Marine snipers want a new rifle
This past weekend, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, who claims to be a Marine infantryman, wrote in the Washington Post about the need for the Marine Corps to replace their aging inventory of M40-series sniper rifles with something that is more like the rifles that their sister services and their enemies employ.
Current and former Marine Corps snipers say their hardware doesn’t match the capabilities of the other services, not to mention what is in the hands of enemies such as the Taliban and the Islamic State.
“It doesn’t matter if we have the best training,” said one reconnaissance sniper who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not permitted to talk to the media. “If we get picked off at a thousand yards before we can shoot, then what’s the point?”
I agree completely. In an age when the Pentagon throws away bucket-loads of money on a jet that won’t work as advertised for another decade or so, surely the Marines can arm their long-range shooters with a weapon that shoots at long ranges. For less than $3000, I have a .338 Lapua Magnum-chambered rifle that can out shoot the M40. I’ll donate it to the Marine Corps if they promise to kill more jihadists with it. But, if I, as a private citizen, can afford a better rifle than what snipers in the Marine Corps are issued, certainly the Corps can cough up enough to arm their snipers for the modern battlefield.
Here’s someone else who is better armed than the USMC Marines hitting a beer can on the first shot at more than 1200 yards with a .338 mag (at about 2:30 into the video).
Category: Marine Corps
Just field this and be done with it.
Memo to the US Government:
One of the very few things you are LEGITIMATELY authorized to do is maintain a standing Army.
So…MAINTAIN IT. Get ALL of our troops, including our SNIPERS, the weapons they need to do their jobs.
Sadly, I’ve had a liberal type argue that the Marine Corps and the Air Force aren’t named specifically so it’s not Constitutional to spend money on them.
I never have entirely understood why we have four branches of the military; five, if you include the Coast Guard. I mean, I understand everybody wanting to have their own song and flag and patch and all that, but seriously? Why not put the Marines back into the Navy — adding the Coast Guard as well — and the Air Force back into the Army? Look at all the money you’d save on all the elite units! You have the Navy SEALS, the Army Rangers, the Marine Force Recon, etc…just think of the efficiency in training! And the uniforms would be simplified…I think it would be quite the upgrade!
(Grins evilly at commotion about to ensue, and scurries for HEAVY cover…:D)
Marines are in the Navy. Always have been, always will be. They are not their own service, such as we have with the Air Force.
My father was in the Navy in WWII. Some of the funny stories he told had to do with the Marines. The first bar fight he ever was involved in was against some Marines. He swears an older sailor shoved him in a corner just as the festivities started and said, “Stay here, and run if I tell ya too!”
Hahah–Yeah “squids” and “jarheads” are frequently brawling….until a soldier walks in the bar.
All in good fun…
The IRS is not expressly named in the Constitution either. DOD. Homeland Defense. VA. HHS. Social Security. Interior. Federal Reserve. I can go on.
Most of the cabinet is not expressly authorized. It is a little selective to pick on the Marine Corps but if that is how he wants to play, we can defund all of that and see how it goes.
Me like! Me use! Thank you!
The Constitution requires the Federal Government to “Maintain a Navy” (of which the USMC is part), but only gives it the authority to “raise and support Armies”.
Agree with the sentiment, but conventional snipers in both Army and Marine infantry BN’s should both have the same high quality rifle(s).
Actually, L4C – no.
The Constitution’s “provide and maintain a Navy” clause is just like the “raise and support Armies” clause of the US Constitution, which occurs immediately before it. Both are things that the Congress is specifically authorized to do – but the Constitution does not actually mandate that Congress must do either.
See Article I, Section 8, which begins “The Congress shall have Power . . . . “, then lists a number of clauses enumerating what Congress shall have specific authority to do. I count either 18 or 19 specific authorities listed there, depending on whether you count the first two – “raising taxes” and “paying debts” – as separate items. “Raising Armies” and “provide for a Navy” are simply two among several authorities that Congress is specifically given under the Constitution.
However, nowhere does the Constitution say that the Congress MUST do any of those things. And in fact, at times it has opted not to do one or more of them.
As an example: the US Navy did not exist for a period of time early in the nation’s history. It did not exist because Congress – though authorized to establish a Navy by the Constitution – elected during that period not to appropriate funding for a Navy (from about 1783, end of Continental Navy, to 1794). The US Navy did not become a permanent US military force until passage of the Naval Act of 1794.
Point taken. We’d all be better of at time if Congress exercised its option under the Constitution to not do somethings.
The early Congress took the “raise and support Armies” to a more literal degree than the Navy. I believe at one point it was under 200 men on active duty. years ago that they got around to authorizing
The Constitution says “Armies,” so that means more than one. The “Air Force” is an army of the air, the fact that the word “army” doesn’t appear in its name is not relevant. (However, the fact that it used to be part of the actual Army is relevant.) The USMC is naval infantry that reports to the Secretary of the Navy, so that’s already covered.
“Army” could be loosely defined as any non-naval military force deployed to project combat power in self-defense and in furtherance of a nation’s security and political and diplomatic objectives. An “air force” would qualify as an “army” under this definition.
But that would take money away from the Preezy and his wife, the first BOFA, to go on vacay and play golf.
Those Marines can make do with the Brown Bess muskets that they got from the British during the Revolution….
/sarc
Don’t forget the umbrellas, Chief. We certainly can’t forget Marines and their umbrellas…
(That still pisses me off to no end).
Sniper Rifles or Obama Fones … Yo!
“We Cleveland minorities gots da Obama Fones, yo know … And da Mireens don’t gets new rifles”.
That would be a good Remix.
This is a low-cost proposition. I suggest that a few Marines follow Iraqi troops and just pick up what they drop.
Reminds me of something I saw on the Duffel Blog the other day about the Pentagon bypassing the Iraqi Army and delivering equipment to ISIS directly to “cut out the middle man.” Sounds about right.
Reminds me of the line about ARVN rifles from the VietNam era… how did it go? “Never fired, only dropped once.” Same can be said about the IA… Those who forget history are destined to repeat it, etc.
The Obama administration has actually developed an ingenious method to arm the Kurds. Weapons are delivered to Iraq. Iraqi troops abandon them on the battlefield where they are captured by ISIS. ISIS then employs the weapons against the Kurds, who beat ISIS and capture the US-supplied weapons. It’s brilliant, because nobody can accuse the United States of arming the Kurds!
Me: “So, USMC Sniper, you say you need better weapons”.
USMC Sniper: “Rog that Master Chief, we do”.
Me: “Very well, better weapons you shall receive”.
MCPO: from your lips to God’s ear.
The Marines becamse part of the Navy Department (as opposed to the Department of the Navy, which is the specific branch for the Navy) a long time ago. The USAF was the Army Air Corps until the end of WWII, when it became a separate branch of the military.
That said, as someone else pointed out, if the money wasted on planes that don’t work properly (lemons) were spent on upgrading needed equipment instead of feeding egos, the Marines could probably have the equipment they need.
But what do I know?
Stop trying to use logic and common sense!! This is the government we’re talking about here.
The M40 shoots 308 and it takes really good foo to reliably hit a human target at 1k with it. With a 300 win mag I can usually hit my target on the first round at 1k. A friend shoots rock chucks with his 338 Lapua at 1k. Rock chucks are not at big as humans.
Chris Kyle was a Navy SEAL sniper. When I read his book, I noticed that he had several different weapons that he used depending on the circumstance. A few years back the Army had a switch-barrel setup with a modular rail-type stock for 308 and 300 Win Mag. I suspect that a 338 Lapua is or will be in the Army mix. A switch-barrel rig is a good balance between the Army and Marine one gun approach and the several gun approach used by the SEALs.
There is no reason that the Marine Corps cannot use a switch-barrel arrangement in useful calibers. In order for this to be practical and accurate, they will have to standardize on chamber dimensions and find a gunsmith who can make enough barrels. The only real logistical issue is acquiring good ammo and putting it into the supply chain.
I have some 300 Win Mag brass made by WW that came from Crane and it is the best brass I have ever seen in that caliber. I have tried commercial WW, Rem Peters, Lapua, RWS, and this surplus stuff. The surplus is definitely the best. If the SEALs can get good ammo then so can the Marines.
“Beware the man with only one gun, he probably knows how to use it”
The Army bought the .338 Mag because it defeats most body armor at 1000 meters.
I have a few practical issues with the 338 LM. The guns are heavy, they have heavy recoil, a lot of muzzle blast, and components are very expensive.
338 Lapua Mag brass is $257 / 100 from Sinclair. Berger 300 grain target bullets are $0.71 each, Sierra 300 grain match bullets are $0.82 each.
A heavy weapon has to be carried and other elements of the loadout may have to be eliminated to offset the weight. The ammo is also heavy – 300 grain bullets vs 175 grain for a 7.62 weapon. When firing from a hide, that blast has to be managed to avoid revealing location. The more blast there is the more work to conceal it. If you are shooting from trees, the leaves move. Over dusty ground or on a roof, the dust blows up. In a room behind a black curtain, the curtain flops around. I have never seen one shot at night but the flash might be an issue. A 300 grain load has a 75 grain powder charge, that is going to make a flash. I shoot a 300 Win Mag. The gun weighs about 17 pounds and has a excellent brake. Because of the brake, I can shoot it all day. The 338 LMs that I have seen all had bigger heavier brakes. You can install a suppressor and that handles the flash and a lot of the blast but now the gun is another foot longer and suppressors get HOT!
I realize that the other issues are manageable and that the 330 LM is a great round. If I could afford to shoot it, I would probably buy one. Speaking for myself, I will stick with a round that is a little cheaper to operate and easier to manage. I cannot reach out to 2k but I am good to about 1,350 meters and I am shooting very heavy 30-cal bullets (230-240 grains). At 1k yards they make a big garish splash on a steel plate.
Yeah, I fired mine from the bed of my pickup on a bipod, and it rocked the whole truck. I’ve been lucky in ammo auctions on line and picked some up for about $2/round, usually it’s about $5/round. But, that was just luck. It’s more expensive than .50 cal. I’m told. Reloading costs about $2/round after a significant investment in dies and stuff.
Jonn (and others)…
I found a pretty good site that captures ammunition prices and lists them by price, availability, etc., You may be able to find cheaper ammunition this way.
http://www.gunbot.com
The Marines have the ability to make any weapon they want. They have been doing it for decades. The newest fad has to do with compensators.
I am not opposed to a new weapon but if Marines are concerned with being picked off a click away may I suggest they work on their skullery.
To be fair the Marine scout sniper program has an attrition rate is around 60% or higher – and these are guys that can already put holes in targets up to 500 meters away with an M16. Compare this to the US Army sniper program that has much larger class sizes and a higher graduation rate (though the Army takes the prize in interservice sniper competitions, this speaks more to individual rather than collective talent). I don’t think the Marines need to worry about “working” on anything in particular, to be honest.
While it’s true the average Marine is a much better marksman than a Soldier, that all but disappears when comparing Snipers between the 2 branches. In my class a few months ago in the Army Sniper School, we started with 53 students, 21 graduated, and the instructors were boasting about the phenomenal graduation rate as compared to prior classes. There is one class every 8 weeks at best. The Snipers trained in both branches are without a doubt some of the finest in the world.
It’s not a money problem.
Let’s assume a total of 2,000 sniper slots in the USMC that would need the new weapon. Worst-casing this by using a $10k unit price (for, say, a Barrett .50cal), that’s $22M to procure 2,200 new weapons (1 per sniper plus 10% float). .338 Lapua would cut that about in half.
I’m guessing DoD might well have around that amount of procurement funds uncommitted and expiring across some combination of programs near the end of this FY. All the 5-sided asylum would need to do would be ask Congress to approve reprogramming the money on a compelling need basis, and Congress would do that.
Don’t hold your breath, though.
I read the article twice when it first popped and the gun sites were linking to it. My read is that the Marines have this group and all they do is create the precision weapons and this group is the issue.
If guys in the field AND your trainers are saying what we have isn’t working, why would this group make an “upgrade” using the same caliber that isn’t working? Because you are comfortable with this weapon system? Because you don’t care what your customers want? Because you are afraid that if the Corps “discovers” that they can get something off the shelf without you sitting at Quantico pumping out a few M40s you back in the fleet?
My cut and paste, didn’t
“The M40 is built by Precision Weapons Section, a component of the Marine Corps that is contracted by Marine Corps Systems Command and is primarily staffed by Marine armorers. It exists solely to build and repair the Marines’ precision weapons.”
Are they connected with Crane?
I’m sure that the current crop of perfumed pampered Four-Star Political Princes in the Pentagon DO NOT want to bother B. Hussein 0bama & Company for more money because that might upset him. Yeah, they too just might want to let them continue handing it out to every third world fleabag that shows up wanting a free ride!
My point, PI, was that no one would have to ask for more money. All they would have to do is ask Congress for the authority to reprogram money that’s already appropriated – somewhere around 0.004% of DoD’s current-year budget. They’d only have to do that because multiple programs would be involved, and money would almost certainly have to be moved from one service to another. If it weren’t for that, it might be under $$$ threshold where DoD could do this unilaterally.
That’s essentially in “round-off error” territory regarding DoD’s budget. Somehow I can’t see Congress having a problem with that.
Unfortunately, that “between services” bit will almost certainly guarantee anything like this won’t happen. Pity.
Hondo, you make too much sense. It’d only piss them off….
But if the Marine snipers shoot the bad guys with a rifle the Air force cannot fly in the F35 and save the day.
IMHO
But if the Marines had up to date equipment and funding the U.S. army would be out of a jerb….
I believe we have the best trained, best fighting force in the world. All aspects of our fighting force then should also have the best equipment available. F-35s and new camo patterns, we can probably do without but weapons in hand are what kill people.
I recently attended the U.S. Army Sniper School and the newest piece of gear we had the pleasure of using was the XM 2010. It’s basically a souped up 300 WinMag with the M58 Horus reticle. It is the bees knees and it can make a poor shooter seem like he knows what he is doing. The XM110 with the TMR optic will pinpoint every flaw you have as a shooter so you qualify on that first. I understand that every branch wants something to call their own, but if there is something finer that the 2010, I haven’t shot it yet. Hitting targets at 1000M isn’t hard and with the Horus reticle, you can very accurately mil out targets even dealing with hellacious mirage. Just my 2 cents
The XM 2010 is mentioned in linked article up top. Says it has a range of 1300 yrds. Also mentions SOCOM, the Brits, and China use rifles w/ 1600 yrd range.
Well judging a Sniper rifle purely by it’s max range is a pretty piss poor measure of performance. It doesn’t matter how far the bullet will go if the platform that it’s shot out of isn’t user friendly. That Chinese M99 is a shitty version of the M107 Barret, which in itself is a loud, janky, heavy piece of shit that’s universally despised in the Sniper community. The M24 was phased out in favor of the XM110 because it’s a semi automatic rifle with a 20 round magazine. Shoots the same bullet, uses the same optic, must be better right? They didn’t realize that it brings several more dynamics of fundamentals and recoil management into the fold that a bolt action weapon doesn’t require. It shoots lots of bullets at a rapid rate without having to manipulate a bolt to get the next round in the chamber. It also takes an exceptionally skilled shooter to be able to utilize it to it’s full potential at ranges past 600M. The XM 2010 bridges that gap. It’s the Ferrari of sniper rifles. It’s user friendly, extremely accurate, and reliable. I’ve never shot the .338 Lapua used by SOCOM, but I’ve heard nothing of good things about it. Max range means fuck all in regards to LRM.
OK, I’ll ask the question: Yes it would be wonderful to have every sniper have the latest gee-whiz rifle, and granting that the M40 is a bit long in the tooth: How often is that 1000 yard plus capability really needed? I freely admit ignorance of the current requirements, but my impression is that in general those are pretty rare shots. Is the extra weight, hassle, and expense really needed? Or is it going latest and greatest just to say we have the latest and greatest? Someone with more current experience please enlighten me?
In Iraq, you would rarely if ever see ranges that far. In Afghanistan, it was/is quite common.
thank you. My time in was in the 250-meter-and-under days