Russian Sniper Rifles

I'm seeing more of the SSG-04 in various elite units together with the SVD and VSS rifles

SSG-04
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sniper-rifles/at/steyr-ssg-04-e.html

Elite forces are likely to buy foreign rifles to meet specialist needs that can't be met by Russian sources at the moment, but widespread service rifles will be Russian, and the SV-98 sounds like a good weapon though I have heard criticism of the scope as not being very good and also that the rifle is expensive.

An order of 20,000 would likely reduce the price hopefully.

Looks like it won't be only elite units by the sounds of it. It was announced a few days ago that each active brigade will get a specialised sniper unit (platoon sized) made up of contract soldiers. That's on top of the regular "infantry" snipers/sharpshooters (usually SVD armed) in each infantry section.

I would suspect either an SV-98 or an updated SV-98 in perhaps 338 Lapua Magnum calibre would be their most likely primary weapon.

The real important issue will be Russian production and sniper standard ammo in the calibres being used.

I think they're evaluating a few different weapons at this stage...and you're right re: the ammo

I suspect they will actually prefer semi auto over bolt action...

They did spend good money in the late 1950s to develop the SVD to replace the bolt action Mosin Nagant M1891/30 rifles they were using for sniping... and with the right ammo the SVD is actually a rather good rifle for most sniping needs.

I expect the Russian Army will want their new sniper rifle in .338 Lapua Magnum and 7.62 x 54mm calibre, perhaps with the former in bolt action and the latter in a semi automatic design.

For a while the played with the 9.3 x 62mm round, but although it fired a heavy projectile it was more about hitting power at shorter range rather than extending firing range.

The use of the .338 is about extending effective range from the 800m to about 1.5km in the best performing versions of the Lapua round.

As mentioned above the unusual calibre is not actually a problem because using a standard calibre would reduce effective range performance potential and of course if you run out of special sniper ammo picking up ammo lying around will reduce your accuracy to the point where you might as well drop that sniper rifle and pick up that PKM machinegun you were going to use the 7.62 x 54mm ammo from because its accuracy in a sniper rifle would be poor.

I am wondering when the Russian military will decide to develop a round to replace the 7.62 x 54mm as it is not really a modern round being rimmed and all.

...perhaps they might adopt the .338 Lapua Magnum as a new standard rifle and MG round...

The SV-98 is already in service in the Armenian Army. Some front line units (from special forces) use it.

Nice post Armenian.

From what I have read the only criticisms of the SV-98 have been its scope and its high price.

Scopes are easy to change and the best solution to deal with high price is very large orders.

The Rifle is based on the Record-CISM civilian sports shooting rifle and seems to be very accurate.

I have been thinking more about the ADS underwater and above water assault rifle, and the new underwater ammo that uses a sabot and a very long projectile that reaches all the way back in the cartridge case to near the primer.

They state they developed new high power propellent so that with the large projectile and the sabot around the projectile the tiny amount of free space inside the case could be used more efficiently to still get lethal velocities from the enlarged projectile.

The reason I think this is interesting is that a fundamental problem with modern light high velocity rifles is lack of projectile weight, while it reduces felt recoil, it does limit long range performance because lighter bullets lost velocity in flight faster than heavier ones do.

Perhaps the weight of the standard round could be increased from its current 60-62 grain to something closer to the 7.62 x 39mm rounds weight of 122 grain. Perhaps a 90-100 grain projectile will be less effected by impacting material on the way to the target like the modern rifle rounds, and with its hollow tip and long bullet shape will still retain its lethality by tumbling on impact.

If muzzle velocity can be maintained or even slightly increased to 1,000m/s or so the recoil will be increased, and of course the barrel wear might also be slightly increased, but the effective range should also be increased significantly as would lethality.

There was talk a while back of the Military wanting small arms effectiveness to be increased 2.5-3 times by 2020, and this could be one way to do it... in addition to more accurate rifle designs and improved ammo that stores better.

TheArmenian wrote:The SV-98 is already in service in the Armenian Army. Some front line units (from special forces) use it.

Interesting. I didn't know...and thanks for the pics.


As per Garry's request the new SV-338M firing the .338 Lapua Magnum round



It's one of the candidates (domestic and foreign) for the new Russian sniper rifle

Cyberspec wrote:

TheArmenian wrote:The SV-98 is already in service in the Armenian Army. Some front line units (from special forces) use it.

Interesting. I didn't know...and thanks for the pics.


As per Garry's request the new SV-338M firing the .338 Lapua Magnum round



It's one of the candidates (domestic and foreign) for the new Russian sniper rifle

Is this new SV-338 an Izhmash product?

Are you sure Cyberspec?

It looks like the Orsis T-5000 to me rather than an SV-98 modified into .338.

Remember whatever rifle is selected as the winner will get the designation SV-338 most likely... that would just mean Sniper Rifle-calibre 338... just like SVD means sniper rifle Dragunov, and VSS basically means Rifle, Sniper, Suppressed.

Yes I'm pretty sure....here's a drawing with different versions of the SV-338

Had a quick look for SV-338 and came up with this:

Looks like the first one in the drawings

Which is also called SV-338.

I think perhaps that those drawings represent in the top drawing the 338 calibre version of the SV-98, and with the other drawings a different development of the T-5000 in 338 calibre.

In other words these are the rifles competing for the prize of being the new long range accurate sniper rifle.

From the wording I think the makers of the SVD and SVDS are going to make a competing semi auto rifle in 338 brand new from scratch design, likely with a designated marksman in each platoon issued with the new semi auto, and the official snipers issued with the bolt action... both in 338.

I don't think so. The T-5000 is produced by a different company and it looks different.

Orsis T-5000

My apologies, you seem to be right...

Now I remember where I thought I saw a rifle like this:

http://img3067.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=689678175_SV_338M1_2_122_191lo.jpg

It looks like a scaled down Truvelo 50 cal:

http://world.guns.ru/sniper/large-caliber-sniper-rifles/safr/truvelo-50-e.html

The SV-338 is a good step but still not enough. Russians seriously need to establish in weapons industry a name of ultra high precision and reliable weaponry. They need to get into business of ultra long range sniping. And i am eager to see what they will bring forth to the table.

Give them a break... it is like UAVs... their primary customer (the Russian military) only paid lip service before 8 8 8 to UAVs, now they demand world class products.

Currently the leaders in UAV technology would be the US and Israel and neither of those countries developed their expertise in 3 years... it has actually been more like 30.

It is the same with long range shooting, though many of the details and skills are actually practised in the Russian military... but not with rifles... in artillery units.

The Russians have small companies that specialise in accurate and quality firearms, and considering the conditions they need to operate in reliability is already built in.

Civilian Russian shooters have their share of world medals, but the focus now will be more western oriented... don't know if that is a good thing or not... Soviet training was for 600-800m engagements with SVDs and western experience in Afghanistan has resulted in the introduction of SVD like semi automatic designated marksmen rifles within platoons... just like Soviet practise.

If they have chosen the right model 338 Lapua Magnum round to adopt it can be effective out to 1,500m. Ammo like Chey Techs special rounds can more than double that range... but I think a bit of common sense needs to be applied... if you are needing to hit targets at 3km then something like Kornet is much heavier, but is also much more accurate and carries the HE punch to take out a whole room or ensure the destruction of even a well armoured vehicle or even an aircraft.

The Russian equivalent of western snipers are recon soldiers with the GRU (army intel) and would spend more time gathering information about the enemy than shooting officers or Scud missile launchers.

GarryB wrote:Give them a break... it is like UAVs... their primary customer (the Russian military) only paid lip service before 8 8 8 to UAVs, now they demand world class products.

Currently the leaders in UAV technology would be the US and Israel and neither of those countries developed their expertise in 3 years... it has actually been more like 30.

It is the same with long range shooting, though many of the details and skills are actually practised in the Russian military... but not with rifles... in artillery units.

The Russians have small companies that specialise in accurate and quality firearms, and considering the conditions they need to operate in reliability is already built in.

Civilian Russian shooters have their share of world medals, but the focus now will be more western oriented... don't know if that is a good thing or not... Soviet training was for 600-800m engagements with SVDs and western experience in Afghanistan has resulted in the introduction of SVD like semi automatic designated marksmen rifles within platoons... just like Soviet practise.

If they have chosen the right model 338 Lapua Magnum round to adopt it can be effective out to 1,500m. Ammo like Chey Techs special rounds can more than double that range... but I think a bit of common sense needs to be applied... if you are needing to hit targets at 3km then something like Kornet is much heavier, but is also much more accurate and carries the HE punch to take out a whole room or ensure the destruction of even a well armoured vehicle or even an aircraft.

The Russian equivalent of western snipers are recon soldiers with the GRU (army intel) and would spend more time gathering information about the enemy than shooting officers or Scud missile launchers.

This entirely depends on the military doctrine.
But let me tell you this.
American generals were first against heavy sniper rifles.
But everything changed when Berret demostrated rifle capable of shooting down or disabling a helicopter with a round costing only several bucks.
Russians could do that with kornet ofcourse. But that might be considered too heavy and not that mobile.
Kornet requires a crew, sniper rifle require a single sniper.
You have compared this situation with the one on the UAV matter.
In my opinion this is inadequate.
Simply because the only thing that separates their military industrial complex from being popular in the filed of long range sniping is sufficient production of accurate ammunition. They do have a fair experience in production of relatively accurate rifles like the OSV-96 or KSVK. All they need to do is built upon the experience which they have from these rifles. And these rifles have been, altough in small numbers, constantly used in Chechniya. Unlike UAVs where Russians had a big gap when they were last using REISS and today the newer UAVs. But ultimatelly it comes down to the main point where i think they are already facing a problem of lack of skilled workforce that would be willing to work in manufacturing and military industry. But i guess thats another topic.

This entirely depends on the military doctrine.

America has a very long tradition of long range shooting.
Even during the Korean war US forces started playing with captured 14.5mm heavy anti tank rifles for long range shooting. They also put telescopic sights on Browning heavy machine guns and attempted to fire very short bursts to single shot at very long range targets.

During WWII the Soviet experience of snipers was that shots at 800m or more were very rare, and 14.5mm anti tank rifles were rarely used at more than 300m.

14.5mm anti tank rifles were actually very popular in built up areas like Stalingrad, but that was to shoot through walls or to shoot down at the hatches on armoured vehicles that were otherwise too well armoured to be penetrated.

American generals were first against heavy sniper rifles.

Generals from anywhere are often against unproven new uses of weapons.

Unproven is risky and Generals don't like risk.

But everything changed when Berret demostrated rifle capable of shooting down or disabling a helicopter with a round costing only several bucks.
Russians could do that with kornet ofcourse. But that might be considered too heavy and not that mobile.

An Igla is much more mobile and have a much greater envelop for downing helos, and requires much less skill. Getting within about 1.5km of an enemy helo is not easy on foot.

50 cal rifles are more often used against ground targets... and out to an effective range of about 2km. A decent 50 cal rifle weighs about 10kgs. A single guy armed with a 50 cal rifle would never be sent alone into enemy territory or out onto the battlefield.

It is far more likely that a team of 5 to 10 soldiers might go on a mission to take out enemy assets.

As such the best Russian alternative would be to send the team out with a METIS-M1.
The METIS-M1 launcher weighs 9.5kgs. The thermal sight weighs 6.5kgs, but the guy with the 50 cal rifle would carry the same thermal sight so we can ignore that extra weight, so so far both teams are carrying a weapon weighing about 10kgs and a sight of about 6kgs.

The real difference is in ammo weight with the 50 cal rounds weighing less than 5kgs for 30 or 40 rounds, which will be made of bronze and probably a hundred bucks per round to actually hit a target at 2km. The METIS-M1 missiles on the other hand are 14kgs each including launch container. This means that a team of 3 men can carry the launcher, and 5 missiles with a guided range of 2km and in the anti armour version able to penetrate 950mm of armour, while the HE version has a warhead equivalent to 6kgs of HE.

Both have a similar effective range, the Russian team is carrying heavier ammo, but has the ability to deal with a wider range of targets.

You have compared this situation with the one on the UAV matter.
In my opinion this is inadequate.

They have lots of UAV designs too, they just haven't spent the money to take them from the prototype through the preproduction and testing phase to full production capability.

All they need to do is built upon the experience which they have from these rifles. And these rifles have been, altough in small numbers, constantly used in Chechniya. Unlike UAVs where Russians had a big gap when they were last using REISS and today the newer UAVs.

Russian Artillery units have used the Pchelka UAVs operationally in war... it is the rest of the military with little experience.
Even with accurate rifles and the right ammo, there is no culture of long range shooting in Russia like there is in the US.

I am not saying they can't do it... the US have been playing with long range shooting for a century or more... it wont take the Russians that long to learn it too... but first they need to want to do it. Changes in their military structure seem to suggest they are making those changes.

But ultimatelly it comes down to the main point where i think they are already facing a problem of lack of skilled workforce that would be willing to work in manufacturing and military industry. But i guess thats another topic.

You can't buy a trained skilled workforce. That comes from experience in production and the fact that they have not produced anything in bulk for 20 years it is perfectly understandable.

Look at what they did with India over their frigates... they get a contract and it goes to a Russian shipyard to build. It is a little slow and there are some initial problems that eventually get sorted out and the contract is completed. The Indians like the product and ask for more so the Russians give it to a different shipyard. The result is the same... starts out a little slow and with initial problems but eventually the problems get sorted out and the product is delivered and the customer is happy.

Behind the scenes this means that two shipyards got work and funding and were able to train up a viable workforce to enable to do the job. Would have been cheaper and easier to do all the work at one shipyard, but now they have two shipyards able to make frigates with trained and ready workforces instead of just one.
As contracts are signed and programs start people will be hired and skills will be learned and applied.
Expecting to have a skilled workforce with experience before you start production is expecting the prize before you pay for the lottery ticket.

Generals from anywhere are often against unproven new uses of weapons.
Unproven is risky and Generals don't like risk.

When UAVs were introduced... someone had to take on the risk.
And it paid off...
You need to be innovative to stay ahead of competition, and innovation without taking risks is impossible.
You can minimize the risks, but there will be still some risk of unsuccessfull project.

An Igla is much more mobile and have a much greater envelop for downing helos, and requires much less skill. Getting within about 1.5km of an enemy helo is not easy on foot.

50 cal rifles are more often used against ground targets... and out to an effective range of about 2km. A decent 50 cal rifle weighs about 10kgs. A single guy armed with a 50 cal rifle would never be sent alone into enemy territory or out onto the battlefield.

It is far more likely that a team of 5 to 10 soldiers might go on a mission to take out enemy assets.

Large anti-material rifle like M107 can be operated by a single person with ammunition of several shots.
Igla launcher is more accurate towards moving air targets, but how many igla missiles would single soldier be able to carry? 1 or 2?
Simply anti material rifles do have their place you don't need a crew to operate them, although american doctrine is that allmost allways you are acompanied by a spotter.

ou can't buy a trained skilled workforce. That comes from experience in production and the fact that they have not produced anything in bulk for 20 years it is perfectly understandable.

Well the biggest part of the problem are not skills, but will to work like this. Young Russians don't want to work in manufacturing. They want to work in nice and clean offices.
But for a world class military industrial complex you need plenty of people willing to work as workers. Education can be achieved nowadays pretty fast with modern technology mixed with up to date education methods and experience. So what Russians are missing are people willing to work as workers. And this is where in my opinion they should look into countries of old Soviet Union, where many people are living deep below poverty and they would be more than willing to have atleast workers job with constant income and some social guarantees of a decent life.

Another Russian rifle in 8.6mm (.338 LM)

VS-8



Also interesting...sort of a larger caliber VSS

VKS / VSSK Vychlop ("Exhaust") large caliber silenced sniper rifle
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/large-caliber-sniper-rifles/rus/vks-vssk-vychlop-e.html