Airsoft Arizona

Off-Topic Forums => Real Firearms => Topic started by: andyhinds on July 22, 2005, 07:26:58 AM

Title: Military's New M107 Sniper Rifle
Post by: andyhinds on July 22, 2005, 07:26:58 AM
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,1 ... ruiting.nl (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M107,,00.html?ESRC=recruiting.nl)
Title: Re: Military's New M107 Sniper Rifle
Post by: Reaver on July 22, 2005, 07:47:38 AM
Quote from: "andyhinds"
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M107,,00.html?ESRC=recruiting.nl


  Very nice.  :)
Title:
Post by: busta_cap on July 22, 2005, 08:14:21 AM
m82 on roids?
Title:
Post by: Mugen on July 22, 2005, 08:24:37 AM
Oh yeah.Thats what I am talkin about.

...and if youre not able to shoot them from 2 miles away....you can always beat the hell outta them with the round itself.  :D

Costs about 3-4 dollars everytime you fire it.... (ball) :shock:
Title:
Post by: azsarge on July 22, 2005, 08:42:32 AM
I'm not sure if the article reflects this or not, but it's actually been around for a few years as the XM107.  The "X" denotes its expirmental nature.  I know only 2 people that have firsthand experience with it, but both have nothing but praise for it's effectiveness.

This the same rifle as an M82A1, just redesignated.
Title:
Post by: Reaver on July 22, 2005, 09:24:51 AM
Quote from: "azsarge"
I'm not sure if the article reflects this or not, but it's actually been around for a few years as the XM107.  The "X" denotes its expirmental nature.  I know only 2 people that have firsthand experience with it, but both have nothing but praise for it's effectiveness.

This the same rifle as an M82A1, just redesignated.


  Yea, the article did mention that a few times and gave the same praise.  :)
Title:
Post by: Raith on July 22, 2005, 09:53:35 AM
If I remember correctly, the M107 ends up being the M82A3, which is different from the A1 in that it has a rail, removable carry handle, different Bipod, and rear monopod attachment.

The M82A2 is real trippy, its a bullpup.

EDIT -

(http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/534/76m82a2a.gif)

(http://world.guns.ru/sniper/barrett_m82a2.jpg)
Title:
Post by: azsarge on July 22, 2005, 09:56:40 AM
Quote from: "Raith"
If I remember correctly, the M107 ends up being the M82A3, which is different from the A1 in that it has a rail, removable carry handle, different Bipod, and rear monopod attachment.

The M82A2 is real trippy, its a bullpup.


You're right, Matt.  

It's kind of like the whole civilian AR thing, though.  Certain fielded versions of the M82A1 had improvements made, but were still considered A1's.  So A1, A3, whatever the designation, it's all the M107 now.
Title:
Post by: busta_cap on July 22, 2005, 10:32:07 AM
Quote from: "azsarge"
Quote from: "Raith"
If I remember correctly, the M107 ends up being the M82A3, which is different from the A1 in that it has a rail, removable carry handle, different Bipod, and rear monopod attachment.

The M82A2 is real trippy, its a bullpup.

You're right, Matt.  

It's kind of like the whole civilian AR thing, though.  Certain fielded versions of the M82A1 had improvements made, but were still considered A1's.  So A1, A3, whatever the designation, it's all the M107 now.
Don't the marines get the new(er)A3?
Title:
Post by: azsarge on July 22, 2005, 11:27:26 AM
Quote from: "busta_cap"
Quote from: "azsarge"
Quote from: "Raith"
If I remember correctly, the M107 ends up being the M82A3, which is different from the A1 in that it has a rail, removable carry handle, different Bipod, and rear monopod attachment.

The M82A2 is real trippy, its a bullpup.

You're right, Matt.  

It's kind of like the whole civilian AR thing, though.  Certain fielded versions of the M82A1 had improvements made, but were still considered A1's.  So A1, A3, whatever the designation, it's all the M107 now.
Don't the marines get the new(er)A3?


I think it's all considered M107 now, Andy.  All the same blaster.

They DO have M16A3 IIRC.  One of the guys that had an M16 at YPG said it was an A4.  It had a flattop upper and rull length rail, although I don't know if the latter has anything to do with the weapons designation.
Title:
Post by: Farslayer on July 22, 2005, 11:43:45 AM
What kind of optics would be needed for a 2 mile shot.....?
Title:
Post by: Reaver on July 22, 2005, 11:48:18 AM
Quote from: "Farslayer"
What kind of optics would be needed for a 2 mile shot.....?


  Satelite images routed through a GPS linked computerized scope.  ;)

  Although, if you really want to be scary, sabot in a 7.62mm round and then see how much range you get out of that rifle.   :twisted:
Title:
Post by: andyhinds on July 22, 2005, 11:52:09 AM
Quote from: "Farslayer"
What kind of optics would be needed for a 2 mile shot.....?


Found this from the article "This meant that the round had a flight time of four seconds, and a drop of 146 feet"

Talk about bullet drop!!  I wonder if they used "Kentucky Windage" of if a Bullet Drop Compensator goes that far.  I think they said it was a 10X scope.
Title:
Post by: busta_cap on July 22, 2005, 11:52:33 AM
Quote from: "Farslayer"
What kind of optics would be needed for a 2 mile shot.....?
So far..from what I've heard....The Super Sniper scopes are awesome, I believe Tasco makes them(don't let that fool you). They have a higher MOA adjustment than any other scope available and have been getting praises from deployed snipers so far.
Title:
Post by: RickEJ6 on July 22, 2005, 12:08:37 PM
Where is the 2 mile shot coming from?  The 2430 meter shot is only 1.5 miles...haha...crap thats far away.
Title:
Post by: Lightning_Man on July 22, 2005, 05:43:45 PM
Quote from: "azsarge"
I know only 2 people that have firsthand experience with it, but both have nothing but praise for it's effectiveness.

This the same rifle as an M82A1, just redesignated.


Now you know 3. Yeah it is just the M82A1, might have some small modifications.

I just have to say how irritating it is when I read about the "clip" and only loading 9 rounds. The fact that they called it a clip just tells me the writer doesn't know his ass froma  hole in the ground and I suspect that the only loading 9 rounds comment is an extension/pepetuation of the only putting 29 rounds in your magazine nonsense.
Title:
Post by: Firehead on July 22, 2005, 05:51:09 PM
Quote from: "azsarge"
They DO have M16A3 IIRC.  One of the guys that had an M16 at YPG said it was an A4.  It had a flattop upper and rull length rail, although I don't know if the latter has anything to do with the weapons designation.


M16A3s are Fullautomatic M16s, similar to the A1. The A4 has the 3 round burst. They have the same bodies, flattop rails ect, just the fire modes are different.
Title:
Post by: RickEJ6 on July 22, 2005, 06:29:05 PM
Quote from: "Lightning_Man"
Quote from: "azsarge"
I know only 2 people that have firsthand experience with it, but both have nothing but praise for it's effectiveness.

This the same rifle as an M82A1, just redesignated.

Now you know 3. Yeah it is just the M82A1, might have some small modifications.

I just have to say how irritating it is when I read about the "clip" and only loading 9 rounds. The fact that they called it a clip just tells me the writer doesn't know his ass froma  hole in the ground and I suspect that the only loading 9 rounds comment is an extension/pepetuation of the only putting 29 rounds in your magazine nonsense.
.

What do you mean nonsense?  I have ALWAYS downloaded my mags to 28 rounds.  Have you ever tried to do a tactical reload (stupid name, but its just reloading when you arent completely empty in order to have a fully loaded magazine) with a magazine loaded to 30 rounds?  The fully loaded magazine will not seat correctly.   It is also SOP with some units (at least 1 I know in Afghanistan and another in Iraq) that friendes of mine serve in to download at least one round.

Rick
Title:
Post by: azsarge on July 22, 2005, 06:55:11 PM
What he said.

Furthermore, I have heard of short-loading Barrett mags because it can feed incorrectly to the point of damaging the system.  The author may be an assneck, but he didn't make that up.
Title:
Post by: Lightning_Man on July 22, 2005, 07:40:49 PM
All I know is that I have always loaded max and never had a problem that resulted from having them fully loaded. My understanding is that the original spring and follower from when the 30round magazines started being issued were sub standard and thus the short loading was a stopgap solution. Since the late 80s there has been an improved spring and follower and more recently there has been a 3rd upgrade to the follower.

As far as SOPs go, that just tells us the guy writing it is older, or at least that is my guess. I have seen smoe units with some pretty fucked up idiot stuff in their SOPs, even units in hot AOs. Then of course I have also seen units that didn't have an SOP as far as anyone knew, LOL.

While I was in Bosnia I was with both American and Swedish engineering teams on occasions where they were using82A1s for destroying anti-tank mines and in both instances the teams were fully loading magazines, maybe they were just unaware of the flaw? I dunno.
Title:
Post by: Firehead on July 22, 2005, 07:47:12 PM
I always thought that with the new ones, you don't load max so the spring doesn't degrade(like an AEG) after long times of being loaded(in a combat zone), thus cuasing it to jam. Loading a few less helps the spring out a bit, or so i'd imagine. I'm pretty sure i'm wrong though.
Title:
Post by: RickEJ6 on July 22, 2005, 08:09:51 PM
The magazine spring is designed to be loaded with the full 30 rounds.  There are no detrimental effects from that.  The only time the spring goes bad is after repeated loading and unloading of the magazine. Its the fact that with the bolt closed and a round in the chamber, the magazine is difficult if not impossible to seat.  That leads to a problem if you have a magazine with 3 rounds left in it and would like to put a full one in without having to play w/ the bolt.

Rick