Why have the Marines failed to adopt a new sniper rifle?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 03:37:13 -0400

It was the summer of 2011 in southern Helmand province, Afghanistan, and mission after mission, Sgt. Ben McCullar of Third Battalion, Second Marines, would insert with his eight-man sniper team into the berms and dunes north of the volatile town of Musa Qala.

Sometimes they would fire at a group of enemy fighters, sometimes the enemy would fire at them first, but almost immediately, McCullar explained, their team would be pinned down by machine guns that outranged almost all of their sniper rifles.

“They’d set up at the max range of their [machine guns] and start firing at us,” McCullar said. “We’d take it until we could call in [close air support] or artillery.”

The story of McCullar and his snipers is not an isolated one. For 14 years, Marine snipers have suffered setbacks in combat that, they say, have been caused by outdated equipment and the inability of the Marine Corps to provide a sniper rifle that can perform at the needed range.

They trace the problem to the relatively small Marine sniper community that doesn’t advocate effectively for itself because it is made up of junior service members and has a high turnover rate. Additionally, snipers say that the Marine Corps’ weapons procurement process is part of an entrenched bureaucracy resistant to change.

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.”

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?hpid=z5

Response by Sgt Jerami Ballard made Jun 14 at 2015 4:28 AM

Sgt Jerami Ballard — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 04:28:09 -0400

This simply is not true. We adopted the M110 SASS in 2008 and the XM2010 is currently in the lead to replace the M40A5 if the WFTB determines that the M40A6/7 configuration isn't up to par.
We've simply stuck with the M40 for as long as we have because of historical reliability, exclamation of fundamentals, and lack of budget to replace/rebarrel 4500 rifles for untested weapon systems or rounds.
Downside is that our scout snipers now carry an M4A1, M40A5, M110, and M107 whenever they got out to the field.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 14 at 2015 8:03 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 08:03:45 -0400

Each of the points the article makes is accurate, but the conclusion is not.

Our M40's do exactly what they are supposed to do, and as Sgt Jerami Ballard said have historical reliance on their side. Our SASR systems likewise.

The procurement process is convoluted, but so is the development process. In addition to that, the USMC is VERY cautious about equipment swaps wanting proven equipment over new equipment.

As for the Junior Marine community comment, the senior sniper in an infantry BN is a SSgt, and the platoon was historically set up "similar" to a infantry platoon. When we get to Recon, or other organizations that have snipers, they will be of similar rank, but that is a product of USMC organizational structure. It would be like saying the mortar community is composed of junior service members. It's a misleading statement.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jun 14 at 2015 9:29 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 09:29:33 -0400

Because they can just sneak up and strangle them?

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jun 14 at 2015 3:56 PM

SrA Edward Vong — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:56:43 -0400

I'm not a Marine myself, but I have heard that it took awhile for Marines to start adopting the shortened M4 over the M16.

Response by MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. made Jun 17 at 2015 7:33 PM

MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:33:46 -0400

Sir,
Your dedication, insight and professionalism are truly noted! Be that Marine who makes the difference -- based upon your expertise, you've identified shot-falls and have solutions: If not you, then who? If not now, when?
Very Respectfully,
MJ Brown USMC MSgt Ret

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jun 18 at 2015 12:23 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:23:31 -0400

I worked with a bunch of bright Marines at Quantico over the years. It's interesting to see the "meets operational needs". This may be one of the few times I've seen a brain fart over a relatively small procurement issue. The late tank conversion is a different story as the bosses had to figure out how to make the budget profile work while still doing big time Ops. Budgeteers get fickle when they wonder about Marine relevance and small wiggles have a big impact.

So if it "meets operational needs" then you shouldn't be doing operations that are best served by 338 ranged systems. Give it to the Army. And stop putting fish bait out there.

Response by GySgt David Andrews made Jun 18 at 2015 1:43 PM

GySgt David Andrews — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:43:38 -0400

Same reason we had rucks and C-rats in the 80's for Vietnam

Response by MSgt Tim Parkhurst made Jun 18 at 2015 9:53 PM

MSgt Tim Parkhurst — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:53:16 -0400

Poorly researched article based on misperceptions of the role and employment methods of Marine Scout Snipers and their weapons. Also, at least one outright falsehood. The Corps did not employ, or even own any WWII-era Patton tanks as late as Desert Storm. I was there, and the Marine tanks on my flank were M-60's. if a Marine laments having enemy machine gunners pouring fire into his position, then perhaps he should redeploy his team to a location that isn't overlooked by enemy machine gunners who are aware of your presence? Either that, or have a contingency plan for on-call supporting arms to suppress those machine guns when they reveal their positions? Pretty basic employment considerations that don't dictate buying a new, longer range sniper rifle. Every sniper would love to push the limits of range and accuracy. But keep in mind that we already have other rifles in the inventory to augment the M-40 series. Those are additional weapons, not replacements for the M-40. The standard issue sniper rifle should continue to own the 1000 yard battlespace. When situations dictate, we should have other tools on the shelf to reach out further and with greater precision. Within the grid square, I wouldn't want to hump around a 25 lb-plus rail gun built on a chassis and encumbered with all sorts of external attachments. I want a lighter weight gun I can drag through the brush without getting hung up and leaving a bigger trail than I do - a gun I can run with and easily displace to my alternate FFP on foot. Change for the sake of technology is not real progress. Likewise, greater capability that is generally unnecessary and adds new hindrances is also bad. I think the others who have posted in response to this would agree that we need to keep a defined mission requirement in focus when discussing any change to the tried and true M-40 series rifle.

Response by SSG James N. made Aug 7 at 2015 9:08 AM

SSG James N. — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 09:08:21 -0400

Within the USMC sniper community, there is a rift between the bean counters, and the operators who have moved upward into the actual billeted positions. That is where thhat issue sits
As to the rifle, in a recent conversation with Kelly McMillan, procurement wants a 'chassis' rifle that is easily switched on caliber within a steel frame. This rifle poses a few issues, however. It is not as accurate due to the chassis and the ways it fits(<2MOA). The 'chassis' system is also a bitch to carry in the field due to all the metal parts sticking out and not providing a smooth exterior. The preferred rifle of the operators on the ground are the standard stocked rifles such as the M40A4, but they only demand the caliber switch to the higher .338L.
The bean counters have tons of .308(we shooters would gladly buy these if released as surplus). The cost to switch calibers is a lot considering they have to initiate study on the exact round that will be used. Bullet style, bullet weight, and down range performance have to be looked at, and see which combination yields the best results. Then Lake City gets to gear up and see if they can load 'Special Ball' (MxxxSB) or 'Long Range'(MxxxLR) to a 1/2MOA standard or below.
If anyone here can get all these people in the same room to agree on the process, it would be money ahead. I can speak to a certain African Game farm owner who holds such meetings in his properties, and I can get word to maybe 1/3 of the people involved or more. I can offer advice to the meeting's set up, drinks, food, cigars, offered hunts, but that is where my experience stops. I can even make introductions if someone networks me to someone I do not know yet.
I want to see a switch to a .338 Lapua, because that frees up all the cases and palates of M118LR so I can pull the bullets and insert a 168gr AMAX for general purpose use, or in my DMRM14 and R1A1

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2015 9:18 AM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 09:18:12 -0400

Solid argument. The weapons platform does need to be updated. And yes we do enjoy getting Army hand me downs.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2015 7:20 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:20:10 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, I think it's because the Marines think if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. When I first got to Nam, the Marines were using H-34 Helicopters from the Korean War. I think they were also using the M-14. I know it wasn't the M-16. Before they went to the Huey, I was TDY twice in DaNang flying air assaults and dropping off LRP's. Before I left they were using the UH-1D Huey and had the M-16. The H-34 was being used by the ARVN.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Oct 23 at 2015 7:48 PM

CMSgt James Nolan — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:48:10 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad Interesting read. The tools of the trade are critical, and I firmly believe that special jobs require specialty tools.
Nothing but admiration for the skill of our snipers.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Oct 30 at 2015 12:35 AM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:35:04 -0400