View Single Post
Old March 17, 2013, 01:31 PM   #41
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,566
Quote:
I'm sorry, but I can't consider the M-1107 a sniper rifle at the exclusion of others.

The rifle was designed for the anti-material role. It had and continues to serve in the long range sniping role, but all the guys in our Sniper Section preferred the M-110 or M-24, with the .300 Winchester Magnum and .338 Lapua replacing the .50 BMG in the long range role.
The M-107 is a variant of the M82A1. It was NOT designed for the anti-material role. The US Military originally adopted the M82A1 for such a role (actually for EOD), but that was not what it was "designed for."
http://www.nramuseum.org/the-museum/...per-rifle.aspx

By RB's own words, he designed the 82A1 because he wanted his own .50 caliber weapon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBmc-Lgtb0

There is a huge distinction between the conception of design and application and this is a clear example. Even if an anti-material role was the design intent, intent does not matter. Lots of items are designed with a given intent that turn out to be quite useful for other intents.

The bottom line is that the M82A1 and M107 like every other rifle out there are simply designed for the purpose of launching projectiles down range in a controlled manner. Whether they are shot at materials or humans is the application, NOT the design.

Specifically see 4:30 in the video for the design-intended application of the platform. It was NOT designed as an anti-material military weapon at all.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04680 seconds with 7 queries