During the Cold War (and presumably after?), the Dragunov / SVD was said to be “widely issued” in Soviet / WarPac armies. We were told that the use of “sniper rifles” was much more widespread on the Other Side than in NATO. To what extent were / are these “true” sniper rifles, or were they more like DMRs?

I'm in no position to answer, but by looking at the Chechnya conflict photos of Russian troops, it does seem to be employed in the squad/platoon as a DMR.

The Dragunov SVD was indeed designed to provide fire support for every squad up to distances of 600m. Its name "Snaiperskaya Vintovka Dragunova" (Dragunov Sniper Rifle) is a bit misleading. As chino wrote, it's more of a DMR than a true sniper rifle.

This is what I thought from way back when - that it had more to do with providing "reach" to units equipped with AK's than as a weapon in the true sniper role. Question what dis people call DMR's back in the 1980's?

I'm not sure the concept of the "Designated Marksman" really existed outside of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. In Israel the IDF for example resurrected its programme only in the late 1990s ("Kala Saar"), using various M16 variants and Trijicon ACOG 4X32 sights.

My guess is that the Dragunovs are used by real snipers as well as by squad Designated Marksmen.

The Russians have other specialised sniper rifle designs including bolt actions in the same Dragunov calibre and also 12.7mm.

The SVD was indeed designed to provide fire support for every squad up to distances of 600 m as Tomas Hoting wrote. Only squads on BMP had no SVD assigned.

Yes, your opinions are correct. SVD isn’t a “professional” sniper rifle, but rather a mass self-loading rifle of enhanced precision and range. It can be compared with “sniperized” M14 or FAL.
It is enough to say that the cost of SVD (without sight) for the Russian Ministry of Interior is about 1500 USD now, which is not much higher than the cost of many standard Western automatic rifles, and the cost of SV-98 (the actual 7.62mm Russian “professional” sniper rifle) is about 5500-6000 USD.

The effective range of SVD is about 600 m when the special sniper cartridges “extra” are used (but only 300-400 m with the use of mass machine-gun rounds), though the maximum reliably fixed range of killing in Chechnya was 750 m. I.e. SVD can be dangerous at 600-800 m too, but several shots can be necessary for hit.

SVD was designed in 1960s specially for standard motor-rifle regular tactics: each squad included 1 RPK (light machine-gun) and 1 SVD for long-range “covering” fire (RPK was to distract attention by suppressing fire and SVD for marksmanship), and several AKMs for assault actions.

But what was used as true sniper rifle in 1980s or even 70's as SV-98 seems pretty recent

The Red Steel Avalanche had no need for true sniper rifle. In some cases an old Mosin M1891/30 could be used. Soviets more likely used BM-21's Grad Battalion for "sniper fire"

In Poland there was (is, though structure changed at least in some units) one Dragunov at every mech infantry platoon

In Czechoslovakia, vz.54 Rifle (modified Mosin) was used as Marksman's weapon though I don't know whether at Plt or Squad level. Same for Dragunov. Sniper weapons and Sniper roles appeared with promotion of SpecOps through the 1990's I think.

Slightly OT but $3000 seems like a lot of money for an accurised Moisin Nagant:

http://www.gunsamerica.com/935409594/Guns-...le_7_62x54R.htm

http://www.simpsonltd.com/product_info.php...roducts_id=4188

Up to 800 m, and it was used not only as modern DMR but also as normal sniper rifle. Funny thing, now the SVD with red point are something used as the battle rifle. Why? You know, the idea to distinguish the "true sniper rifle" and the "designated marksman rifle" is very new, comes from 2000s, when the American commandoes suddenly found the lack of rifle cartridge semi-automatic rifle in they armament. That's why they dusted off old M14 from storehauses, gave them a new stock and new scope and called them - proudly - DMR. Tadam, a new type of the sniper rifle appeared!

In the real world in the 1960s lots of the semi-automatic sniper rifles (mostly based on standard battle rifles) appeared, as a new fashion and something new and better than bolt-action sniper rifles. The SVD is even better, because it was designed from scratch as a semi-automatic sniper rifle. The question is, if from today point of view - the M21 is or is not "true sniper rifle"? And the G3SG/1? And SVD? They are just DMR? And the M110 SASS? What is a difference from technical point of view in weapon itself? Think twice. Only the function? By the way, in 1980-1990s the bolt-action sniper rifles again were back in grace. Now, they are true, new fashion etc. The history repeats itself

In the Warsaw Pact armies, the SVD was used in both roles - as DMR in mechanized/motorized infantry companies and as sniper rifle in special forces. There was no sniper in regular Soviet-based armies, just designated marksmen. The snipers were only in special forces. Interesting thing, with some minor changes added in 2000s - new barrel, new optics, new receiver (with thicker walls) and precision ammunition the SVD is still sniper rifle. You can use it up to 800 m, even more - 1200-1300 m, with any problem.

To summarize - the division of sniper rifles into a "DMR" and "true SR" comes only from the fact how the weapon is used, not from the weapon itself.

I would like to say that the Western German army didn't follow the real sniper concept very much until the 1990's when it was re-learned (afaik).
Previously, its sniping was pretty similar to the Russian sniper / DMR concept with its accurized (or simply scoped) G3's. Especially such weapons in reservist units were for a DM-like role.
Snipers resemble DM anyway when the operational tempo is high. The baiting and stalking part - much of the distinctive fieldcraft becomes less relevant then.

IMHO if a weapon is primarily designed to be used on the squad level by soldiers who didn't recieve specialized sniper training, then it's not really a sniper rifle. That's why I wrote that the term "Dragunov Sniper Rifle" is a bit misleading. That doesn't degrade the quality or effectiveness of the Dragunov (or the fact that it was used by true snipers in a role it wasn't really designed for in the first place).

The idea to distinguish between "true sniper rifles" and "designated marksman rifles" isn't really an American invention. As I wrote in another post, the Israelis for example toyed with the idea of DMRs already in the late 1980s and resurrected their programme in the late 1990s.

Many countries in the 1960s until the 1970s didn't really have a true sniper concept in their armies or police forces. They just took standard-issue rifles selected for their accuracy and then fitted them with fixed magnification scopes (like the German G3A3 Zf), or refurbished WW2 bolt-action sniper rifles (like the British L42A1). Vietnam and especially international terrorism led to significant changes in that area.

There are differences between:
- the standard G3 AR
- the "accurized" G3 Zf (Zf: Zielfernrohr; 4x fixed magnification), which was the Bundeswehr's main precision rifle or DMR until 1997, but never called a sniper rifle
- the G3 SG/1 (variable 1.5x to 6x magnification), which is a real (police) sniper rifle with a special trigger which can be "set" for a very light and crisp trigger pull

I agree with you, though, in that the whole issue gets blurred. One might argue that the use of sophisticated scopes for sniper rifles or the use of selected standard rifles with simpler optical sights for the DM role etc. indicate the main difference between sniper and designated marksman rifles. It very much depends on how the weapon is used, that's true.

On a somewhat related note, when did SUIT sights start becoming standard equipment for British L1A1 SLRs?

And that's the truly interesting part, as snipers can snipe with a DMR and DM can do their job with a sniper rifle.
The training of the individual and the small unit leaders is what really determines what will be done in war.

One book I have says 1974.

The important word here is "can". Of course snipers can snipe with a DMR and DM can use a sniper rifle to do their job, but it's not really a perfect solution. I don't think there's a "one size fits all" kind of solution, maybe except for the semi-automatic rifles like the KAC M110 or the H&K MSG-90A1 (MSG-90DMR).

It was 'standardised' but it never became 'standard' - only a small monority of L1A1s were ever fitted with SUIT.

So was it used in a marksman-type role? I had thought it was more widely fitted, like SUSAT.

It was used primarily in Northern Ireland - if you look at the photos, you'll see almost all SLRs from the late 1970s have them fitted.

As the SA80 came into service, this left a fair few thousand SUIT sights floating around; I think that just before we converted to L85/SUSAT in the early 1990s, our (Home Defence roled) TA Rifle Coy held 52 SUIT sights. Not that I used to do a lot of Arms Kote checks as a 2Lt, oh no.

They were widely issued within the TA of the late 1980s; whether they were widely used is another matter. I pushed to get our Company zeroed and training with them, and we certainly took them on our war-role exercises.

I worked for a small wholesaler during the mid-'90s, and saw quite a few SUITs come through, minus the tritium element. The thing that threw me was the reticle extending from the top of the field (upside down, if you will). I read somewhere that this was to avoid obscuring the target when holding over.

I always thought that was a great idea. Plus it allows you to see bullet impacts better. The Soviets made a clone called the 1P29 as well.

Yes, I can understand the practicality of the idea, but it still seems, well, wierd.

http://www.dragunov.net/internals.htm#cuts

Are any reports or rumors of how combat reliable the Dragunov SVD? Could this rifle be expected to withstand combat abuses that the AK family of rifles are legendary for?

My understanding of the AK's reliablity (And I know you guys will correct me if I am wrong...) is based on the simplicity of design (fewer parts the better) and the inheirant "slop" (room for parts to allow dirt in and not interfere with) in the action. In addition, this reliability comes at a price of a less accurate rifle which reduces it's effective combat range.

Without knowing the history of the SVD, it looks to me as thou the SVD was influenced by the AK although a clearly different design when reviewing break down photos of it in the upper web link. If the SVD needs to eliminate "slop" which factors into inaccuarcy, does its reliability suffer in turn?

Random question, started playing Call of Duty 4 on my friends PC and the SVD hits noticably harder than the M-21. I know it uses a *slightly* bigger cartrige (51mm vs 54mm) but I would not have thought it significant. Basically the game makes both weapons equivalent except shots to the torso with the SVD have a better chance of being a kill. Probably just a game balancing thing, though I can't imagine why they wouldn't just make them equivalent.

Developing a semi-automatic sniper rifle that was both reliable and accurate was a big technical challenge for Dragunov. By using a gas-piston and rotary bolt for the action, he insured a good level of reliability. The ability to adjust the gas port also helped.

From multiple reports that I read, the SVD still needs to be cleaned pretty well and can't tolerate the amount of abuse a regular AK rifle can tolerate. Having said that, the SVD can take more abuse than most rifles in its class.

Ever try shooting the Barret at somebody just to see them run away because they had juggernaut health? Funny, I thought a .50 Cal would take care of that...

It's certainly just a balancing issue.


...otherwise...

at least one U.S: 7.62x51mm standard ball cartridge wasn't as great in wounding potential as its reputation:
http://www.rayguncharlie.net/sr/basics/pmrb.html
(but the dragunov bullet was apparently not better).