Great Points Mike!
I continue to be shocked at how ill-informed people are and their belief that the more expensive a weapon system is, the more effective it MUST be or that if the military uses it, it must be awesome (reference the M110...a more accurate and reliable rifle can be built for 1/3 of the cost).
I am building an M1941 Sniper with a reproduction 8X scope. It wont be ready for Camp Perry this year, but i will take it to perry to shoot the vintage sniper matches (300yards & 600 yards, one shot at time, at limited exposure targets...).
I think it's crazy the military is adopting the XM2010 or whatever its called...its a 300WM, and no matter how you treat the barrel, the accurate barrel life sucks and still be less than 2000 rounds (closer to 1,100 to 1,500). It must be non-shooters/tactical ninja sniper type people not schooled in highpower shooting making these decisions.
For instance, the ammo spec for this rifle is the MK 248 MOD 0 and MOD 1
It shoots two (2) outdated bullets 190SMK & 220 SMK at a nominal velocity of 2,850ft/s. Weak!
The same performance can be obtained from a 30-06, shooting MORE MODERN bullets 190gr VLD & 210 Berger VLDs AT THE SAME VELOCITY with 5X the barrel life of the XM2010...oh well.
Back on track, the Vintage Snipers and the base rifles they were derived from are soo accurate that the only way to extract the performance difference from modern sniper rifles is at a range, with solid rests, with no-one shooting back at you and match grade ammo...in other words, it's the Indian not the bow.
Sorry but the comment about the .30-06 being the equal of the .300WM is wishful thinking at best. We are discussing modern rounds, capable of being issued to military units for deployment anywhere in the world where atmospheric conditions could range from below freezing to extremely high temperatures. Given those parameters, a hand load on or above the ragged edge of pressure for the .30-06 is simply NOT an option. I have extensive experience with both .30-06 and .300WM and a moderate amount of experience with .338LM.
There is simply no way the .30-06 can be safely and consistently loaded to equal the .300WM performance over the wide range of climatic conditions it may be exposed to. During my various careers in the military, firearms industry and law enforcement, I have found that you can surely make ONE of anything but replicating and mass producing that item is fraught with difficulties and frustration.
I've pushed the .300WM HARD in the past, to the point of sticky bolt lift and primers falling out! On an older camera, I have a photograph of a chrono reading of 3450fps for a 168gr Barnes TSX out of a 26" barrel Win Mod 70. STUPID hot load and unrepeatable, unsafe and too high pressure. Again, the loads developed in the cool of winter were far too hot on a 100 degree day in July.
You also forget that hot rounds are hot rounds, period. Whether they be .300WM or .30-06, when you start pushing rounds hard, using excessive amounts of powder, you don't get the same barrel life as you did shooting much milder rounds. This in and of itself is no big deal. Most modern sniper rifles are designed to have either user or at most, armorer replaceable barrels. The fact the military allows contractors to charge excessive amounts of money for the replacement barrels is on us, not the military or the manufacturer. The simple fact of the matter is that today's sniper rifle is in the hands of the most well trained, educated and experienced shooters ever. Are they the easiest rifles to hump? No. Are they accurate as they possibly could be? Yes, they sure are.
In terms of the OP's original question, based on my experience with multiple sniper weapons of WW2 and some of the post WW2 era, I would say there is a difference between what the military require and what a much cheaper but just as accurate rifle can achieve. Let me expand; the military rifle needs to be accurate, rugged and reliable above all else. Competition guns need many of the same attributes but not to the extreme required by the .mil. If you fail to make a shot on steel at 650m in competition because your equipment let you down, you're going to lose points. In combat, the potential result for failing to neutralize the target could be catastrophic so the stakes are considerably higher in the mil world.
Reading many of the previous comments, there seems to be an over emphasizing of the capabilities of the famed snipers of WW2. Simo Häyhä, in addition to the Mosin-Nagant, also used a Lahti sub gun in 9mm to great effect and IIRC, claimed to have killed more Russians with it than the rifle. Close range range shots at a poorly prepared enemy, akin to clubbing seals, isn't the best advert for sniper rifles per se. Not taking a damn thing away from an extremely brave man but I would say his field craft skills had much more to do with his ability to inflict terrible losses on the enemy than his pure marksmanship skills. Vasily Zaytsev also possessed exceptional field craft skills and a intuitive tactical mind which led to great success in Stalingrad and elsewhere. However, these men, just like Hathcock and other notable snipers had a 'feel' or instinct for their trade, rather than being dependent on their tools. The average sniper in WW2 didn't rack up high numbers of kills and was often an above average shot who was given a sniper rifle over other men in his unit. Some of the most skilled snipers appeared during WW1 in the much less fluid and stagnant battle fields of trench warfare. Their tools were even more primitive than WW2 but they achieved considerable success. I guess my point is that the rifle is less important than the person behind it.
In the last decade, we have seen a paradigm shift in the capabilities of factory produced rifles. Savage rifles were always pretty accurate but their invention and popularization of the Accu-trigger educated a new generation of rifle shooters to demand more than the tired old shit being turned out by rifle makers. If you look at the crop of newer, inexpensive hunting rifles from Remington, Savage, Ruger and Mossberg, they share many of the same qualities. Namely, they have barrel nut attached barrels, solid bedding systems, user adjustable triggers and synthetic stocks. While their main driving force is reduce manufacturing costs, the end result of high quality CNC machining is off the shelf rifles that more often than not shoot very well indeed right from the start. I have an objective, when time and money permit, to assemble a rifle system based off the Mossberg .308 Patrol rifle that will be competitive in the PRS comps and do it for under $1000. I think it is possible but we shall see.
Until the Tracking Point type rifle system is advanced to the point a decent rifle shot can be issued a system with the expectation of first round hits in the realm of 70% out to 1,500m, the well trained sniper will remain a necessity. Even when (for it is coming) technology replaces the major shooting skill sets of the sniper, they will still be needed. Technology is fine until it breaks but when it does, we'll need that guy who can range using mil dots, accurately dope wind and dial corrections versus a button pusher. The button pusher will still have to get to a point where they can engage the enemy to begin with so unless and until we come up with a fully automated, remote control, drone sniper, the guy in the gillie suit will still be with us.
