Portability versus Capability

The topic for this article is one that hunters are familiar with, shooters often ignore, and snipers are painfully reminded of. The value of the portability of a Sniper Weapons System (SWS) versus its actual capability as a long range rifle.

Big game hunters, or even predator hunters for that matter, are very aware of the weight of their rifle and how much of a problem it can be when lugging it around the woods during hunting season. Because of this there is a large market for lightweight hunting rifles with some having adopted carbon fiber wrapped barrels and hollow carbon fiber stocks. Shooters, competitive or just range dwellers, usually do not concern themselves with the size and weight of their rifles as it is usually not a problem to carry them from the car to the firing line, even if the rifle weighs 20+ lbs and is over 50″ long. Snipers, on the other hand, are very aware of the weight of the rifle and unfortunately we do not get to decide or chose the rifle system itself and we are painfully reminded that the portability is not always considered high priority by the selection committee when the rifle selection process happens. This became glaringly apparent to myself, and many others, when my M24 SWS and I went on our first 15 mile road march together.

A part of this discussion also focuses on the often forgotten importance of fieldcraft in the snipers line of work. The fame of a sniper tends to be focused on the ability to deliver long range precision fire on key select targets, just look at the media hype every time a mile long kill is made by a sniper. In reality, the most effective snipers are the ones that are masters of all phases of fieldcraft and not just excellent long range marksmen. A huge part of the fieldcraft phase is the ability to move and setup undetected, often times over great distances or through tight confines. A large and heavy SWS can drastically hinder a sniper teams ability to execute on these fieldcraft priorities. If you go back and evaluate the USMC’s adoption of the well proportioned M40A1 in the 1970s, you will notice how they learned the lessons from their sniper employment during the Vietnam conflict where snipers were on constant patrols in the hills and jungles. The compact and lightweight M40A1 served well for many years with the capability of engaging targets up to 1000 yards away. The US Army M24, developed a decade later than the M40A1, had an even heavier weight barrel, larger stock, and a few extra pounds over the M40A1 and some mobility was sacrificed.

As the war on terror began and then progressed over decades, the focus of the modern SWS shifted dramatically away from portability and more towards capability. The Accuracy International L115A1 in 338 Lapua, Steyr SSG-08 in 338 Lapua, XM2010 in 300 WM, C14 in 338 Lapua and many other rifles chambered in even larger calibers, became the popular choice. Without a doubt these rifles are immensely more capable with effective ranges over a mile. This became a reality due to transportation support of most all infantry units in the desert where they can “drive around” their 20 lb rifles without too much work. Also, the wide open expanses of the desert necessitated longer range capability for rifle systems.

On the flip side of the coin, the US Army learned another lesson in the confines of urban battlefields in Iraq. A 20 lb 338 Lapua rifle did not offer much advantage in the urban sprawl where the average sniper engagement was less than 300 yards. A majority of Chris Kyle’s confirmed kills came in these types of conditions, done with a specially built 300WM rifle then in use by the Navy SEALs. The flatter shooting cartridge did allow for an easy engagement with less elevation compensation needed in these close engagements, essentially using the concepts of point blank range or parallel bore zero. The adoption of a Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System (CSASS) by the US Army shows that they are now addressing the portability requirement, after the XM2010, and then Mk22 adoption addressed some of the major capability requirements. This essentially has developed into a multi weapon solution, which is not uncommon.

So the conversation still continues without a definitive answer, portability or capability? Like everything in sniping, it is a compromise. We again suggest that an evaluation of the actual mission be performed. If the use of the SWS is going to involve mobility and concealability, then downsize the system and give up some of the long range capability. If purely long range engagements are going to be needed, or heavier armor penetration is required, then by all means rifle up and go big. Unfortunately, you may end up with a multi-rifle solution. The downside is that this requires more training, cost, and complexity. Alternatively, some of the newer short action cartridges might allow for a good compromise. Delivering portability with at least increased capability. The 6.5 Creedmoor or even some of the short action magnums could work well here.

Finally, what about multi-caliber rifles like the Mk22 and others? The concept is good, but unfortunately, when building a multi-caliber rifle, you have to build it large enough to handle the largest caliber, so then even when you use the shorter length barrel for the smaller caliber, such as a .308, you have a rifle that is larger than it needs to be and the portability is not as dramatically improved as you would image. Of course, a rezero and change of optics is usually involved as well and the practicality of the multi-caliber concept doesn’t quiet achieve the promise that was on paper.

Mel E.
Sniper Central EIC