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

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

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


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



The Marine Corps is known for fielding older equipment. In the 1991 Gulf War, when the Army was driving the brand-new M1A1 Abrams battle tanks, the Marines crossed into Kuwait with the aging Pattons — tanks that rolled through the streets of Saigon in the ’60s. In 2003, when they entered Iraq again, Marine snipers carried the M40A1 sniper rifles, many of which began their careers shortly after the end of the Vietnam War.

Today, the Marines’ primary sniper rifle, a newer variant of the M40, still shoots roughly the same distance: 1,000 yards.

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?”

McCullar, who was also an instructor at the Marine Corps’ main sniper school in Quantico, Va., until this month, when he left the service, voiced similar sentiments.

“With an average engagement of 800 yards, you’re already ruling out a lot of our weapons,” McCullar said.


McCullar’s most recent deployment to Afghanistan, in 2011, was marked by controversy when other members of his sniper platoon were filmed urinating on dead Taliban fighters.

That year was also a period of improvised tactics on the battlefield, as McCullar and his fellow snipers often found themselves in situations where better rifles were needed.

“Sometimes we could see the [Taliban] machine gunners, and we really couldn’t engage them,” McCullar said. He added that if Marines had different weapons, such as a .300 Winchester Magnum or a .338, their accuracy would be much improved.

The Army, for instance, adopted the .300 Win Mag as its primary sniper rifle cartridge in 2011, and it fires 300 yards farther than the Marines’ M40, which uses a lighter .308-caliber bullet.

In a statement, the Marine Corps Systems Command said it has “evaluated several options for replacing the M40 series sniper rifle; however, the weapon continues to meet our operational requirements.”

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.

Chris Sharon, a former chief sniper school instructor at Quantico, says there has been a reluctance to cut the M40 program because it could make Precision Weapons Section redundant.

“Nobody wants to be the one who kills PWS,” said Sharon, who is also a former contractor for Marine Corps Systems Command, noting that killing the rifle would significantly downsize one element of the Marine Corps.

Sharon says the solution to the Marines’ problems lies in a system called the Precision Sniper Rifle, or PSR, which other services solicit directly from a private arms manufacturer.


It’s not that expensive,” Sharon said. “You could buy and maintain two PSRs for one M40. . . . All of our NATO allies have a .338 rifle, and we’re the only ones still shooting .308.”

Sgt. J.D. Montefusco, a former Marine Special Operations Training Group instructor, recounted a mountain sniper course in which he participated with a number of British Royal Marines during training in the rugged terrain of Bridgeport, Calif. Montefusco said the Marine snipers in the course were technically more proficient than their British counterparts, but since the weather was terrible and the British had rifles that fired a heavier bullet, the Marines paid the price.

“Pretty much all the Marines failed,” Montefusco said. “And the Brits just had a heavier round, they didn’t have to worry nearly as much as we did when it came to factoring in the weather.”

Montefusco added: “A .338 [rifle] should have been adopted while we were fighting in Afghanistan.”

The Marine Corps recently decided to upgrade from the M40A5 to the M40A6, a new variant that still shoots the same distance.

“You have to look at those programs and ask who’s driving the bus on this?” Sharon said.

McCullar, Sharon and other snipers all voiced their concern about the next conflict and how Marine snipers will stack up against their adversaries on the battlefield.

“We make the best snipers in the world. We are employed by the best officers in the military. And we are the most feared hunters in any terrain,” said a Marine sniper instructor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. “But the next time we see combat, the Marines Corps is going to learn the hard way what happens when you bring a knife to a gunfight.”

[LongTermGuy]

A Marine Corps Dept /of the Navy issue....bad indoctrinated "implants" in the higher command?

[Max R.]

A Marine Corps Dept /of the Navy issue....bad indoctrinated "implants" in the higher command?

Agreed. The Marine Corps' budget is set by the Navy. The Navy would rather spend millions on a golf course than modern sniper rifles for the Marine Corps.

[LongTermGuy]

Agreed. The Marine Corps' budget is set by the Navy. The Navy would rather spend millions on a golf course than modern sniper rifles for the Marine Corps.

One does not have to wonder why that is.....Its this particular cancer / ideology that has been spreading with the help of the powers that be for now....IMO.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

One does not have to wonder why that is.....Its this particular cancer / ideology that has been spreading with the help of the powers that be for now....IMO.

True. And both ideologies have united in a common cause, the socialists united with the liberals to destroy the standing government and culture that made this nation great. First steps they took were infiltrating and taking over these powerful entities--Education ( our schools), mainstream media and the Dem party.
ALL the insanity and crap that came from that plan has brought us to the point of electing this ffing traitor( that gets away with nation destroying policies) , not once but TWICE!!!!!-Tyr

[Balu]

Agreed. The Marine Corps' budget is set by the Navy. The Navy would rather spend millions on a golf course than modern sniper rifles for the Marine Corps.
I keep on wondering why some always equate the cost of the development of weapons and the ability and the opportunity to develop it. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dntknw.gif

[Gunny]

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



The Marine Corps is known for fielding older equipment. In the 1991 Gulf War, when the Army was driving the brand-new M1A1 Abrams battle tanks, the Marines crossed into Kuwait with the aging Pattons — tanks that rolled through the streets of Saigon in the ’60s. In 2003, when they entered Iraq again, Marine snipers carried the M40A1 sniper rifles, many of which began their careers shortly after the end of the Vietnam War.

Today, the Marines’ primary sniper rifle, a newer variant of the M40, still shoots roughly the same distance: 1,000 yards.

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?”

McCullar, who was also an instructor at the Marine Corps’ main sniper school in Quantico, Va., until this month, when he left the service, voiced similar sentiments.

“With an average engagement of 800 yards, you’re already ruling out a lot of our weapons,” McCullar said.


McCullar’s most recent deployment to Afghanistan, in 2011, was marked by controversy when other members of his sniper platoon were filmed urinating on dead Taliban fighters.

That year was also a period of improvised tactics on the battlefield, as McCullar and his fellow snipers often found themselves in situations where better rifles were needed.

“Sometimes we could see the [Taliban] machine gunners, and we really couldn’t engage them,” McCullar said. He added that if Marines had different weapons, such as a .300 Winchester Magnum or a .338, their accuracy would be much improved.

The Army, for instance, adopted the .300 Win Mag as its primary sniper rifle cartridge in 2011, and it fires 300 yards farther than the Marines’ M40, which uses a lighter .308-caliber bullet.

In a statement, the Marine Corps Systems Command said it has “evaluated several options for replacing the M40 series sniper rifle; however, the weapon continues to meet our operational requirements.”

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.

Chris Sharon, a former chief sniper school instructor at Quantico, says there has been a reluctance to cut the M40 program because it could make Precision Weapons Section redundant.

“Nobody wants to be the one who kills PWS,” said Sharon, who is also a former contractor for Marine Corps Systems Command, noting that killing the rifle would significantly downsize one element of the Marine Corps.

Sharon says the solution to the Marines’ problems lies in a system called the Precision Sniper Rifle, or PSR, which other services solicit directly from a private arms manufacturer.


It’s not that expensive,” Sharon said. “You could buy and maintain two PSRs for one M40. . . . All of our NATO allies have a .338 rifle, and we’re the only ones still shooting .308.”

Sgt. J.D. Montefusco, a former Marine Special Operations Training Group instructor, recounted a mountain sniper course in which he participated with a number of British Royal Marines during training in the rugged terrain of Bridgeport, Calif. Montefusco said the Marine snipers in the course were technically more proficient than their British counterparts, but since the weather was terrible and the British had rifles that fired a heavier bullet, the Marines paid the price.

“Pretty much all the Marines failed,” Montefusco said. “And the Brits just had a heavier round, they didn’t have to worry nearly as much as we did when it came to factoring in the weather.”

Montefusco added: “A .338 [rifle] should have been adopted while we were fighting in Afghanistan.”

The Marine Corps recently decided to upgrade from the M40A5 to the M40A6, a new variant that still shoots the same distance.

“You have to look at those programs and ask who’s driving the bus on this?” Sharon said.

McCullar, Sharon and other snipers all voiced their concern about the next conflict and how Marine snipers will stack up against their adversaries on the battlefield.

“We make the best snipers in the world. We are employed by the best officers in the military. And we are the most feared hunters in any terrain,” said a Marine sniper instructor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. “But the next time we see combat, the Marines Corps is going to learn the hard way what happens when you bring a knife to a gunfight.”

One Marine who has a singular perspective. First, the Marines did NOT using M-48 Patton tanks during the First Gulf War. THAT is ridiculous. The MBT for the Corps at the time was the M-60A1. They used M-48's during Vietnam.

What is NOT presented in the article is that the Army ALWAYS gets the "shiny, new toys" FIRST. The got the Winchester repeating rifle during the Civil War while the Corps was stuck with muskets and it hasn't changed since. The Army got the M-1 Garand while Marines were still using Springfields. The Army got the M-1A1 while Marines were still using M-1s. All the way down the line to present day.

The BIGGEST, singular reason for this is funding. The Army, Navy and Air Force are funded separately by Congress. The Corps, as a Department of the Navy, gets whatever it can squeeze out of the Navy.

The second reason would be mission. The Marine Corps mission requires a LOT more versatility than the Army's. The Marine Corps mission is go anywhere, anytime. The Army is mostly a convention main battle force. True, the Barrett is probably a better sniper rifle in the desert where distance is paramount. It isn't in the African jungles. Its size alone would be a headache. And you can't see 1000m in the jungle anyway.

The objective of the Corps is versatility, not specialization. I can't think of any weapons we have that are specific to any one situation.

The Marine Corps is being used as a main battle force; which, technically, is not its mission. And my best guess would be -- again -- funding. The Army would have to mobilize a LOT more people. Or the Commandant of the Marine Corps jockeying for a piece of the pie. Can't leave out the upper level politics. No branch of the service wants to be left out; ESPECIALLY, the Corps. Eisenhower did his damnedest to try and absorb the Corps into the Army in the early 50s.

Like I said, a singular perspective.

[Voted4Reagan]

Give em the M82A-1

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/M82A1_barrett.jpeg/1280px-M82A1_barrett.jpeg

[Gunny]

For what, exactly? That bipod looks REAL purty. How does it work sitting in a tree?

Here's an analogy for you: You might think your Mustang GT is prettier than my 3/4 ton pickup, but ...

Your Mustang GT can race all over the place, and might be able to outrun my truck. You can get a suitcase or two in the trunk. You can even tie your Christmas tree to the roof in Dec.

My truck can go anywhere that Mustang can go. Only I can load half my possessions in the back. Enough lumber to build a fence. If I need to go off road, I can. I can drive through water that'll swamp that Mustang. I don't need a tow truck to come wench me out of the mud. And my AT's don't go fishtailing all over the place in the snow like those Goodyear Eagles.


Versatility versus specific application.

[Voted4Reagan]

.50 cal .... accurate to over 1000yds.

can stop light armored vehicles

can kill through a cinder block wall

The M82/M107 family is the pinnacle of long distance shooting. available in .50 BMG or .416 Barrett.

[Gunny]

.50 cal .... accurate to over 1000yds.

can stop light armored vehicles

can kill through a cinder block wall

The M82/M107 family is the pinnacle of long distance shooting. available in .50 BMG or .416 Barrett.

A Marine Corps sniper's mission is killing neither LAVs nor cinder blocks. You sound just like the Marine that wrote this article. Tunnel-visioned to one application. AND, the M40A1 was accurate at over a 1000m. They're on the M40A6?

The only way shooting an LAV would be advantageous is if an ambush was set up. Otherwise, it's you and your spotter, and everyone in that LAV is coming after YOU. That's a singular application, where a LAAWs rocket and an ambush team would be more effective.

That's NOT Dallas and there isn't just one person in that LAV and a sniper rifle is NOT the proper weapon for taking on 7 pissed off men whose ride you just killed.

And I wouldn't want to hump that thing through a 3-tier canopy jungle, much less the ammo for it, for all the tea in China.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

One Marine who has a singular perspective. First, the Marines did NOT using M-48 Patton tanks during the First Gulf War. THAT is ridiculous. The MBT for the Corps at the time was the M-60A1. They used M-48's during Vietnam.

What is NOT presented in the article is that the Army ALWAYS gets the "shiny, new toys" FIRST. The got the Winchester repeating rifle during the Civil War while the Corps was stuck with muskets and it hasn't changed since. The Army got the M-1 Garand while Marines were still using Springfields. The Army got the M-1A1 while Marines were still using M-1s. All the way down the line to present day.

The BIGGEST, singular reason for this is funding. The Army, Navy and Air Force are funded separately by Congress. The Corps, as a Department of the Navy, gets whatever it can squeeze out of the Navy.

The second reason would be mission. The Marine Corps mission requires a LOT more versatility than the Army's. The Marine Corps mission is go anywhere, anytime. The Army is mostly a convention main battle force. True, the Barrett is probably a better sniper rifle in the desert where distance is paramount. It isn't in the African jungles. Its size alone would be a headache. And you can't see 1000m in the jungle anyway.

The objective of the Corps is versatility, not specialization. I can't think of any weapons we have that are specific to any one situation.

The Marine Corps is being used as a main battle force; which, technically, is not its mission. And my best guess would be -- again -- funding. The Army would have to mobilize a LOT more people. Or the Commandant of the Marine Corps jockeying for a piece of the pie. Can't leave out the upper level politics. No branch of the service wants to be left out; ESPECIALLY, the Corps. Eisenhower did his damnedest to try and absorb the Corps into the Army in the early 50s.

Like I said, a singular perspective.
My vote, for what it is worth --is- give the Marines what they want and need regardless of the damn costs. Men risking their lives should have the best..
Let them and their experts say which rifle they want and need---if need be --- give 'em two different rifles each suited for a different mission/environment.--Tyr

[Gunny]

My vote, for what it is worth --is- give the Marines what they want and need regardless of the damn costs. Men risking their lives should have the best..
Let them and their experts say which rifle they want and need---if need be --- give 'em two different rifles each suited for a different mission/environment.--Tyr

I understand the sentiment, but it isn't as simple as all that. You'd have take each sniper and retrain them on a new weapon until they were completely proficient with it. The sniper is the weapon.

Jack of all trades, master of none.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I understand the sentiment, but it isn't as simple as all that. You'd have take each sniper and retrain them on a new weapon until they were completely proficient with it. The sniper is the weapon.

Jack of all trades, master of none.

True but surely a sniper can be trained on two weapons as Marines are experts at adapting and using weapons..
May excel at one far better than the other but still be great at the second weapon system.
I myself shoot iron sights on many rifles and keep memory of how each one performs.
Of course I have the ones that I prefer but its never just one rifle.
I say give them the best, the ones they say they want even if its two or three different weapons.
Of course the man is the weapon, the rifle is the tool. My thought is the man is a Marine and a Marine can and will adapt to survive!
That is why they are viewed as the very best, as you know quite well. --Tyr

[Gunny]

True but surely a sniper can be trained on two weapons as Marines are experts at adapting and using weapons..
May excel at one far better than the other but still be great at the second weapon system.
I myself shoot iron sights on many rifles and keep memory of how each one performs.
Of course I have the ones that I prefer but its never just one rifle.
I say give them the best, the ones they say they want even if its two or three different weapons.
Of course the man is the weapon, the rifle is the tool. My thought is the man is a Marine and a Marine can and will adapt to survive!
That is why they are viewed as the very best, as you know quite well. --Tyr

Every Marine is trained on more than one weapon. So are snipers. However, his primary weapon is his M40A6. The sniper and the weapon are one machine. People can use secondary weapons and be proficient, but proficient is a starting point rather than a goal for a sniper.

Likewise, I wouldn't hand a M40A6 to an Army sniper trained on the Barrett.

LOL. Doesn't work like that. As I mentioned previously, there's funding involved. I'm more than willing to bet the Barrett was evaluated by the Marine Corps. It's been around long enough. I don't see it as necessary, myself. The mission of a sniper is not to shoot LAVs, nor shoot people through cinder blocks. A 7.62 mm (.308) round is more than sufficient to take out a target. A .50 is overkill.

I'm just wondering when this Marine decided the role of the sniper was to be a roving, crew-served weapon.

[Max R.]

I keep on wondering why some always equate the cost of the development of weapons and the ability and the opportunity to develop it. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dntknw.gif
In this particular case, the tech is already developed. Like buying a sidearm, it's a simple matter of detailing requirements and having a competition with vendors.

It's not like we're developing the latest runway-to-space hypersonic stealth fighter/bomber. Besides, the US Army already did all the dirty work. All the Marine Corps has to do (through the Dept. of the Navy) is say "We'll take a thousand of those too".


http://cheytac.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/408-M300-A5-McMillan-Stock.jpg

[CSM]

I'm with Gunny on this one. Don't get me wrong, I am all for ensuring our military has the best equipment we can possibly provide BASED ON THE MISSION they are responsible for executing. One weapon or weapon system does not necessarily fit all missions nor does every mission require every weapon.

[Balu]

I'm with Gunny on this one. Don't get me wrong, I am all for ensuring our military has the best equipment we can possibly provide BASED ON THE MISSION they are responsible for executing. One weapon or weapon system does not necessarily fit all missions nor does every mission require every weapon.

True! The duck can run, fly and swim. But all these it does badly. (Russian saying) To overcome this means to create a masterpiece. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif

[CSM]

True! The duck can run, fly and swim. But all these it does badly. (Russian saying) To overcome this means to create a masterpiece. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/smile3.gif

Truthfully, it is akin to saying an article of clothing is "one size fits all". It may fit all but damn sure looks ugly as sin on most.

[Max R.]

I'm with Gunny on this one. Don't get me wrong, I am all for ensuring our military has the best equipment we can possibly provide BASED ON THE MISSION they are responsible for executing. One weapon or weapon system does not necessarily fit all missions nor does every mission require every weapon.


Agreed. In the case of snipers, an M-24 (Remington 700) or M-21/M-25 (M-14), 7.62mm NATO, sniper packages are fine for urban areas or some rural areas. An M-82 (.50) has special applications. The recent shootout at the Dallas PD HQ involved an armored van. The van was stopped with a single .50 round, I suspect through the engine block since a .50 can do that.

Still, as a matter of practicality, we can't have a hundred different weapon systems to tailor for every mission. The logistics of acquisition and upkeep would costly. Better to have 200 M-24 bolt-action sniper packages to spread throughout a regiment than 20 of the latest and greatest sniper rifles.

[CSM]

Agreed. In the case of snipers, an M-24 (Remington 700) or M-21/M-25 (M-14), 7.62mm NATO, sniper packages are fine for urban areas or some rural areas. An M-82 (.50) has special applications. The recent shootout at the Dallas PD HQ involved an armored van. The van was stopped with a single .50 round, I suspect through the engine block since a .50 can do that.

Still, as a matter of practicality, we can't have a hundred different weapon systems to tailor for every mission. The logistics of acquisition and upkeep would costly. Better to have 200 M-24 bolt-action sniper packages to spread throughout a regiment than 20 of the latest and greatest sniper rifles.

yep. I see this kind of discussion all the time in my job. Some 50 pound brain comes up with some device (usually costing a great deal of money) and touts it as the end all/be all solution to every possible technical issue for the military. They then carefully concoct specific scenarios that highlight the benefits of their device. Then, when you really start to dig, you find out that to equip every soldier/Marine with their "baby" would cost twice the national GDP. On top of that, you often find their scenario has little relevance to real missions and their device does not work as advertised in all possible situations.

Gunny is correct. Having a weapon capable of taking out a bad guy at 1000 yards does not do you much good if you cannot see more than 50 feet.

[Max R.]

yep. I see this kind of discussion all the time in my job. Some 50 pound brain comes up with some device (usually costing a great deal of money) and touts it as the end all/be all solution to every possible technical issue for the military. They then carefully concoct specific scenarios that highlight the benefits of their device. Then, when you really start to dig, you find out that to equip every soldier/Marine with their "baby" would cost twice the national GDP. On top of that, you often find their scenario has little relevance to real missions and their device does not work as advertised in all possible situations.

Gunny is correct. Having a weapon capable of taking out a bad guy at 1000 yards does not do you much good if you cannot see more than 50 feet.

Agreed. Besides the aforementioned problem of the Marine Corps seeking to persuade the Navy to cough up money for equipment, all the military services have to put up with a Congress which would look at the device you mentioned and calculates how many jobs and how much money buying that POS would bring to their state.