Sniper Rifle Rails?

[Hunter]

Does anyone know any real life examples of how the scope of the sniper rifle would actually be attached? The Halo:Reach sniper rifle has some sort of rail system to allow the scope to be removed. But I cannot see how it works.

Snaf? Any real weapons use anything like this?

[rossmum]

Show me the one you're talking about.

There are various rail systems, but usually the ones you see in Halo series games aren't existing ones and usually it's not altogether clear how they'd work.

[legionaire45]

http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/Reach/images/screenshots/ReachCampaign_m30_Noble6.jpg
http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/Reach/images/cutouts/Sniper_Rifle_right.jpg

Looks like it's using a very wide Picatinny type rail without the teeth (not sure what the exact name of that is).

Also, stop modeling Halo.

[Hunter]

Above is the Sniper I am talking about.

Also;
I'm not modelling that sniper. Just stealing parts.

[kid908]

the M107 uses typical rails to mount scopes.
http://c2.api.ning.com/files/p0jR0dBjhBn8SPcC0-tSljCabPUtl7N3ObdyKlyqjgW*zm11LiOboRYPdBJ4MHfhSlbD jGL4x-Aa3BEaMCQ4nJuif4g6bJPk/BarrettM107.jpg

Classic bolt action attaches the scope like this.
http://www.jcdevine.com/images/auction_2901/08-188-003.jpg
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/wikipedia-en-b-b4-winchestermodel70.jpg

I believe the halo sniper is similar to how bolt action rifle scopes are attached. You don't need rails to have scopes on rifles. Just screwed down base that the scope rings attach to.

Here, Learn about it:
L4oF_07X1qU

[Chainsy]

Couldn't you just use..I don't know... how bout GOOGLE to figure this out?

[Hunter]

.. Google is the FIRST place I try when I have problems or question...

[TVTyrant]

The G43, a forgotten relic of WWII, had a setup like this. I saw it on History channel. It worked with a rail that slid into a slot and locked. I'm pretty sure that the Dragunov and AK series of weapons have something similar, but the G43s is the closest I can think of.

[rossmum]

That's called a dovetail. The G43 has it, as do most Warsaw Pact weapons (AKMs, AK-74s, the newer AKs, SVD, VSS, AS-VAL, Bizon, etc). In the G43's case, the scope mount slid onto the dovetail and had a little clasp that operated with a simple lever setup, and the scope (a ZF4) was attached to the mount by screw-tightened metal loops.

Also, the G43's not really forgotten unless you're referring to the general public. Anyone who knows much about rifles knows about the G43, and even the G41 before it.

[Rorschach]

Does anyone know any real life examples of how the scope of the sniper rifle would actually be attached? The Halo:Reach sniper rifle has some sort of rail system to allow the scope to be removed. But I cannot see how it works.

Snaf? Any real weapons use anything like this?
The ACOG is rail-mounted, as are various night vision and thermal imaging scopes. Yeah, lots of current military issue weapons have rail systems for the obvious benefit of making quick and secure equipment changes. The ACOG for example has clamps on the bottom sides that slide over the rail and tighten down with two thumbscrews on the right side.

[Cortexian]

Pretty much all military optics (be it night vision, enhanced zoom, red dot, holographic, or iron sights) on modern military firearms use a rail system. Canada was actually the first to put a flat top rail on our general service rifle, the Colt Canada C7 assault rifle. They come standard issue with the C79 optical sight (ELCAN) which is rail mounted, and it can quickly be swapped out for any of the other sighting systems individuals prefer while overseas such as an Eotech (http://lh3.ggpht.com/_3ldXSdeka8I/R-Y0zRxzHGI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/3-KG3wxwX8I/P3060079.JPG) or Aimpoint.

Hunters even going the way of the rail mount, out rifle came standard with a rail mount but we installed a standard scope mount instead.

[TVTyrant]

Nice things about rails: Fast to switch out, reliable, easy to use.
Bad things about rails: Not attractive on all rifles, some claim they are not as stable as regular mounts.

[Warsaw]

Pretty much all military optics (be it night vision, enhanced zoom, red dot, holographic, or iron sights) on modern military firearms use a rail system. Canada was actually the first to put a flat top rail on our general service rifle, the Colt Canada C7 assault rifle. They come standard issue with the C79 optical sight (ELCAN) which is rail mounted, and it can quickly be swapped out for any of the other sighting systems individuals prefer while overseas such as an Eotech (http://lh3.ggpht.com/_3ldXSdeka8I/R-Y0zRxzHGI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/3-KG3wxwX8I/P3060079.JPG) or Aimpoint.

Hunters even going the way of the rail mount, out rifle came standard with a rail mount but we installed a standard scope mount instead.

You mean your country's licensed copy of our AR15 family? :realsmug:

Rest of thread: rails are stable enough for just about anything you need to do with optics. Unless you fail to check your screws/clamps every so often, you should be fine with them. Even large caliber rifles use rails.

[Cortexian]

You mean your country's licensed improvement of our AR15 family? :realsmug:
ftfy.

[PenGuin1362]

Only way you improve the m16 is to get rid of it.

[ICEE]

or by cutting off 3/4 of the barrel and calling it an m4 :downs:

[Cortexian]

qXtIUvyLlhU

[Warsaw]

ftfy.

Not at all. Still has the shitty direct impingement gas operation. You can muck with the receiver all you want, it's still the same gun. And honestly not seeing anything it has over the M16A2, A3, or A4 models. Those (A3 and A4), by the way, had the flat top first. Again, licensed copy.

:v:

And no, ICEE, that actually makes it far, far worse. I may dislike the M16, but I can respect it. I can't, however, cut the M4 (and consequently, the C8) any slack at all. Terrible gun.

[rossmum]

I like how pretty much all the people who say the M16 or the M4 is the worst thing ever have never actually used one under combat conditions.

Believe me, you could do a lot worse. A lot.

[Warsaw]

Oh, I'm sure. But I'm an engineer at heart. To me, the direct impingement is a flaw that can be easily avoided. Why on earth would you create a system that blows all the grime from the powder gases straight onto the bolt face? That's just piss-poor design foresight. Under intense battle conditions, it will eventually foul up and stop working because you haven't had time to stop and clean it. The M16 does everything else right except the one part that is most critical to its function. Seriously, HK416 for the win.

Just to prove I'm not biased, the AK has it's own drawbacks. The first and foremost is its round, which has terrible in-flight characteristics (7.62 M43 here, not the 5.45). Second is the lack of support on the barrel, which causes it to jump around and flex, spoiling accuracy. Oh, and it uses notch sights which are inherently inaccurate compared to aperture sights.

[Amit]

So basically use the AK-47 if you want to miss your target? What good is a large caliber weapon if it can only suppress the enemy, but not actually hit enough of them.

[FRain]

I'm just going to say this right now:

When you're faced with death and you need to stop someone from killing you, do you really care about the system blowing grime from the powder gases onto the bolt face? Not really. That is, unless it causes a jam or something which I really doubt.

[SnaFuBAR]

you clearly don't understand the history of problems the dirty gas system of the ar-15 style rifle family has had. basically, that's exactly what happens and why it stops shooting, and an AK won't.

[ICEE]

To be quite honest I don't know why we haven't adopted the hk416. For that matter, I don't know why we haven't adopted a bullpup style rifle either. I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to weapon engineering but it seems to me that you get the most out of the space your using with the action in the stock. I mean, we don't really care about our military budget do we? so that can't be it.

[Warsaw]

@Amit: Protip, the M43 is not the only 7.62x39 round there is. You've also got the M67 Yugoslavian stuff, which is actually decent. Unless you are engaging at some long ranges (most engagements are ~300m tops), the AK is accurate enough.

@FRain: It can cause a jam, it has caused jams, and it will always cause jams. H&K fixed it, now the US needs to adopt it, and not that ugly brick of a gun called the SCAR.

@ICEE: They prefer to blow the money on side projects like their big Microwave emitter or airborne laser defence system. They don't even want to spend money to get our troops better armour. As for not using bullpups, it's because the US military feels that the magazine position is awkward and slower to reload. That may or may not be true (Ross?), but that's what they believe. They also want a platform similar to the AR15 so they don't have to retrain all the current troops who are affiliated with the AR15, and so they can use as many common components as possible. However, they have failed to address one underlying problem, and that's that the 5.56x45 sucks ass in a carbine.

[rossmum]

So basically use the AK-47 if you want to miss your target? What good is a large caliber weapon if it can only suppress the enemy, but not actually hit enough of them.
Yeah... no.

The AK (or at least, the genuine Russian AK) is fine. It's no laser cannon, but it will engage targets with acceptable accuracy out to approximately 3-400m, which is overkill for most urban areas and not too bad out in the open, either. The AK-74 has a better effective range yet, and keep in mind that the Russians did (and still do) issue at least one SVD to each infantry section to extend their effective range to about 6-800m. I can guarantee you right now that all those 'documentaries' comparing it to the M16 which are funded, produced, and screened primarily in the US are biased; they'll usually pit an as-new M16 against an old, used AK which has had its rifling shot through. If you watch carefully enough, you'll even see that half the time the M16 guy is squeezing the trigger while the AK guy is jerking it. Of course you won't hit a target at 200m if you're not even shooting properly.

The AK's supreme reliability is a fair trade for longer-range accuracy, in my book. In the event of a zombie invasion, STALKER, whatever... I'd be doing everything in my power to get hold of one. Power, reliability, ease of use. In the kind of end-of-the-world situations us gamer types like to contingency plan for, the AK is lord god king of all weapons.


I'm just going to say this right now:

When you're faced with death and you need to stop someone from killing you, do you really care about the system blowing grime from the powder gases onto the bolt face? Not really. That is, unless it causes a jam or something which I really doubt.
Your post makes it painfully obvious you have literally no clue how a firearm works, let alone an M16, so let me enlighten you.

The bolt face is where the cartridge sits as it is stripped from the magazine, loaded into the chamber, fired, and extracted. If the bolt face is covered by even a fraction of an inch (or even a fraction of a millimetre) of carbon fouling, it will fail to grip the base of the cartridge and after stripping it from the magazine it will simply ram it forwards, causing an obstruction stoppage. Even if it manages to chamber it and fire it, it may fail to extract, yet again causing an obstruction. If it's really fouled up, the firing pin may not even strike the primer and the round won't fire come hell or high water. 20 rounds is enough to put a fairly solid patina of black carbon on an F88 gas piston, and 40 is enough to absolutely cake it on. Since the F88 has that piston, though, it takes a few millimetres of fouling to start causing trouble. Carbon will build up on the bolt face as the round is fired, but comparatively little; after the same 40 rounds, a faint black ring around where the primer sits is all you'll see. On an M16, there's no piston. You do the maths.


As for not using bullpups, it's because the US military feels that the magazine position is awkward and slower to reload. That may or may not be true (Ross?)
Horseshit.

That said, the Steyr looks whacked out compared to a 'normal' rifle, and doubly so once you start to strip it. If you know your rifles, you'll be fine; identifying which part is which is pretty easy. If you don't, though, and you've just come off of an M16... you're in trouble.

[Warsaw]

Yeah, that's what I thought too about the bullpups, just wanted to hear it from someone who actually uses them. It really just boils down to the US military being as cheap as possible.

[ICEE]

I'd be interested to see a bullpup adaptation of the hk416. I read somewhere that the L85 was spawned from a series of projects starting with the brits trying to create a bullpup adaption of the FAL (which may or may not be an entirely accurate bit of trivia). It would be interesting to see what we end up with in this case.

[rossmum]

The L85A1 was a horrible abortion of a rifle caused by the US being pushy dickheads and forcing 5.56x45 upon NATO as the new standard round. Its only saving grace was its accuracy, but the thing malfunctioned so often that it was a moot point. H&K fixed them up pretty well and it's a decent rifle now, but I'm still annoyed over that whole affair.

Basically, the US insisted 7.62x51 be made standard. It was, and the British adopted the SLR. While the SLR was an excellent rifle and is generally worshipped as a god by guys who used it (our Vietnam vets in particular), both the UK and the US figured that an intermediate cartridge would be a massive improvement. Eugene Stoner set to work on what would become the M16, firing 5.56x45, and Enfield designed their rifle around a .280 cartridge. While the .280 was an excellent round and had the knockdown power the 5.56 lacks even to this day, the Yanks got uppity and eventually the entire project was cancelled. The two rifles Enfield had designed, the EM-1 and EM-2, were probably two of the best service rifles ever produced and were without doubt the best bullpup-configuration rifles going. After another few decades with the SLR, Enfield finally got around to introducing a replacement, then known as the SA-80 project. It was actually totally unrelated to the EM series except in layout, and it was bloody horrible.

Thanks, America.

[ICEE]

Well according to whatever source I was reading, before the brits set out to make their own bullpup rifles, they tried to pay FN to make them a bullpup adaptation of the FAL. Fn backed out after the first few prototypes and went back to fapping over their already awesome rifle.

PS: when I say "the brits", its because I have absolutely no idea who the manufacturer(s) is. But it wasn't FN

[Warsaw]

I actually agree with one Ross's posts completely for once, America-bashing included.

US really did fuck up on the whole NATO round. And now we're stuck with that shitty 5.56 mishap and the UK has its ugly wedge of an M16 stuck in a bullpup.

Personally, I want to see a move to 6.5x39mm Grendel. It has some very interesting implications.

[ICEE]

Aside from the fact that no nation has the authority to impose the specifics, I don't think its necessarily a bad idea for there to be a standardized round, but why so small? especially coming from an era of high-power battle rifles.

If there's some further logistics as to why there shouldn't be standardized rounds, please post. I am honestly interested >.>

[SnaFuBAR]

troops can carry more 5.56 than 7.62 ammo, that's why.

[Warsaw]

Aside from the fact that no nation has the authority to impose the specifics, I don't think its necessarily a bad idea for there to be a standardized round, but why so small? especially coming from an era of high-power battle rifles.

If there's some further logistics as to why there shouldn't be standardized rounds, please post. I am honestly interested >.>

It's not about standardizing rounds. That was a good idea. It's that America was so dead-set on having a .30-sized round (the 7.62x51 NATO is essentially .308 Winchester) that they made EVERYBODY in NATO accept their standards for better or for worse (US had an assload of influence after emerging from WWII virtually unscathed). When they tried to implement that round in a full-auto cheap compromise rifle (read: M14), they found out that it was just too uncontrollable. The trend at the time shifted to small-caliber, high-velocity rounds in the belief that hydrostatic shock and round fragmentation would be sufficient to down an enemy soldier (also what Snaf said). The British .280 was a very good compromise of the two. The Americans, being the omniscient, bureaucratic, and manipulative sons-of-bitches they are, thought that they could do better and so developed the 5.56x45 and again forced it onto all of the NATO members. While it has plenty of stopping power at typical engagement ranges from the barrel of an M16, there are several drawbacks which have since emerged.

1. We have changed from the original M193 round to the M855 round. This means less fragmenting in the wound in exchange for better ballistics, reducing stopping power.

2. From the barrel of the increasingly common M4, the 5.56x45 just doesn't have enough energy to maintain stopping power over a distance with such a small round. Smaller rounds are lighter and therefore don't carry as much inertia, causing them to rapidly lose energy after exiting the barrel. A shorter barrel gives it less time to increase its energy.

3. 5.56x45 can't fire through cover that the 7.62x39mm can, meaning that we can't hit the extremist asshats through a car but they can mop us up through a brick wall if they want to (I may be slightly exaggerating, but the point is valid).

A larger intermediate round would alleviate most of the issues, except for possibly the first one. But when you have a bigger round, the knockdown power is also increased, so as long as the enemy is down and out, you've achieved your objective (not including the objective of attrition).

[ICEE]

what would be the effect of a larger round using holopoint bullets? If I'm not mistaken (very well could be mistaken) holopoint has greater stopping power than a standard bullet.

[rossmum]

Well according to whatever source I was reading, before the brits set out to make their own bullpup rifles, they tried to pay FN to make them a bullpup adaptation of the FAL. Fn backed out after the first few prototypes and went back to fapping over their already awesome rifle.

PS: when I say "the brits", its because I have absolutely no idea who the manufacturer(s) is. But it wasn't FN

May have been the case, can't remember that far back

[rossmum]

3. 5.56x45 can't fire through cover that the 7.62x39mm can, meaning that we can't hit the extremist asshats through a car but they can mop us up through a brick wall if they want to (I may be slightly exaggerating, but the point is valid).
You'd be surprised, actually. 5.56 drills through solid steel like you wouldn't believe. That said, it doesn't do so well against things like sandbags or trees.


what would be the effect of a larger round using holopoint bullets? If I'm not mistaken (very well could be mistaken) holopoint has greater stopping power than a standard bullet.
Banned from military use by the Geneva Convention.

[ICEE]

oh so only germany uses it then

:realsmug:

[TVTyrant]

1. We have changed from the original M193 round to the M855 round. This means less fragmenting in the wound in exchange for better ballistics, reducing stopping power.
Dont forget that was the Europeans fucking terrible idea. The SS109 (or M855) is what ruins the 5.56s ability to be a force multiplier. The original highly frangible 55 grain FMJ at 3200 FPS was incredibly lethal. Its wounds were just as bad as the original AK-74 rounds, and when American soldiers hit Viet-Kong with a burst they tended to fall to the ground with fist sized exit holes in their backs. Also, the whole point of the 5.56 is to fire a burst of ammunition, not to hit an opponent with a single shell.

And to ICEE, we issue Open Tip bullets in the limited capacities of sniper rounds, as well as special operations using them in M4s.

[Warsaw]

Oh, I'm well aware of what both of you have said (Ross and TVTyrant). I did say I was exaggerating a bit about the 5.56's penetration capabilities, but the point is still there and people in the field have complained about it (at least in the US).

As for the AK-74 wounds, they are actually not as bad as the media has made them out to be. The bullet yaws, sure, but that has been proven to have little effect on a wound with extensive ballistics testing. It actually leaves a wound more similar to a full metal jacket handgun round than a rifle round. Also, even if you fire a burst, there is no guarantee that you'll hit with every round, so it's good to have some stopping power on a single hit. :D



oh so only germany uses it then

:realsmug:


Look how wrong you are!

Actually, everybody is guilty of using them in some capacity. Honestly, I can understand banning WP and biological/chemical weapons. There is a lot of collateral associated with both and both are excessively painful ways to kill someone and not entirely effective. Hollow points, however, are quick and effective, so I'm not sure why they are banned. The point of war is to kill the enemy before he kills you so your overlord queen/president/primer minister can gloat over his foe. And nothing about it is humane.

[PenGuin1362]

M4 and M16 no doubt excel phenomenally in accuracy but when used in dirty conditions they jam way to easily. The few occasions I've fired M16's they have jammed numerous times during just target practice, despite the thorough cleaning received before we left. Also the 5.56 round is a miserable round. It has dick for stopping power. Few of my buddies who were in combat in Iraq told me stories how they would fire numerous rounds into targets (abdominal region mostly) and they would get up and limp away.

[rossmum]

Actually, everybody is guilty of using them in some capacity. Honestly, I can understand banning WP and biological/chemical weapons. There is a lot of collateral associated with both and both are excessively painful ways to kill someone and not entirely effective. Hollow points, however, are quick and effective, so I'm not sure why they are banned. The point of war is to kill the enemy before he kills you so your overlord queen/president/primer minister can gloat over his foe. And nothing about it is humane.
I'd imagine it's to do with the horrible wounds if the thing fails to kill


M4 and M16 no doubt excel phenomenally in accuracy but when used in dirty conditions they jam way to easily. The few occasions I've fired M16's they have jammed numerous times during just target practice, despite the thorough cleaning received before we left. Also the 5.56 round is a miserable round. It has dick for stopping power. Few of my buddies who were in combat in Iraq told me stories how they would fire numerous rounds into targets (abdominal region mostly) and they would get up and limp away.
Heard the same from Vietnam vets. The older guys are beside themselves that we ditched the SLR for the F88.

[Warsaw]

In Vietnam, the problem became so bad that they actually had to issue an order that forbade US troops from picking up AKs and using them.

[PenGuin1362]

well that was because the firing noise was so distinct it was confusing troops when they heard friendlies using ak's. there were actually a few friendly fire incidences caused by it.

[Warsaw]

The point was that they were picking up the AKs because the M16 was failing to perform. The friendly fire is a byproduct of that issue.

[Good_Apollo]

You can't really compare the issues of the Vietnam era M16 with the ones we have now. It has problems sure but nowhere near the amount that the pos had when it first emerged.

I've fired an M16A4 and an M4A3 and I only had the M16 jam on me once during a two hour target practice.

[Warsaw]

They didn't really change the gun all that much. The system is the same, all they did was add a feature to help remove jams and change the barrel's rifling to fit the new bullet. It still has all the underlying problems of the original.

[TVTyrant]

You can't really compare the issues of the Vietnam era M16 with the ones we have now. It has problems sure but nowhere near the amount that the pos had when it first emerged.

I've fired an M16A4 and an M4A3 and I only had the M16 jam on me once during a two hour target practice.
Except they changed the goddamn ammo. The M16A4 would rock if they were still using M195.

[rossmum]

They didn't really change the gun all that much. The system is the same, all they did was add a feature to help remove jams and change the barrel's rifling to fit the new bullet. It still has all the underlying problems of the original.
That and they make damn sure the guys actually clean them more than once a blue moon now

[PenGuin1362]

It would be wonderful if the M16 still had the 7.62 round. But still doesn't fix the fact that the tolerances are so tight on every moving part, sperm can cause it to jam.

[Warsaw]

That and they make damn sure the guys actually clean them more than once a blue moon now

Read: make sure they clean them once every day.

Also, sperm is pretty thick PenGuin...:aaaaa:

[ICEE]

Idk about you man but MY sperm could probably jam any rifle.

[PenGuin1362]

meaning an individual sperm haha