Navy NSWC Crane M83

[kft101]

So after searching this forum and elsewhere online, and basically finding no source of information on this, I figure let’s start a thread on the apparently VERY little known M83 sniper rifle, built by NSWC Crane for the Navy SEALs sometime in the 1980s, before the M86.

I will share the little information I have been informed about, and let others with actual direct or otherwise knowledge share what they wish, including any photos of either actual or clone M83s.

From what I have gathered, the M83 was built in-house at Crane and consisted of the following specs:
- Remington 700 short action chambered in 7.62 NATO, mostly with the ADL blind magazine box
- McMillan silhouette stock in early desert smear camo (with the green)
- Custom made scope base with 30mm Leupold & Stevens Ultra rings
- Either an L&S Ultra 10X with M1 turrets, or a Bausch and Lomb 10X Tactical scope

And of course this all centers around what is usually my favorite part of a build, the McMillan stock. Below is a mostly exact same stock as used on the M83, with the exception of a different butt pad (but that can be easily fixed).

 

[0812guns]

 

[0812guns]

 

[Skunk]

I don’t have an M83, but I do have an original barrel repurposed on another gun.

.850” at the muzzle.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Very cool! Probably originally built by Alan Brown at Crane...

Nice job!

Sirhr

 

[Random Guy]

The M83 is sort of a unicorn rifle and this thread has the only clone I have seen of this rifle. 0812 guns, thanks for the pics. Do we know what barrel Crane used 40 years ago re the M83? I might guess Hart Barrels, but that is pure speculation.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

I have an original Navy SEAL used M83 stock. This one is the desert smear pattern, but they also used green smear stocks. With this original M83 stock, I also have an M83 scope base, and an M83 logbook. The M83 scope base is with @LRI right now, Chad might do a small limited edition run of these bases whenever he has time. The M83 logbook is in the photos below, it also has sections of the book for other rifles in other calibers. This was given to me by a Navy SEAL who used this logbook when he was still enlisted. Too bad it no longer has the pages with rifle data filled in.

 

[kft101]

More parts acquired for this M83 build, including a rare Bausch & Lomb 10X Tactical scope, Leupold & Stevens Ultra 30mm rings, and an original simrad cap.

Thanks to those that have helped in obtaining the correct parts for this build, including @Coejro for the OG aluminum ADL trigger guard, which looks so much better on the silhouette stock than the plastic one I had on there before.

Now question is, do I have the proper NSN rubber band, tan, scope tube attached, on there?

 

[dirtybores]

Lookin sharp already!

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Very cool!!

 

[DFOOSKING]

More parts acquired for this M83 build, including a rare Bausch & Lomb 10X Tactical scope, Leupold & Stevens Ultra 30mm rings, and an original simrad cap.

Thanks to those that have helped in obtaining the correct parts for this build, including @Coejro for the OG aluminum ADL trigger guard, which looks so much better on the silhouette stock than the plastic one I had on there before.

Now question is, do I have the proper NSN rubber band, tan, scope tube attached, on there?

View attachment 8423603View attachment 8423604View attachment 8423605View attachment 8423606

Anything notable about the B&L 10X?

It's features....or why it was used instead of other common for the time optics?

 

[kft101]

Anything notable about the B&L 10X?

It's features....or why it was used instead of other common for the time optics?

I'm unaware of anything notable about the B+L 10X Tactical except that it was one of the tougher made "tactical" scopes accepted into use by the military at the time (1980s to 1990s?), specifically on the XM25 rifles and apparently at least some of these short lived M83 rifles.

Other scopes were actually used on the M83. You can see in the first photo uploaded by 0812guns in this thread's post #2 that the M83 on the table has on it what looks like a Leupold Ultra or Mk4 10X scope with M1 turrets. I have also seen a photo of an M83 with a Unertl 10X on it, but that is not my photo to share.

If others with first hand or other real world knowledge on these details want to share, please do.

 

[Skunk]

Hope you don’t mind!

 

[kft101]

Hope you don’t mind!View attachment 8424123

Thank you for sharing this!

 

[Skunk]

I don’t even remember where I got the picture…

 

[USMCSGT0331]

Hope you don’t mind!View attachment 8424123

That's a great set-up with the Unertl scope! I have photos with the M83 and Unertl before, but I can't share them since they aren't my photos. The Navy SEAL and FBI Unertl MST-100 scopes were typically in the 2xxx serial number range. The SEALs that I talked to about the M83 said that it was essentially their version of an M40A1, but with a McMillan silhouette stock instead of an HTG stock.

 

[260shooter]

Anything notable about the B&L 10X?

It's features....or why it was used instead of other common for the time optics?

I looked through one in the mid 90'as I remember it was exceptionally clear. But I couldn't afford the sky high price tag of $600.00.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

The M83 is tied with the MK13 as my two favorite rifle platforms used by the Navy. I’m also going with a B&L scope.

I was lucky enough to get the rails, barrels, recoil lugs, and bolts from decommissioned M83s. Tracking the serial numbers on the bolts, we discovered that these parts originally came from Navy M40s before being used to build the M83s.

 

[0812guns]

 

[0812guns]

 

[[email protected]]

Do you know who made the barrels for the M83 rifle?

 

[308pirate]

I am amazed at the level of parochialism and duplication of effort in terms of sniper rifles within the US armed forces particularly through the late 70s and 80s.

This M83 rifle apparently brings nothing to the table that an M40A1 doesn't already. It blows the mind that the Navy felt the need to literally re-invent the wheel.

The very minor differences (bipod, pic rail, scope rings) are inconsequential to add to M40s by Crane people.

 

[hlee]

There was something written in another thread about limitations to modifications of inventory rifles. Essentially, a rifle could/can not be modified in a way that cannot be reversed in 24hrs. Yes, bolt on mods are easy, other deviations would not be easily reverted.

Someone thought the differences were important. Never underestimate the ability of the govt to spend money.

 

[308pirate]

There was something written in another thread about limitations to modifications of inventory rifles

That's not what I was suggesting

USMC makes M40A1s. They are for all practical purposes identical to M83s. Navy buys M40A1s from USMC and modifies them at Crane. Or Navy gets the M40A1 TDP from USMC and makes minor mods to it to adapt it to NSW nees.

Instead they spend the time and money to develop essentially the same thing from scratch.

And then there's the waste of money of everybody buying different scopes that do the same thing.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

I am amazed at the level of parochialism and duplication of effort in terms of sniper rifles within the US armed forces particularly through the late 70s and 80s.

This M83 rifle apparently brings nothing to the table that an M40A1 doesn't already. It blows the mind that the Navy felt the need to literally re-invent the wheel.

The very minor differences (bipod, pic rail, scope rings) are inconsequential to add to M40s by Crane people.

That is very true, but it's not just limited to sniper rifles! Look at all the accurized M16/M4 variations. SOCOM created the Mk12 Mod 1, the USMC created the SAM-R and then used the Mk12 Mod 1. Even within SOCOM, you have the Mk12 Mod 1 vs the 17" SEAL RECCE vs the 15.1" SEAL RECCE rifles. All 3 of these rifles are very close to each other, with only a few minor differences (the largest difference was the 17" RECCE not having a silencer). How about the Colt/FN 14.5" M4's (with quad rail) vs the KAC 14.5" SR16. And don't forget the Crane built 10.3" Mk18 CQBR uppers vs the LaRue Stealth 10.3" uppers.

Even with pistols, the USMC was custom making MEUSOC 1911's, and in the early 1990's Larry Vickers helped create custom 1911's for the Army SF. Also, look at all of the different M14's in Sage chassis that were issued to different branches. The Army M14 EBR and vs the USMC M39 EMR. There's numerous types of Mk14's that were issued to different branches and had slight differences (Navy vs Coast Guard). You also have the SOCOM M25's vs the USMC M14 DMR.

Some of these are different configurations of the same thing, to an extent, and even made by the same gunsmiths (Crane vs Crane). Whereas some of these guns are completely different parallel programs made by different branchs (Crane vs RTE/PWS vs SF armorers, etc.). It was very common for military branches to independently create pretty much the same firearm that another military branch created. These are just a few examples, there are many more if you take the time to research them.

There were a lot of parallel programs that all ended up with guns that were spec'd out the same and functioned the same. The most famous of which (outside of sniper rifles) is probably the Mk12 Mod 1 vs SAM-R. There's not too much difference between the M40A1 and the M83, a few small things and then the different stock pattern. Hell, they both even used a Unertl MST-100 scope! And parallel small arms programs aren't sometimes that's relatively new, this concept goes back centuries! Even close to a century ago, we have parallel programs with different military branches modifying regular 1903 infantry rifles into sniper rifles.

Sorry for the sort of thread derail, but @308pirate does bring up a good point about the parallel small arms programs that were in the US military, which include the topic of this thread, the M83. If someone wants to start a new thread about small arms parallel programs, we could document a lot of these firearms and it would probably be a very interesting historical thread!

 

[ratton]

The Bausch & Lomb 10X Tactical scope is an outstanding for its time (1980's). One of the unique features of the scope is that is has 144 minutes of elevation with a 30mm tube. It is also very robust and the glass is excellent , even by today's standards.

I have owned mine since the 1990's and have breathed new life into it. I put it on my precision 22lr and can dial out to 600+ yards. If you obtain one, it's a keeper: You will not be disappointed.

 

[TorF]

This M83 looks almost exactly like my competition silhouette rifle in th 80'ies.
Only difference are Rem 700 varmint barrel and Weaver T16 to keep the weight down.
Shooting silhouette matches I would score 2 - 3 targets more, out of 40, with the silhouette stock compared to a HTG I also had to the rifle. Shooting prone was much better with th HTG.
However, my best silhouette score with a "military sniper" was shot with a Steyr SSG69 with wood stock and the T16.
Scores were app on average: HTG=28/40, "M83"=30 /40 and SSG69 32/40.
The SSG69 is too fragile in the field so the "M40A1"/HTG was my field configuration with a Kahles ZF69 or different S&B scopes.
If I had built a "M83" with the cheap Rem788 action I would probably have outscored the 700 and SSG due to the extremely short locktime in the 788.

 

[HKSniper11B]

Really awesome and educational thread. @kft101 always researches the most fascinating pieces of sniper history.

 

[kft101]

I think my M83 parts kit is just about complete now…

 

[sinister]

I am amazed at the level of parochialism and duplication of effort in terms of sniper rifles within the US armed forces particularly through the late 70s and 80s.

This M83 rifle apparently brings nothing to the table that an M40A1 doesn't already. It blows the mind that the Navy felt the need to literally re-invent the wheel.

The very minor differences (bipod, pic rail, scope rings) are inconsequential to add to M40s by Crane people.

Not so much parochialism as capacity and availability.

All Marine Corps M40s were custom-built by Precision Weapons Battalion 2112 Armorers and gunsmiths. Their schedules and capacity were full keeping up with internal demand.

Starting in 1985, Army met their requirements by buying the Remington M24, which included ALL second-line and depot-level maintenance.

Navy Special Warfare had/has a much smaller requirement to outfit 10 SEAL Teams. If the Marines said "Sorry, our requirements first," and the SEALs didn't want M24s, Crane was going to meet their requirements with either in-house production or, like the Army, out-sourcing everything from purchase through depot maintenance.

John Unertl wasn't going to sell his Marine scopes outside the Marine Corps and FBI. At one time Leupold (a family-owned company) didn't like the fact they built a scope (M1, M2, and M3) exclusively with the sole purpose to kill people.

Naval Special Warfare and US Army Special Operations Command also fall under USSOCOM. If their requirements exceed what comes from the parent service for free (i.e., M24) they have the option of asking for and using SOCOM's service-like buying ability. Don't confuse conventional force buying processes with SOCOM's.

The Army's recent Mark 22 Barrett rifle system purchase is a good example of Leg Army parent service exploiting USSOCOM/Navy R&D and exercising the military contract option to benefit the larger conventional force.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I actually think it was the other way around with the MK22. The PSR was a flop and they had to have good procurement strategy to get what they wanted fielded and funded. They did the legwork and made an attractive option for the rest or DoD. Getting Big army to buy in saved them a ton of time and money doing their own procurement, while being able to control it to ensure the end state. For a guy on an ODA or in the regiment, you could theoretically have big army pay for it, otherwise it's a Socom funded program. I shot an ISA issued rifle that had the MK5 on it, so I assume they let big army pay for it otherwise SOCOM variant would have had the 735 ATACR. With the wars and OCO funding winding down, along with O&M money shrinking, its a smart long term strategdy to preserve funds for other needs. Just my outside theory.

 

[sinister]

SOCOM hits and misses like anyone else's procurement system.

Mother Army would have NEVER bought a bigger than 300 Win Mag system if it wasn't for USASOC.

It's always better to have Mother Army buy gadgets and modify / hot-rod them for commando purposes. Limited funds go farther when someone else's money buys the base gun.

Big Army's sniper modernization benefits when they concentrate on requirements -- program modifications can go much quicker.

 

[sinister]

Besides the M83 there were a few other SOF rifles with McMillan (Anschutz-style) Prone and Baker Special stocks.

Delta plank-holder Sergeant Major (retired) Norm Crawford shot for years with McMillan Baker Special stocks at work, Camp Perry, and as a member of the United States Palma Team. I believe Norm still holds the Camp Perry Palma Match record score shot with an M14.

A 7mm with Proof Research Carbon fiber-wrapped barrel in a Baker stock:

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

When I worked for the navy we had a few of the old NSW rifles in the collection. Mcmillian wood stocked rifles in 300wm and 50 cal. I know there were more in storage at Crane in indiana and at the Navy seal/udt museum.

Most had early leupolds on them like fixed power 10 ans 16x.

I wish I snagged more pictures of them. I know they are still there, might call my old boss and see if he will let me do a tour. I would like to do some press style documentation of some items down there. There is like years worth of gun rag article material.

 

[2ndPanzer]

I believe Norm still holds the Camp Perry Palma Match record score shot with an M14

Sent you a message.

 

[kft101]

Snagged a different scope option for the M83 build. At this rate, I may never actually get this darn thing finalized and built.