4 miles sniping rifle in estimated .375 - .416 caliber

I heard the US military is looking into a sniper rifle for distances up to 4 miles.
Sounds very ambitious to me.

People do estimate a caliber of .375 - .416.
Is there anybody with details on the perspective cartridge?
Any detail is welcome.

Agree with you EOD, a sniper rifle for distances up to 4 miles sounds ambitious, I follow ultra long range matches channels in youtube and at such distances hitting a big steel gong even with a team of spotters behind with all the equipment is more luck than accuracy. I look with attention the new ukranian Snipex anti material rifle chambered for both the 14,5x114 and 12,7x108 rounds, their accuracy test looks promising. Besides that, to my knowledge only IOR Valdada is the only manufacturerof ultra long range oriented scopes, of course for the civilian market. Cheers !!!

DGFM, I wonder then what ammo they will use in 14.5mm as one would expect a particular sniper projectile.

hello
for my opinion ,they would develop a sniper loading
but i see videos on a “new” rifle in 14.5 caliber and they use MDZ rounds

So without special sniper rounds it boils down to an AMR in my view.

I believe the furthest documented sniper shot to date was in 2017 when a British sniper, using a CheyTac M200 Intervention, scored at approximately 1.5 miles.

It was the .375 CheyTac round, (at 2,970 fps, the BC of the 350 gr projectile is .988), which is claimed to be effective to 3,000 meters, which is what, slightly over 1.8 miles?

The CheyTac cartridges are considered promising, but nor for 4 miles (6.4 km) of course. These plans would in my opinion result in a sort of Paris Gun equivalent for infantry. Much ado but zero military utility.

I would ask the proponents of such a weapon to show how they zero an existing, accurate rifle/ammunition combination at, say, 2 miles. It won’t work; no repeatability. The slightest change in conditions (crosswind, midwind, temperature profile close to surface, the target moving a few yards closer or farther away) will make the firing solution invalid.
A laser range finder for that type of shooting is essential, as it is the only way to measure the distance precisely. Against a technologically developed enemy, that is like using a torch in the dark. As one British officer described conclusions from Ukraine: “You emit, you die.”

Actually… have you not heard of the Sandy Hook Tests in 1879, fired at two miles?

The title says “.45-70 at Two Miles: The Sandy Hook Tests of 1879”, but the cartridge was lenghtened by 1/8" so the powder charge would be the same 80 grains as the .450-577 Martini-Henry they were competing against.

This was shot with open sights, and men figuring the firing solution on paper, taking into account the earth rotation.

If it could be done then, it certainly could be done today, though the needed accuracy for a target as small as a human torso would likely max out around 2 miles, at least until we have the technology to produce suitable portable power supplies for EM Rail Gun/Gauss Rifle, or Particle Beam/Projection weapons.

Jack, I am sorry that our views are nearly always at odds.
I quote from the article you linked, page 3:
“In the tests at 2,500 yards, the target was hit five times in seventy rounds with the .45-70-405 service load, only once with the Martini-Henry in eighty rounds, and four times with the long range Springfield in thirty shots.”
This was against a target 44 feet (13.4 m) wide and 22 feet (6.7 m) high, larger than the proverbial barn door. The text is not clear regarding what happened against the same target at 3200 yd, but at least two rifles did not hit it at all.
The shot dispersion is not given beyond 1000 yards.
The extraordinary achievements of Mr. Hare at 2500 yards are a little at odds with the hit versus fired round numbers quoted above. I doubt that he hit the 6 foot bull at 2500 yards with his very first shot, as the author seems to imply.
Therefore I do not share your conclusion that “it [sniping at 2500 yards] could be done then.”

Again, the Sandy Hook Tests were using open sights and black powder, and testing for a military cartridge, not a sniper rifle.
I simply mentioned it as an example of the possibility of what could be done. It was not meant as a difinitive test versus todays technology, as it sounds like you are applying it.

In 1864 Confederate snipers using the Whitworth rifle made kills out to 800 yards using iron sights.
By 1890 or so competitive shoters using Vernier sights were competing at 1,200 yards with .40 and .45 caliber rifles.
Maj. John W. “Jack” Hession, (undoubtedly the greatest competitive shooter ever, and held every shooting record from 200 to 1,200 yards), at Camp Perry in 1913 using A 1903 Springfield .30-06, scored 19 “bulls” out of 20 shots at 1,000 yards shooting across a 42-mile gale force wind which necessitated him to aim 25 feet to the right of the target, and once had 79 bullseyes in a row during practice at 1,000 yards.

Again, do not read more into this than I am stating- if it could be done before 1900 with BP loads and non-magnifying sights, and in 1913 across gale force winds, there is no reason it cannot be done today, at two miles, with ballistic software, and modern manufacturing technology- if there are shooters capable of doing so.

The .375 ChayTac has done it at 1.5 miles, so how much harder will it be to go another 880 yards?

Better get some Canadian snipers if you need somebody popped at that range!

1 Like

I do not share the optimism you both show regarding achievements by a single person exactly once in his/her lifetime as representing what can be achieved routinely just by introducing a new weapon and ammunition.
Our real problem in the West, please do not take this as addressed at you personally, is the absence of even basic understanding of small arms ballistics in the military. As a nice example, let me quote FM 3-22.10 Sniper Training and Operation (October 2009), para 4-148, 3rd sentence: “As the humidity rises, the point of impact goes down; as the humidity decreases, the point of impact goes up.”

Believe it or not, the opposite(!) is true. Humid air is less(!) dense than dry air, as every artillery officer can confirm (ask him about virtual temperature). The quoted erroneus information has been existing in U.S. sniper field manuals at least for three decades. And what is more, British (1990) and German (1999, corrected in 2011) military sniper manuals thoughtlessly repeated this Fake News. The real damage does the 4th sentence in para 4-148, which gives an out of proportion wrong example of the effect of air humidity change on point of impact.

This background may explain why I see no point in admiring singular records while the real problem is in a general lack of ballistic common sense, illustrated by getting even basic facts wrong over decades, without anyone of the “professionals” noticing. I have the same feeling when I see modern sniper ammunition assigned 19th century G1 ballistic coefficients. Not to mention loading ladders based on 3(!) shot groups. That is pure Voodoo, because random effects cannot be isolated reliably from only 3 (or 5) shots. Or the fetish of short barrels, conveniently ignoring what the loss of kinetic energy does to reducing penetration of body armour.

The 4 mile sniping rifle will follow SPIW and all the other projects, which stood out for lack of contact to reality on the range.

2 Likes

The other big problem with long-range shooting, anything over 1,200 metres, is optics, the further away an object is the greater the magnification required for a reasonable sight picture … and as the extra distance involves extra air between the muzzle and the target it gets increasingly difficult to get a stable picture in the sight due to heat-haze, dust and pollution … all of which are exacerbated by the increased magnification … let alone all the other problems of wind-drift, temperature and humidity variations downrange, as well as the reduction in the effective kinetic energy of the projectile as the range increases.

Up to a point, on a well defined target on a very hot day it’s often better to resort to iron sights with a relatively stable sight-picture rather than the wandering shimmer of the target seen through glass … and that’s taking unhurried shots whilst under no pressure … not a luxury very often present in a military context, I presume.

Pete

1 Like

A swarm of tiny autonomous drones could determine distance and hyper-local wind/weather conditions and relay that back to the smart scope to automatically adjust everything. They may as well even relay the image of what you’re shooting.

Also maybe this could be set up on a fancy tripod-type system where the drones relay the info to just move the gun by itself and you have a wireless trigger with a video screen to confirm what you plan to shoot.

I think with all the real-time data being fed in and removing the human factor you could do this with about any cartridge.

2 Likes

Shooting a Rigby .45 at 1,000~1,200 yards with a Vernier tang sight, from the back position, believe me when I say you still have to deal with heat shimmer, and heat risers, and wind blowing from different directions between muzzle and target.

Firing a .45 cal 525 grain Postnell, pushed by 86 grains of FFFg, it could easily be followed downrange, and you could see the bullet go up, left, right, and down, sometimes all four, and usually call your own score before it struck paper.

Shooter, and spotter- if you had one- had to work in union to figure all that out, and when I was doing that, there were no ballistic programs on your cell phone, nor a handheld device. I did, however, have a card with wind drift, distance/drop, and an inclinometer in the form of a string with a weight hanging from one corner, (I still have it, somewhere), which I used because for several years when I did not have a spotter.

1 Like

I believe that scenario has been used in at least 3 movies that I can remember, one was a flick with Jean-Claude Van Dam as an Assassin [Assassination Games, 2011].

He77 spit, 4 miles is 6,4km so at 64 times magnification is equal to shooting irons ie. no mag at 100m~110yds.
As mentioned, all sorts of atmospheric errors will stack up and make such “one shot kills” mute.
Makes me wonder why an “phalanx defence system” would’nt do?
Spray enough end your problem goes away (very quickly).
That or an A-10!

Well, as long as you are ot concerned with collateral damage, I guess that would be O.K.

Love the Warthog, respect their drivers, been there a couple times when they appeared out of nowhere, and what a grand sight to behold, and horrid thing to hear!

I punched the numbers for a BC 1.00 bullet weighing 560grains going 3000fps V0 sighted in at 100yds.

At 880yds (1/2mile) = 2218fps, TOF 1.027sec, Drop 158.8inch
At 1760yds (1mile) = 1640fps, TOF 2.416sec, Drop 879inch
At 2640yds (1 1/2mile) = 1213fps, TOF 4.294sec, Drop 2600+inch
At 3520yds (2miles) = 897fps, TOF 6.834sec, Drop 6300+inch
At 4400yds (2 1/2" miles) = 463fps, TOF 10.268sec, Drop 13000+inch
At 5280yds (3 miles) = 490fps, TOF 14.912sec, Drop 27000+inch
At 6160yds (3 1/2 miles) = 362fps, TOF 21.192sec, Drop 52000+inch
At 7040yds (4 miles) = 268fps, 29.684sec, 98000+inch

Aint math a bitch?
98000inch is something like 1.5mile and what it takes an object to drop in 30 seconds. That and 560grains at 268fps isnt going to dent a stale donut.

1 Like

Returning to EOD original question, I do not find any reference regarding a solicitation of any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces for a sniper rifle capable to hit targets at a 4 miles distance.
Besides that, in the private sector, the longest shoot recorded by Hill Country Rifles Team was hitting a 36" target at 4549 yards (2.58 miles) with a .375 Cheytac chambered rifle. the HCR Team is working on a new ultra range cartridge called .375 Spinella. And as EOD correctly indicates, an AMR (Anti material rifle) is not an sniper rifle. Regards.