Why the Marines have failed to adopt a new sniper rifle in the past 14 years

[Jeff L]

Why the Marines have failed to adopt a new sniper rifle in the past 14 years
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/why-the-marines-have-failed-to-adopt-a-new-sniper-rifle-in-the-past-14-years/2015/06/13/cb924d96-0eaf-11e5-a0dc-2b6f404ff5cf_story.html

[barretcreek]

This thread sends me back to one in Guntalk about the model 98 and the Lee Enfield vs. Maxims.

What is the max. range of a .50/12.7 mg? While I understand the range limitations of 7.62 projectiles vs. .338 ones, if the teams are known as soon as they get into position, someone will hit them with mg or mortar fire asap. So moving up to .416 or .50 cals. still ain't gonna do the trick.

[pmclaine]

Ill be shooting my PWS built M40A1 in about 2 hours. Im expecting 1 inch minus MOA at 100 yards with a 1970s Weaver K10 and my mediocre skills.

Thats one reason why the M40 still exists.

PS - MST 100 Unertl 10X repro is three months out.

Lots of good (passionate) discussion on this topic in these two threads...

http://www.m40rifle.com/forum/m40a7/519-ditching-308-for-300-win-mag-or-338-lapua#post640

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=541&f=5514&t=13905135

[pmclaine]

And as an aside the USMC has been using the same sniper rifle since about 1966. Chuck MaWhinneys receiver was found to be still in service in 1996 as an A1. I wouldnt be surprised if some of the VN 6 digit receivers are now A5s that will be put into the A6 Remington chassis.

[Shooter5]

The author covered the broad strokes and is basically spot on; no other service (or our partners and allies, for that matter) settles for 762Nato as standard anymore for very sound tactical reasons. The Corps officers sitting on their hands and responsible for this inaction ought to be charged - its quite simply dereliction. Any statement made contrary is pure whitewash and avoidance of facts. After all the recent combat, it is known how and why 762 weapon systems are inadequate; there is no (longer) any excuse. Not that there was one. The minimum standard is essentially 300WM and the switch barrel/caliber systems allow for even greater flexibility.
Jarhead leadership: get off your dumbass, retro, rigid mindset and order the troops the tools they need. Get it done. Now.

[jgaynor]

Did somebody fail or did they consider alternatives and decide to not make a change at this time?

I read the original article and it seemed a little too biased toward "lets run out and buy the latest high-tech toy."

[usmc69]

http://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/barrett-sniper-rifle.php

[Col. Colt]

Everybody in the US .mil has Barretts - or do they?? And a .50BMG should be a pretty close match, since the sniping record distance was set be a Canadian with one. And if the Marines want to keep their own shop and build their own rifles on the proven Remington platform, just build some long action M40s in .338 Ultra Mag, right?

How many times have they actually, in combat, been outranged? Here is one account, are there lots of others, or is this just a rare exception? Most sniping that actually takes place is under 1000 yards, traditionally - do we have proof that has really changed? They can't just bring a Barrett along, for specialized use when needed? The big .50 has a lot of specialized rounds the .338 does not. CC

[Chris W.]

While the USMC is second to none as a fighting force, they have seamed to field the older equipment. While serving on the U.S.S. Raleigh ( LPD-1 ) we had 500 USMC on board, and 500 Dutch. Talking to several about their older equipment, seams like the USMC fielding older stuff goes all the way back to WW2, the why is unknown, but they do. Army and other services always got the new stuff first. Even the Navy has a tradition of filling the armories on ships with older weapons, but unlike the USMC much less likely to see use. Has to go back to a mindset of the leadership at the very least. I personally think this mind set needs to be changes fast even if it takes sending some officers at the top home for good. In my opinion, the USMC should be given the very best and modern to work with if we expect to send them in harms way, it's the very least we could do. They bring their life to the fight, least we could do provide the best equipment available to them.
Chris

[StockDoc]

Maybe, because the old one works?

[Chris W.]

Respectfully, Stock Doc, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that it works, and would continue to for many years to come. Thinking the conversation should be that we want our USMC fielded with the best possible equipment and training available. No reason for them to come in second best in combat because the enemy is using better equipment with a longer effective range than they have available. If spending on a new updated sniper system ends up prevent just one Marine from coming home in a box, it's worth it. If the armors in Quantico need to be retrained to adapt to a new system, so be it. New rifles for every sniper, training and support would still cost less than the money dumped into the F 35 aircraft so far, and could end up being much more cost effective if spent on a new sniper rifle. Respectfully, just my opinion,
Chris

[pmclaine]

While the USMC is second to none as a fighting force, they have seamed to field the older equipment. While serving on the U.S.S. Raleigh ( LPD-1 ) we had 500 USMC on board, and 500 Dutch. Talking to several about their older equipment, seams like the USMC fielding older stuff goes all the way back to WW2, the why is unknown, but they do. Army and other services always got the new stuff first. Even the Navy has a tradition of filling the armories on ships with older weapons, but unlike the USMC much less likely to see use. Has to go back to a mindset of the leadership at the very least. I personally think this mind set needs to be changes fast even if it takes sending some officers at the top home for good. In my opinion, the USMC should be given the very best and modern to work with if we expect to send them in harms way, it's the very least we could do. They bring their life to the fight, least we could do provide the best equipment available to them.
Chris

The Marine Corps has an ethos of being a good product for the tax payer. Shame if we have come to the point that we feel an agency trying to provide more bang for less buck is a bad thing.

Now this is an issue if it results in loss of life or mission failure. I dont know what the stats are on the first problem but the USMC seems to do okay on meeting its mission.

The USMC used to always try to give some of its budget back to the treasury. Now that may not make sense because it will just be wasted by some agency less concerned with providing good service. If they get money Id rather see the USMC spend it (unless its the F35 guy).

The First Marine Division as it attacked to the rear at Chosin took all its gear with it. 10th Corps abandoned everything. Did this cost lives? Did it save lives? I dont know but it was an effort that has become legend and im sure China will think about what happened to them at Chosin should they think of getting cute again.

[Chris W.]

I bet over at Barretts, they could solve this problem in 60 days or less and field our troops with the best equipment available to anyone, and do so in very short order. Question then becomes, why don't we let them do it ??
Chris

[pmclaine]

1960's tech at 100 yards....
http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af178/pmclaine/P6146361_zpsq7lrj7li.jpg (http://s1005.photobucket.com/user/pmclaine/media/P6146361_zpsq7lrj7li.jpg.html)
http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af178/pmclaine/P6146365_zpse40fn9d6.jpg (http://s1005.photobucket.com/user/pmclaine/media/P6146365_zpse40fn9d6.jpg.html)

This one was built by the guys building the A5.
http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af178/pmclaine/P6206374_zpsxaewgkad.jpg (http://s1005.photobucket.com/user/pmclaine/media/P6206374_zpsxaewgkad.jpg.html)
Its ability at 300 yards. Target is an SR-1 reduced 100 yard replacement center.
http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af178/pmclaine/P2076118_zpsjwwonag6.jpg (http://s1005.photobucket.com/user/pmclaine/media/P2076118_zpsjwwonag6.jpg.html)

Im not trained like the Hogs are, just a plinker. The USMC builds some nice guns and they are capable.

A caliber change will allow for more "forgiveness" when taking the shot but its not like it is going to bring the average engagement range up to 1500 meters. I get the idea from the article that new tech will make those extreme long range shots a piece of cake. Not the case. Certainly there is an edge to be gained and if my life depended on it I would want that edge but there may be costs that degrade the advantage the caliber could provide. These costs and issues beyond just the mere gear have to be considered.

Its a good discussion. Im sure because its a WAPO article the beltway movers and shakers will have to address it. It will be a shame if when they are done there is another instacne of good money going after bad.

[Clark Howard]

The main threat to a sniper is not fire from another sniper, it is mortar and artillery fire. The M-40 in all it's iterations has proven to be an effective weapon in trained hands. Remember that marksmanship is only one of the skills that distinguish a successful sniper from a casualty. If the Marines think it is what they need, I'm not convinced that anyone else's opinion makes any difference at all. Regards, Clark

[Col. Colt]

Bigger calibers always mean bigger rifles, heavier ammo - which is fine if the engagement ranges are routinely 1500 yards now. Are they, really? Or is someone fishing for a new USMC Contract for a few Million dollars? I vote the Marines just build Long Action 700s in .300 Mag/.338 Mag, if anything more is PROVEN to be needed. CC

[S.A. Boggs]

How big is big enough?
Sam

[Col. Colt]

A Scout-Sniper has a Radio, Right? Isn't it part of their job to notice what they cannot take care of with a single rifle bullet, and call for Artillery or Air? CC

[Chris W.]

I'd have to agree with Mr. Howard that the main danger isn't usually another rifleman, but artillery and long range MG fire. But if they could give the Marines a sniper rifle with longer effective range to use if needed, why not ?? A .338 on the same Remington platform could give another 400 or so yards to use if needed. The weight carried into the field doesn't change in a major way. I think it comes down to not wanting to retrain some armorers in Langley doing the loading and support. If a .338 can buy enough additional range to pick of a bad guy on a mortar or manning a MG, bringing more of our guys home, isn't it well worth the small amount spent and the effort ?? If our Marine snipers are outclassed over here in Nevada at the Mountain Warfare Training Center by the English and Canadians due to us not having a rifle with enough range, shouldn't that be a sign something needs to be done to change that ?? I think in America we have had a long standing tradition of making a effort to bring the biggest stick to the battlefield we can, we bring the best trained people. Why would we consider not properly equipping our solders to do the best job they can ??
Chris

[Col. Colt]

One of the bleats I hear from the 5.56MM/M4 fans over the 7.62MM for regular issue is always "we don't need long range .30 caliber Battle Rifles any more, we have Air Support and Artillery at the end of our radios". (I don't necessarily support this, but it is the excuse for the mouse gun as standard issue.) Why would this not be the case for the Marines, Snipers as well as regular troops?
My point is, yes, you could go to a .338, but why not just have .308's for "regular work" and the Barrett .50 cal to deal with any exceptions? Remember the opening scene in "Shooter"? The .50 BMG has a LOT more payload options.
How did they set up the war game to "prove" the 7.62MM is so dangerously inferior? Do we have written reports of our troops put in actual danger from not having .338's?? If you need a .338, why not the .50?? Or just have them drag a 37MM wheeled gun around?? CC

[usmc69]

One of the bleats I hear from the 5.56MM/M4 fans over the 7.62MM for regular issue is always "we don't need long range .30 caliber Battle Rifles any more, we have Air Support and Artillery at the end of our radios". (I don't necessarily support this, but it is the excuse for the mouse gun as standard issue.) Why would this not be the case for the Marines, Snipers as well as regular troops?
My point is, yes, you could go to a .338, but why not just have .308's for "regular work" and the Barrett .50 cal to deal with any exceptions? Remember the opening scene in "Shooter"? The .50 BMG has a LOT more payload options.
How did they set up the war game to "prove" the 7.62MM is so dangerously inferior? Do we have written reports of our troops put in actual danger from not having .338's?? If you need a .338, why not the .50?? Or just have them drag a 37MM wheeled gun around?? CC


Almost took one of these home when we closed our Barracks in Ca. Thought about it, then common sense prevailed. The 37 got turned over to a Reserve Arty unit in L.A.

[emmagee1917]

Or just have them drag a 37MM wheeled gun around?? CC

Laugh if you want to , but in the booklet " The M1 does my talking " , there is a photo of an M1 with a 37MM cannon mounted underneath . I always noted that I've seen M1s , M1Cs , and M1Ds , but never a M1B. Could this be it ?
Chris

[jgaynor]

Laugh if you want to , but in the booklet " The M1 does my talking " , there is a photo of an M1 with a 37MM cannon mounted underneath . I always noted that I've seen M1s , M1Cs , and M1Ds , but never a M1B. Could this be it ?
Chris

:icon_lol: More likely an improvised Anti-tank sub caliber training device. My dad commanded a company of 57mm Antitank (british 6 pdrs.) guns in the ETO. He had his mechanics fabricate brackets to mount M1's on the 57's for practice. Literally shot out the barrels on the M1's.

[emmagee1917]

Come on , let's not let logic and facts get in the way of a good story .
Chris

[cplnorton]

We used to always joke when I was in the Marines that we were never known for having the best gear. But we were known what we could do with it. :)

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

If you are having problems hitting your target at 1000 yds with a 7.62, you won't improve with a 338. I owned a Barrett, clip fed, one of the early ones (they were fairly cheap then). Sure, that puppy would hit at incredible distances (you checked your target with a 5 minute drive down range), but to be accurate took a LOT of concentration. It pushed more than kicked, but don't think that push wasn't violent. The Marines have what they want, and they obviously like the 7.62. I still hate having to give up my M14 for the M16. I was deadly with the 14.

jt

[holdover]

been there with the 308, in my experience the M40 in its 1968-69 form was a great sniper rifle and with the improvements even better, fine caliber and worked great for many years, and even now at shorter ranges, but there are better options in a package that isn't much heavier. A 700 Rem in 300 win mag has longer legs than a 308, so does a 338 Lapula and 338 ultra. My point is that you don't know whether you will need to shoot a bad guy at 600 yds or 1500, why not carry a rifle that can do it at either distance. As to cost , when they are spending 100 mil for a fighter a few new rifles isn't going to break the bank and if they do 300 win mag they can get in on the army ammo contract for ammo that will work in temp from cold to hot. If I was outfitting my son for the sand-box I would want him to have a min. 300 win mag and know how to use it..

just an old Marine grunt

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

My son traded in his beloved 300 Savage for a 300 WSM. His excellent record for bringing home the venison went to hell in a hand basket. Invited him over for a session on my range. I handed him his rifle, no cartridge in chamber, and told him to hit a quarter at 100 years (something he regularly did with his 300 Savage). When he pulled that trigger, I witnessed one of the worst trigger jerks ever. He jerked so hard he pulled the rifle back into his shoulder. He looked so surprised I had to laugh. That 300 WSM was beating him to death. He returned to the 300 Savage, and his kill count went back to normal. I had a 300 Rem Mag that I absolutely hated. It kicked like a freaking whipped mule. It was all I could do to fire a five shot group. This from a guy who likes to shoot a 416 Rigby for expensive grins.

Sure the Corps can get bigger bangers. They can use any banger they want. They want the M40 platform, and there are good reasons they feel that way. Let those who crawl through the deep grass to engage their enemies make the decision. They know best.

jt:1948:

PS
The 30-06 was used by the Corps in WWI with great success. One Marine sniper received the DSC for killing six Germans at 1440 yards with his A5 scoped 1903.

[John HOLBROOK]

http://www.fototime.com/%7BC879B0EF-4512-4547-8788-07D870CB05D4%7D/origpict/Assault%2520Vehicle.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/%7BC88A47F6-8992-433A-BEF3-FFDF154BFD95%7D/origpict/Donkey.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/%7B6151C5F2-108B-4224-B55F-9545701C50C4%7D/origpict/F16.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/%7B1F5AA9F5-5B70-49B8-859F-0E99CBB0AAF3%7D/origpict/Spotter.jpg

[John HOLBROOK]

If you are having problems hitting your target at 1000 yds with a 7.62, you won't improve with a 338. I owned a Barrett, clip fed, one of the early ones (they were fairly cheap then). Sure, that puppy would hit at incredible distances (you checked your target with a 5 minute drive down range), but to be accurate took a LOT of concentration. It pushed more than kicked, but don't think that push wasn't violent. The Marines have what they want, and they obviously like the 7.62. I still hate having to give up my M14 for the M16. I was deadly with the 14.

jt

Here is a photo of me in 'Nam in 1967 along the Go Cong River with my M16 A1. It was totally unreliable and shortly thereafter I threw it in the river. The Marines gave me an M14.. The best thing about the M14 was it fired every time I pulled the trigger-

http://www.fototime.com/%7BFFCA270D-1FEA-4589-BE4D-238A29A95E51%7D/origpict/Copy%2520of%2520DSC00568.JPG

The good old days..... Right?

http://www.fototime.com/%7B2A264063-568C-4104-B8D6-B70830EF5E38%7D/origpict/Nam%2520Garand.JPG

[StockDoc]

they are waiting for the smart ammo to be developed

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

If you are having problems hitting your target at 1000 yds with a 7.62, you won't improve with a 338. I owned a Barrett, clip fed, one of the early ones (they were fairly cheap then). Sure, that puppy would hit at incredible distances (you checked your target with a 5 minute drive down range), but to be accurate took a LOT of concentration. It pushed more than kicked, but don't think that push wasn't violent. The Marines have what they want, and they obviously like the 7.62. I still hate having to give up my M14 for the M16. I was deadly with the 14.

jt

Here is a photo of me in 'Nam in 1967 along the Go Cong River with my M16 A1. It was totally unreliable and shortly thereafter I threw it in the river. The Marines gave me an M14.. The best thing about the M14 was it fired every time I pulled the trigger-

http://www.fototime.com/%7BFFCA270D-1FEA-4589-BE4D-238A29A95E51%7D/origpict/Copy%2520of%2520DSC00568.JPG

The good old days..... Right?

http://www.fototime.com/%7B2A264063-568C-4104-B8D6-B70830EF5E38%7D/origpict/Nam%2520Garand.JPG

If I remember correctly, aren't you Distinguished? You ain't very pretty, like me.

Semper Fi,

jt:1948:

[da gimp]

My son traded in his beloved 300 Savage for a 300 WSM. His excellent record for bringing home the venison went to hell in a hand basket. Invited him over for a session on my range. I handed him his rifle, no cartridge in chamber, and told him to hit a quarter at 100 years (something he regularly did with his 300 Savage). When he pulled that trigger, I witnessed one of the worst trigger jerks ever. He jerked so hard he pulled the rifle back into his shoulder. He looked so surprised I had to laugh. That 300 WSM was beating him to death. He returned to the 300 Savage, and his kill count went back to normal. I had a 300 Rem Mag that I absolutely hated. It kicked like a freaking whipped mule. It was all I could do to fire a five shot group. This from a guy who likes to shoot a 416 Rigby for expensive grins.

Sure the Corps can get bigger bangers. They can use any banger they want. They want the M40 platform, and there are good reasons they feel that way. Let those who crawl through the deep grass to engage their enemies make the decision. They know best.

jt:1948:

PS
The 30-06 was used by the Corps in WWI with great success. One Marine sniper received the DSC for killing six Germans at 1440 yards with his A5 scoped 1903.

a friend here had several 1 shot kills on eastern Canadian moose using a .308Win that he was extremely accurate with... one guy in his hunting party got to riding him so hard about using a "little gun" that Kevin went out and bought a Rem 700 in .338mag...he couldn't hit anything with it... had it re-crowned & glass bedded by a dam good smith.. still couldn't hit with it... one of our friends went out with him to figure out what was wrong & did the empty chamber test with him too.... same result as your son...he had a terrible flinch too..........He finally mastered the rifle... but it took a lot of time & loads to get rid of his flinch.

[Hal O'Peridol]

Reading the article........it sounds like the sniper teams are not being deployed correctly.

If you fire more than one shot from your hide, you can be ranged and fired upon. Sounds more like they are being used for interdiction fire or as marksmen rather than snipers. Using snipers incorrectly is a recipe for getting good men killed.

[cowboybart]

Yes, a Barrett would be nice, but I can't imagine humping that up and down hills/mtns. Even a good 338 Lapua is gonna add 6 pounds of weight. Going to a 338 RUM or Edge would keep the weight down, but recoil would increase. A brake would help, but noise/blast would increase. I'm sure a brake exists to limit blast and giving your position away. Of course if the USMC put a can on all their 338's - problem solved!!

[Shooter5]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2016/02/18/west-coast-marines-complete-first-m27-designated-marksman-course/80568208/

[Jeff L]

The M27 in 5.56 mentioned above doesn't like like enough firepower for distances required of a Marine sniper. I'm I missing something?

[GA-Dave]

It's not asniper rifle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle