What The Hell?

[wacojoe]

Our Marine snipers equipped with second rate weapons when the cost of all combined for good ones for every Marine sniper the next twenty years wouldn't equal one hundredth of one Air Force One ride to a California fund-raiser appearance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...cf_story.html?

[Truckman]

From the article:

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.

Machine guns and precision sniper rifles are two entirely different firearms used by two entirely different breeds of operatives...A sniper (military or civilian) uses as his main weapon his ingenuity, stamina, experience, stealth and self-confidence to reach the desired position before he even thinks about his rifle...Those same tools will get him back to safety before his next mission...

I've personally known two men who I consider to be the finest snipers ever set afield...The one still living once told me he's killed men at ranges anywhere from two feet out to 1,000 meters...He still uses what he calls his "work gun" for long range, a Hart barrel in a Hart single shot action chambered in .300 Hart in a McMillan A-5 stock that he built and maintains himself using ammo he produces himself...If I was ever in serious trouble, and could wish for anyone on the planet to back me up, it would be him...

Effective sniper work is the result of training and discipline...The equipment is secondary, but I agree it should be the finest available, not just the most expensive...Factors other than accuracy and range come into play also...

I agree that a lot of the money spent on ferrying our Presidents around the world in luxury could be spent more wisely......Ben

[wacojoe]

Have you ever heard of a sniper who would voluntarily chose a weapon chambered in .308 Win.?

[Truckman]

Have you ever heard of a sniper who would voluntarily chose a weapon chambered in .308 Win.?

Yes, all of them...It's the preferred medium range cartridge of those I know...Match the tool to the job...I never used my 1/2" impact wrench on a Phillips screw either...

As that sage philosopher, Mick Jagger, once sang, "It's the singer, not the song"......Ben

[wacojoe]

Educate me. Why chose a lesser range weapon? Weight? Reliability?

I can understand not toting around a Barrett, but is a .338 that much heavier?

[FredK]

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

Not sure what any of this has to do with Air Force One, but maybe Joe will pipe up about that and explain about the guy that's making the decisions on which weapon to use. I don't think they are the same person.

We waste more money on cr@p for the what the military thinks or doesn't think they need. Pass that down through the filter(s) of Congresspeople trying to buy back the MIC favors in their district and, what's left is, the average Fighting Joe is always left holding the bag. Been there got the T-shirt and got out. Wasn't that great back then and I suspect it hasn't gotten any better since.

Like the guy told me, when I was in, with my eyesight they would have to send women and children first to a war zone. Think I'm still waiting for a gas mask with the correct lens to show up.

[wacojoe]

It has to do with Air Force One by way of contrast, Fred. What the article argues is that we are sending guys out in the most dangerous of combat situations without the best equiptment we have, and which is not a knat on a hog's butt of cost in comparison to gigantic wastes of money on extravagant nonsense like palatial airplanes for our political royalty.

When I played golf, it was my philosophy that I recognized I could be beaten (quite easily), but I could not be out-teched. For something as minimally costly as a few hundred rifles, why can't the military have the same philosophy? If you want to reach out and touch someone with 250 grains of lead, you want to be able to touch them as far away as possible, and farther than they can touch you, it would seem to me.

Now, if our resident shooting experts refute the WaPo writer's point, that is another matter, but incompetence of the quartermaster or expense restrictions of such a small order does not get it in my mind. How much can even the best of these weapons cost to produce and acquire — $15-20k each? How many needed for all Marine snipers— a couple hundred? That's chump change.

Examine the new Air Force Ones we are in the process of ordering close to $400M each, and tell me again where I am wrong —
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...air-force-one/

Incidentally, putting the current Air Force One in the air for one hour costs us an estimated $176,000 not counting crew expense and not a week goes by we don't read about some nonsense ride for hours upon hours to soak up some fund-raising for whomever is in office or squire his family around on vacation. Our priorities are insane.

[FredK]

Joe, you and I are on the same side on the issue of equipping the troops with the best. That's a no brainer.

The problem is with your statement is that you want to bash the current admin for a new plane. Not even in the same hand, league or reason why. All admin fly around the country/world for whatever reason. They attach some dumb show of being for the people on some issue so they can have dinner with fund raisers. Been going on since I was a kid. Now if your whining was on everyone that would be OK in my book, but you seem to have a fixation only with the current guy in charge. Get over it, as he's out in 18 months, and some Lady will be in the White House.

[Independent Voter]

[QUOTE=FredK;1009419 Get over it, as he's out in 18 months, and some Lady will be in the White House.[/QUOTE]

Fred, I am quite surprised. I was unaware that you were going to vote for Carly Fiorina. I was under the impression you were leaning toward a clinton presidency and there is no way that female could be considered a lady.

And yes, the money to equip the snipers with the best available is such a small figure that there should be no need for discussion . Just buy it.

[Truckman]

Educate me. Why chose a lesser range weapon? Weight? Reliability?

The .30 caliber projectile, in various lengths and strengths, has been the military's choice since 1892 in part for it's inherent accuracy...A good place to begin your edjumication is "Hatcher's Notebook"...Julian Hatcher knew as much about ballistics and trajectories, and their effects on the humans facing them, as any man who ever lived, and is still the go-to source for data and theory 50 years after his death...You'll thank me for having his book in your library...

The .338 you mentioned is a magnum length case, requiring a magnum length (and strength) action...This adds considerable weight to the firearm and the ammo burden...The rifle's extra weight is welcome to absorb the recoil when it goes off, but carries a penalty when the shooter has to slog through miles of unfriendly terrain to reach his target...It's extra weight just gets heavier as the day (or night) progresses, and a lighter weapon system might have allowed him to carry extra ammo, rations or any other needed equipment...But, it certainly has its place if the target is farther away than the effective range of a smaller caliber, or if the projectile is expected to pass through any brush, armor or other obstacles on its way to the target...

If the shooter thinks he can approach the target undetected within range of a smaller caliber cartridge, then there is no need to tote anything heavier...An experienced, well-trained assassin will choose the right tool for the job...Sometimes it's an icepick or a silenced .22, sometimes it's an F-15 or a nuclear weapon...It takes more than one firearm to build an arsenal, and all this time, the trained, willing operative behind the trigger is still the most essential part of the system...

Joe, when you entered court, did you carry your law library with you, or were the essential tools inside your easily carried briefcase?...When you played golf, did you only carry one club?...The .50 BMG and the .338 Lapua or .300 Win Mag all have their place, but the .308 Winchester, the .45 and the knife will still be used dependant on the range expected...And above all, the sniper's most feared weapon is the knowledge in the back of the enemy's mind that death can visit him from that one man who got close enough to end his career and his life with one shot, and then withdraw to do it all over again tomorrow...The sniper's mission is not just to kill the enemy, but to instill enough fear in him to keep him off-balance and expend an inordinate amount of time and resources to keep him at bay...

If you're thinking, why spend all that time getting close enough for a shot with a smaller caliber, when you might have stood off an additional 800 or 900 yards and killed him with a .50 or a .338, bear in mind all the extra conditions that come into play at further distances...Wind speed and directions which can be changeable several times between the shooter and the target, smoke, haze and glare that increase with distance, the shooter's own heartbeat which is amplified exponentially with distance, the flight time of the projectile, even the curvature of the earth all have to be calculated in the shooter's mind at the instant of trigger pull...If he's right, the job got done and he can withdraw...If not, all his work was in vain and his own life is in increased danger as he sets up for another opportunity before leaving the field...One shot, one kill is his goal...

I found this article which may help, although I didn't finish reading it myself: http://www.snipercentral.com/308-winchester-7-62x51mm-nato/......Ben

[Mike]

I've read a few of the books written by ex-SEALs in the past couple of years. If my memory is correct they all mention building their own rifles using the armorer and parts requisitioned from the armory. It sounded as if no expense was spared in the building of these rifles.

Just a thought here, I have no knowledge of this, but maybe it's a Navy thing. Maybe the Navy doesn't want the Marines to have snipers that could out-shine their own SEALS.

Or, maybe the Navy doesn't want to give up their ground role played by the SEALs.

You know someone in budgeting is crying "redundant" all the time.

[wacojoe]

I need a consult from the family Special Forces guy, but he is incommunicado right now. He is on teams with all branches, but is not a sniper.

As an aside, I remember one hunter showing up at deer camp with my father with a .300 Weatherby Mag. and getting a thorough razing for "over gunning." It was a beautiful thing though.

[FredK]

Fred, I am quite surprised. I was unaware that you were going to vote for Carly Fiorina. I was under the impression you were leaning toward a clinton presidency and there is no way that female could be considered a lady.

And yes, the money to equip the snipers with the best available is such a small figure that there should be no need for discussion . Just buy it.

IV who I vote for will not change the outcome one way or the other. This is a red state and unless there's a major shift (it's happening very slowly) the electoral college will show votes for a Republican (and at this point I think they are all idiots). Until there a major shift away from the far right nuts and a move more to the center it'll be that way for the next few election cycles.

Now back to the subject---Why is Joe complaining over a plane to sniper rifles??????

[wacojoe]

...Now back to the subject---Why is Joe complaining over a plane to sniper rifles??????

Did you look at the article outlining the next Air Force Ones I cited, Fred? Insane and over-the-top do not even approach the overreach here, and I don't give a damn who gets the ride. The golden throne was the final touch, right? They are acting like the U.S. is still a rich country.

[Mike]

More Marine Corps news:

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — The Army has the Green Berets, while the Navy is known for the SEALs. Now, an elite branch of the U.S. Marine Corps will officially be known as Raiders.

The Marines will rename several special operations units as Marine Raiders at a ceremony Friday, resurrecting a moniker made famous by World War II units that carried out risky amphibious and guerrilla operations. The exploits of the original Marine Raiders — who pioneered tactics used by present-day special forces — were captured in books and movies including "Gung Ho!" in 1943 and "Marine Raiders" in 1944.

SOURCE