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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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

1960's tech at 100 yards....
http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/...psq7lrj7li.jpg
http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/...pse40fn9d6.jpg

This one was built by the guys building the A5.
http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/...psxaewgkad.jpg
Its ability at 300 yards. Target is an SR-1 reduced 100 yard replacement center.
http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/...psjwwonag6.jpg

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.

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

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

How big is big enough?
Sam

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

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

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