|
[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
|