Here’s a video I put together showing the Army’s new M110 sniper rifle in action out at that test shoot at Aberdeen. I have several others I’ll post as I edit them, so stay tuned.
And please excuse the rough-and-ready quality of the clip. I’m just getting used to this whole video editing and I promise each one will be better…as will my videography.
That weapon is not 5.56 that is a SR-25 in 7.62 is the new snper rifle from stoner and robar mix ive fired it and its great its based upon the M10 the ORIGANL M16 system in the orginal cal.it was 7.62 it was switched to 5.56 in 1960 and a foward asst added along with changes ti the dolt head and Rounds them self.
I liked ‘rupturducks’ comments. As former MAC-Vietnam, we improvised with Remington 700 BDL, and I will always favor the bolt action. Fewer things to go wrong when the sh– goes down. If something can break or go wrong, it will. I still shoot alot, and to stay good you have to practise. I can’t practise 4–6 hrs. several times a week with a .338 or .50. My body can’t take it and it eventually shows in critical shots. I won’t bet my life on it as I would with the .308. Maybe I’m just gettin’ a little wussy in my old age.
Dr.J
I have been shooting rifles since I was nine years old. And I would have to say that I hate the M-4 and the M16 I just do not like the M-16 style guns. The best rifle I would consider for combat would be a M-14. It’s still a real rifle with a real cartridge. I’ve used 5.56 to shoot squirels and rabits. I’ve used 7.62 on deer. wich is a man closer in size to? Of corse a deer. Also in Iraq I’ve seen targets hit multiple times with a 5.56 round and still keep moving. I carry an M-14 and I’ve never had to shoot a target more than twice to bring him down.
The majority of kills with 7.62 have only taken one shot.Not Only that I can make reliable shots at 800yds no problem. Unlikes the 5.56 round. And I prefer an M14 not the m110 or m4
I like real rifles not these plastic and aluminum pieces of crap. But if I have to take one I would take the 7.62 M110.
Ive said this before… The M16’s based off the original armalite format in 5.56 are exceptional for close range urban combat. The low recoil + muzzle jump insures peak persision when the chips are down and you can carry much more ammo for longer engagements.
The 7.62x51mm NATO has a much higher ballistic coeficient and thusly superior penetration and stopping power over the 5.56x45mm NATO. But most guns worth mentioning that are chambered for that caliber a heavy and to unwieldly for urban combat.
I say the best is a blend of both worlds. 5.56r’s are good for urban but more distant and armoured call for the 7.62mm+ Both have their own advantages and disadvantages on todays battle fields.
Ive said this before… The M16’s based off the original armalite format in 5.56 are exceptional for close range urban combat. The low recoil + muzzle jump insures peak persision when the chips are down and you can carry much more ammo for longer engagements.
The 7.62x51mm NATO has a much higher ballistic coeficient and thusly superior penetration and stopping power over the 5.56x45mm NATO. But most guns worth mentioning that are chambered for that caliber a heavy and to unwieldly for urban combat.
I say the best is a blend of both worlds. 5.56r’s are good for urban but more distant and armoured call for the 7.62mm+ Both have their own advantages and disadvantages on todays battle fields.
trained on an out of the box 14 and loved itcould kill further then I could see.
given a toy 16 had the trigger fall out after 3 shots, never realized I could have had a choice or would have had a 14
but it was nice to be able to carry a lot of ammo
14 was the most accurate I ever fired followed by a british 303
bought a 308 very poor rifle
During my 1983 to ’02 career, i used the M-14 and it is the best battle rifle EVER made. Also was issued the SR-25 during the Gulf 1, and found it lighter and less recoil than the 14. The Sr-25 was actually the Mk11-the Navy version with suppressor. Choice? In a job where being quiet is everything, gimme that Mk-11. Other than that, give me back my M-14.
My Troop used the SR-25 (XM110) in Iraq in 04–05, very effective, alongside M14/21s, the round was far more effective than 5.56. The real issue is getting the weapons and parts to every unit. Mags, optics, and repair parts are the issue everytime we get a new piece of equipment.
Is it me or is that thing an AR-10? I bet the military spends $10,000 per weapon!
How about just using the M-14 with Fiberglass stock? What is a M-4 now? A CAR-16 with a heavy barrel?
We like to waste money in the military. I have an old M14 that will shoot rings around most high dollar hunting rifles and all military rifles with the exception of national match weapons with there close tolerances. We have M14s already they work well, the troops like them etc… Spend the money on a suppressor for the M14. It will do everything the plastic wonder gun will do and it looks like a rifle and not some comic book artists idea of what a rifle looks like.
I’m surprised there wasn’t more mention of the 6.5mm or 6.8mm. IF memory serves me right all you would have to do is snap on a new complete upper. The same lower and same mags can be used. Ergonomics are the same for the shooters and should cost less $$ that a new “AR-10″. H*ll it could do what the 40S&W did for pistols.….. give us something else to argue about LOL.
But I honestly have to say if I had to go out again and had a choice between the two… .308 baby. Budda Budda Budda!
LMAO This is an ideal weapon for squad support through target supression and the elimination of key enemy combatants… much like the SVD has been doing for the old soviet forces since the sixties. Since soldiers are now being fighting in a far more open environment than the 5.56 was designed for, I think it makes damn good sense to get this class of weapon to the troops that need it.
I am a fan of the M-14 it is by far one of the best shooting rifles i have ever used. For targets at ranges of 600m or more it gets the job done. I also like the 300 win mag to reach out and touch the target.
Looks like a nice rifle, ive shot the SR25 before was as accurate as the M24 till about 500 meters then the M24 shot half the group, And i see alot of pepople talkn about the 338 and the 300 those are great rounds but fromn a training stand point its not good, at the AF Sniper school we shot between 60–80 rounds a day for three weeks and could any of you imagine shooting that in 300 win mag for three weeks, the M24 is proven out to 1000 meters on a steady basis.