sniper rifle for hunting?
05-03-2005, 01:11 AM
#102
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 306
RE: sniper rifle for hunting?
Do you classify the M4 as a machine gun? No. But why not? You can flip the selector level to "auto." Isn't a gun that shoots automatically without having to redepress the trigger a "machine gun?"
What about the Stoner in vietnam? Was that a machinegun? It was a modular weapon that could shoot automatically, without having to redepress the trigger. What about the AK? Yes, no?
I'm not sure you know what you are talking about Fl0at. The M4 and AK are considered automatic weapons because they shoot repeatedly without repressing the trigger. Just because a gun shoots automatically doesn't mean its a machine gun. Before posting, get your thoughts and facts together.
What about the Stoner in vietnam? Was that a machinegun? It was a modular weapon that could shoot automatically, without having to redepress the trigger. What about the AK? Yes, no?
I'm not sure you know what you are talking about Fl0at. The M4 and AK are considered automatic weapons because they shoot repeatedly without repressing the trigger. Just because a gun shoots automatically doesn't mean its a machine gun. Before posting, get your thoughts and facts together.
05-03-2005, 08:00 AM
#103
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas and Arkansas
Posts: 1,496
RE: sniper rifle for hunting?
UThunter,
I assume you are referring to the Stoner 63 and not the other Stoner design AR-18. The Stoner 63 was used by the Seals as a squad automatic weapon similar to today's SAW .
Yes, it was a machine gun. It could be belt fed or if memory serves, fed by drum.
I assume you are referring to the Stoner 63 and not the other Stoner design AR-18. The Stoner 63 was used by the Seals as a squad automatic weapon similar to today's SAW .
Yes, it was a machine gun. It could be belt fed or if memory serves, fed by drum.
05-03-2005, 02:29 PM
#105
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 13
RE: sniper rifle for hunting?
To dive back into this, yet again.
The M4 is a Carbine, but not a machine gun. The Stoner 63A was a modular, as I said, weapon that could be configured as a Carbine, or a weapon similar to the SAW, but they are not "machine guns". The M240 is a perfect example of a machinegun, which is crew served, as many are. However, as there were what, 7 configurations for the 63A, I could understand the problem, so I guess I gave a bad example. I should have said the 63A Carbine, because one of the configurations is mounted on a tripod, and crew-served.
The M4 is not crew-served, the M249 is not crew-served, hence why there is no designated MOS for a SAW gunner, just a billet. I'm sure there is going to be someone out there who diagrees with this, but this is also what I have been taught.. a machine gun is different from an automatic weapon... machine guns are crew served. Based on these two beliefs, the M4 Carbine and Stoner 63A Carbine are not classified as "machine guns," even though they are automatic weapons.
Do you understand where I am coming with that UTHunter, if I'm not being clear enough I'll try harder.
Briman, I never said that being able to hold a subMOA made the person a sniper, I simply stated, from what I have been taught over the years that a "sniper rifle," of which there is no detailed definition, is a rifle which holds a MOA or less. We can then break it down further, which I did, as the rifle which a 8541 uses.
So, based off these theorms, I came to the conclusion, and am going to catch yet more flak from this, that a "sniper rifle" is a rifle, capable of holding MOA or less, employed by a school trained, 8541, scout/sniper.
Grizzly, you are forgetting that the 63A was modular, it could be belt, drum, or magazine fed, making it an all-around awesome weapon, but in my opinion, because, as I stated earlier, based on what I've been taught, that it is not a crew-served weapon, just like the M249 isn't crew-served.... but still automatic in nature. The MMG configuration of the 63A was crew-served, so I could see how it could then be classified a "machine gun."
But my take is that if it isn't crew-served, it isn't a "machine gun," but that is probably a misinterpretation of doctorine on my part.
oldgrunt, I am well aware, and hope many more follow. I am going off the knowledge given by those active and those in the past, both former and current instructors and everyone in between who say that the basic definition of a "sniper rifle" that they can give is a rifle capable of holding a MOA or less, as there is no Marine Corps definition of what a "sniper rifle" truly is. So, by going off that definition, I could only come to the conclusion that the SASR is not a "sniper rifle," as it does not hold a MOA.
I hope all that came out right, not trying to insult anyone's intelligence, or claim to know all, just going off what I have been taught.
The M4 is a Carbine, but not a machine gun. The Stoner 63A was a modular, as I said, weapon that could be configured as a Carbine, or a weapon similar to the SAW, but they are not "machine guns". The M240 is a perfect example of a machinegun, which is crew served, as many are. However, as there were what, 7 configurations for the 63A, I could understand the problem, so I guess I gave a bad example. I should have said the 63A Carbine, because one of the configurations is mounted on a tripod, and crew-served.
The M4 is not crew-served, the M249 is not crew-served, hence why there is no designated MOS for a SAW gunner, just a billet. I'm sure there is going to be someone out there who diagrees with this, but this is also what I have been taught.. a machine gun is different from an automatic weapon... machine guns are crew served. Based on these two beliefs, the M4 Carbine and Stoner 63A Carbine are not classified as "machine guns," even though they are automatic weapons.
Do you understand where I am coming with that UTHunter, if I'm not being clear enough I'll try harder.
Briman, I never said that being able to hold a subMOA made the person a sniper, I simply stated, from what I have been taught over the years that a "sniper rifle," of which there is no detailed definition, is a rifle which holds a MOA or less. We can then break it down further, which I did, as the rifle which a 8541 uses.
So, based off these theorms, I came to the conclusion, and am going to catch yet more flak from this, that a "sniper rifle" is a rifle, capable of holding MOA or less, employed by a school trained, 8541, scout/sniper.
Grizzly, you are forgetting that the 63A was modular, it could be belt, drum, or magazine fed, making it an all-around awesome weapon, but in my opinion, because, as I stated earlier, based on what I've been taught, that it is not a crew-served weapon, just like the M249 isn't crew-served.... but still automatic in nature. The MMG configuration of the 63A was crew-served, so I could see how it could then be classified a "machine gun."
But my take is that if it isn't crew-served, it isn't a "machine gun," but that is probably a misinterpretation of doctorine on my part.
oldgrunt, I am well aware, and hope many more follow. I am going off the knowledge given by those active and those in the past, both former and current instructors and everyone in between who say that the basic definition of a "sniper rifle" that they can give is a rifle capable of holding a MOA or less, as there is no Marine Corps definition of what a "sniper rifle" truly is. So, by going off that definition, I could only come to the conclusion that the SASR is not a "sniper rifle," as it does not hold a MOA.
I hope all that came out right, not trying to insult anyone's intelligence, or claim to know all, just going off what I have been taught.
05-03-2005, 03:03 PM
#106
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas and Arkansas
Posts: 1,496
RE: sniper rifle for hunting?
In theory an M60 is a crew served weapon. In practice, at least in my experience carrying a "pig" when I was enlisted, when you were on the move it wasn't necesarily a crew served weapon. When dug in and set up on a T&E and tripod it was a crew served weapon. Does that mean that the M60 was a machine gun sometimes and sometimes not?
05-03-2005, 03:53 PM
#108
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas and Arkansas
Posts: 1,496
RE: sniper rifle for hunting?
I am one hell of a big guy, and that seemed to be the criteria for an M60 gunner (that wasn't what I went to AIT for, but most of us weren't in the MOSs we were trained for). I was hand receipted for the tripod, T&E, spare barrel, and tool bag, but again in practice, what we carried was mission specific. Again, the book vs the real world. When you are on a five day combat patrol you carried everything. Raid patrols, bare minimum. In an understrength platoon, I had an A-gunner sometimes, sometimes not.
05-03-2005, 04:10 PM
#109
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 13
RE: sniper rifle for hunting?
I can understand how ya'll had understrength platoons. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we were T/O, and will be again when we head back over. All our crew-served have a-gunners, and the gunner only carries the gun. Tripod, spare barrel and extra ammo carried by a-gunner. Our guys broke it down a little bit further.
Heck of a different situation, though.
Heck of a different situation, though.
05-03-2005, 07:53 PM
#110
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas and Arkansas
Posts: 1,496
RE: sniper rifle for hunting?
Back in the post-Vietnam 70's understrength infantry platoons were the norm. When I was enlisted, I got out of a rifle platoon (and the M60) and went to the weapons platoon where we had a little better class of grunt.
The M-60 gunner was pretty much whoever was on the PSG's or Platoon Leaders sh*t list. Without an A-gunner, you were spreading out your spare ammo amongst the other platoon members. God forbid if you had to carry a Night Vision Sight. They old Starlights were bulky and heavy.
When I went through OCS and IOBC and got my first platoon, I stopped the practice of making the M-60 gunner a punishment in my platoon. I figured that I wanted my best people controlling 2/3 s of my platoon's firepower. Carried that philosophy with me throughout my career as a Company Commander and instructor.
Sorry, I got off of topic and rambled. Good luck to you fl0at!
The M-60 gunner was pretty much whoever was on the PSG's or Platoon Leaders sh*t list. Without an A-gunner, you were spreading out your spare ammo amongst the other platoon members. God forbid if you had to carry a Night Vision Sight. They old Starlights were bulky and heavy.
When I went through OCS and IOBC and got my first platoon, I stopped the practice of making the M-60 gunner a punishment in my platoon. I figured that I wanted my best people controlling 2/3 s of my platoon's firepower. Carried that philosophy with me throughout my career as a Company Commander and instructor.
Sorry, I got off of topic and rambled. Good luck to you fl0at!
