PDA

View Full Version : Army Includes Compact Sniper Rifle in Budget


JJ_BPK
02-05-2015, 06:32
Need some informed opinions.

I have looked at the AR 7.62 platform as not really designed for "snipers". As a 600 yd platform throwing a 165 gr slug,, GTG, but that's what a battle rifle should do.

The 1917 Springfield & Enfield, M1, FAL, M14 filled this slot,, without optics..

Are the 7.62 AR (CSASS) versions worth the money?


The U.S. Army has included $2 million in its proposed fiscal 2016 budget for the Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System program.

In June 2014, the Army released a request for proposal to invite gun companies to build compact versions of the service’s 7.62mm M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System. The CSASS program did not receive any funding in the Army’s approved fiscal 2015 budget.

If all goes well, the Army plans to buy more than 3,600 CSASS rifles.

The CSASS program is “intended to more effectively execute a broad spectrum of missions than the M110 Semi Automatic Sniper System,” according to the RFP.

The compact system will feature improved reliability, improved accuracy, and improved ergonomics, according to the solicitation. It will also be shorter, lighter and have improved optics, trigger and bipod. The CSASS will also have reduced felt recoil and better suppressor performance.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2015/02/army-includes-compact-sniper-rifle.html#ixzz3Qs9gIQEH
Kit Up!

http://kitup.military.com/2015/02/army-includes-compact-sniper-rifle.html?ESRC=kitup.sm

Streck-Fu
02-05-2015, 08:19
SCAR-17 can't fill this role? Or are they wanting to move away from that platform?

Brush Okie
02-05-2015, 09:32
Hummmm somebody paid off a friend in the pentagon.

JJ_BPK
02-05-2015, 09:39
Hummmm somebody paid off a friend in the pentagon.

Many someone wants to dump the 5.56 by making everyone a SDM?? :confused:

Box
02-05-2015, 09:44
...I don't know why we need new weapons, we don't have any enemies right now.

Taliban = not terrorists
ISIL = not muslim extremists
Boko Haram = not muslim extremists
Houthi's = not muslim extremists

So who exactly are we sniping at that we cant shoot with the SCAR-Heavy?

Brush Okie
02-05-2015, 10:06
...I don't know why we need new weapons, we don't have any enemies right now.

Taliban = not terrorists
ISIL = not muslim extremists
Boko Haram = not muslim extremists
Houthi's = not muslim extremists

So who exactly are we sniping at that we cant shoot with the SCAR-Heavy?

You keep forgetting about the white male veterans :rolleyes:

Box
02-05-2015, 12:59
You keep forgetting about the white male veterans :rolleyes:

White male veterans ARE a threat, but a SCAR-Heavy is more than sufficient to shoot at members of an organization made up of that particular ideology.

Guymullins
02-05-2015, 13:55
Need some informed opinions.

I have looked at the AR 7.62 platform as not really designed for "snipers". As a 600 yd platform throwing a 165 gr slug,, GTG, but that's what a battle rifle should do.

The 1917 Springfield & Enfield, M1, FAL, M14 filled this slot,, without optics..

Are the 7.62 AR (CSASS) versions worth the money?

Is the cartridge a 7.62 x 39mm or the Nato 51mm?
If the 39mm, I think it a mistake as the only real advantages it has over the 51mm is a small weight advantage (which shouldn't make much difference to a sniper who doesn't need to carry a full front-line load of ammo) and much more manageability during full-auto fire, also not something a sniper would really need.
The 51mm Nato round is superior in range and penetration, things a sniper values highly.
That said, a move away from the 5.56 can only be a good thing in my opinion.
Regarding optics. I would dearly have liked to have had a simple optical sight on my Para, folding stock R1 version of the FAL. The FAL was not really suitable for optical sights, due to the bolt-cover which slid loosely over the whole area where an optical sight would have been mounted. In order to provide a solid mount, a convoluted and somewhat unsatisfactory side-mount system was used.
I think a low power optical sight would have provided the single plane focus that would have made the snap shooting we most used in thick bush a much easier business.
I may be old fashioned, but a semi-auto sniper rifle is a bit of a misnomer. Compared to a manual bolt action, a semi-auto is seldom as accurate. The Dragunov is proof of that, but it at least had a real full bore cartridge, a 7.62 x 54mm.

Streck-Fu
02-05-2015, 14:18
Is the cartridge a 7.62 x 39mm or the Nato 51mm?

Not many care to shot a x39 out of an AR. It's too hard to get to work reliably. Unless specified, it's safe to assume any references to 7.62 in an AR means 51mm.

And the US DOD won't look for bids for a 7.62x39.

Guymullins
02-05-2015, 14:28
Is the cartridge a 7.62 x 39mm or the Nato 51mm?

Not many care to shot a x39 out of an AR. It's too hard to get to work reliably. Unless specified, it's safe to assume any references to 7.62 in an AR means 51mm.

And the US DOD won't look for bids for a 7.62x39.

That makes sense. I googled the AR10 SASS and saw this attached. That scope mount looks very suspect. but the rifle looks nice. The adjustable gas is good and made our FAL type rifles much more jam-proof in dusty conditions if you set the gas to max. I am sure it will help with tuning the semi-auto action for use with a suppressor too.

JJ_BPK
02-05-2015, 17:05
The DSM rifle is 5.56 or 7.62x51..