Army approves full fielding of M-107 sniper rifle

NousDefionsDoc · 04-02-2005, 10:54

Link

Army approves full fielding of M-107 sniper rifle
By Kathy Roa

PICATINNY ARSENAL, N.J. (Army News Service, March 31, 2005) -- The Army has approved its new long-range .50-caliber sniper rifle, the M-107, for full materiel release to Soldiers in the field.

The M-107 program is managed at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., by the Project Manager Soldier Weapons with engineering support provided by Picatinny’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center.

The term “full materiel release” signifies that the Army has rigorously tested and evaluated the item and determined that it is completely safe, operationally suitable and logistically supportable for use by Soldiers, officials said.

Product Manager for Crew Served Weapons Lt. Col. Kevin P. Stoddard said that PMSW previously equipped combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as other units supporting the Global War on Terrorism, with the M-107 under an urgent materiel release.

The Army expects to complete fielding of the M-107 in 2008, Stoddard said.

The M107 was funded as a Soldier Enhancement Program to type classify a semi-automatic .50 caliber rifle for the Army and other military services. It underwent standard type classification in August 2003.

A production contract was awarded to Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc., Murfreesboro, Tenn., the following month.

Compared to the M24 7.62mm sniper rifle, Stoddard said, the M107 has more powerful optics and fires a variety of .50 caliber munitions.

“This provides sniper teams greater capability to identify and defeat multiple targets at increased ranges,” he said.

The M-107 is based on the Marine Corps special application scoped rifle, the M82A3.

The M-107 enables Army snipers to accurately engage personnel and material targets out to a distance of 1,500 to 2,000 meters respectively, he said.

The weapon is designed to effectively engage and defeat materiel targets at extended ranges including parked aircraft, computers, intelligence sites, radar sites, ammunition, petroleum, oil and lubricant sites, various lightly armored targets and command, control and communications.

In a counter-sniper role, the system offers longer stand-off ranges and increased terminal effects against snipers using smaller-caliber weapons.

The complete system includes the rifle itself, a detachable 10-round magazine, a variable-power day-optic sight, a transport case, a tactical soft case, cleaning and maintenance equipment, a detachable sling, an adjustable bipod and manuals.

The Army plans to modify the M107 in the future by adding a suppressor to greatly reduce flash, noise and blast signatures.

**Peregrino** · 04-02-2005, 18:57

This one's for LR1947! Have you guys had a chance to play with it at the longer ranges yet? Is the M107 any more accurate than it's predecessor? I've already heard a few opinions about accuracy problems against precision targets. What's the skinny? Inquiring minds want to know.

ZoneOne · 04-02-2005, 20:20

According to GlobalSecurity.org,

"The M107 is the Barrett Model 95, a smaller, lightweight .50 caliber rifle with emphasis on accuracy and durability. The bullpup design results in a compact rifle with no sacrifice on accuracy or velocity thanks to its cryogenically treated 29-inch (73.7 cm) barrel, the same length as the Model 82A1. Recoil is reduced by the dual-chamber muzzle brake and specially designed recoil pad. "

All pic's I've seen don't have the bullpup design. Maybe they are reffering to the m82/m95 or I could just be VERY slow.

Any insight from ppl in the know

Footmobile · 04-02-2005, 22:38

The ammo tends to be the weak link in this system. You just aren't gonna get true sniper rifle accuracy with ball, API or even Raufoss. The USMC calls it a SASR for a reason. Special Application Scoped Rifle, not a sniper rifle.

It is a good system for what it was designed for; man portable and able to put accurate heavy caliber fire on a selected target. If you want true first shot, sniper rifle accuracy with a .50cal, I'd choose a bolt action McMillan.

longrange1947 · 04-04-2005, 19:15

Zone One - You are confusing the Barrett name for their bull pup wihtt he army nomenclature for the newest POS built by Barret and bought by the army.

We also describe the .50 as an "anti-material weapon system" and not a sniper rifle. Besides ancedotal stories of long range kills, in which most fess up that it was luck and not planned, the .50 will not do any of the crap put out in the movies, nor stories by Waxman and his scare tactics.

I personnally would have prefered that the money wasted on the Barretts had been put into a good system AND training money for the shooters. However, it is sexier to buy these things then to actually equip the soldiers with what they really need. Unfortunately, there is now a clammer to get more because of over inflated claims of kills at over 2000 meters and all think they should be able to do the same thing. Unfornately it is not in the cards as most can't ID a target at that range, only a group of people. Next, just what is the wind doing at that range? Not even the McMillian can overcome those problems at those ranges. Sniping much past 1500 to 1800 meters is luck at best when shooting at an indivdual and hitting the target in a stratigic location is required to put the item out of business. The goal has been to take down a piece of material not shoot one guy. The next problem is that the location to take down a piece of equipment is, alot of the time, as small or smaller then a human torso. That again brings your effective range to a much closer range then advertised. As far as a counter wniper rifle, I will take a .338 before a 50 as it is more accurate and if I am going to piss off another sniper I want him dead pissed off not shooting back at my giant dirt ball that I just kicked up when I missed him due to the panning accuracy of 2 to 4 moa.

Think about it.

EchoSixMike · 07-29-2005, 20:50

Question regarding the M107: Does anyone have personal experience with a .50 cal rifle using a suppressor? I seem to recall reading that a can was supposed to be part of the M107 system, possibly as some sort of follow on buy, and was wondering how far progress has gone down that route, if any. It makes sense from my perspective, as blast is one of the biggest complaints with the weapon and it already is a burden to haul about regardless. S/F....Ken M

**The Reaper** · 07-29-2005, 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by EchoSixMike

Question regarding the M107: Does anyone have personal experience with a .50 cal rifle using a suppressor? I seem to recall reading that a can was supposed to be part of the M107 system, possibly as some sort of follow on buy, and was wondering how far progress has gone down that route, if any. It makes sense from my perspective, as blast is one of the biggest complaints with the weapon and it already is a burden to haul about regardless. S/F....Ken M

Yes.

TR

EchoSixMike · 07-29-2005, 23:42

I deserved that. OK, sir; any significant negatives? S/F....Ken M

**The Reaper** · 07-29-2005, 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by EchoSixMike

I deserved that. OK, sir; any significant negatives? S/F....Ken M

The can is big, and heavy, but it could be worse.

I did not put enough rounds through it to find out if it is high maintenance.

TR

Gene Econ · 07-30-2005, 08:54

[QUOTE=longrange1947] I personnally would have prefered that the money wasted on the Barretts had been put into a good system AND training money for the shooters. However, it is sexier to buy these things then to actually equip the soldiers with what they really need. Unfortunately, there is now a clammer to get more because of over inflated claims of kills at over 2000 meters and all think they should be able to do the same thing. Unfornately it is not in the cards as most can't ID a target at that range, only a group of people. Next, just what is the wind doing at that range?

Guys: I concur with everything Rick has stated on this abortion called an M-107. I have what I consider to be the unfortunate circumstance of having to deal with these since the mid 90s when the L-82 was available for issue to SF through JOS. Periodically, the Barret rears its ugly head and I am the one who has to deal with them.

The Army did some sort of user evaluation on a .50 sometime in the late 90s. SF, Rangers, and conventional guys went to Hawaii and shot various .50s and gave their thoughts to TACOM. Some of the Rangers were out of 2/75 so I was able to ask them what happened and what their recommendations were. According to these specific Rangers, and by some of the SF guys -- neither the Rangers or the SF guys recommended the Barret. Can't remember which rifle they said shot 'better' (loose term with issued .50 cal ammo) but none of them recommended what the Army eventually issued. So, the Army got the Barret.

I have run a couple of NET training events on Barrets with 3/2 SBCT, 1/25th SBCT and 2 CR SBCT. Most recently was one with 2nd CAV Regiment SBCT -- about a month ago on Lewis. The M-107s will normally function when they are used. The L82s were very irregular in their function due to what I consider poor design and poor quality control. However, the 107s did function and didn't break extractors. Even their magazines worked -- a significant change from the L82s.

When I run a NET or any other type of training with these rifles, I will always have the best shooters shoot groups at 300 yards known distance on paper and I will have them measure their shot groups so they can realistically see the accuracy potential of the rifle and the particular ammo they are firing. Raufos and M-8 API generally hold about 3 - 4 minutes of angle. I have never seen anything less than 3 minutes at 300 yards. M-2 Ball holds 4 plus minutes -- I figure about five minutes for planning purposes. I figure most 107s can hold the flank of a M-113 at 1000 yards -- eight of ten times anyway -- with Raufos and M-8.

Anyone claiming kills on humans past about 700 yards by one deliberate shot either has a damn good Barret or is using hand loaded ammo with decent bullets. So far, I haven't seen anyone who can consistently hold an upper torso -- shot after shot -- for ten straight shots -- at 500 yards with an issued M-107 and issued ammo. Shooter error? Well, the shooter is part of the equation but I have had enough guys try this at 500 to believe the results.

Have shot these for group with the suppressors in the mid 90s. The suppresors make the Barret experience a-lot more user friendly. Groups were about double in size and zeros were highly irregular but I will say that the suppressors did work and worked very well. Not sure what suppressor they want for today but firing a Barret with a suppressor makes an otherwise horrible experience tolerable.

I contend that a M-2 BMG mounted in the Remote Weapons Station on a Stryker will outshoot a Barret. Have been waiting for the opportunity to do so and may get it in a few months. Am very curious.

Well -- Rick says the Barret is an anti-material rifle. I agree totally. I told the 2 CR Snipers to look at the Barret as a man portable semi-automatic M-2 BMG.

I have met only one 3/2 SBCT Sniper who used a Barret in Iraq. Apparently the 1/25th SBCT Snipers use them more than 3/2 but at very short ranges -- 100 yards or less -- on vehicles or to blow through walls -- just like you may do with a M-2 BMG. They are used in conjunction with small arms so saying the 107 is more a man portable semi-automatic M-2 may be a good way to put this particular abortion into perspective. If you want to smoke something at ranges past 1000 --use a Javelin.

Could the Army have spent its money better? You bet. Money would have been better spent in SF for a .338 IMHO. Agree totally with Rick on that. Don't think the Infantry needs a .338 though.

Gene

HOLLiS · 07-30-2005, 12:07

I have seen a lot of good rifles get blamed for the poor preformance because of the crapping ammo that was used.

EchoSixMike · 07-30-2005, 12:14

I'm not sure how the M107 differs from the M82A3 the USMC uses. One of our teams hit a savage at 980yds with Mk211 and terminal effects were quite satisfactory IOW it blew the arm from his shoulder, which held on by flesh and sinews, guy went a short distance and piled up to bleed out. The sniper reported that he was surprised by the flash when it hit the guy, we were expecting that the ammo wouldn't function on something as "soft" as a human target. IME, the M82A3 is a 2-3MOA rifle using Mk211. That's 6 different rifles and maybe 4000rds fired. During our pre-OIF workup, the guns would hold "minute of jeep tire" at 960-1020 yds(we had a row of jeep hard targets at an oblique). The same engagement mentioned above had the Barret put two-three rds of Mk211 into the fuel tank of a bongo truck, which didn't do anything other than allow fuel to leak from the tank. It was gasoline vice diesel. Some of the other sniper plts had McMillans and even Cheytac's, but I don't know how much use those actually received and I have no post deployment feedback from them. The McMillan is a much better LR people shooter but using a match load is the only way to get any real increase in range. I'm not sure what could be gained from a match prepped load using a Raufoss API projectile. might be worth looking into. S/F....Ken M

**The Reaper** · 07-30-2005, 12:38

I think that a match Raufoss might gain a bit, but the problem IMHO is with the projo's accuracy potential, not with the case, primer, or powder.

Easy test would be to pull Mk 211 rounds down, work up safe loads, and replace the projos with 750 grain Hornady A-Max bullets, then test for accuracy.

You could also use Match A-Max loaded rounds to test the Mk 211 projos. The Mk 211 bullet is a bit lighter, so again, you would have to work up a safe load with the powder.

Good experiment!

TR

longrange1947 · 07-30-2005, 15:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOLLiS

I have seen a lot of good rifles get blamed for the poor preformance because of the crapping ammo that was used.

Not the case with the Barrett. It is a stamped metal case that rattles and will not give the same lockup shot after shot. We have fired some of the newer French ammo through it and get the same results as the Mk211. While it is better than the API, though not by much, it is still over 2 moa as the norm. The Barrett makes it worse.

As far as the Chey Tec, the demo for us and some of the other demos I have heard of, give it about the same planning groups, 4 moa. We got two hits, out of 6, on a 6 x 6 target board at 900 meters with it and that was with the rep shooting, not us. The ammo is also dangerously over pressured and I would be hesitant in shooting it under hot desert conditions. It may be fine at first but he pressures are going to climb.

Hell, as far as planning purposes, if the round is 2 moa that is a 34 inch group at 1500 meters and too big for a human shot, go to 3 moa and you see what I mean, most is BS hype with a lot of luck thrown in. At 900 meters you are looking at almost 20 inches with a 2 moa gun, now go to 4 moa and consistently hitting a human is going to be difficult at best.

Footmobile · 07-31-2005, 07:14

Longrange, nice new avatar. Rocket Mountain has a spectacular view no?

A friend of mine who was in the only sniper platoon in the Corps to test run the Chey-Tac said the samething about the ammo. Shot great in the cold in Utah on Chey-Tac's range, shot terrible in the heat at 29 Plams before deployment. Said about 1 in 5 primer blow outs when the temps went above 100.