Is the British Army going to get an Anti-material rifle?

They were comfortable to fire, and surprisingly accurate for a semi auto.
I rented a Barrett M99 a couple of years back at a range near San Antonio. With the rifle we got 10 rounds between the two of us there. We asked for more but the guy behind the counter gave us a look before saying 'See how you get on with those first then come back if you need more'.
It was possibly the most horrible rifle I have ever fired. Breech loaded and with no mechanical recoil supression it was nasty to say the least. By the time we had taken three shots each we were looking at each other in the vain hope the other would want to use up the remaining rounds.
A definate 'tick' on the list of weapon types fired, but not one I would like to do again. And the sheer weight of the thing (+ ammo) makes you realise just why they are not widely adopted as a 'field' weapon. Heavy, low rate of fire, limited use beyond a few specific purposes (which can often be done by other more portable systems) and tying down manpower who could otherwise be better employed on the battlefield. Too many negatives and not enough positives I think.
I wouldn't be surprised if they have a few in various SF armouries gathering dust too.
 

goodoldboy

MIA
Book Reviewer
I rented a Barrett M99 a couple of years back at a range near San Antonio. With the rifle we got 10 rounds between the two of us there. We asked for more but the guy behind the counter gave us a look before saying 'See how you get on with those first then come back if you need more'.
It was possibly the most horrible rifle I have ever fired. Breech loaded and with no mechanical recoil supression it was nasty to say the least. By the time we had taken three shots each we were looking at each other in the vain hope the other would want to use up the remaining rounds.
A definate 'tick' on the list of weapon types fired, but not one I would like to do again. And the sheer weight of the thing (+ ammo) makes you realise just why they are not widely adopted as a 'field' weapon. Heavy, low rate of fire, limited use beyond a few specific purposes (which can often be done by other more portable systems) and tying down manpower who could otherwise be better employed on the battlefield. Too many negatives and not enough positives I think.
I wouldn't be surprised if they have a few in various SF armouries gathering dust too.
I've never fired one and don't aspire to ever doing so. However, one was on a bench a couple of years ago and the guy in charge told me what it was and invited me to pick it up. I didn't drop it but was amazed at how heavy it was. This particular one was intended for EOD use. No idea where it ended up but some poor bugger will have to lug the thing around!
 
Genuine " Them " gave us a demo on the Barratt on Otterburn ranges, the muzzle blast is what I remember most, made your fillings rattle , you needed ear defenders on your ear defenders. Luckily the target ( what was left of some kind of armoured car ) was so far away no one knew if anyone hit anything or not.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
I rented a Barrett M99 a couple of years back at a range near San Antonio. With the rifle we got 10 rounds between the two of us there. We asked for more but the guy behind the counter gave us a look before saying 'See how you get on with those first then come back if you need more'.
It was possibly the most horrible rifle I have ever fired. Breech loaded and with no mechanical recoil supression it was nasty to say the least. By the time we had taken three shots each we were looking at each other in the vain hope the other would want to use up the remaining rounds.
A definate 'tick' on the list of weapon types fired, but not one I would like to do again. And the sheer weight of the thing (+ ammo) makes you realise just why they are not widely adopted as a 'field' weapon. Heavy, low rate of fire, limited use beyond a few specific purposes (which can often be done by other more portable systems) and tying down manpower who could otherwise be better employed on the battlefield. Too many negatives and not enough positives I think.
I wouldn't be surprised if they have a few in various SF armouries gathering dust too.
Having fired a prototype Accuracy International AW 50 several decades ago, I can concur that yep, that would hurt. The Barrett M82, being semi automatic was much, much gentler on the shoulder.
 

gafkiwi

War Hero
Having fired a prototype Accuracy International AW 50 several decades ago, I can concur that yep, that would hurt. The Barrett M82, being semi automatic was much, much gentler on the shoulder.
The original AW50 with the T muzzle break that looked like it was off an M-41 tank barrel was a real bastard. It was bad enough for the firer but even worse for the spotter who would try to hide as best he could behind the firer, more for protection than trying to align with the shot. The later baffled break was an improvement but you had to go suppressed to retain any sanity. I think the safety cap on firing was something like 20rds max un-suppressed in a 24hr period. We now have the M-107A1 version of the Barrett, much nicer to shoot.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top