Army's new Rifle SDM-R

Am Shooting Journal ^ | 2/22/2019 | R Thayer

[w1n1]

Army Sgt. James Snow has carried an M-4 carbine and an M-110 sniper rifle as an infantryman on missions. With the M-4, he knew he was capable of hitting a target accurately up to only 300 meters. With a sniper rifle, he had less maneuverability and spent a lot of time breaking down and reassembling the larger weapon to carry.<

Last month, Snow was given the opportunity to try out the Army's new Squad Designated Marksman Rifle, or SDM-R. After just a couple days handling the new weapon, he said it felt like something that could fill the needs of both his previous weapons. It had more mobility and close combat capabilities like the M-4, but also better precision at a distance like the M-110.

"It’s easy to move around, and you can do a lot of things with it," Snow said. "Absolutely, I would carry this around every day if I was deployed. Every day, you could carry it for every single situation."

That was exactly the type of weapon that the Army looked to create for its combat arms squads — a weapon for one member of an infantry, armor, cavalry scout or combat engineer squad to carry and provide precision fire between 300 and 600 meters without losing the capability of hitting closer-range targets.

The need for such a rifle was identified in the 2015 Small Arms Capabilities-Based Assessment that stated “squads must have an organic, precision-fire capability to engage select personnel targets from zero to 600 meters." Read the rest of this SDM-R rifle.

[itsahoot]

“Would still prefer the M-14, though..”

I have a Mini 14 from Ruger, love it. But then again I trained with an M1. {:-)

[Chainmail]

I was a liaison to the Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP) at Aberdeen in 1978 when they were really pushing the 9mm as the new “Personal Defense Weapon” to replace the .45 and the USAF .38 special.

Some of the discussion was about “NATO commonality” and there a lot of cooked studies about 9mm lethality but the discussions also mentioned the difficulty women and “men with small hands” had with using the .45.

We Marines were strongly in favor of keeping the .45 but the army and Air Force strongly pushed the 9mm and specifically the Beretta 92 - to the point that when Colt, S&W, H&K, and others started to conform with the requirements, the army would modify the requirements to more clearly to match the Beretta, moving the goal posts.

Being a smart ass captain, I raised my hand and asked “sir - is that the same 9mm the Germans lost two wars in a row with?”. The army colonel in charge of the briefing told me to shut up and sit down, while we Marines laughed.

[eastexsteve]

I hope the Army will at least issue these guys 168- or 173-grain match loads, but I fear they’ll just get regular M80 Ball (which would be completely inadequate for the job).

I get the impression that the military is looking at their ammo requirements a little closer these days. I recently bought a bunch of 7.62x51 manufactured by Israeli Military Industries (IMI). The US military also buys ammo from them regularly. They were loaded with 175 grain Sierra Match King bullets. And, the bullet seating depth was optimized for semi-auto rifles. I can pound steel silhouettes at 1,000 yds with them pretty consistently out of my HK-91.

[Chainmail]

Oh, picky, picky, picky: M80 Ball may not be up to today’s standards but we got good, solid hits out to 500 meters all the time in our time touring the area southeast of Danang.

Don’t throw it away yet..

[moovova]

“I got that from Wikpedia. I scanned the article and couldn’t fine the caliber.”

I thought that was odd too...didn’t directly mention the caliber in the written article. I did find it in the chart the author posted for comparison sake. It looks like it’s 7.62x51.

[Chewbarkah]

The table says it weighs 10 pounds.

[NY.SS-Bar9]

I shoot a 1911 in competition and have an M9

The M9 has two drawbacks - the DA / SA trigger and awful sights. Once you get used to it, it is a very shootable/accurate gun.

I have shot the M17, right out of the box, with no familiarization, and it is as close to ideal as you can get.

Sig did an excellent job. Looking to free up some space in my safe for one.

[moovova]

Eugene Stoner isn’t the only reason I wanted an AR in .308...but he was on the list of reasons.

[qaz123]

I’m a Glock guy. Something about the 320 just doesn’t do if for me. Nice trigger. But not a fan of the grip or the fact that the barrel sits a little higher than my Glocks. But, that is a Sig thing, I think. I had a P229 years ago. First pistol I ever owned. Shot awesome but I didn’t like that higher bore ratio.

Now, the 320 X-Five is something I can live with, I think. Got a chance to put my hands on one at the NRA Convention in Atlanta. Man o Man, that is a nice pistol. But definitely not something you’re going to use a every day carry gun.

[Billthedrill]

I’m sorry you’re hurt Chainmail - but can I have your rifle?

I feel guilty as hell for laughing at that...

[The Pack Knight]

I wouldn’t throw M80 away, but we’ve got much better stuff available now for long-range shooting.

[The Pack Knight]

I will say, in the hypothetical scenario where the proverbial poo-poo hits the rotary oscillator and I have to grab one of my rifles off the rack to head into the field and go to work with, I’d have a hard time not grabbing my 75-year-old Garand and every clip of M2 Ball I can carry. So I do have some fondness for the tried-and-true stuff.

Or I might grab my hand loads where I duplicate M2 Ball (150 grain bullet over 50 grains of 4895), but with Hornady SSTs instead of FMJ. I’m not a signatory to the Hague Convention, after all, so might as well use expanding ammo if I can.

[jospehm20]

Chart says it is 10 lbs.

[Chainmail]

It was funny at the time too - Lt. Graves was real hoot and he had reason to covet my rifle: I had the full-auto kit, a clip-on "clothespin" bipod, a thinned wrist to the stock, and a very light trigger.

He and I are still friends.

[Farmer Dean]

I own a registered M16A1.To me it’s little more than a high powered submachinegun.
To me there’s nothing like a .30 rifle.
The 7.62x51 and .30-06 cartridges were years in development and they just flat out work.

[Chainmail]

Hard to fault decades of effectiveness measured in deceased bad guys - no matter what they were hiding behind..

[The Pack Knight]

That's good to know. My concern is that the government will do what it has always done and show more concern for the waste of not using existing stocks of weapons and ammo (which is relatively small in the grand scheme of bloated defense budgets) than for equipping our men with the best weapons and ammo available.

They've been doing it since the black powder era. Why did the Army choose the Trap Door Springfield in 1873 instead of other, more reliable rifles, or even, God forbid, a repeater? Because they could convert existing 1863 Springfield Muskets to Trap Doors for five bucks a pop rather than buy whole new rifles, and because they thought soldiers would waste ammo if they could actually fire more than one shot without reloading. As cool as Trap Doors are, they really were junk compared to what was available. How many guys paid for that five-dollar price tag--and the cost of cheaper copper-cased 45-70--with their lives, mowed down at Little Big Horn by Sioux armed with modern Winchester repeaters while trying to clear stuck cases out of their Springfields?

Then fast forward 60 years. The Army was looking to replace the 1903 with something more modern. Far and away the winner was a gas-operated rifle designed by a guy named John Garand. No, it wasn't the rifle chambered in .30-06. It was the one chambered in a newfangled 7mm cartridge called .276 Pedersen. As great as the results were, then-Army Chief-of-Staff Douglas MacArthur rejected it because he wanted to use up all the mountains of .30-06 M2 Ball left over from the last war. The result was a great, but not perfect, rifle that could have been that much greater, and who knows how many more guys would have lived to come back home if they'd gotten that much more performance out of their weapons.

It's an old story.

[onedoug]

Had a chance to fire an M-14 again after so many years. Still accurate and beautiful...but the weight....

‘Must be getting old.

[Retain Mike]

I had a 9mm at the range one time with my son and had a hard time shooting a decent group. Then I tried his .45 and had much better luck. He said the 9mm had a much sharper and narrower graph for plotting the recoil than a .45, which was much more of a push. He called the 9mm snappy. He has gotten used to the difference and shoots verry good. He is an investigator with the Federal Protective Service. Me, I am just an average guy with a CHL, so I’ll stick with the .45.

[qaz123]

There could be a number of reasons for the grouping not being to your liking, but the 45 is a rather easy gun to shoot. They tend to be accurate. And, if it was a 1911, the single action trigger is like no other.

Hence, one good way to train new shooters, in handgun proficiency is, to train them on a double action revolver. And only let them shoot double action. Once they can shoot a double action revolver well, shooting a semi-auto is a walk in the park.