Here is the current Army SDM rifle as built by the AMU for the 3rd ID.  I took these photos while at the SDM Instructor Course at Benning in Nov.


This is a close up of the right side  - DD sleeve w/ steel collar - note 4 screw FSB


Close up of the Left side w/ AN/PEQ2A


ACOG detail - note 100mph tape over the fiber  optic - the reticle is waaay too bright and is a common complaint - the triangle looses its sharpness and is very tiresome to look at.  Alot of shooters prefer the std crosshair reticle.  Note BUIS - Picatinny type or Matech 600m adj.


Detail of DD tube - note deep barrel flutes - barrels are Douglas 20" w/ std flash hiders, 1/8 SS w/ 12 flutes that the AMU does in house.


Fore end detail - note fluting, bipod QD assy, 4 screw FSB


Rcvr detail - rifle started life as an FNMI M16A2 - the "2" was X'd out with an overstamp.  Triggers are the semi auto 2 stage match units from KAC, all select fire components are stripped out and the pin hole in the rcvr is left open.


Close up of ACOG w/ taped fiber optic and the Tenebrex Kill Flash.  Optis are all unit owned / supplied.


More fore end detail - FSB's were not F marked


Final pic w/ detail of the PEQ2A - these are deadly when used to their full capabilities - married to the rifle and zero'd.


Hope this clarifies and shed light on the current SDM rifle.  
As mentioned earlier, there have been various effort to get some sort of SDM Rifle into various units and as such M14's are being pulled out of the woodwork.  Like LTC Liwanag said - the M14 is not supportable and is not the answer in line units - SOF yes, but not across the board.  2 of my good friends were up at Ft Drum TDY - bulding M14's for the 10th Mtn.  The headaches and frustrations to get part, fixtures and qualified people to help build them was a nightmare.
OBTW - those M14's were equipped with 10X Super Sniper scopes on ARMS mounts and GI barrels.  Definitely a stop gap effort.

1SGA

Got any detailed close up pics, HA, just kidding, thanks for sharing those are great pics, and that sure does look like what I would expect out of the AMU.

Oh yeah, so are you saying that the rifle is supplied less optic, and the unit that receives the rifle decides what to stick on top?

Yes, that is right.  I believe (IIRC) that there is an RFI for ACOG's (TA31 - alot of them) and these would end up at unit level.  When the unit gets the rifle back, there is no scope on it and a case of Mk262 is also supplied.
Personally, I do not like the chevron at all.  I prefer the cross hair.  The chevron has it's place and is more geared to the CQB fight and is a quicker reticle, but for precision, (kind of what the SDM concept is all about) the reticle is far better.   I shot with a TA01 and with the 77gr ammo, it was very close to matching the ballistics in the reticle.  Never had to hold off or click more than 1moa back to 500yds.
One of the certification letters that is returned with the rifles showed a typical accuracy standard: at 300m - avg of a number of groups was 3.09" or about .9 moa.  (I can't remember right now, but it was either 5 - 10 shot groups or 10 - 5 shot groups.)

1SGA

1SGA, thanks for the great photos and information on the SDM.

1SGA,

Always nice to get front line opinions of weapons and systems.  Thanks for the input and thanks for your service.

I finally get a closeup look at an FN lower and I can't hardly see it.  Nice camo job, though.

Quoted: I finally get a closeup look at an FN lower and I can't hardly see it.  Nice camo job, though.

Not must to look at huh?

Quoted: Not must to look at huh?

Nope, not really, but thanks for the pic.  I just wanted to know what it looked like.

Mongo,
Thanks - appreciate it.  Email me your fax number and I'll fax the chamber/ reamer prints - I don't have access to a scanner.

OBTW - cammo on the DMR is unit level.  

Added note as well for general consumption - there is a segment of the "tactical" community that sometimes looks down their collective noses at the NM competition shooters.  It should be noted that almost all of the "cool" stuff we now have that are becoming staples in real operational situations was developed and perfected by the competition folks - most notably the super guys down at the AMU - both the shooters and the shop guys who are some of the most forward thinkers (and do-ers) around.  Tip of the hat to those guys.

1SGA

Quoted: Mongo, Thanks - appreciate it.  Email me your fax number and I'll fax the chamber/ reamer prints - I don't have access to a scanner. OBTW - cammo on the DMR is unit level.   Added note as well for general consumption - there is a segment of the "tactical" community that sometimes looks down their collective noses at the NM competition shooters.  It should be noted that almost all of the "cool" stuff we now have that are becoming staples in real operational situations was developed and perfected by the competition folks - most notably the super guys down at the AMU - both the shooters and the shop guys who are some of the most forward thinkers (and do-ers) around.  Tip of the hat to those guys. 1SGA

I didn't realize who this was until a little bit ago.

Here's the roughed out barrel blank I'll be finishing with your help, of course.

Bottom line, gentlemen, is that the M14 is an out of date, unsupportable rifle that is being issued by various commands, in various states of accuracy as a stop gap measure until the Army finalizes the configuration of the M16 SDM Rifle.

The M14 is "unsupportable" because it'd be too cheap to support a superior rifle design that wouldn't fail in the field. The contractors want us to keep buying overpriced garbage to fix/augment their overpriced garbage.

The soldiers in Taiwan that were issued T-57s thoroughly enjoyed using those rifles.

Quoted: Bottom line, gentlemen, is that the M14 is an out of date, unsupportable rifle that is being issued by various commands, in various states of accuracy as a stop gap measure until the Army finalizes the configuration of the M16 SDM Rifle. The M14 is "unsupportable" because it'd be too cheap to support a superior rifle design that wouldn't fail in the field. The contractors want us to keep buying overpriced garbage to fix/augment their overpriced garbage. The soldiers in Taiwan that were issued T-57s thoroughly enjoyed using those rifles.

Like the man said, there ain't no way you are going to get the AMU to build precisian M14 rifles again.  Just not practical for Big Army use.  Really, you got an idea on how the Big Army could field a accurate M14 at squad level?

Thanks for the great pics 1SGA, they seem to be linked to something else (I was hoping some gargantuan pics) but the links don’t seem to go anywhere.

metroplex, I’m with ya 100%, I think the M14 is a better weapon than the M16 any day (we can argue about this somewhere else guys), but I imagine 1SGA is completely right, supporting my small collection if M14s is tough enough, I can’t imagine what the Army has to do. Unfortunately, most of our supply of M14s and parts has been sold off or destroyed and the manufacturing equipment is long gone. The guys at the AMU are probably having to scavenge used parts and there probably aren’t enough trained armorers to keep up on things; I know Ron Smith is certainly doing his part, but he’s just one guy with a few employees.


This is what has happened to most of the M14 supply.

That fluting is outrageous!  I've always liked fluted barrels, primarily as an aesthetic feature, but if the AMU is taking the time and effort to mill that many flutes at that depth into high quality barrels, I guess they must have some very good reasons in doing so.

Now it's time to revive the "fluting versus non-fluting" thread and see what the experts here say.

Quoted: www.fototime.com/17D1E75B872F47E/orig.jpg This is what has happened to most of the M14 supply.

Hey, those are Crane modified M14's, I had a couple of those.

It takes SFC McMahon about 30 minutes to flute each barrel on the FADAL CNC lathe.  The barrel can be fat/heavy under the DD rail, and the flutes take off weight.  If the barrel is profiled it would weigh the same but be a little "Whippy" as far as vibration.  The rifle itself weighs 7.92 pounds, empty (no optic or bipod).  It balances very nicely.

The average 11B Infantry Private goes to Iraq or Afghanistan between 47 and 56 days out of AIT.  Who teaches him anything to do with an M14?  His NCO, who has never shot one before, either?

What do people not understand about "No more M14 parts being made?"  You can keep a '55 Chevy going forever, as long as you can 1) afford the time and effort to find parts, and 2) you're willing to pay what the man's asking.

Ditto to what Sinister wrote.

Some startling figures to consider:
1,376,031 M14's produced....
750,000 were destroyed under the 1996 Authorization Act
575.000 were sold to foreign governments

Right now there are only about 120,000 left in service - that includes all the NM rifles too....
As of mid 2003 - there were only 96,000 left in the US Army in Cond A readiness.

Bear in mind too that the M14 rcvr has a life span - they do wear out / break.  Ref an number of years ago when SGT Julia Watson lost the national service rifle championship when her rcvr cracked and had to go to a back-up rifle.

The reality is there are no more parts available - the only way to keep those running is to canibilize the the remaining pieces.  

As I posted earlier - 2 very good friends were TDY this summer to Ft Drum to build M14 DMR's - for the 10th Mtn Div. it was an insanely frustrating experience - no parts, tools, fixtures and people that KNOW how to build one - just don't exsist - at least not in the numbers needed to supprt such a maint. intensive system.
Even the M25 system which was developed  by the late MSG Tom Kapp at Ft Devens w/ the 10th SFG(A) was worlds better than the M21 - BUT it was still considered a 600yd rifle and too fragile to even jump.

Those that wrench on M14s know that there is certain amount of art (voodoo) required to get one to shoot.  It takes years of experience and that cannot be garnered from a AR15 Betty Crocker recipe type build.  ANYONE who has a slight understanding of rifles /tools can assemble a tack driving AR - AR-15s are the small block Chevies of the gun world.

The M14 is a classic, but it is obsolete.  Don't get me wrong - I love 'em, but they are not optic friendly - both in mounting and beating the snot out of scopes (recoil & counter recoil).  Bear in mind too that the US Gumint sold off virtually all the machinery to Tiawan - I couldn't even imagine the cost to resurrect such a program.   Coupled again - and I will echo what Sinister said - there is NO SME base in the service today.  The only use today that would not be a stop gap is use with SOCCOM units in ver mission specific, low density roles.

As an aside note - more funny than sad - I competed in the 2001 US Army's International Sniper comprtition at Ft Benning......with an M25.  I had the option of a 24, but based on some of the multiple target and speed events, I opted for the semi auto.  Of all the shooters there - only the SF types even knew what I had.  I had questions from dozens of infantry division snipers that wanted to know what I was shooting. ......

The supposed void left by the loss of the M14 system can be filled and exceeded by AR10 / SR25 systems that share parts commonality w/ M16's, offer better mounting options, are more reliable (yes I said that)  - reliability on an aneseptic firing line at a HP match is a far cry from reliability in 130deg with 30 mph sandstorms......  Trust me - been there done that.

1SGA

Not an argument against anything said above but-

The Navy is instituting a large-ish scale rebuild of M-14s to make "Enhanced Battle Rifles" or "Mk14s", correct?  I'm guessing these would be issued/used much like the way you described M25s in the army- in a limited role in special operations groups only.

Absolutely - but also do the math - the Army owns 96,000, that only leaves 24,000 for all other sevices, LEA, Fed Agencies etc.  The Marines own a fair share (yes I know they fall under the Dept of the Navy) but in reality / perspective about what constitutes a large scale program - we may be only talking about 5 or 6000 rifles....
Also, of the 120,000 total - nearly 20,000 are M14 NM rifles....

To put things in further perspective - we lost over 900,000 M16's in Viet Nam......
We detroyed 350,000 "excess" M16's in 1996 under that horrific Defense Authorization Act.

I would also bet - that when all these rebuilds take place, that every one of those rcvr's will be gauged and those failing will be scrapped (destroyed) further reducing the population of M14's.  (and also freeing up parts to assemble other rifles)

As an aside,
Take a look at the prices a transferable M14 is commanding these days.  There is at last count between 80 and 100 of them and when one of them comes up for sale, they are in the $10,000 + range.

1SGA

Navy EBR

The barrel isn’t USGI, but all the rest of it (op-rod, bolt, trigger pack, etc.) is all M14

Quoted: The supposed void left by the loss of the M14 system can be filled and exceeded by AR10 / SR25 systems that share parts commonality w/ M16's, offer better mounting options, are more reliable (yes I said that)  - reliability on an aneseptic firing line at a HP match is a far cry from reliability in 130deg with 30 mph sandstorms......  Trust me - been there done that.

1SGA,
You are the first person with experience that indicates the Stoner/AR system is more reliable than the M14 system (and with with the AR10/SR25 no less).

Could you comment more on this, perhaps share some insight?

Thanks,
Forest

Quoted: The average 11B Infantry Private goes to Iraq or Afghanistan between 47 and 56 days out of AIT.  Who teaches him anything to do with an M14?  His NCO, who has never shot one before, either?

Uhhh,
A. That's why we usually select an experianced soldier to be a designated marksman.
B. This isn't Vietnam, we're NOT shipping whole replacement platoons to theater.
C. Ft. Benning GA turns out what, something like 15,000 Infantrymen a year? Active Duty, Guard, Reserves do you really believe that 50 days is a mean average time before an FNG deploys? More like 50 days after completing AIT he has taken 30 days of leave, reported to his new duty assignment, inprocessed, and is fully availible for duty. Having said that, I reported to my first duty station (Germany) in Jan 91, and found myself in Incirlik Turkey 5 days later........


FWIW- As part of the WA Army National Guard, we recieved 3 M-14's (Non-select fire versions) as part of the RFI. Each was a sorry specimen, and needed some TLC just to smooth out the triggers, and get them to "run" good. We also did recieve ACOG's, Mossy M500's and KAC Rail systems for the M4's and A4's, as well as rails for the SAWs and M240B's.
After being "In-theater" for 2 months we recieved 2 cases of M118 LR Ball. The -14's performed much better with this ammo, and still leaves me as a fan of the .30 at the end of a day.

An "Aside"-IMHO- The equipment is misused/misallocated in many cases. We come from a Mech MTOE, so only 12 M4's for us, they are NOT in the hands of the door kickers, but issued to the senior leadership, at each platoon level. For the most part, yes, the selection criteria for the Designated Marksman was based on how well a guy shot, but very little to no additional time spent, pre-deployment, with our shooters getting coached by anyone, let alone solid range time to learn how to engage at 3-600M.
It has worked out, most of the guys who are our designated marksmen are either HighPower Shooter/Competitors, Country boys, or have a significant amount of military background and schooling in addition to 40/40 on a qual range.

I can vent all night, and point out specific problems, but that's not my call. It's sufficient to note that we are doing the best with what we have,

The quote about graduating AIT and deploying comes directly from the Infantry Center, not me.  We've got troops assigned to even the 2nd Infantry Division (Korea) in Iraq.

The 81st Separate Enhanced Brigade, Washington Army National Guard completely re-worked their M14 National Match competition rifles to Marine M14 DMR configuration (McMillan M3A stocks, Leupold M3LR scopes).  Those already sniper qualified or Guard high-power competitor-trained took them with them.  That contrasts with most Guard and RA units that are getting and using M14s for the first time.

I'm not arguing we're not trying to do the best we can with what we have.  The M14 that Battle Lab got from Anniston to use in the DMR comparison test of the rack grade M16A4, rack grade M4, 3rd ID/AMU DMR, and rack-grade M14 (all with RFI ACOGs) was a beautiful Harrington and Richardson with wood that looked like furniture and perfect parkerizing.  It shot consistent 7 MOA groups at 300 meters.

Both the AMU and the National Guard Marksmanship Training Unit are giving DM instruction.  It is something that should have always been given, instead of being re-discovered once a long shooting war started.

I apologise in advance as this is long.
This thread seems to have morphed into a discusion on the M14 vs AR platform - so let me define some of the parameters than I based my opinions on.
Let me preface all of this by saying - I love the M14 - wish I had a hundred of them....... but

Big breath...

In a historical context, the M14 was obsolete before it was even adopted.  Far better designs existed and are still in use today - ie the FN FAL (T48).  That being said, the M14 failed miserable at what it was expressly designed to do - provide select fire capability for every grunt that was humping it.  Ever shoot a full auto M14 ?? - all I can say is HANG ON.  They overheated, broke parts and generally shook themselves apart.  That is why the Army installed selector locks on virtually all M14s.

Now, if we fast forward to the M14 in its glory days - NM shooting - it was a HUGE success.  But again - put it's success in the correct historical context - it was replacing 30-06 NM M1's - sound familiar ?  Just like when the M16/AR15 knocked the 14 off it's perch. (lighter recoil, more accurate, mag fed....)

The application that the M14's are being debated over, are off shoots from the NM program - specifically an accurate intermediate range(300 - 600yd) semi precision rifle.  It is fruitless to debate the M14 as a line weapon - so we are only arguing the application as a DMR / back-up sniper rifle.

Anyone who has truly 'smithed an M14 - knows that as I said previously - it is as much art and voodoo as it is straight mechanical / machine work.  The fixtures required to get one set up are complicated and expensive - I am not talking about building 1/2 a dozen a year, but rather administering a program.  The M14 requires knowledge, experience and fixtures to address such things as bbl / op-rod centerlining, properly setting up / unitizing gas systems, bedding, barrel installation, sight assembly etc etc.
Some of the tricks that are voodoo-ish are front ferrule tension - different for wood stocks vs synthetic stocks.  Bedding materials that won't break down with cleaning solvents.  Bedding needs to be refreshed as well.  Tom Kapp of the 10th SFG(A) developed a specialized steel liner that obsoleted the bedding - but the installation and the parts was ridiculous in cost - justifiable for a dozen rifles in an ODA , but to equip a Stryker Bde??  The list goes on and on.  

The scope mounting problems for an M14 are legendary - the original mounting points were an afterthought.  Yes some outstanding mounts have been produced (BPT) but we're talking some $ here.  Also - top end quality optics are a must.  The rifle's recoil impulse and the counter recoil is worse than a piston air rifle.  These things are death on scopes.  Another problem is the reciever flex and movement - one point scope mounts are nothing more than a decoration.  2 point mounts are better, but still very prone to zero shift.  The ONLY way is to use a three point mount and these require experience to install and maintain.  Even with the best mounts, removing your optic is a 50/50 deal.  It may reinstall back to zero - it may not.  Not true for a bolt gun or a flat top AR.

Now - the AR series - as most can attest, anyone with about an hour of instruction and about 5 tools could put together an AR system in about 40 mins.    Virtually every part can be spit out enmass via CNC mrfg.  Almost every component can be removed / replace at operator level.  

Lets put it in a hypothetical situation - bbl replacement.  An M14 DMR and an M16 DMR show up at the unit armorer - both with the same complaint - bbl shot out.  The E4 armorer checks each with his trusty TE gauge, and yep sho'nuff both are ready for new tubes.  The M14 has to be evacuated to Depot Level Maint for a bbl replacement and the required rebedding, 6 weeks at best - go draw an M16A2 while it's gone......meanwhile....
The good SPC pops off the upper - installs his $20 rcvr insert, puts it in the vice - well you get the picture - 30mins later he is standing in front of the shooter asking him to sign for his rebarreled AR.

The AR10 has been successfully deployed and is in use in Iraq, Afghanistan and in the middle east - The IDF uses them.  The same is true with the SR25.  The Rangers use them VERY effectively.  When I shot my M25 in the sniper competition - the speed events and multiple target engagements caused me zero anxiety - as I knew I could eat the bolt guns alive - what did cause me heart burn were the Ranger teams with SR25's.   ANd I might add - I lost a significant amount of points when I had to remove my day optic (MkIV M3) and install a PVS 10 - no option to check zero's had to shoot it in the match and adj fire - same when I went back to my day optic - shoot the mact and rezero as I went - MAN DID THAT SUCK!!

The simple design of the big chassis AR's is more accurate - rotary bolts, complete axial alignment of all operating parts - no piston/plug/gas system to clean.  Easier recoiling, better suited for suppressors, taylor made for in field caliber conversions etc etc.

The M14 is also highly susceptible to dust.  Those that have deployed and spent time in the sand box are nodding their heads in agreement.  The dust is like talcum powder and is of a high mineral content.  It is death on moving parts.  The M14 has nearly every major assembly exposed to this - the only area in an AR is the bolt and I personaly never had a problem.  The dust cover help to a small degree and the use of a mini tampon in the chamber kept the dust out of there too - just pull the charging handle, pull the string and viola - round in - in a  clean chamber.  
Yeah, ya gotta clean all the time - but I'd rather be popping my AR apart - knowing I could get it back together in a about 90 seconds vs having my M14 in a dozen peices on my poncho liner with a dust storm coming at you.

I personally saw M14's in every configuration you could think of.  One unit was a Army Nat. Guard Cav troop from WA or OR.  They had M14's that some one in the unit had a buddy who "tuned" them up.  The shooters I talked to had ZERO experience with the rifle - didn't even know how to service the gas system - or that it even needed servicing.  What is going to happen when that guy is providing overwatch security for a patrol and he has a stoppage?  None of his NCO's had any experience with it either.  I tried giving him and the other two shooters in his plt some night classes - quick down and dirty stuff, just to keep them up and running.

The only point I will concede is the magazine issue - the SR25's - it's not an issue.  But the use of the modified M14 mag was a gamble - but it eventually paid off, and it certainly went through teething problems - But I personally own 2 AR10's and they are 99.9% reliable - I have higher confidence in them than I do in the M14's I used to have issued (one of which was a TRW NM)

In closing - and I am sorry this is so long, but there is a lot to be said - the AR10/SR25 is a reliable, accurate, easily serviced, inexpensive, infinitely supportable system.  The M14 on the other hand does have one thing that the AR's will never have - the emotional attachment of America's last wood stocked service rifle.  There is something that is infintely and irrevocably appealing in that.
Still a fan, but would rather take an AR10 than a 14 on my next trip to the desert.

1SGA

Quoted: The quote about graduating AIT and deploying comes directly from the Infantry Center, not me.  We've got troops assigned to even the 2nd Infantry Division (Korea) in Iraq. The 81st Separate Enhanced Brigade, Washington Army National Guard completely re-worked their M14 National Match competition rifles to Marine M14 DMR configuration (McMillan M3A stocks, Leupold M3LR scopes).  Those already sniper qualified or Guard high-power competitor-trained took them with them.  That contrasts with most Guard and RA units that are getting and using M14s for the first time. I'm not arguing we're not trying to do the best we can with what we have.  The M14 that Battle Lab got from Anniston to use in the DMR comparison test of the rack grade M16A4, rack grade M4, 3rd ID/AMU DMR, and rack-grade M14 (all with RFI ACOGs) was a beautiful Harrington and Richardson with wood that looked like furniture and perfect parkerizing.  It shot consistent 7 MOA groups at 300 meters. Both the AMU and the National Guard Marksmanship Training Unit are giving DM instruction.  It is something that should have always been given, instead of being re-discovered once a long shooting war started.

The time span sounded fishy to me.....I think ITC is using some funny numbers......

I got to tell you, that we never recieved rifles with McMillan stocks or Leupold scopes, in any of the line companies.....our Remingtom's went back to the factory for a rebuild, and we never saw them again, as they went to Bn. I'm sure the rifles WERE reworked. Now most of them sit, resting in Balad, rather than in use here in Baghdad.

While ramping up for this deployment, our MTU guys worked their tails off, but there was never any time or training for DM's...Snipers only.

7MOA huh?

1SG- Well said, a very good read.

Thank you, 1SGA for a thoughtful and informative post.

We could use more like you on ARFCOM.

What a great writeup

Quoted: We could use more like you on ARFCOM.

+1

You can say that again.

Thanks for the writeup 1SGA.