I learned a lot in your few short paragraphs.

 

H.

1) The M-14 is Richard Milhouse Nixon of American small arms.  Many people "Like" Nixon, simply because
"Ted" Kennedy hated, Nixon.  People want to "return to" the M-14 because the M-16 & 5.56mm X 45mm replaced it.  They hated the M-16 and so "love" the M-14.  Newsflash: from what I have read here and other places, the M-14 is no great weapon.  It was not a replacement for the M-1 Garand, as had been hoped.  It was heavy, clunky, and not terribly reliable, plus the magazine was no great shakes either.  M-14's in the Middle East have not held up that well, from what I have read, and you have to "accurize" and mount scopes and use special ammunition for use as sniper/marksman weapons.  In short, the M-14 is way over-rated as a "replacement" for the M-16/4 in the rifle section!

 

You want a 7.62mm rifle at that level, why not the SR-25/M-110 SASS?  You keep greater commonality of parts, and you keep a decent action.  The M-14 is loved because it was replaced, not because it was particularly good.

 

2) 7.62mm...OK you aren't keeping common ammunition if you go with the M-14 as a weapon for 800 metres or more.  It's going to take National Match Ammunition, so disabuse yourself of the belief that the M-14 will just fit right in at the platoon/company level.

 

Bottom-Line: IF you're going issue 7.62mm weapons out to individuals in the rifle section, I wouldn't recommend it be the M-14.

BM-59...

 

I finally got to fire one! Its a remarkably stable weapon, based off the old M-1. I could have seen something like it used as a US SMG with a reduced propellant charge driven bullet. As a selective fire battle rifle, it retains all of the M-1s virtues with very little of its vices (loader's thumb and the stripper clip ping being two). But man is it LOUD!  It also pulls muzzle hard up and right.

 

 

 

H.

 

 

Aside from the fact that M240 isn't designed to be an accurate weapon and does not have single shot, close bolt firing mode....

The definition of "sniper" changes over time. During WW2, any battle rifle with a scope is considered as "sniper rifle." But if you look closely, those scopes used during WW2 were mostly very small scope with 2x to 4x magnification. They were also shooting heavier 8mm Mauser, 7.62x54R and 30-06 rounds. Even the Japanese 6.5mm or 7.7mm are much more powerful than 7.62x39mm M43.

 

While the snipers of Western armies evolved into scout-sniper system, Russians developed Dragunov SVD. Scout snipers are designed to be long-range scout and precision fire support and are intergrated part of a batallion. Russian approach is to embed sharpshooters equiped with SVD at squad/platoon level. Although SVDs are called "sniper rifle" and soldiers trained to use it are usually dubbed as "sniper," the actual meaning and tactics for those are very different from Western scout-sniper approach, which can trace its roots from Vietnam War.

 

What arises in recent years in the US military is "designated marksmen." Although not being noticed as it should have been , it is the result of near re-introduction of M14/M21 and its various forms back to the US Army and USMC. The concept of "designated marksmen" is exactly the Russian version of snipers, using semi-auto battle rifles with adequate optics to engage targets precisely from 0-600m. Are they snipers? It really depends on your definition. I'm just saying what it is.

 

In open terrain like Afg, more marksmen and DMRs are needed. While M240 and M16 auto fires pinning down the enemy, marksmen can pick individual enemy soldiers from distance. In street fighting in cities, some marksmen are still needed, but you need more door kickers with M4 and M27.

 

BTW, DMRs are should be designed to use machinegun ammo, while the long range sniper rifles, such as M24, use accurized ammo. The current trend is to equip scout-sniper with specialized caliber for long range engagement, such as .338 Lapua or even larger rounds.

There are still sizable stock of M14 in the US. The very reason to use M14 as DMR is because they already exist. While M14 isn't the best thing since sliced bread, it sure isn't a bad rifle. The contemporaries such as FAL and HK33 all have their own problems, and all are heavier than M14. I've seen and handled many before. Yes, they are heavy and clunky but so are every other rifle chambered with the same round. There is almost no common parts between an M16 and an M110. Not that M110 isn't a good idea despite some problems in its early stage of service, but KAC does not have the production capability to provide and replace all existing M14 DMR already in use immediately.

 

Besides, the Army can do the glass bedding and accurization for M14s in-house.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kel-Tec_RFB." target="_blank">link Bullpup gives you a long barrel in a short package. Disadvantages have been substantially overcome.

Folding stock > bullpup

 

RFB is designed as a civilian rifle first. Its mechanism hasn't been tested by the Army or under combat situation.

 

On the other hand, SCAR (both L and H versions) are already well tested, even in combat. Magpul/Remington ACR are ironing out some issues they've learned from Bushmaster launch. Both are viable solution to replace M16/M4.

"Higher chance, versus what, BTW?  Were they willing to double their ammunition and weapons weight for this higher chance, carry less water, fewer batteries?"

US soldiers are currently trained to take two quick aimed shots at each target.  As a result battlefield ammunition expendatures have gone way down when compared to previous wars.  Where we are really burning through ammunition is in training them to shoot that fast and accurately.