Army approves full fielding of M-107 sniper rifle
 

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.

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. :munchin

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

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.

M107
 

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. :lifter

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

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

[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

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

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

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

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.

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.

[QUOTE=longrange1947] 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. --- 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.

Rick:

My, there is something strangely familiar about this story.

I am sure the fellow presenting this rifle and ammo made detailed technical claims concerning the design of the rifle and the ammo. Do you recall any of the technical features that were used as selling points for this particular rifle and ammo?

Gene

There is a old trick, though NOT very practical for a combat situation. That is to keep your ammo in a cooler. I saw a chart that shows the increase of chamber pressure in relation to temperature. A number of SASS shooter will place their ammo in a "cool" compartment on their carts after that article came out.

I think, the military should, if it doesn't, teach and allow their sniper teams to reload for their specific rifles. Down side would be acquiring ammo in the field from another sniper team. Generally a reload for a specific rifle is only neck sized for greater accuracy. The case may or may not "chamber" in another rifle. I think they could probably they could work around that problem. Factory loads are sized for minimum chamber size, so that it chambers in all rifles but accuracy is not as good.

Longrange1947, thanks for the info on the barret. Seesh, sounds like the Army ordinance is still run by General Ripley (Civil War), He was a strong supported for smooth bores with buck and ball and would delay the development of any of the "newer Rifled muskets".

The word "cryogenic" was used here earlier in relation to possible improvement in a rifle barrel.

I've had some serious discussion about this exact thing with the top metallurgists at Crucible Specialty Tool Steels.

Does cryogenic treatment of rifle barrels do what is claimed?

And repeaters. He said that if the troops could fire more rounds per minute, they would just waste them. :rolleyes:

TR

Footmobile - Thanks and yes it is Rocket, was shooting at the destroyer turret at the 1200 meter mark on the right limit of the range. Hit it three of five times. :lifter

Of course that sucker is what, 12 feet by 15 feet in size, kinda hard to miss. :D

Had a 'group' try downloading the Chey Tec ammo to make it safer and it shot like crap.

Gene, you know the dude. I refused to be there becasue I knew there would be an arguement. Of course there was one anyway, but when I get "It would have been a .5 moa group if it had hit" then it is time to hang it up. When I get six shots with only two within measureing distance and they want to measure the group off of those two shots, I call BS. This too has happened at other shots. Of course the guys came back and originally said it had done great trying to get to me, but all I care about is getting a good piece of equipment in the hands of the shooter, I don't care who lmakes it. My problem is when junk is bought because someone has an unholy relationship with the manufacturer or it "appears to be" that way.

Hollis - We teach reloading at SOTIC. It was done originally because when we started the Air Land Battle 2000 doctrine stated that we would be behind the lines, read Soviet, for however long without resupply. We worked up loads so that the shooter could take in only primers, Lee hand press, and bullets. Then using powder from the 7.62x 54R ammo load up to continue the mission. The problem is the legality of shooting hand loads. The XM118LR says not for combat as it had not been cleared to use in combat when it was first manufactured, the same is the reason why M852 ammo states the same thing.. You can run into a problem by handloading bullets not approved by JAG as a combat round. ie, the plastic ballistic tip rounds guys love is a no no as the plastic tip does not show up in xrays. Could be a problem. Reaper could probably talk much more intelligently about this then I can.

Bill - I have heard good and bad things about cryoing a barrel. I don't see how it would hurt and if it stress relieves it the way it claims it should stop some of the POI shift caused by hot barrels. The Chey Tec, I don't think that is the problem. They test their ammo in the north moutain region and it is cold. They can get away with the hot loads. but the military can't take that chance.

Hollis - As far as cooling, you would have to have a set of charts for your ammo and keep a thermometer on the ammo all the time to monitor the temp as it woudl shift during the day as the ice melted an the inside of the container increased in temp. At those temps, the POI shift would be dramatic if not monitered and could be detrimental to the overall mission.

The problem really isn't that the Ord people do not want change, they change on the wrong whim. For an Ord officer to decide to buy a shit load of Barretts based on "hey that one is neat" is rather stupid. They also listen to only one side and if he talks loud enough then he is heard. Could be loud bad advice, and many times it is.

Reaper, the repeater on is the best and was the augrement against the M1 as well, waste of ammo. The soldiers will just shoot it up. Well, unfortunately that one has proven almost prophetic for full auto when you see the full auto spray and pray shooting done at times.

Well time to run off and hide. :munchin

Rick

I was there for that demo, as was Peregrino.

I told the shooter (let's call him DM for short) that he should call it a day after he couldn't get it to hold 6" at the 200 yard line.

He refused, and Ed rode him like a borrowed pony. I do not believe that DM is with them any more.

TR

I'm not trying to hijack this...while attempting to stay with the theme of this thread

The Candian the broke Hathcock's record...what did he use? I have heard a McMillian TAC-50 rifle. Google seems to confirm this.

But,

Was this a lucky shot?
Is the McMillian (that was used) the superior rifle?
Also at that range (I understand it to be 2,430 meters) who is actually making the shot the shooter or the spotter?

Technically I know the shooter is...however if LR1947 is saying its difficult to ID targets past 1200 meters (and I have no reason to doubt that) isn't the spotter really doing the IDing and shot calling at 2,400 meters not the shooter?

That is what I heard.

Yes, that was, IMHO, a lucky shot.

The Mac is one of the best.

I'll let LR1947 respond to the tough questions.

TR

Small point here, Hathcock, with all possible (AND I MEAN IT!) respect doesn't hold the record for USMC confirmed kills. An Oregon boy named Chuck Mawhinney does.

Bill, I think he's refering to Hathcocks long distance shots in Vietnam with a Ma Deuce. I can't remember the distance of that one, but I do know the canucks had him beat by quite a few hundred yards, and it was a true sniper team kill, not luck, as would have had to have been a great deal of what Hathcock did with that Ma Deuce and a jury rigged scope.

Not taking anything away from him at all either.

It was luck.
 

OK, will try this again, my computer froze like a tastee freeze last time. Had a long explanation post but screwed it up.

Sorry Footmobile, it was pure luck. At that range a one mph wind shift moves the bullet over 25 inches. A one moa bullet and one moa gun still shoots a group over 27 inches, which is bigger than the human body. What this means is that even if he did everything right he would still miss some of the shots. The angle of fall on the bullet is great enough that he must estimate the range to within 20 meters or the bullet will pass over head or fall in front of the target. Now add in the human factor of the shooter having to do everything right. He can not nudge the weapon at all to settle it in his shoulder while firing, a very common shooters error that is not a problem until you get to the 900 to 1000 meter mark. He can not get a muscle twitch, adrenalin cannot be racing the heart or the pulse will take the sights from below the target to over the top of the target. The shooter must fire exactly right. A very hard thing to do, even top shooters throws shots at 1000 yards, or 914 meters. With that and multiple wind shears, mirage dancing, and other environmental conditions, well, lady luck was smiling that day. Now if the target is alive and standing then he is in constant motion and that is erratic motion at best. Time of flight would have been about 3 seconds; a lot can happen in that time. Saying that shots like that are the norm for anyone is not realistic and for those that make those claims, such as regular head shots at 1000 meters I give them a bullet and say show me. No one has yet been able to do that.

The 82d guy that fired a Barrett shot at almost 2000 meters admits that it was luck. He stated that he observed a group of Iraqis and held Kentucky holds, both elevation and wind, and fired. He hit one and now that seems to be the expected norm with the Barrett, not happening. Yes the McMillan is a far superior weapon to the Barrett, but nothing can change physics.

Now then, as to the question of, “who makes the shoot”. The shooter is the monkey on the trigger and the observer is the more experienced sniper. He is the one that is indexing the target, doing final range computation and then figuring the rest of the environmental effects on the shooter’s zero. Once that is accomplished, he will watch the wind and compute winds for the range computed and watch for wind shears, he computes dominate wind then computes winds changes for other wind shears that modify the dominate wind. If the target is a mover he then computes the wind effect on the shooter’s normal lead and gives the shooter his final hold. If you want to see what I mean come to our range and what the interaction of the shooter observer when we are running a course. The observer can make the shooter miss the target.

On Hathcocks shot with the Ma Deuce, even he admits, in his book, that it was luck and that the one always quoted was fired on a VC kneeling in the same mud spot that he had just zeroed the weapon.

OK, settling down and waiting for incoming. :munchin

Thanks LR1947,

That is kind of what I thought.

So why not go with the MacMillian over the Barrett (besides politics)?

Your last two words (besides politics) say alot. One of the problems right now is the desire to go semi for rapid shot follow up. Problem with that is that the weapon bounces enough that you must get the weapon back on target and then wait for the correction. Heck by then you have racked the bolt and have one chambered in a bolt gun. Oh well.

Another problem is that there are those that just feel that the Barrett is the best way to go and they fight tooth and nail to keep it. Again, Oh Well.

The McMillan is not the only good shootng bolt gun, there are a goodly number out there and I would like to see a good shoot off. I would like to see a realistic doc of needs set up that has realistic requirements and that can be met by weapons and also a test program that properly identifies the best weapon. Still waiting on that one. :munchin

LR:

None of that matters without the right ammo.

1 MOA gun with 4 MOA ammo is not going to get the job done any better.

Would love to see us try the AMAX rounds or one of the Bore Riders.

TR

Fully agreed and they are working on that problem as well. So the last thing we need is a 1 moa bullet in a 4 moa gun. :D

Wow, the ammo is that bad?

Sounds like the M-107 overall is a bad idea and a waist of money. I understand it is good as far as an anti-material rifle goes, but if the accuracy is as bad as you guys say it is I think this weapon answers a small problem in the big scheme of things. Sounds like they should have gone with something different to answer more problems or to be a more diverse weapon. What a shame.

LR1947, Thank you for the information. I built my first bench rest rifle in the mid 70's and from there on it has been a learning lesson in methodical control of every variable as humanly possible and patience. Each step is a precise duplication as it was just done. Reloading is a ART in itself. Developing a round, understanding what round and how the outside condition effects it, wind, distance, etc is also a ART, along with the actual shooting. In each shot all variables are maintain to insure a round will follow just like the previous round. Nothing is left to chance. Most shooters do not need the precision that a 1000M shoot needs and reloading generally plays a very little part in their shooting. I told a friend, reloading to shooting is like foreplay to sex. He is a good shooter but does not reload. As with most shooters, they hope for the luck of the draw when they buy ammo hoping that it will work with their rifle. Yes, I buy cheap ammo for those mad minutes or spray and pray target shooting. Accuracy is not a issue, just shooting a lot of rounds is.

The human factor is the other critical part, as you mention. Not to diminish a shooters ability but at extreme distance 1,000 M plus, there are externalities that come into play that will influence a hit or miss. A little at 10 feet is a mile at 1000 M. I think the critical aspect of all of this, is training, training, and training. Regardless of what one is shooting, knowing what it can and cannot do, being very proficient in it's use, and one's emotional and physical self being resigned and capable to do the task at hand with commitment to success, other words PROFESSIONALISM. When money, politics, or ? becomes a factor in the decision making process of training personal, Professionalism erodes and we have amateurs shooters.

[QUOTE=Gene Econ]This Chey-tec being discussed, would you gentlemen be referring to the Intervention rifle chambered for .408 Cheyenne Tactical Cartridge?


The same model that was demonstrated during blackwater shootout?


TR Sir, since I believe it's mentioned somewhere here you were present during the LEMAS demo, I assume you were there (and tested it) during the .408 CheyTac demo?

Having neither access nor smackaroos to the rifle, I've been drooling ever since I came across the review years ago. I thought it was a wonder-weapon. Accuracy, range, take-down and all.
I guess you can't believe 100% everything you read and assume it's valid anywhere, anytime. Just plain dumb civvie here

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, though the demo we are referring to here was conducted at Ft Bragg for SOTIC.

TR

Frostfire, the articles that you are refering to at the end of your post were written by a man that is rather self serving and has a tendency to "stretch" the facts a bit. He is the one that stated, had they hit they would have been within a .5 moa group. He also told me and another site that shooting a .5 moa group with a Savage rifle at 1000 yards was "routine" for him.

Take it from there. :munchin

[QUOTE=frostfire]
Frostfire,

Enough of the URL's!

If it is your desire to read what "civilians and amateurs" have to say about rifles and bullets do so, but do us a favor and leave out their links.

And no, I don't care what "Combat, weapons, tactics, equipment etc" magazines you read either. Please save them for the airsoft readers and their forums.

A little insight Frostfire, most of the people promoting "COMBAT" or "COUNTERTERRORIST" weapons, tactics, equipment and training HAVE NEVER BEEN IN ACTUAL COMBAT! NEVER!

And 99.999% of the people training in or stating they have been trained in "counter-terrorist" techniques, tactics and procedures have been trained by the very same people that have NEVER received any REAL training themselves.


Enjoy amateur hour on the other forums, spare us your links.

Team Sergeant

Yes, 99.999%

busted :(

Ryoukai, TS.
won't happen again.
Also no, I don't read or subscribe tactical etc. magazines.

TS I sent you an attachment of some Nice shots with a .50 cal. Didn't know how to post it so sent it to you via email. Perhaps this might be an excellent thread to post the video on.

Would this be the video of the goat killings? :munchin

This is a video from Afghanistan. Video recorded by the Spotter. OH MY!
The Horror......The Horror. And they are improving on THAT! :D