Posted on Jun 14, 2015
Why have the Marines failed to adopt a new sniper rifle?
18.2K
52
40
12
12
0
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 For 14 years, Marine snipers have suffered setbacks in combat that, they say, have been caused by outdated equipment and the inability of the Marine Corps to provide a sniper rifle that can perform at the needed range.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
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
Sniper
Rifles
Marine Corps
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 13
7
7
0
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.
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.
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
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.
(6)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
"In addition to that, the USMC is VERY cautious about equipment swaps wanting proven equipment over new equipment."
This statement is very true and sometimes is a double edges sword. While sticking with what is tried and true can be a good thing (especially if the new system is POS), if you are too hidebound to a legacy system when someting better actually does exist, it can also be a bad thing. Perfect example was teh M1 Garand. The Corps initially refused to adopt the new fangled semi-auto over the tried and true 1903 Springfield. Their stated reason was concerns over reliability and long range accuracy. However, on Guadalcanal, the Marines discovered that legacy weapon systems did not provide enough firepower to stem a determined Banzai charge, and since the fighting was done up close and personal, long range accuracy was a moot point (not that the M1 had any problems in that regard anyways). They had to resort to stea...ahem, acquiring M1s from the Army when they releived the Marines there who had adopted the weapon before the war started. The Corps eventually changed it's mind and began issuing M1's in ernest, but how would the battles on Guadalcanal have been positively affected had the Marines there had the superior weapon.
This statement is very true and sometimes is a double edges sword. While sticking with what is tried and true can be a good thing (especially if the new system is POS), if you are too hidebound to a legacy system when someting better actually does exist, it can also be a bad thing. Perfect example was teh M1 Garand. The Corps initially refused to adopt the new fangled semi-auto over the tried and true 1903 Springfield. Their stated reason was concerns over reliability and long range accuracy. However, on Guadalcanal, the Marines discovered that legacy weapon systems did not provide enough firepower to stem a determined Banzai charge, and since the fighting was done up close and personal, long range accuracy was a moot point (not that the M1 had any problems in that regard anyways). They had to resort to stea...ahem, acquiring M1s from the Army when they releived the Marines there who had adopted the weapon before the war started. The Corps eventually changed it's mind and began issuing M1's in ernest, but how would the battles on Guadalcanal have been positively affected had the Marines there had the superior weapon.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
Nothing but admiration for the skill of our snipers.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
LTC Paul Labrador
While it may have been true in the past that the Marines had ben stuck with Army cast offs, that is not necessarily true anymore. If it were, Marines would be wearing Army ACUs and body armor as well as sporting other Army specific TA-50 gear. Marines are just as able to acquire any equipment it wants/needs nowadays as any of the other services (which opens a whole 'nother discussion). As Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS stated, sometimes the Marines simply don't WANT to change to newer equipment.
(0)
(0)
GySgt David Andrews
Those early MRE's sucked so bad but they were easy to eat. Just spit on them to hydrate.
(0)
(0)
GySgt David Andrews
I can't see a big requirement to change if you have overlapping systems as they do. Also the systems thru have work and work well when complemented with other systems.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Solid argument. The weapons platform does need to be updated. And yes we do enjoy getting Army hand me downs.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Tim Parkhurst
Ok, two points. First, my take on the article has much less to do with the nomenclature of the tank and much more to do with my personal combat experience as a Scout Sniper. Second, I'm not a tanker, but I looked it up, and that's the info I found. Right or wrong, it's really irrelevant to the primary point. Vote me down all you want, but you guys seem to have lost sight of the fact that this article was about a new sniper rifle for the Corps. and that's something I know a great deal about. The article failed to take a great many sniper "basics" into account. It's a fine opinion to think the Corps needs to reinvent the rifle, but not one that can be easily defended.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Tim Parkhurst
GySgt David Andrews - What exactly was tactless about my comment? The part where I admitted I was wrong on a technical point fairly unrelated to the main point of the article? Or the part where I stated my opinion informed by real experience, as opposed to the author who was never a Scout Sniper? Whatever, Gunny
(0)
(0)
GySgt David Andrews
I agree with your overall post and comments except the area where you made comments about the Patton tank that were wrong and then your comment about the article being poorly researched. If you are going to critique an article and comment about poor research you should make sure your comments bashing an individual are also correct.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Tim Parkhurst
I think that if you are going to assess my critique using a point not even related to the subject at hand, maybe you should try to add something substantive to the discussion. I more than built my case for the speciousness of the article. I did NOT "bash" anyone. I simply gave factual examples based on hard-won experience to build my case. When I made a simple mistake, I rogered up to it, something I question whether you would do under similar circumstances (like now). You've offered nothing in the way of support or critique of the original article, only my one point about the tank. Maybe if you were a Scout Sniper (like me), you could actually contribute to the discussion. Your continued harping on this tangential issue rather than the original topic is beginning to make you sound like a Facebook troll. I didn't know we had those here on Rally Point.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1LT William Clardy
1LT Scott Doyle and SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S., Uncle Sam's Misguided Children can achieve a much larger effective engagement area by bragging them to death. I think it would take something akin to the full strength of 18 ABN Corps to even be competitive...
(0)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
1LT William Clardy
I had a beer with a Marine once and we found that we both had something in common .. we both wanted to be Paratroopers! HOOAH
I had a beer with a Marine once and we found that we both had something in common .. we both wanted to be Paratroopers! HOOAH
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S., I had a few beers with a lesbian once and I realized that we both had something in common -- we both liked being with a good woman...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google