Here is every rifle Marines have used in the last 250 years

The Marine Corps posted a new website that reviews every standard rifle issued to Marines in the service's 250 year history, from muskets to M4s.

Matt White
Published Jul 7, 2025 3:04 PM EDT

There are many like it — 18, in fact.

A new scrolling feature posted on the Marine Corps website walks through a vital string of identity to the Corps: a history of every rifle model that any Marine has ever carried.

The scrolling post rolls through all 18 of the standardized, issued long guns that Marines have fought with, from the flintlock muskets of the Continental Navy to the legendary M1 Garands used across the Pacific in World War II, and the full family tree of the M16 and its variants, like the post-9/11 M4 and the current M27...

Complete article:

https://taskandpurpose.com/new...e-marines-have-used/

Very cool, especially since the Corps created that list and site (linked on the Task & Purpose site).

I know they weren’t including one-offs, but it seems odd they didn’t include the Johnson rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by cth1974:
I know they weren’t including one-offs, but it seems odd they didn’t include the Johnson rifle.

The Johnson was never adopted as standard, just a supplemental rifle used in small numbers by a few specific Marine units like Raiders and Paramarines for a couple years. The article states it only covers standard rifles.

Similarly, while the USMC used a small number of M1917 Enfields during the WW1 period (in vastly smaller quantities than the US Army where ~75% of Army soldiers during WW1 were armed with the M1917 despite the M1903 being standard issue), it wasn't adopted as a standard rifle by the Marines.

But the article did skip the M1898 Krag, which was adopted as the Marines' standard rifle in 1899, though it never fully replaced the Lee Navy in USMC hands before the M1903 was adopted a few years later.

Despite its short service period, the Krag still saw combat with Marines during the Phillipine Insurrection and the Boxer Rebellion, where its .30-40 round was appreciated by Marines due to being more effective than 6mm Lee Navy. And it continued in training use and in shipboard armories even after the M1903 was adopted.

Not to nitpick, but they also referred to the Lee Navy as a Winchester-Lee lever action..

Would like to see them do a similar article/exhibit on edged weapons and sidearms for the Marine Corps' 250th anniversary. That could be
motivating.

Yep, that's an error by Task & Purpose, because the original USMC web page they're writing about correctly refers to it as a straight-pull rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by cth1974:
I know they weren’t including one-offs, but it seems odd they didn’t include the Johnson rifle.

The Johnson was never adopted as standard, just a supplemental rifle used in small numbers by a few specific Marine units like Raiders and Paramarines for a couple years. The article states it only covers standard rifles.

Similarly, while the USMC used a small number of M1917 Enfields during the WW1 period (in vastly smaller quantities than the US Army where ~75% of Army soldiers during WW1 were armed with the M1917 despite the M1903 being standard issue), it wasn't adopted as a standard rifle by the Marines.

But the article did skip the M1898 Krag, which was adopted as the Marines' standard rifle in 1899, though it never fully replaced the Lee Navy in USMC hands before the M1903 was adopted a few years later.

Despite its short service period, the Krag still saw combat with Marines during the Phillipine Insurrection and the Boxer Rebellion, where its .30-40 round was appreciated by Marines due to being more effective than 6mm Lee Navy. And it continued in training use and in shipboard armories even after the M1903 was adopted.

Ah, duh! Sorry about that (the Johnson), and I had completely forgotten about the K-J rifles and carbines. Excellent post!

I feel like they could've put the original M4/M4A1 in there between the M16A4 and the M4A1 Block II. It's such an iconic carbine recognized the world over and an important step in the evolution. Seems like an oversight.


.

No M1 carbine? It was my understanding that it was used throughout in the Pacific.

It was.

My assumption is that they skipped over the M1 Carbine because it wasn't the standard issue infantry rifle at the time. (It's a carbine, and it fulfilled a different supporting role.)

But then they later had to include the M4A1 because - while also a carbine and not technically a rifle - it was utilized in the role of a primary standard issue infantry rifle for several years after it fully replaced the M16A4 and before the M27 was rolled out, as opposed to just a supplementary/supporting carbine like the M1.

And this could also explain why the M4 wasn't included while the M4A1 was. The former was fielded during the period that the M4 carbine was a supplementary weapom for officers and specialists like corpsmen alongside the standard issue infantry M16A4 rifle, while the latter became the standalone primary standard issue infantry carbine/rifle for a period.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
It was.

My assumption is that they skipped over the M1 Carbine because it wasn't the standard issue infantry rifle at the time. (It's a carbine, and it fulfilled a different supporting role.)

Bingo.

It also didn’t list things like the HK416 or the CQBR on a full auto lower in the days of the dreaded three round burst. Those guns were never standardized service rifles. Nor any MK12 type rifles.

The Corps is the king of poor choices. And probably the Queen of all the wrong reasons. Pat Rogers famously once said that the A2 was designed by the rifle team to win service rifle matches. It was never meant for combat. Instead of fixing that mistake they adopted the A4 which was great for killing Germans on the western front. The ACOG was a great choice. If properly utilized. But, the insisted on mounting the flip up rear sights over mounting the ACOG. All the wrong priorities.

Then comes the M27. Some brain surgeon decided it could fill the role of a SAW. 15 years later, no 60 round mags have been purchased to fill that role. They just got an overly heavy, overly complicated rifle.

The Corps has an advanced doctorate at fighting wars from the last century. They don’t want to evolve and frankly it’s getting to the point where the Army could absorb them and no one would notice. And I really hate to say that.

Were the Marines ever issued the M1917 in parallel with the M1903?

Yes, as mentioned in my first post above.

But unlike the Army, they only used them in small numbers, and not in frontline service. Marines used limited numbers of M1917s for a few years during WW1 in some training units and facility security units, as well as during their interventions/occupations in various Carribean nations during that time period, including Haiti and Cuba.

You have to remember the Marines always seem to get gear after the Army does for some reason. If the Army gets a new rifle, the Marines won't get it for a long time. Weren't the Marines still using a bolt action rifle as standard issue in WWII long after the Army all got the M1 Garand?

The Army adopted the Garand in 1936. The Marines didn't adopt it until 1941. They had been testing the Garand since 1936, just dragged their feet on formally adopting it, and even after adopting it were slow to issue it to combat units.

So they had adopted the Garand less than a year before the US entered the war, and the USMC had started with issuing Garands to stateside rear echelon support units, with the plan to work their way up to the frontline units from there. As a result, they still hadn't rolled out Garands to most of the Corps by the time the war started, including the Marine infantry units sent into combat in early Pacific battles like Guadalcanal in mid-1942, who still used M1903s.

It wasn't until early 1943 that the Marines were sufficiently equipped with Garands.

If you're gonna title the article "every rifle," make the effort.