The XM3 Sniper Rifle.

Just a little "fyi" for persons thinking 20k is ridiculous. I am not a sniper nor ever have been one. Just enjoy shooting.I recently built a 1k (yard not meter) stick. It cost me about 4500.00 usd, with very modest optics(Leopold VX).So, I find 19k plausible with the given optics. Said rifle of mine was built on the 700 receiver in .308.Personally, I believe the .338 is better at 1k yards.

They could have saved us a lot of cash and just went with this;

www.dpmsinc.com...

I know it good out to 4-500 yd. That 20 grand rifle won't do any better. 18.5" barrel good for short work.

Roper

reply to post by Roper


I can tell by the way you worded your post that you don't have a clue. Marines are making kills at 1000 yards with the XM-3. They are also make 900 yard kills at night with AN/PVS-22 that is included in the $20,000 price tag. Do you guys really think the military is spending that much on the rifle? That is a retail price. I know for a fact law enforcement gets anything IBA builds at a discount. The rifle is phenomenal, partly because it does have a short barrel. And to the guy that mentioned mounting regular night vision to the rifle to save a few thousand dollars? I thought we were passed duck taping NVG's to rifles to make shot at night. Think outside the box fellas.

IF the 20 000$ price is the civilian price, then the Marines are probably paying 12-15K right? now it starts to sound resonable.

But i stillthink that marines are a bit stuck on bolt action .208 concept, i would advocate either .338 or going semi-automatic... (DSR semiautos are leathal out to 1000m... this just doesn't offer that much more capability over M40. (of course if M40s are too worn out to use, then this would be a 1on1 replacement and not a bad one)

Originally posted by police sniper
And to the guy that mentioned mounting regular night vision to the rifle to save a few thousand dollars? I thought we were passed duck taping NVG's to rifles to make shot at night. Think outside the box fellas.

Care to elaborate on this point? Using an image intensifying scope that can be rotated through various weapon systems isn't "duck taping NVGs to rifles", it is making a scope multi functional.

The military uses multiple weapon systems. It simply makes good tactical and logistical sense if a scope can be used on a number of these.

Why not purchase the weapon as a stand-alone system and bring in a new scope that can be used on other weapons? This would lower the cost of the weapon, and increase the capabilities of older sniper systems already in situ?

reply to post by police sniper


en.wikipedia.org...

Military sniper rifles tend to have longer barrels of around 23.5 inches (600 mm) to allow cartridge propellant to fully burn and attain the optimum combination of accuracy and bullet velocity. This reduces muzzle flash, helping to keep the sniper concealed. Police sniper rifles may use shorter barrels to improve handling characteristics. The shorter barrels' velocity loss is less important at closer ranges where projectile energy remains well in excess of that needed to reliably perform.

Roper, he that doesn't have a clue.

Here is a H&K.

www.enemyforces.com...

Caliber 7.62 mm
Cartridge type 7.62 x 51 mm (.308 Win)
Dimensions and weight
Total weight (with empty magazine) 8 100 g
Overall length 1 208 mm
Barrels length 650 mm * ( this is 25.59 inches)*
Fire characteristics
Bullets initial speed 750 - 820 m/s
Practical rate of fire 30 rpm
Magazine capacity 5, 20 rounds
Sighting range 600 m

Roper

reply to post by PaddyInf


The UNS can be used or rotated between several rifles. All you need is a MIL-STD 1913 rail. You mount the UNS during night ops and take it off for day. It is expensive but beats the hell out of any other night vision add on such as the SIMRAD. When you mentioned before about using NGV's that were cheaper, I thought you were refering to the old practice of taping them to the day scope.

reply to post by Roper


I'm with you on the barrel length and hiding flash. The muzzle flash problem is taken care of on the XM-3, due to the large price including a Surefire suppressor. This adds to the barrel length and also helps with accuracy. IBA also found with the testing, that the shorter barrel worked better with the UNS night vision. With a shorter barrel, no dope change was made on the daytime scope while shooting at night. For some reason, you have to add about an inch of elevation at 100 yds with a longer "typical" sniper barrel while using the UNS. Why is this? They don't even know. I think this may be a reason they decided to stay with a short barrel. When I first got into sniping, I was against the short barrel. Now I have changed my opinion about it. The velocity with the suppressor is around 2450 fps to 2530 fps. With a 20" factory Remington barrel and no suppressor you will have around 2650 fps. That's not much difference considering you are using an 18.5" barrel and a suppressor with the XM-3.

reply to post by Roper


I'm with you on the barrel length and hiding flash. The muzzle flash problem is taken care of on the XM-3, due to the large price including a Surefire suppressor. This adds to the barrel length and also helps with accuracy. IBA also found with the testing, that the shorter barrel worked better with the UNS night vision. With a shorter barrel, no dope change was made on the daytime scope while shooting at night. For some reason, you have to add about an inch of elevation at 100 yds with a longer "typical" sniper barrel while using the UNS. Why is this? They don't even know. I think this may be a reason they decided to stay with a short barrel. When I first got into sniping, I was against the short barrel. Now I have changed my opinion about it. The velocity with the suppressor is around 2450 fps to 2530 fps. With a 20" factory Remington barrel and no suppressor you will have around 2650 fps. That's not much difference considering you are using an 18.5" barrel and a suppressor with the XM-3.

This site grew quite abit in my absence. Everyone had good stuff to say, but it seems obvious to me that "Roper" is by far the best armchair expert on this subject, since he access to wikipedia. Again, only accurate firearms are interesting. Roper, seriously, you seem like you're on the right track, but barrel length isn't the only factor when considering full powder burn, despite what wiki might say. Rate of twist and bullet weight play a vital role, as a light bullet is easier to push, and a high rate of twist adds drag and increases chamber pressure. Anyone with questions, hit me back.........

To Roper, I thought you actually had potential, but then I started reading more of your posts and that DPMS link in one of your previous posts showed me what kind of a poser you actually are. If you knew anything, that DPMS link goes to weapon that they copied from Knights Armament. It is called an M-110SASS, by Knights Armament, but AR-10's and SR-25's are in service too. And your comment about the XM-3 being good for close work due to the short barrel.......BHA 168 gr. BTHP goes subsonic@1240 +/-yrds. I guess 1,240 is "close". Again, way to be an armchair commando..........hang in there buddy, someday you'll somebody important.

Northwolf, for the production of the XM-3, DARPA wanted a gun compatible with the current M118LR, since ample data and ballistic charts were available. This is not only a service SWS, but it's also a test platform for advancing technologies. Also, when the XM-3 was first built, there wasn't a suppressor available for .338 Lapua. Surefire has since engineered one. Having the weapon suppressed was a key issue for the build, along with overall weight, length, range, and durability.

HEY EVERYONE, XM3user in in da house!

ALL HAIL XM3user!

Man he put me in my place!

Roper

Originally posted by xm3user
Also, when the XM-3 was first built, there wasn't a suppressor available for .338 Lapua. Surefire has since engineered one. Having the weapon suppressed was a key issue for the build, along with overall weight, length, range, and durability.

That is totally bull***t. .338 has had suppressors for well over a decade. Both BR-Tuote (Reflex) and Ase-Utra have made exellent military grade suppressors since the birth of the cartridge. Br-Tuote is in full use with several militaries and US Law enforcement agencies (and several have been sold to US Army for special use).

And Br-Tuote suppressors are made so that they hardly increase the weapons lentgh and they are among the lightest in the world.

So it's false to state that supressors for the .338 are a problem.

Ps. The surefire model is heavier, longer and less effective than BRs

Northwolf, I forgot you needed such specific replies. I should've stated that .338 suppressors weren't available from a US supplier(usually a must for DOD contracts) such as surefire, gemtech, AAC, etc. and there weren't any with an NSN. I'll try to make my replies more Fin friendly.....


Roper, sorry if I hurt your delicate feelings.

i'm a gun nut but not up on the new military stuff.
why would you make a sniping rifle chambered for 308 win when you could use the best cartridge ever (and the us military did for years) the 30/06? is it because most nations use 308 as a standard round in their assult rifles so it is readily available?
i don't know- that is why i am asking
i own both and the 30/06 is much better of a cartridge- even tho i love my 308.
personally if i wanted a sniping rifle i would want a 300 wby mag
or the new 300 rem mag altho 300 win mag would be great too
and i shot a snipe once- they are fast little f*****

reply to post by xm3user


How is it a must for a DOD purchases as DOD has already purchased several hundred of the BR supressors for "undisclosed" use?

And besides, the entire desing and testing process of a supressor takes about 2-3 months... so making the lack of supressor a point to choose the caliber is not valid.

Most likely reason is that the makers of XM-3 had good enough contacts in the Marines...


Well getting yet another Rem-700 suits the Marines...

[edit on 24-2-2008 by northwolf]

Northwolf...you and I have gone round and round before. I don't work for that company, and am not stating facts about about why it is what it is. I was only spectulating. In my previous posts, if you read them, many factors contributed to this weapon build, to include overall length, combat weight, accuracy, night vision capability, and sound suppression, with the emphasis not resting squarely on any one characteristic, but with all attributes blended together for this SWS. Many companies had a chance to bid and contribute, and I highly doubt that with all of the weapon manufacturers here in the US, IBA is only company that has former military as employees. But if it helps you sleep better at night to talk SH** about that company and its owners, then get it out of your system now, because that sh** gets old. Let talk about the gun, and not the builders. You don't like it, don't buy one. You don't pay taxes here, don't worry about cost. You're not an end user, don't argue their point. The guns are good, they work well, and everyone who uses them, likes them. Any effort made to get better gear to the troops shouldn't be undermined, and the patriotism of those who work to make that happen shouldn't be slandered. This site is for this SWS, not business ethics.

reply to post by xm3user


Lets agree that this rifle is exellent in the class of .308 bolt actions. Is it best rifle for the job available? in my opinion it is is not, you say it is. Lets agree to disagree. As for the contacts in the Marines, that's how the world goes around, i wasn't moralising, simply speculating.

I still feel that XM-3 offers no new capabilites to the force, that couldn't have been obtained with M-40s. If M-40s and their sights need replacement and the Marines are content with the limitations of bolt action (i prefer bolt over semi-auto) and .308 then they have good system. Maybe a bit over priced, or not as we don't know the real price for the corps.