Tweet
Why the Marines have failed to adopt a new sniper rifle in the past 14 years
-
Spam Sniper- one click, one kill.
CSP is what you make it.
A picture of your gun is worth 1,000 words. A crappy picture is only worth 100. -
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. -
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...
Last edited by pmclaine; 06-20-2015, 10:04.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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."Comment
-
USMC 1969-1993 6333/8153/9999
USMC Combat Pistol & Shotgun Instructor
FBI RangemasterComment
-
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. CCLast edited by Col. Colt; 06-21-2015, 07:35.Colt, Glock and Remington factory trained LE Armorer
LE Trained Firearms InstructorComment
-
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.
ChrisComment
-
Maybe, because the old one works?liberum aeternumComment
-
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,
ChrisLast edited by Chris W.; 06-22-2015, 11:03.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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 ??
ChrisComment
-
1960's tech at 100 yards....
This one was built by the guys building the A5.
Its ability at 300 yards. Target is an SR-1 reduced 100 yard replacement center.
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.Last edited by pmclaine; 06-22-2015, 12:44.Comment
-
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, ClarkComment
Comment