Marines Are Happy With the New Mk13 Mod 7 Sniper Rifle – Quote of the Day

courtesy US Marine Corps

“The .300 Winchester Magnum round will perform better than the current 7.62 NATO ammo in flight, increasing the Marine Sniper’s first-round probability of hit. This upgrade is an incredible win and will allow snipers to engage targets at greater distances.” – Chief Warrant Officer Tony Palzkill in The Marine Corps is rolling out its first new sniper rifle since the Vietnam War – and ‘this upgrade is an incredible win’ [via businessinsider.in]

comments

  1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Darned good looking boom stick.

    1. avatar SteveM says:

      The rifle looks good too wouldn’t you say?

  2. avatar Grace12 says:

    I don’t know if the guy in the picture is a sniper but the look on his face seems to be saying “Yeah asshole come and get some of this.”

    1. avatar Blackspike2710 says:

      That’s called “Resting Marine Face”.

      1. avatar Trooper Sam says:

        That’s all the internet I can read today. I can’t possibly take any more win than that.

      2. avatar Ogre says:

        As opposed to his “war face.” I believe Sgt Robles is a member of the Marksmanship Battalion at MCB Quantico, VA, which is the Corps ultimate boom-stick unit. They not only shoot them (Marine Corps Rifle & Pistol Team), teach others to shoot them, but their techs also custom manufacture and test some very superior and unique firearms for the rest of the Corps. If this new sniper rifle got the nod of approval from these Marines, you can bet it’s the best in the world for the use of Marine Scout-Snipers out in the infantry battalions and MARSOC. Of course, that doesn’t matter if the Marine behind the rifle can’t ding, but trust me, they can. Saw some of them in action in Vietnam with their beat-up looking M40’s, and I’d rather be behind them or alongside them than in front of them any day.

    2. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

      It’s called confidence. That’s what a 19yo Marine has that a 19yo Burger King employee doesn’t have.

      1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

        “That’s what a 19yo Marine has”

        That. Right there.

    3. avatar Gary says:

      Any Marine is a sniper. Yes. Period.

  3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    The marine corps is just now rolling out their first new sniper rifle since the early 1970s??? And their standard sniper rifle up until this time has been chambered in 7.62 x 51mm NATO???

    1. avatar SteveM says:

      The 300 Win Mag is only 9 years newer and was available in the 70’s so it’s not like they’re taking advantage of a new cartridge that they didn’t have access to previously.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      You do realize that Marines are still flying Cobras? Right?

      1. avatar Anner says:

        And Prowlers, steam-driven Hornets, and every other hand-me-down artifact the navy throws their way. If you think the other services have old and neglected aircraft, it’s nothing compared to the Marines. The F-35 is the only “new” toy they’ve received since the 70’s.

        1. avatar Tom Carlson says:

          Osprey anyone?

        2. avatar Red says:

          The Prowler is a pretty new aircraft and I would take a F/A-18 over the F-35 any day of the year. Remember, when the F-35’s engine dies, it just becomes a very expensive coral reef base.

      2. avatar Matty 9 says:

        Yeah, but that zulu bird has moderized avionics, and it’s so cheap to build and fly that the Corps has a shit load of them.

        1. avatar Trooper Sam says:

          Since they gave it the “Z”, I’m dying to know what designator they’ll use next. I’m pretty sure they said that even they’re sick of them. LOL!

        2. avatar Aaron says:

          if the last data I saw is still accurate, the AH-1Z is not cheap to build. it is far, FAR less capable than an AH-64D or E, and isn’t much cheaper to buy.

      3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        PwrSerge,

        Is there another aircraft that is more effective and less expensive than Cobra helicopters?
        If not, there is no reason for the marines to stop using Cobras.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Not really the point I was trying to make…

        2. avatar Aaron says:

          the AH-1Z is not inexpensive. It’s more expensive than an AH-64E remanufacture , and only about 20% cheaper than a new build AH-64E. And it is not even close to the AH-64D, much less the AH-64E.

        3. avatar DaveW says:

          An example of an old bird still in use is the B-52 of the USAF. And those AC47, Spookys and AC130 Spectres ain’t spring chickens. Even the A10 harkens back to the 1970s. But, ask anyone who has needed close air support what they like to see. Lord, in Vietnam we were using A1Es that tore a$$.

    3. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

      You don’t spoil Marines. You keep them lean and hungry. When you slip the leash they will be ready.

      1. avatar DaveW says:

        William Shakespeare knew Marines full well…
        “Cry Havoc and let slip (loose) the Dogs of War”

        “Cowards die many times before their deaths;
        The valiant never taste of death but once.
        Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,
        It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
        Seeing that death, a necessary end,
        Will come when it will come. (2.2.34)

        Julius Caesar (2.2), Cæsar

  4. avatar little horn says:

    yeah, i’d be pretty happy with that thing too!

  5. avatar Mr. Keller says:

    Does it really need the helical fluting on the bolt? “But it’s sand-cuts for reliability!!!” Yeah, ok…

    Plus, didn’t M-LOK win out over Keymod with military favor from the NSWC?

  6. avatar rocketscientist says:

    why bother camouflaging the rifle components if you are just going to top it with a jet black scope? color coordination isn’t just for fashionistas. Tan bipod too please. Not that hard.

  7. avatar ACP_arms says:

    “increasing the Marine Sniper’s first-round probability of hit.”

    Or, you know, the sniper knows how to shoot and it’s not the rifle.

  8. avatar ironicatbest says:

    I am pleased to see this go online. Hoping this weapon helps my soldiers preform their duties more efficiently

  9. avatar Geoff says:

    They probably paid 3 or 4 times what it is worth.
    They could have made it camouflage to match the uniform.

    1. avatar Ogre says:

      Why? If the Marines go to the sandbox again with this rifle, they’ll be wearing desert digital camo uniforms. If they go to Norway, they’ll be wearing white uniforms. And if they go to an equatorial country, they’ll be wearing woodland digital camo. So the rifle doesn’t need a color-coordinated stock and accessories. The sniper will just wrap it in appropriate colored cloth and put a few twigs on it, and the rifle will disappear into the landscape (just like the Marine).

      1. avatar Ogre says:

        Also, as a retired Marine (Viet vet), I’ve been stuck with more hand-me-down used firearms and gear than I care to remember. As a taxpayer, I’m naturally concerned that there’s no waste, fraud or abuse in pricing items sold to the Marine Corps, but as a Marine I am thrilled that the Corps is finally getting something new and excellent to meet their needs, and if they paid a little extra for it, it’s okay. I felt the same way a couple of years ago when the Corps bought from Colt the M45A1 .45 pistol. Had to buy one to see what the Corps had got for its MARSOC Marines. While I may not run out and buy a Mk13 Mod 7 .300 WinMag 1,500 yard sniper rifle (a Ruger Mini-30 will work fine if the zombies come), I’m glad the Corps has it at the price they paid.

      2. avatar Geoff says:

        Who are we going to fight in Norway?
        Anyway, the rifles could be produced in the appropriate camouflage for wherever they will needed.

        1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

          In our day the Iron Curtain was still up. Norway was a possible battlefield. Joint exercises were held there a number of times.

        2. avatar New Continental Army says:

          ^ As he said, but also, Cold War 2 is a real thing. We’re very likely going to be building up in parts of Northern Europe again to counter a very real, and very aggressive Russian threat. The Soviet Union was far, far more powerful than current Russia is, but Putin’s Russia is more reckless, and Putin truly has dreams of reconquista of the old Soviet states. Putin sees himself as a Cesar type figure and he needs a Carthage to campaign against. The only problem with his plans are, well, we’re far more of a match for his wannabe new Russian empire than his imagined Carthage.

  10. avatar Muhmawsur says:

    Not just to ruffle some feathers, but as a taxpayer, I tire of government waste. Especially of the military variety when we consider that our mission has long changed into being the world police. A Savage BA 110 Stealth would have had all the actual capabilities of this rifle at a fraction of price (something like only 10%-12% of the price of the MK13 assuming the $12k price is true). This is the pants on head retarded misappropriation so common to the military where they act as if the extra money they overpaid actually results in more effectiveness. Besides, .300WM isn’t even all that much of an improvement over .308, 400ish fps more on average. They talk like this 300Winmag is the second coming, when in reality it is hard to say that it has much of an advantage in a cost benefit analysis over hot loaded 30-06. If they wanted a true firebreathing .30 cal, they could have gotten something else like the. 300RUM or. 300 Weatherby.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      The .300 Win Mag can launch much heavier bullets than the .308 – such as 200, 208, 220, and 230 grain rounds that have pretty good ballistic coefficients. At the price I’d rather have a .338 Lapua, but it’s a definite improvement over the .308.

    2. avatar i1uluz says:

      Along with the cost of the rifle, guessing it also includes the cost of the bipod, optic and silencer. Training for the armorers and some replacement parts. Don’t get me wrong, I have an older Savage 10 BA, great rifle. Have a couple of MDT chassis bolt rifles too.
      While other rounds might hit harder, cost per round plays into it and they have to be NATO approved. Isn’t SOCOM is a fan of .300WIN maybe another factor on why it was picked. An existing US supplier with a good track record of consistent performance could have been a factor also.

    3. avatar Aaron says:

      oh for God’s sake, it’s a frikkin rifle. in other words, it’s cost is lost in the decimal points compared to major weapns systems.

    4. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      This is far from the worst of the boondoggles in small arms.

      I’ve watched the DOD (or insert name of service here) do some stupid development in small arms about every four years since the early 90’s – usually with no net result. There have been four major programs to replace the M16/M4 in that time – none of them have produced anything other than news headlines, and about a couple hundred millions of dollars (taken together across all programs).

      Here, from what I see in the picture we have:

      – a Rem 700 action (or clone) in standard (ie, long, .30-06) length
      – with a spiral fluted bolt (why?)
      – a modular chassis system
      – a stainless steel barrel
      – a bit .300WM-rated can
      – and a scope, the provenance and price of which I know not.

      OK, here’s what I know of the costs for the above:

      – Rem 700 action – let’s assume it’s being blueprinted, etc: $1K when they’re all done.
      – Spiral fluted bolt? $250, retail.
      – Stainless, top-of-the-line barrel: $450.
      – .300 WM rated can? $1500.
      – modular chassis system? Call it $1400 to $1500 or so.
      – Bipod? Let’s say $300 to $400.
      – I’ll assume the scope is very fancy – so let’s call that $3K or so.

      Add it all up and we’re about $5K in the civilian world. The article claimed that the USMC is spending a bit under $1 mil for 116 rifles, or about $8K per rifle. This is a better return on taxpayer investment than most weapons systems out there.

  11. avatar Mike says:

    Why did US snipers go with 300 win mag while other NATO snipers go with 338LM?

    1. avatar rocketscientist says:

      Practicality…Ironic since they got a rifle for it that is about 5 times more expensive than necessary. I think it had something also to do with a 220g sierra matchking that they really liked the performance of. Still, I would have preferred the NATO alignment myself.

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      The .338 LM requires an action that is longer than even .375 H&H Magnum length actions. It’s a round that could only have been developed on the taxpayer’s tab. Everyone else would have found a way to get the same performance out of a magnum-length action…

  12. avatar Taserface says:

    The best funded military in the world and they don’t buy the rifle that can’t miss. Get with the 21st century and buy a Tracking Point. End of story.

    1. avatar luigi says:

      I was going to make a comment about how Mattis doesn’t have money coming out of his weiner but I looked up the price for both rifles and the TP costs about half as much a pop as the MK 13…I know that factors in optics and maintenance etc, but geez. At least they’re buying quality

  13. avatar 22winmag says:

    Haven’t these guys heard of the .300WSM?

    The .300WM has been obsolete for a while now.

  14. avatar We were never there says:

    My Marine Corps issue M40 was so old it had a six digit serial number with NO letter prefix. It did the job. Me too.

  15. avatar Big Al says:

    If changing from 7.62X51 NATO, why not 338 Lapua??? 300 Win mag is clearly a better performer than the NATO round. However, 338 Lapua leaves both in the dust.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email