Marines new rifle - rant

[Newton]

While the Army is going with the semi auto M110, the Marine core is fielding yet another bolt action sniper rifle, the XM3.

http://www.deathfromafar.com/htm/iba_weaponsys_xm3.html

I am very interested to know exactly what this new system delivers that justifies a basic platform that costs 3 times as much as an M40A3 which costs $3400 stripped and $12000 fully equipped, which is still just over half the price of the XM3 which comes in at a staggering $20,000 per fully equipped copy (I don't have a link for all those prices, but I understand they are correct).

With M118LR ammo as used by snipers, the M40A3 will shoot stupidly small groups right out to 1000m and it weighs only slightly more than this new weapon. Add to this the training/spares/accessory costs of a new weapons system and the money starts to get silly.

With Remington selling a top grade LEO sniper package based on the 700 LTR for $2,500 why are our tax dollars being so heavily invested in a gun that doesn't appear to offer anywhere near an extra $18,000 of value, even with a night scope.

Naturally I want our troops to have the best equipment, but I can't help wondering if we, the tax payer, aren't just being milked like a sap. At an absolute minimum, we should be encouraging our armed forces to standardize on a single weapon system, are their requirements really so different that they need to develop (and pay for)completely separate weapons?

 

[otomik]

are you sure that's how much the DOD is paying for it? just because it says something on their website, thats just what people are willing to pay for it in what is probably a small scale low supply high demand arrangment. economy of scale naturally. xm3 sounds like it isn't a done deal either, we're talking about prices for what are basically prototypes or custom jobs then?

 

[Pat_Rogers]

Can you advise where it states that this rifle has been "fielded"? Can you explain what "fielded" means?
Has it been adopted?? What are your sources??

The Marine Corps builds its sniper rifles at PWS, WTBn. Can you advise of an RFP or solicitation for this rifle????

Because a company builds a product and demonstrates it, does not necessarily mean anything more than that.

Re cost- parts, especially NV and day optics, as well as a can, drive the cost up. However, labor is the bic cost. Think there may be some labor in wrapped up in this gun?

Finally, it is Marine CORPS, not core.

 

[DougW]

The Marines have also tested the AI rifles in .338 Lapua. They have not adopted them, only tested. They would run about $12,000 a copy, with the Schmitt and Bender scope package. Why not have the best they can get, who ever the manufacturer?

 

[ArmedBear]

Naturally I want our troops to have the best equipment, but I can't help wondering if we, the tax payer, aren't just being milked like a sap.

What, by the same people who replaced the jeep with the humvee for puttering around base? Never.

 

[Pat_Rogers]

While way off topic Mr Bear, tactical vehicles are generally restricted from doing non tactical things. The initial cost of such vehicles, followed by a higher operating cost puts them in the obvious category of special purpose.
Clearly we are talking CONUS here, and where there are sufficient quantities of commercial vehicles available for the purpose. OCONUS, and in a combat environment, tac vehicles are generally- but not always used.


Re The Jeep. The M38A1 series (commonly Jeep) was replaced by the M151 (commonly, Mutt)series a long time ago by the Hummers and for many reasons.
The M151 and variants was produced from 1959-1982, though some were in service at least until the early 90's. They had many shortcomings, and trafficability was one. The Hummer was more versatile for sure, and more capable.

It has been a very successful platform, so i am curious as to your comments.

 

[TEDDY]

JEEPS WERE NOT USED FOR PATROLS WHERE YOU KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO GET SHOT UP.THE TACTICAL USE OF THE HUMVEE IN MY OPINION IS WRONG. THE SOUTH AFRICANS HAD A BOMB RESISTANT MACHINE BACK IN THE 70S.WHERE WAS THIS MILITARY THEN.HIND SIGHT IS GREAT. :banghead:

 

[Pat_Rogers]

Teddy is correct. The Hummer was a mobility platform. OIF has turned into a different type of war requiring the use of armored vehicles, and while not designed for this purpose, the Hummer does a reasonable job under the circumstances.
Neither the M38 nor the M151 series would have been able to be modified to do this.

However, this is way off topic and still awaiting the OP to cite his sources.

 

[Byron Quick]

Teddy, there is a shift key that allows one to use both upper and lower case letters when typing.

As the use of nothing but upper case letters is considered to be shouting on the Internet, and we here at THR frown upon shouting, please refrain from doing this lest we frown upon you.

 

[hankdatank1362]

Dude, his name and location are also in CAPS. Maybe his key is stuck.

Actually, I have a buddy in Manning named Teddy. Real sweaty fellow, but on heckuva offensive lineman. I doubt that our shouter is him, though.

 

[tsidorus]

back to the pricepoint, the army pays i think 380 something for an M16. Anyone know what a new M16 goes for? (assuming your LE and can buy it without being raped by supply and demand) And the new basic M998 Hummve cost like 60k or something (I dont remember the exact amount but it isnt the same as the 140k a civy one goes for)

-Tsi

 

[Pat_Rogers]

The mil and civilian versions of the Hummer (when they were still making them) are no more the same type of motor vehicle then an M4/ M4A1 Carbine is the same as a commercially made variant.

Those items being accepted by the military are built to a standard - for example, Colt builds the M4/ M4A1 (and FN builds the M16A4) according to a Technical Data Package, which specifies certain steels, heat treatings, accuracy and so forth. A commercial manufacturer does not have to do this.
You made a statement that an M16 costs $380.00. What model M16? An M16A2; M16A3, or M16A4. Can you advise the source of this figure- that is what contract? The price will vary between contracts sometimes due to quantity, but I am curious as to your source on this...

While both the mil and the (former) commercial hummers are made by the same company and obviously share certain components, it doesn't share others. Paint is a good example, and the mil spec is for CARC while the commercial Hummers use commercial paint.

Low bidder is not generally a mil requirement. Best value often is.
Comparing a mil Hummer and a civilian Hummer is an apples and grapefruit type thing.

 

[tsidorus]

I wasnt at all suggesting that the mil hummve is the same as an H1 just that everyone expects that the military WAY overpays for everything... the figure for the M16 is an M16A2 that our S4 got from the supply system to charge a soldier for destroying his. Have no clue what contract or what ever but it was 380 something. (edit: yes volume purchase probably has much to do with this price)

-Tsi

 

[Pat_Rogers]

Thanks- can you advise what year this was?

I don't expect the military to overpay. I do expect that they pay for best value in what is put in the hands of those that are tasked with defending this country. That doesn't always occur of course, but the dramanet is full of statements that often bear no relation to common sense- or reality.

 

[ArmedBear]

While way off topic Mr Bear, tactical vehicles are generally restricted from doing non tactical things. The initial cost of such vehicles, followed by a higher operating cost puts them in the obvious category of special purpose.
Clearly we are talking CONUS here, and where there are sufficient quantities of commercial vehicles available for the purpose. OCONUS, and in a combat environment, tac vehicles are generally- but not always used.

Horsepucky.

I live in Point Loma in San Diego. I live within a few miles (single digit) of 4 military bases, and a short drive from a few more, including Camp Pendleton.

I see the things driving around, and they're hardly being used as "tactical vehicles," nor are once-common commercial vehicles, e.g. pickup trucks, Blazers, Cherokees, etc., seen very often in military service any more. Yes I know the Blazer and Cherokee are no longer built; their replacements are not seen in military service, either.

Furthermore, one problem with the Humvee is that it's NOT really a tactical vehicle like others that are designed to withstand mines, etc. See Iraq for plenty of evidence.

It actually has plenty in common with the commercial "H1", other than shiny paint, just as the M38A1 has a lot in common with the CJ-5 (at least until AMC reduced the frames to baling wire strength in '72).

If you look around military bases, the Humvee has replaced the jeep (and the M-151) as a tool-around vehicle. It has also replaced standard pickups and SUV's.

I'm not saying it's not capable. It certainly is. I am saying that it's being used a lot where much cheaper and more efficient vehicles can and did serve quite well for many decades.

 

[inherentical]

Unless they have the USMC 2112s in Quantico on staff, they aren't fielding this rifle in the Marine Corps.

 

[Gator]

I saw a pic of a Marine in Iraq with the new IBA. He posted "want to see what an $18,000 rifle looks like?", or words to that effect. Wish I'd saved the pic!

 

[Pat_Rogers]

Mr Bear- your definition of what a tactical vehicle is/ is not is incorrect.
The HUMVEE series are tact vehicles, as are the 7 ton trucks etc. Tactical does not mean a fighting vehicle.
You may also be confused about "blazers etc. The CUCV (M1009) and similar were modified commercial vehicles that were less expensive (appx 56K) to buy/ maintain. That is, if you are talking about the camouflaged vehicle common in the Arm, Navy and Air Force.

Having spent a fair amount of time in your A/O, and a lot at CamPen, i will speak only for the latter. The use of tactical vehicles is restricted to certain movements. Troops are required to wear body armor and helmets when operating or riding within.

I spend a fair amount of time on a great number of military bases. I don't have access to trip tickets, and i'll venture neither do you. But i know that a commercial truck will be used instead of the MTVR (the 7 ton) when it can, and most of the people "tooling around" are doing official business (when possible) in their POV's.

You are making great claims. Perhaps you can find the guidance that backs that up.

In the meantime, back to the OP and his post...

 

[RevolvingCylinder]

Actually the Blazers are still in use along with the pickups of that era and I've seen plenty of them recently. The HMMWV and Hummers are NOT the same vehicle and from what I've seen share very little if anything in common. The M4 and AR15 share a lot more in common. As for "putting around", the HMMWVs are used mostly in training since they are used quite a bit overseas. The Army also calls the HMMWV a tactical vehicle. There are plenty of commercial vehicles on hand to be used for other purposes. Unless you feel training to operate with these vehicles as one would overseas is a waste of tax dollars I don't see the problem.

 

[armoredman]

Teddy, that was the Buffalo, and ALL it was was mine proof, hugely tall, way top heavy, made for the mine heavy guerrilla warfare during aparthied. Nifty vehicle, but not designed for true urban combat. Rhodesia made a mine resitant VW bug, with a full round-the-body roll cage and stretched out wheels, so when a tire set off a mine, the little lightly armored body would just roll away safely.

 

[El Tejon]

Getting away from cars and back to guns: Is DARPA the key here? Pat, this rifle is a spotting round, correct? A sample for the powers that be in the USMC to test? And now the bidness gets to be "associated" with the USMC and gets the benefit of erroreous stream of info on the Errornet.

Why was this not done at Crane? Because it comes from an outside contractor?

Lastly, do you think that the USMC will adopt Big Army's M110 as unit cost will be lower?

No dog in any fight here, just curious. Thanks.

 

[Harley Quinn]

The Corps has gotten many of the "Armys rejects" and used them very well and enjoyed the "handmedowns"...Other wise the political machine would have done away with them (Corps).

They are going to go back to the sea and reinforce the Navy I have read. Maybe these rifles are going to be put to use there?

http://www.military.com:80/forums/0,15240,154638,00.html?ESRC=marine-a.nl

Be interesting if that is the case.

 

[Jeremy2171]

I was on the TR in '93 fun boat! The 600 of us had the run of that place!

Nothing wrong with the XM-3 nor is thier anything wrong with the Mk11 so whay change to the M110?

 

[Pat_Rogers]

El Tejon- No idea at all. Looks like a nice rifle and all, but as WTBn is dedicated to building their guns in house, i have doubts as to why anything would be contracted out. Re the M110. Beats me. They didn't have good luck with the other SA system.

Harley- Hey Devil Dog-those days are decades gone. The Marine Corps is cutting edge on a lot of what it has does, and doesn't have to accept anything from anyone.

It isn't like the 60's.....

 

[Cosmoline]

Guys, you have to put this in perspective. Small arms are small change for the DOD, and if they have to spend some extra on our snipers then they should. I'd rather have them overspend on the best optics and platform for a sniper than see them drop BILLIONS into some idiotic cold war era weapons system that will never do anything but line the pockets of some Congressman's buddies. At least they're buying something that's useful and that will safe lives on the front line. For the DOD that's a small miracle right there.