discourse in behavioural psychology:

Originally posted by unnamedninja
In your case i would hazard a guess you're a marine, and that pride in your kit (which you're basically stuck with and cant change) is your real motivation for coming here and defending the gun, and once you have a defending standpoint you have lost all crediblity when it comes to being objective.

Ummm... no.
We´re not speaking of gaming systems here. Everyone can buy the consoles and x amount of games to form their opinion. Everyone can also study technical descriptions and reviews of the consoles and games to broaden their opinion.

But XM3user, if we assume him to be 100% legit, comes here with intimate knowledge of both his trade AND the system in general, as well as some of the alternatives available - and that is a knowledge advantage most probably noone here can match. And then I can understand when there is a hoist of posters critizising said knowledge without a comparable knowldge on the subject - even IF their POV is reasonable, logical or even accurate in other fields of public life.

But we´re speaking of the US Marines here and Sharpshooters/Snipers in specific, a microsociety with its own set of rules - and some of them even have a deeper sense - , hence normal reason or logic need not apply. So it is totally understandable when you´re the one of the few persons in a discussion really qualified to form an opinion, and you are shouted down, to lose your manners. That has nothing to with objectivity.

Everything above however doesn´t say I agree with XM3user.

Regards, Doctor Lonestar

And since you mentioned "credibility" - as a tip I´d say that any references to video games aren´t helpful to your credibility in this part of the forum either

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:33 AM
reply to post by Lonestar24

Yeah I think you totally missed that member's point, he wasn't even making any direct correlations of the XM-3 to video games in an state and form, he was referencing to the people who play games and how immature they are and arrogant(not uncommon to find some other places as well).

So other than to completely put down that member, what was the point of your post?

I just felt it necessary to point out the simple disregard for respect towards other people that I see in a select few members here, and as for XM3user, I've asked him his credentials and he refused to give them saying credentials aren't important. So I would too venture a guess that he's a Marine who uses the XM-3 and so supports it, nothing wrong with that, it's a mighty fine rifle, I just don't like the price tag on it is all.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 08:31 PM
To all of you that are complaining about the XM-3, the cost as explained by XMUSER is based upon a custom built rifle and a night vision "add-on". The night vision alone is just under $9,000.00 on GSA pricing. The USMC just this year approved the purchase of the AN/PVS 27 or MUNS which is the larger unit than what comes with the XM-3. My agency just purchased the MUNS and it is all of what it is cracked up to be. My rifle has had work done at IBA and they are extremely knowledgable people and turn out great product. Why are you guys complaining? The military is not paying the full $18,995 for the XM-3 that's the retail price. Some of you need to take time to research the rifle.

posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 10:58 PM
I would just like to say xm3user that seeing as you claim to have fired the weapon and met the designer, doesn't that make your opinion only slightly biased? Just because you can show us some statistics doesnt mean you are right. It just isn't effective to make a new rifle that has such a high pricetag on it that fires rounds just like any other rifle that has been made. I know that the price is for the nightscope and all the other bull that gets wrapped up in a tortilla with the gun. Wouldn't it be cheaper to get a few IR flares out and have NVG's on? Many scopes are designed to use NVG's. Don't give me any bs about how it NVG's still cost a lot of money. NVG's can be used in situations other than sniping. So by simply using standard issue equpiment, the pricetag is cut down by a few thousand dollars. But with all that money you could use a more versatile Vietnam era weapon, the M14. THe M14 can take suppressors, can have a bipod, have a shortended barrel, fires a 7.62 round, can have backup ironsights conveniently placed under the scope, and is semi- automatic. Semi automatic weapons have been around since the 30's or 40's and yes that does mean the can kill 20 people by only aiming and pulling a trigger in about, with the M14, in less than a minute. So just shut up and use manly rifle that can mow down terrorists at a rate of 700 rounds per minute, from a distance to where they can't see you.

posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 11:12 PM
I've never found a .308 usable or consistent past 600 yards. And they claim 1000 yard potential?

I'd have to expect that claim to be met by something larger, heavier, and faster to be legit.

As far as taxpayer money going to buy $20k rifles, don't worry about that. They don't tax you to get your money, they tax you to take it away from you.

The government can print or conjure up any amount of money it needs.

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 07:10 AM

Originally posted by dionysius9
I've never found a .308 usable or consistent past 600 yards. And they claim 1000 yard potential?

I'd have to expect that claim to be met by something larger, heavier, and faster to be legit.

Really? We train with 7.62mm out past 1000m quite regularly. In fact our most basic weapons test (which has to be passed before a shooter can even use the weapon) has moving shoots out to 900m.

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Lonestar24
We´re not speaking of gaming systems here.

I'm using them to explain the concept of fanboyism, not everyone is familiar with the term. I prefer to keep things easy to understand, specially because i'm very bad at explaining things.

And since you mentioned "credibility" - as a tip I´d say that any references to video games aren´t helpful to your credibility in this part of the forum either

Yes I kinda got the idea that the oldies on these boards hold the opinions of us young folk in poor regard. Thanks for the tip, but I prefer my words define my credibility rather than my hobbies.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in