Semi-auto sniper
- Thread starter AlexGRT
- Start date
I wouldn't choose a semi-auto as a sniper, period.
rem 700 bolt action, Mauser 98, Savage, Parker-Hale, anything along those lines.
All the semis are good, as semis. Only the M-14 would come close to being a useful sniping weapon.
When I shoot long range at combat match (400 meters with an M-16), the ONLY way to get consistent shots is to load them one at a time. It's easier to do that with the M-14 bolt than with the others, which require loading a magazine with one round per each shot fired.
If the weapon holds more than 1 round, the balance WILL change as you shoot, and it WILL affect your point of aim, period.
The purpose of the extra 2 or 3 rounds in a sniper's rifle, while you single load the others, is for emergency.
Now, for combat marksman shooting (picking off leaders at moderate range while your buddies handle the mass), any of them will do well, if you are comfortable with the weapon.
stick with 7.62--big enough to do the job and the "industry" standard, so it's easy to get ammo and loading specs for.
The M-14 would be the toughest of that bunch, IMO. The Armalite not as tough, but good. The G-3 can now be had at a reasonable price, but doesn't lock the bolt open, and the FN is tough but needs WAY too much trigger work to make it shoot comfortably.
rem 700 bolt action, Mauser 98, Savage, Parker-Hale, anything along those lines.
All the semis are good, as semis. Only the M-14 would come close to being a useful sniping weapon.
When I shoot long range at combat match (400 meters with an M-16), the ONLY way to get consistent shots is to load them one at a time. It's easier to do that with the M-14 bolt than with the others, which require loading a magazine with one round per each shot fired.
If the weapon holds more than 1 round, the balance WILL change as you shoot, and it WILL affect your point of aim, period.
The purpose of the extra 2 or 3 rounds in a sniper's rifle, while you single load the others, is for emergency.
Now, for combat marksman shooting (picking off leaders at moderate range while your buddies handle the mass), any of them will do well, if you are comfortable with the weapon.
stick with 7.62--big enough to do the job and the "industry" standard, so it's easy to get ammo and loading specs for.
The M-14 would be the toughest of that bunch, IMO. The Armalite not as tough, but good. The G-3 can now be had at a reasonable price, but doesn't lock the bolt open, and the FN is tough but needs WAY too much trigger work to make it shoot comfortably.
For a dedicated Sniper rifle I wouldn't choose a Semi. While a semi can be made to shoot as accurate as a bolt you you have a lot more parts that need to be worked on. Also remember that with a semi as soon as you fire things start moving (bolt, springs, etc) that can effect the static rifle and it's effect on the bullet's interior ballistic.
Jeff White
New member
You guys left out the M1D. The M1D was THE
sniper rifle in the US Army until the M24 was fielded. There were never a lot of M21s built and they were hard to maintain. Most units had M1Ds in their arms rooms until about 1989 or 90 when the M24 became available in quantity.
47th Infantry Divison (MN ANRG) sniper school in 1988 could only come up with a half dozen or so M21s. Everyone else had M1Ds that were borrowed from all over the Army from both active and RC units. The M1Ds stood their own against the M21s.
Jeff
sniper rifle in the US Army until the M24 was fielded. There were never a lot of M21s built and they were hard to maintain. Most units had M1Ds in their arms rooms until about 1989 or 90 when the M24 became available in quantity.
47th Infantry Divison (MN ANRG) sniper school in 1988 could only come up with a half dozen or so M21s. Everyone else had M1Ds that were borrowed from all over the Army from both active and RC units. The M1Ds stood their own against the M21s.
Jeff
M1A in match form is a good rifle, find a smith that can build you a M1A as close to M25 specs as possible and you've got a real nice rifle. Drawbacks to the design though as I see them is occasionally the rifle needs it's action rebedded and scope mounts can be troublesome if you don't choose the right ones, ARMS and Brookfield are the best for M1A mounts I hear.
I really like the AR10 platform though for an accurized semiauto, nicer optics mounting platform with the flattop and a more convienient action for accurizing and maintaining.
The durability likely goes to the M1A design but likely takes a lot more skill or craftsmanship to build and maintain while the AR10 action is likely a more simple build while every bit as accurate.
And heads up, Armalite is playing around with the 300 short Remington Ultra Mag on their AR10s. They are hoping to have their prototype at the SHOT show.
Also for the price, AR10s and M1As are pretty affordable with the SR25 coming in just behind them. The HKs? Whoa, too rich for my blood, would rather spend 1500 on the base AR10 or 1k on the base M1A and put another 1k into it to have it built up to my liking rather than plump down just 3k+ for something like an HK SR9 or more for the other variants.
I really like the AR10 platform though for an accurized semiauto, nicer optics mounting platform with the flattop and a more convienient action for accurizing and maintaining.
The durability likely goes to the M1A design but likely takes a lot more skill or craftsmanship to build and maintain while the AR10 action is likely a more simple build while every bit as accurate.
And heads up, Armalite is playing around with the 300 short Remington Ultra Mag on their AR10s. They are hoping to have their prototype at the SHOT show.
Also for the price, AR10s and M1As are pretty affordable with the SR25 coming in just behind them. The HKs? Whoa, too rich for my blood, would rather spend 1500 on the base AR10 or 1k on the base M1A and put another 1k into it to have it built up to my liking rather than plump down just 3k+ for something like an HK SR9 or more for the other variants.
M14.
But I also wouldn't use a semi as a sniper rifle. First, you try not to take more than one shot from you hide lest you give yourself away, second, the flying brass can give your position away, and last, some say that they are not as durable or easy to accurize (I'm not sure I buy this though, I've seen some tack driving semi's but the durability could be an issue but then again you have a chunk of glass on top that might go faster....dunno).
I like bolts...and my 1911
-Indy
But I also wouldn't use a semi as a sniper rifle. First, you try not to take more than one shot from you hide lest you give yourself away, second, the flying brass can give your position away, and last, some say that they are not as durable or easy to accurize (I'm not sure I buy this though, I've seen some tack driving semi's but the durability could be an issue but then again you have a chunk of glass on top that might go faster....dunno).
I like bolts...and my 1911
-Indy
Nodakmarine
New member
I would (and have) gone with an M-14. Mine started life as a Springfield M1A NM rifle with a medium weight barrel. From there I upgraded the stock to a McMillian M2A stock and bedded the action to the stock with Devcon. This stock, by the way, was a surplus over-run for the Marine DMR rifle contract. Moving on to a scope mount, I again went with the best mount I could get which is the Brookfield Precission Tool scope mount. For rings I went with the Leupold Mk-4 rings but instead of the Unetyl fixed 10X scope the Marines decided to go with, I went with a variable power (and cheaper) Leupold Vari-X III M3LR scope. I added a Harris bipod and Turner match grade shooting sling and also replaced the operating spring guide with a BPT guide as well. When all was said and done, I had a rifle that will shoot just as good as all but the very top of the line bolt action rifles. 3/4 MOA are easy enough to do any day and on good days, I can squeeze 1/2 MOA groups out of her. Another benifit of the M-14 rifle is that it's reliability is at a level that I never have to worry about it malfunctioning or paying much over $30 for a new magazine.
Another benifit of the M-14 rifle is that it's reliability is at a level that I never have to worry about it malfunctioning or paying much over $30 for a new magazine.Sniper is a really loaded term. If you want head shots at 400 yards you use a specialty rifle. But a very accurate auto is not impossible or foolish. With the exception of the FAL, any of the rifles listed can be modified or loaded to shoot under MOA. Most HK's and AR10's will do 1 MOA with just a trigger job. An M1A requires match parts, barrel, etc.
If you want a "do anything" rifle for "cheap", get an AR-10 or a Greek made Springfield SAR-8 post ban (HK contract, not part gun), and a trigger job. They will provide battle rifle reliability and excellent accuracy for $1100 to $1500. The accuracy will match or sometimes beat a standard contour bolt action Rem, Win, etc. It won't beat a heavy barrel varmint/tactical gun. All the parts will be factory and have normal tolerences.
Apparently Armalite's cheapy Eagle line is coming out with a basic AR-10. The inherent accuracy of the design is there. Hopefully the materials will be too.
Don't forget that "heavy" .223 loads have been winning Camp Perry matches lately. A match or target AR15 is rather inexpensive.
All that being said, amazing semiauto accuracy has been found in rifles like the PSG-1, SR-25 and that Walther bullpup thing. Those rifles are usually breath-takingly expensive and not worth discussing.
If you want a "do anything" rifle for "cheap", get an AR-10 or a Greek made Springfield SAR-8 post ban (HK contract, not part gun), and a trigger job. They will provide battle rifle reliability and excellent accuracy for $1100 to $1500. The accuracy will match or sometimes beat a standard contour bolt action Rem, Win, etc. It won't beat a heavy barrel varmint/tactical gun. All the parts will be factory and have normal tolerences.
Apparently Armalite's cheapy Eagle line is coming out with a basic AR-10. The inherent accuracy of the design is there. Hopefully the materials will be too.
Don't forget that "heavy" .223 loads have been winning Camp Perry matches lately. A match or target AR15 is rather inexpensive.
All that being said, amazing semiauto accuracy has been found in rifles like the PSG-1, SR-25 and that Walther bullpup thing. Those rifles are usually breath-takingly expensive and not worth discussing.
AR 10, no question. Accuracy equivalent to very good (but not the best) bolt guns. Much better platform for optics than the M1A and easier to accurize. Good ergonomics, and now that the Jewell Trigger is available, I see no advantage whatsoever to the M1A platform. All it needs is an ajustable stock with cheek rest.
In 223, the AR can shoot in the 2s with the best barrels and ammo. Few bolt actions can match that.
FAL -- bad trigger, hard to mount optics, short stock, can't truly freefloat the barrel because of the op rod.
The only real argument for a semi auto "sniper" rifle is fast follow up shots or double duty as an assault rifle. The AR10 does that just fine, without the ergonomic problems suffered by the M1A when scoped.
In 223, the AR can shoot in the 2s with the best barrels and ammo. Few bolt actions can match that.
FAL -- bad trigger, hard to mount optics, short stock, can't truly freefloat the barrel because of the op rod.
The only real argument for a semi auto "sniper" rifle is fast follow up shots or double duty as an assault rifle. The AR10 does that just fine, without the ergonomic problems suffered by the M1A when scoped.
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
One more vote for an M-24/M-14 if it has to be an autoloader. Not as much wind drift as the 223 and is a proven performer. It should be issued to the spotter with the shooter using a great bolt action 308. The semi auto gives fast follow up shots but as mentioned previously, bedding has to be re-done periodically and should be performed by someone who really knows what they are doing. Would have been nice to have something like an H&S Precision stock developed for the M-14 which would have taken a lot of problems away from the weapon system.
M-1C and D models would have been a good choice as well, but I don't like the idea of brass flying out the ejection port as is, and I really wouldn't want to hear the clang of the empty clip. A BM-59 mag conversion?
M-1C and D models would have been a good choice as well, but I don't like the idea of brass flying out the ejection port as is, and I really wouldn't want to hear the clang of the empty clip. A BM-59 mag conversion?
Nodakmarine
New member
Yeah, with glass bedding, you have to rebed it every so often but that's why I went with Devcon instead. It's a lot tougher than glass bedding and a lot more durable. I would have to worry about replacing the barrel before I redo the Devcon bedding so when it gets to that stage, I may as well redo both at the same time or redo the bedding with every other barrel change. With the long history the M-14 has had as a general issue rifle, the M-21 sniper rifle and now as the Army's M-25 SWS rifle and the new Marine DMR rifle, I think it says a lot for this design and don't expect it to go away any time soon. Yeah, some people say that the Corps should have gone over to a 5.56 caliber weapon (read that as the M-16A2 or other similar version) in their DMR program but while the 5.56 can be accurate out to 500 meters, I don't trust it's power to do the damage a .30 caliber rifle can at the longer ranges. Web gear and kevlar are harder to punch through than paper.
CITADELGRAD87
New member
Let me start by saying two things: I am NOT a sniper, and I KNOW I'm not a sniper.
That said, I've begun load development and improving my skills using my semi platform, an HK SR9T.
It shoots much better than I can, and will easily hold 3/4 MOA, which improves as I do.
I don't feel handicapped with a semi, and those 19 extra follow up shots are nice.
I have hit a life sized ram at 800 yards and a manhole cover at 700 yards. Consistantly hit, that is.
I know military snipers engage, or at least practice out to slightly past 1000 yards, but I think this rifle is accurate enough to use the .308 round out to it's potential. I think it's out of steam at about 800-900 yards, and I feel comfortable at that range, or at least I'm getting comfortable.
That said, I've begun load development and improving my skills using my semi platform, an HK SR9T.
It shoots much better than I can, and will easily hold 3/4 MOA, which improves as I do.
I don't feel handicapped with a semi, and those 19 extra follow up shots are nice.
I have hit a life sized ram at 800 yards and a manhole cover at 700 yards. Consistantly hit, that is.
I know military snipers engage, or at least practice out to slightly past 1000 yards, but I think this rifle is accurate enough to use the .308 round out to it's potential. I think it's out of steam at about 800-900 yards, and I feel comfortable at that range, or at least I'm getting comfortable.
Jeff White
New member
The is no such thing as an M25 SWS
Sorry M14 fans but the Army never adopted the M25 SWS. I don't think it was ever really considered. The M24 hit the field in about 1989 and has been the standard since. Some M21s in the hands of SOF have been reworked and upgraded with the M3 telescope, but that's about the limit of development.
The only place you'll find M25 is in the Springfield Armory catalog. I've been unable to find any reference to it in any official Army publication. TC 31-32 Special Operations Sniper Training an Employment references an M21 upgraded by the use of the M3A Ultra scope and says that a lightweight sniper rifle based on the M21 is currently in development. I don't know the status of that program, but I do know that about 150 SPRs (Special Purpose Rifles) have been built at the Crane Weapons Lab in Indiana on M16A1 receivers. They have flattop uppers, free float handguards, 18" barrels and are issued with a suppressor. I know that some have been deployed in Afghanistan. TC 31-32 dates back to 1997, so I'm assuming that the Crane SPR has replaced the M21 based LSR (Lightweight Sniper Rifle), as it's been deployed.
Jeff
Sorry M14 fans but the Army never adopted the M25 SWS. I don't think it was ever really considered. The M24 hit the field in about 1989 and has been the standard since. Some M21s in the hands of SOF have been reworked and upgraded with the M3 telescope, but that's about the limit of development.
The only place you'll find M25 is in the Springfield Armory catalog. I've been unable to find any reference to it in any official Army publication. TC 31-32 Special Operations Sniper Training an Employment references an M21 upgraded by the use of the M3A Ultra scope and says that a lightweight sniper rifle based on the M21 is currently in development. I don't know the status of that program, but I do know that about 150 SPRs (Special Purpose Rifles) have been built at the Crane Weapons Lab in Indiana on M16A1 receivers. They have flattop uppers, free float handguards, 18" barrels and are issued with a suppressor. I know that some have been deployed in Afghanistan. TC 31-32 dates back to 1997, so I'm assuming that the Crane SPR has replaced the M21 based LSR (Lightweight Sniper Rifle), as it's been deployed.
Jeff
No offense, but it sounds like no one here knows anything about the DSA FALs. These are not used or parts kit guns. They are U.S. manufactured guns based on the original blueprints but made for the U.S. civilian market.
The Medium Contour and Bull Barrel models of the DSA are both consistently subMOA guns according to multiple independent testers. The Medium, which does not have a freefloat handguard, like the Bull Barrel model was reported as .8 MOA or better with various types of ammo. The Standard model DSA SA-58 is 1-1.25 MOA capable.
That's from a gun with NO wood (all metal and synthetics)--so no bedding required. Testing was done out of the box with NO gunsmithing or tweaking (stock trigger was about 5lbs). 20 round mags that cost less than $10 and are widely available. Not to mention that the FAL was the issue rifle for many years in over 90 countries--still is in many.
AND, unless you go for the Bull Barrel model, it will cost you less than a new M1A.
Then there's the issue of mounting a scope on the M1A...
The Medium Contour and Bull Barrel models of the DSA are both consistently subMOA guns according to multiple independent testers. The Medium, which does not have a freefloat handguard, like the Bull Barrel model was reported as .8 MOA or better with various types of ammo. The Standard model DSA SA-58 is 1-1.25 MOA capable.
That's from a gun with NO wood (all metal and synthetics)--so no bedding required. Testing was done out of the box with NO gunsmithing or tweaking (stock trigger was about 5lbs). 20 round mags that cost less than $10 and are widely available. Not to mention that the FAL was the issue rifle for many years in over 90 countries--still is in many.
AND, unless you go for the Bull Barrel model, it will cost you less than a new M1A.
Then there's the issue of mounting a scope on the M1A...
Last edited:
Lycanthrope
New member
In base condition, none of the rifles listed are of "sniper" quality. The one semi-auto rifle (base stock) that is accurate enough to be taken seriously for sniping worldwide is the HK PSG1. If you need a semi, then this is the one to use.
http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/military/specappframeset.html
http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/military/specappframeset.html