Precision Shooting Magazine - March 2008 (Vol. 55 No. 11)

Good snipers are by nature resourceful, disciplined perfectionists who excel at getting the job done with whatever tools they have on hand. The “tools” used by US military snipers today are good, but most who carry them agree there’s room for improvement. Not surprisingly, opinions about what makes a good sniper weapon system (SWS) vastly outnumber the men actually carrying and employing them. Occasionally publications like Precision Shooting feature articles about potential sniper rifles. While most of these are informative they sometimes run counter to current sniper needs. A November 2007 Precision Shooting article written by accomplished author and veteran Roy F. Chandler fits both categories. His article presented information about Iron Brigade Armory’s XM3 weapon system and the lack of US military interest, then went on to define the writer’s idea of a good SWS. His comments about sniping struck a raw nerve with military snipers in multiple services, motivating me to address some of those comments directly.

Before you get too far into the “Who is this clown?” line of questioning, I’ll explain my frame of reference. I’m freshly retired from 21 years in the US Army. My last 14 years were spent in the Special Operations community with 12 years as a sniper. My time behind the crosshairs included multiple tours of duty in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I spent my final time in service knee-deep in weapons R&D within the Special Operations community, specializing in sniper weapons. Though my duty positions and experiences taught me the technical and operational aspects of small arms systems, my real education came by way of the exceptionally dedicated and experienced Soldiers I was privileged to work and fight alongside.

I won’t cover much of Mr. Chandler’s article or IBA’s XM3 here. Instead I’ll explain some key aspects of modern sniping I believe may benefit PS readers. While I won’t attempt to speak for all US military snipers, I’ll do my best to present some of the “why” behind their equipping and methodology in the fights of today and tomorrow.

I’ll start on a positive note by agreeing with two points made in the November article. First, signature reduction through sound and flash suppression is critical to sniper survival. Most current-issue sniper weapons lack flash suppressors and munitions tailored to barrel lengths. Quick detachable (QD) sound suppressors with minimal zero shift, providing effective suppression are invaluable assets to snipers. Although many suppressor companies are making and selling high numbers of sound suppressors, very few are doing it right. As indicated in the XM3 article, Surefire LLC is one of those few. Their FA-762 QD sound suppressors are well designed, high-quality tools with a proven track record. Secondly, I agree shorter barrels and tighter twists in sniper rifles merit a hard look. A great deal of R&D is being conducted on this subject by Mr. Todd Hodnett, Principal of Accuracy 1st in Arthur City, TX. In addition to training Army and Marine snipers in long range shooting and advanced optics, he’s doing yeoman’s work to find the best barrel-twist-projectile combinations for military sniper rifles in .308 Win. and .338 Lapua Magnum.

Getting down to brass tacks, I’ll address the relevance of 3 important items to US snipers on the modern battlefield: external magazine sniper rifles, milliradian-based (mil) reticles and first focal plane (1st FP) riflescopes.

Sniper Rifles Old and New

The introduction of repeating rifles in military service on this continent can be traced at least as far back as 1777 with the British Ferguson Rifle. Though Major Patrick Ferguson’s design died with him during the Battle of King’s Mountain in 1780, the repeating rifle lived to fight on in new forms. As long as combatants have needed to launch a projectile through the air to eliminate a threat, the desire to quickly make ready for the next threat has been constant. In modern sniping this desire is stronger than ever. I have wrongly assumed today’s need for repeating sniper rifles was widely agreed upon. In the modern context this includes semi-automatic and bolt action rifles with external, quickly changeable magazines. In concept, military snipers only fire singular shots at select targets, leaving any multi-shot engagements to others. While this method of employment is the fundamental element of sniping, today’s dynamic battlefields demand more flexibility from the sniper. The first time he has to “shoot and move”- engaging multiple targets at varying distances from different positions- the sniper realizes most current-issue sniper weapons don’t adapt well to fluid environments, due in part to their internal magazines.

If optimal accuracy for one shot were the sniper’s sole concern, single shot rifles would rule the field. Many purists maintain the more metal left in an action, the more rigid and conducive to promoting accuracy it will be. So why don’t we eliminate magazine cutouts altogether and shrink loading-ejection ports to the minimum size needed for function? The answer is although the sniper’s objective is always a 1 shot/1 kill ratio, his reality is additional rounds are often required for primary and secondary targets. Even permissive environments such as domestic law enforcement stand-offs may require snipers to rapidly deal with unexpected threats. Sniper weapons designed for multiple mission profiles must function reliably in the most extreme environments, achieve levels of accuracy above all other tactical small arms on the field and provide an ability to rapidly re-engage or transition to other threat targets. Such weapons are a series of compromises integrating reliability, accuracy, flexibility, portability, rate of fire, good ergonomics and signature reduction. I’m not aware of any recent combat environment where multiple threat targets were not in abundance when things began to heat up. The sniper may not choose to fight them all, but he better be ready to deal with any requiring his attention.

Providing snipers the ability to fire rapidly doesn’t revert them to regular Infantry troops. I’ve served in both positions under fire and they’re very different. Whether or not we like it, our snipers are called on to do a wide variety of missions befitting their skills and equipment. In addition to a very complex, technical set of reconnaissance tasks, they maneuver in urban settings in front of, alongside and above other friendly combatants. Sniper teams often provide their own internal support through a modified version of “fire and maneuver”. They also provide long range over-watch, reconnaissance and precision fires in extremely rugged terrain where they are left to their own defenses when things don’t go as planned. Our snipers strap themselves to helicopters to provide aerial support for ground forces. They also perform close quarters battle (CQB) roles. Ideally this CQB is a planned event and they’re equipped accordingly. Sometimes “Murphy” takes control and our snipers make do with whatever they have on hand. There are a lot of ways to deal with the sniper-CQB problem but that subject requires its own editorial space. A sniper moving into position undetected, firing one shot from a well-concealed hide-site, then withdrawing to another for the next engagement depicts the classic, conventional sniper mission. This scenario sometimes occurs in the current war and is still the foundation for basic sniper training. However if that were all our snipers were capable of doing there would be a lot more fallen heroes in our National Cemeteries and many presently-terminated bad guys would still be terrorizing the earth’s population. Our snipers are doing an outstanding job of taking the fight to the enemy by adapting to their varied environments and tasks, bar none.

Many writers have detailed current US sniper rifles, specifically the Army’s M24 and Marine’s M40 sniper weapon systems. Both have their strengths and weaknesses and both services have endeavored to find replacements. The Army is presently far along in their Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS) program whereas the Marine Corps is still considering options to replace the M40. Both efforts share a common goal: increase the sniper’s lethality, adaptability and survivability by providing him with an accurate, easily reloadable, sniper rifle. In the case of the SASS program, the requirement mandates a semi-automatic (only) rifle. Had the Army elected to retain the M24 SWS for specialized tasks, it could have been upgraded fairly easily to remain useful. The M24’s long action allows re-chambering to .300 WM and a reconfiguration of the barrel with an external magazine conversion could breathe new life into this sturdy platform. Although our military currently has small numbers of accurate, external magazine, bolt-action sniper systems already fielded, they are increasingly reserved for special purposes.

As the reliability of accurized semi-auto platforms increases, their use will broaden substantially and for good reason. Operational experiences have made me a strong advocate of man-portable, semi-auto sniper rifles for anything from muzzle to 1000m engagements. The durability and precision of the modern self-loading sniper rifle surpasses any previously fielded attempts. I’ve carried many older design semi-auto sniper platforms and their performance never approached the modern versions I’ve employed.

The rifle chosen to meet the SASS requirement is the Knight’s Armament Company (KAC) XM110. This is a 7.62x51mm, direct-impingement gas system, semi-automatic rifle of AR-10 and KAC SR-25 lineage. My relevant experience lies with those predecessors in the SR-25 / MK11 family of weapons. Since individual and organizational results differ with these rifles I’ll only refer to performance I’ve witnessed first-hand. Some variants of this family have been fielded to military units for nearly 15 years with positive effect. The MK11 Mod 0 (Photo 1) in particular has shown itself to be an effective, semi-automatic sniper rifle with exceptional accuracy potential. Among specific user groups it regularly demonstrates 3/4 to 1 MOA accuracy out to 800m and 1 MOA and 1 to 1 ¼ MOA at 1000m. Though not exactly competition-grade accuracy, the contests these guns were made for result in life and death instead of trophies and titles. When properly employed they’re durable, combat proven, semi-automatic precision weapons offering great flexibility. These results were seen with full production, fielded rifles and not “demo” samples or bench-built custom guns. The accuracy referenced is obtained with trained snipers firing off bi-pods or tactical bag-rests using M118LR ammunition. While this type of sniper rifle can be made to shoot smaller groups, the sliding scale between accuracy and reliability rears its ugly head and as one takes the other has to give.

Other companies are making semi-auto 7.62x51 rifles but I haven’t seen any beat the MK11 Mod 0 in overall accuracy…yet. Those companies making cleaner shooting, cooler, ultra-reliable gas-piston operating systems are gaining ground as their rifles are continually refined. Incidentally, most fielded KAC sniper rifles use an over-barrel style, gas-block locking, QD sound suppressor known to perform very well. A version of this suppressor design, locating on the flash suppressor (absent on earlier MK11s and SR-25s), is incorporated on the XM110. If the current Army and Marine Corps efforts result in weapons equal to or better than the rifles I’ve referred to, I think the slight lowering of accuracy from bolt-action systems will be acceptable to most snipers in exchange for the added capabilities and effective ergonomics they’ll gain.

An important caveat to my side of the semi-auto sniper weapon debate is that planning and training to use it as an assault-rifle is a sure way to turn it into just that…permanently. Operating temperatures tend to be higher with these weapons, particularly when firing with a sound suppressor. Other than some carbines not intended for precision fire, most don’t have chrome-lined barrels. If snipers regularly train with them as they would an M4 or M16 variant, throats and barrels won’t last long and parts breakage will increase dramatically. The best approach I’ve found is to shoot them as any “traditional” sniper rifle, avoid heavy round-count training events and always resist the urge to chase shot(s) during a bad day at the range. Provided a quality weapon is in hand and its “rapid fire” limitations are thoroughly understood, the sniper can operate with confidence knowing his semi-automatic sniper rifle provides a big advantage when missions and lives are at stake.

Bringing Tactical Optics into the 21st Century

I’ve seen a lot written about the use of mil-dots in a riflescope- both positive and negative. I’d like to re-canvas some positive ground to dispel any notion of the mil-based reticle being obsolete due to advances in technology. Make no mistake, laser rangefinders are awesome tools, used whenever available and practical. They compliment mil-reticles for the sniper but don’t replace them. Anything electronic can- and eventually will- fail. I have used some very good laser rangefinders operationally with excellent results. Their use goes far beyond small arms engagements. I’ve also had them fail at inopportune times. Laser rangefinders have come a long way since the days of the “crew served” variety. “Mil-Spec” models actually fit into cargo pockets and give accurate readings on reflective targets (vehicles, buildings, hillsides, etc) in excess of effective small-arms ranges. That said, the basic mil-dot reticle is unobtrusive, always on-hand and reliable. The mil reticle won’t fail if the sniper does his part in measuring and calculating out to approx. 1000m. Rather than moving away from mil reticles, the tactical scope market is moving deeper into the realm of the milliradian. I’m pleased to see a much higher number of mil reticle scopes offered on the commercial market today than just 2 years ago. Like many PS readers, I’ve hunted and shot recreationally since I was a young boy. I readily adapt the positives of my military service to my personal shooting. Once I learned all I can do with a mil reticle, I vowed never to buy another scope without one. Mil-based reticles are useful far beyond military sniping and are applicable to hunting, target shooting and tactical competition. As military optics development moves toward fusing traditional mechanical functions with advanced electronics for ranging, reticle adjustment and data screens, you can expect to see some form of the mil-based reticle retained as a mechanical backup for years to come.

The utility of a mil reticle starts with range determination but doesn’t stop there. Snipers use their mil-dots/ovals/hash marks to provide leading holds for moving targets, references for wind holds, hold-overs in lieu of “dialing up” and for shooting a “combat zero” and alternate munitions (AP, ball, etc). Mils also allow the sniper to measure corrections when using a riflescope to perform observer-spotter duties for another sniper (common in dynamic environments where spotting scopes aren’t practical). When performed with a reticle subtending below 1 mil (1/2 mil, 2/10th mil, etc), this particular capability brings the art of spotting up to a whole new level of performance. The best examples I have used to date are the Horus Vision H27 (Drawing 1), H37 and H38 reticles. These reticles multiply the functionality of any quality optic but can’t be fully explained in this limited space. Suffice it to say their hash marks subtend to the 2/10th mil, provide ample markings for wind holds at all distances and make range-finding extremely accurate. They speed zero and training times dramatically and make second shot corrections into near-guaranteed hits when fire is observed. I have trained new snipers with only the Horus system and found them to learn faster than with traditional mil-dot reticles and ballistic drop compensating (BDC) knobs. These reticles work on any rifle with any combination of munitions, providing very accurate hold-over points. Horus reticles greatly streamline rapid engagement of multiple targets and distances. There are other excellent reticles subtending below the whole mil such as Premier Reticles’ Gen II Mil-Dot™ (Drawing 2) which subtends to the ½ mil and extends past the traditional 5 mils below center stadia. For snipers not wanting windage mil marks below center, this reticle provides improved hold-over ability and ranges targets more accurately than the traditional mil-dot reticle. Premier’s newest reticle is the Gen II XR (Drawing 3). It maintains the spartan appeal of the basic mil-dot while combining ½ mil increments with more accurate wind holds below center reticle.

A mil reticle has to be placed in the 1st FP to be fully functional. I realize most shooters’ only exposure to variable power optics has been with second focal plane (2nd FP) reticles. Until recently it’s been the same with military snipers. Those snipers lucky enough to be properly trained on both 2nd FP and 1st FP optics seem to prefer the latter. The fact that something is familiar and comfortable doesn’t mean it’s the best tool for the job. Second focal plane reticles are no exception. They require the highest power setting in order for reticle measurements to correspond correctly to the target size. First focal plane reticles place the image and reticle in the same optical plane which allows use of reticle measurements at any power setting. We know lower powers allow a larger field of view (useful for observation, spotting and moving targets) and greater light transmission in dawn and dusk settings. They also dramatically improve the image provided by image-intensifying (I²) night vision devices. I don’t know any US military snipers who stop working when the sun goes down. I’ve used many different inline and “piggyback” I² devices operationally and in testing. All of them, good and bad, provide the best images at middle power settings (6x to 8x) when used in conjunction with the day optic. A sniper limited to a 2nd FP scope has useless mil marks at reduced powers. Even if he has a night-capable laser rangefinder his mover leads, wind holds & hold-over’s will be incorrect because the target image gets smaller as power is reduced while the reticle retains its original size. The only alternatives are using highest power (yielding a lower quality I² image) or incorporating confusing mathematical corrections to mil holds at reduced power.

Although 1st FP reticles appear thicker at high power and thinner at low power, a properly designed reticle doesn’t inhibit target engagement at any power. The modern ability to customize reticles allows manufacturers to provide a line thickness usable at all powers. A good example is the aforementioned Horus H27, which allows the use of mils at mid to high powers and the basic reticle “crosshair” at the lowest power. The prevalent use for the lowest power on variable sniper scopes (generally between 1.1X and 4.5X) is for patrolling or movement. Engagements here tend to be immediate and relatively close; requiring a center-of-reticle hold. A well-designed reticle thinning at low power doesn’t lose the crosshair, just the smaller mil marks used for longer ranges. The only way to fully understand and believe this is to lay hands on a 1st FP scope and use it repeatedly in multiple environments and scenarios. Among the many different tactical scopes I’ve used, the 2 stand outs are Horus Vision’s Falcon 1000, 4-16x50mm and Schmidt & Bender’s (S&B) PMII, 4-16x42mm (Photo 1). Both scopes provide 1st FP reticles and a dramatic upgrade in capability over 2nd FP scopes. They’ve also shown themselves to be durable, full-featured combat optics fielded in varying numbers throughout the military. The USMC “M8541 Scout Sniper Day Scope” (Photo 2) is a S&B 3-12x50mm optic and the first scope with a 1st FP to be fielded to an entire branch of snipers. Weapon systems can be pushed far beyond previous limits with these types of optics attached. Leupold is now offering at least 3 models of 1st FP tactical scopes, which come as welcome additions to the limited pool of quality, fully-functional sniper optics. First focal plane technology is also applicable to hunters, who would benefit from it if using mils or any of the “ballistic” reticles advertised as suitable for range-finding or holding over game. While it may be convenient to field 2nd FP scopes to our snipers, better alternatives exist.

All in all, our military snipers are headed in a positive direction. Those organizations fielding the modernized weapons and optics I’ve mentioned have achieved phenomenal successes in long range testing, training and most importantly: active ground combat. It makes no sense to go backward in capability when there is so much room and reason to move forward. Modern sniping is the evolutionary application of a Revolutionary principle: The American Rifleman can best his foe through cunning dedication and the skillful application of long range, precision rifle fire. Today we have a wider variety of excellent tools to help us apply this principal than ever before and we’d be foolish to ignore them.