[Bish0pQ]

@Jiggly True, if they wanted, probably could've been done before. Honestly, I think that next warfare won't even be fought on the battlefield. It would be rather disrupting each others economy in order to hit a country hard. There already is a strong rise in government backed hackings and intelligence gathering.

[mothered]

Keep in mind that missiles usually affect a way larger area whilst a sniper rifle would more be to take out a single target (or multiple single targets). I think it's harder to take a good shot

Very valid point.

The technology has been around for a while but In terms of guns, It was the accuracy that needed perfecting.

[Jiggly]

@Jiggly True, if they wanted, probably could've been done before. Honestly, I think that next warfare won't even be fought on the battlefield. It would be rather disrupting each others economy in order to hit a country hard. There already is a strong rise in government backed hackings and intelligence gathering.

That's a good point. With all this "Russia is hacking" talk on the news, it amazes me that people think we don't do the same back. It's not like we're not just as invested in hacking and intelligence.

[mothered]

I wouldn't want to see this ending up In the hands of the wrong Individual.

A lot of damage can be caused with a normal gun, let alone one of this caliber.

[LaunchedFireFly]

This gun sounds incredible but with a price tag between $5,000 and $15,000 it doesn't seem so worth it to be militarily used. I don't know the amount of money it takes to train a soldier to be proficient in handling a gun but it's a skill that every soldier would need, unless the military would plan in arming and deploying untrained men.
Also, as BishOpQ said, it doesn't have as much power as a missle, if the military wanted better technology instead of investing money to give these guns to soldiers they could invest money in advancing their more powerful arsenal.
Does that make sense?

[Oni]

This gun sounds incredible but with a price tag between $5,000 and $15,000 it doesn't seem so worth it to be militarily used. I don't know the amount of money it takes to train a soldier to be proficient in handling a gun but it's a skill that every soldier would need, unless the military would plan in arming and deploying untrained men.
Also, as BishOpQ said, it doesn't have as much power as a missle, if the military wanted better technology instead of investing money to give these guns to soldiers they could invest money in advancing their more powerful arsenal.
Does that make sense?

SOCOM didn't even want to implement the SCAR-S (~$3000) because of its cost (despite it out-performing current rifles, like M4). They did end up using the SCAR-H for specific units. Meaning cost may be less pertinent, depending on what the rifle is being used for.