Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/21/2004 9:34:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/21/2004 9:36:32 PM EST by StormSurge]
I have seen a few pics of the "SOCOM" type 16" barrel M-14 in use by US troops...and have heard second-hand accounts of them being used by SEALS, Army Spec Ops and Air force servicemen...

Now here's my question if this is true...Why?

OK, a 308 rifle has its uses, and would be uncontrollable on full-auto, so a civilian model would work...but, are our guys really trusting their lives to a product made by Springfield Armory? And wouldn't an AR-10 type rifle be better than an M-14?

Link Posted: 8/21/2004 9:50:33 PM EST
Originally Posted By StormSurge:
I have seen a few pics of the "SOCOM" type 16" barrel M-14 in use by US troops...and have heard second-hand accounts of them being used by SEALS, Army Spec Ops and Air force servicemen...

Now here's my question if this is true...Why?

OK, a 308 rifle has its uses, and would be uncontrollable on full-auto, so a civilian model would work...but, are our guys really trusting their lives to a product made by Springfield Armory? And wouldn't an AR-10 type rifle be better than an M-14?

.308 hits harder at a longer distance out. Also a civilian model is already on the market. Check last months issue of AMERICAN RIFLEMAN for a write up. The troops have been trusting their lives with M-16's cobbled togethor by Colt since Vietnam.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 9:51:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By StormSurge:
I have seen a few pics of the "SOCOM" type 16" barrel M-14 in use by US troops...and have heard second-hand accounts of them being used by SEALS, Army Spec Ops and Air force servicemen...

Now here's my question if this is true...Why?

OK, a 308 rifle has its uses, and would be uncontrollable on full-auto, so a civilian model would work...but, are our guys really trusting their lives to a product made by Springfield Armory? And wouldn't an AR-10 type rifle be better than an M-14?





.308 hits harder at a longer distance out. Also a civilian model is already on the market. Check last months issue of AMERICAN RIFLEMAN for a write up. The troops have been trusting their lives with M-16's cobbled togethor by Colt since Vietnam.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 9:53:43 PM EST

The troops have been trusting their lives with M-16's cobbled togethor by Colt since Vietnam


Ain't that the truth!
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 10:00:03 PM EST
The pics I have seen look more like the 18" Scout model to me ?
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 10:35:51 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 11:23:06 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 9:32:45 AM EST
Those could be personal weapons for all you know...
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 9:47:28 AM EST
Terminal performance.
Why do you think the military is trying the 70grain "OTM" bullets?
They need to drop rag heads like a sack of shit, not dump a mag of little holes into them.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 9:53:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By StormSurge:
OK, a 308 rifle has its uses, and would be uncontrollable on full-auto, so a civilian model would work...but, are our guys really trusting their lives to a product made by Springfield Armory?

No, they are trusting their lives to GI Spec M14s not commercial semi-autos

And wouldn't an AR-10 type rifle be better than an M-14?

No. M14s have a proven track record of remarkable real work reliability. AR10s DONT.
M14s are in the inventory right now, AR10s ARENT





what he said.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 9:55:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:
Those could be personal weapons for all you know...



Cannot be. Taking a personal weapon to combat is not allowed.

Link Posted: 8/22/2004 10:04:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By Stottman:

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:
Those could be personal weapons for all you know...



Cannot be. Taking a personal weapon to combat is not allowed.




Riiiiiight.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 10:54:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Stottman:

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:
Those could be personal weapons for all you know...



Cannot be. Taking a personal weapon to combat is not allowed.




But the unit itself could buy them in small numbers.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 11:35:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/22/2004 11:41:00 AM EST by Ross]

I have seen a few pics of the "SOCOM" type 16" barrel M-14 in use by US troops...and have heard second-hand accounts of them being used by SEALS, Army Spec Ops and Air force servicemen...

Now here's my question if this is true...Why?



One of the key factors in this is hearing second-hand accounts of what any SEAL, or Special Forces, or even the Air Force is using. Not falming you in anyway, as you actually quantified the statement, whereas someone of lesser responsibility would have simply passed it on as gospel, like so many other internet rumors. The simple fact remians that if it's second-hand, with no other proof, it's about the same as rumor. The fact that it's also "SEALs...et.al." simply drives it automatically into the rumor side of credibility.

Here's how a rumor like this gets started:

US Navy SEALs use the M14. They have for a very long time, and I've personally seen them using them training here in Virigina Beach, VA. Now they use them full-auto, and I've seen a guy unload a 20 rd mag under what I consider pretty good control. Certainly good enough for government work. Far better than your normal GI, and certainly far better than me, but it showed that if you practiced, and had the right technique, you could do alright with one (they run VERY fast wide open by the way)

Now, consider that SEALs have used the M14 in the desert before, for range, and penetration reasons. There's the famous pic of the DPV in Kuwait with the M14 in the side rack, and I'm sure you wouldn't have to look far to find a pic of a SEAL with an M14 in open terrain.

Now, consider that the SEALs chopped the M60 machinegun down. Making it lighter, easier to handle, and just more suited to their purpose. It would not take much of a stretch for some bright guy to figure out that chopping down an M14 would give him the same benifits in a lighter package. I mean why not? Given the in-house capability of the Navy to produce such a cut-down rifle, would it not make sense that some M14's already in USN service have their barrels bobbed, so they can be used on-board a ship, in a helicopter, from a vehicle, really all those good reasons? Heck, the armorer may have been looking through the Springfield Armory, Inc. sales brochure and saw a Bush rifle and said, "Hey, that's cool, it'd be a piece of cake too." and made some.

1) We already know the services use the M14.

2) We already know the services modifiy weapons, often by making them smaller and lighter.

3) The simple fact that SA, Inc makes a short M14-type, does not mean that the appearance of a M14 with a bobbed barrel must mean it was made by SA, Inc.

It would not be too much of a leap to assume that the short M14's you see, if you actually see a pic of one, are simply short M14's and not new production SA, Inc.

SA, Inc also sold folding stocks, etc, and several of these wouldn't be too hard for a unit to purchase. About as easy as buying Camelbacks really.

So the answer to the first part of your question is: It's quite possibly true, probably so they can deploy the rifle easier on ships, from helicopters, from "technicals", and in cities (the exact enviroment where we are fighting).


OK, a 308 rifle has its uses, and would be uncontrollable on full-auto, so a civilian model would work...but, are our guys really trusting their lives to a product made by Springfield Armory? And wouldn't an AR-10 type rifle be better than an M-14?



As I mentioned before, these guys do alright controlling one on full auto. Your average GI won't get it done, but if they were average GI's, they wouldn't be in these type units.

As for why the M14 over the AR-10, the answer would be that the M14 is already in the system. Everything for it, from cleaning kits, to magazines, to parts (what few left) to whatever is in the supply chain somewhere. The AR-10 is not. Anything you need, except for ammo, and that M14 cleaning kit, has to come from a sole source private company, bought outside the system. The M14 is already there in the arms room if that unit. How are you going to justify buying 12 AR-10s, when you have 50 M14s in your arms room? Units like this get to buy all sorts of neat toys, but there still is a limit to what they're going to get. When you start buying expensive stuff, and not just guns, but vehciles, gear, etc. you have to start watching where it goes to make sure you really have what you need and NOT what looks neat in pics.

The fact that it's a short M14 doesn't make it automatically a SA, Inc product, so there may be no worries at all about relying on SA,Inc quality as they probably aren't. They're probably relying on the real USGI TRW, H&R, and SA quality.

Now, would the AR-10 be better? It really doesn't matter too much. There are programs going on now to provide SOCOM with a rifle that makes bigger holes. When that's done, it won't matter what is what, as SOCOM will have what it wants. Until then, they'll just make do with what's available now.

Ross
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 11:43:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/22/2004 11:45:24 AM EST by OLY-M4gery]
Military has a literally tons of low use M-14's squirelled away.

They have what 23 AR-10's?

Probably cheaper for them to rework M-14's to M-14 SOCOM, M-14 SPR, M-14 MGR, or whatever they call the newest mod package, than to buy new AR-10's.

Also marksmen already trained on M-14 can be quickly transitioned to M-14 shorties.

The military has tons of tools, procedures, etc, that are tried and true for maintaining, and operating M-14's.

The Military has armorers trained in M-14 maintainence.

They ain't got none of that for AR-10's. No trained AR-10 shooter, armorers, or procedures.

As a fix to a problem RIGHT NOW, it is probably much easier on all levels to go with a familiar weapon than to switch to a new and different weapon.

Switching horses mid-stream, is a phrase that come to mind.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 11:44:42 AM EST
Most M-14s were destroyed or given to allies but has been said it is the only .308 battle rifle in service in large enough numbers.

I suspect most are S-A only but the special forces prolly use select fire versions.

The real problem is that a lot of parts for the guns were sold or destroyed from what I have read.

CRC
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 12:00:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By CRC:
Most M-14s were destroyed or given to allies but has been said it is the only .308 battle rifle in service in large enough numbers.

I suspect most are S-A only but the special forces prolly use select fire versions.

The real problem is that a lot of parts for the guns were sold or destroyed from what I have read.

CRC



Yes, many were destroyed. The thing is "many" is relative. The military doesn't have enough to reequip whole units with M14's, but that's because they have no intention of doing so. 5.56mm is the service rifle cartridge and that's all there is to it. Even though we see a number of M14's in those pics, just how big a percentage is it really? Even at one a squad, that's only 3 per (Army) platoon, and 9 per company, 27 per battalion, and so on. You're looking at only a few thousand in theater at any one time.

The DoD kept the number of M14's that it thought it needed. The rest got cut up, which is a cirme, or given away, but those were ones the military DIDN'T need. The ones they planned on keeping, they kept. The DoD is the biggest nest of pack-rats ever to grace the planet. If they weren't, we wouldn't still be getting M1's and M1903's from the CMP.

It's a shame what happened to all those fine rifles, but the fact was the military isn't going back to 7.62 as a mainline rifle, so they have enough for their needs. If they need to introduce a battel rifle again for some reason, even a small number, they have plenty of time to develop a new, more modern one, while they use the M14s they have.

Ross
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 12:05:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By Troy:
Let's be very clear: the military is NOT buying guns from Springfield Armory, Inc. They are using M14s manufactured in the late 50s and early 60s. Some are modified, but most are relatively stock.

-Troy



Troy,
During the early part of OIF there were several first hand accounts posted of military units, usually US Army, using unit funds to buy off the shelf M1A's.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 12:10:40 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 12:47:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Troy:
Let's be very clear: the military is NOT buying guns from Springfield Armory, Inc. They are using M14s manufactured in the late 50s and early 60s. Some are modified, but most are relatively stock.

-Troy



Troy,
During the early part of OIF there were several first hand accounts posted of military units, usually US Army, using unit funds to buy off the shelf M1A's.



Yes, and they were accounts posted on the internet, which is always true.

I still call BS on that one.



There were accounts posted by active duty members of this board. Complete with pics.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 1:16:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/22/2004 1:20:57 PM EST by AcidGambit]

Originally Posted By Stottman:

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:
Those could be personal weapons for all you know...



Cannot be. Taking a personal weapon to combat is not allowed.




The guy posted one picture as a source and it doesn't look like combat to me. Show me a "combat" area pic w/ an M1A1 SOCOM and then the issue is more up for discussion. All I see is a guy at the a range wearing an USAF uniform.
FWIW: The new DPMS' .308 have been across the pond too and get good reviews.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 1:20:51 PM EST
Oly-M4, I read that the military wanted to switch to AR10s/SR25s because there is no one in theater qualified to work on M14s anymore. These guys are all retired. It only takes acouple of days to make an M16 armorer qualified too work on its bigger brother.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 1:29:16 PM EST

Military has a literally tons of low use M-14's squirelled away.


No they have a few thousand left.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 1:43:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Troy:
Let's be very clear: the military is NOT buying guns from Springfield Armory, Inc. They are using M14s manufactured in the late 50s and early 60s. Some are modified, but most are relatively stock.

-Troy



Troy,
During the early part of OIF there were several first hand accounts posted of military units, usually US Army, using unit funds to buy off the shelf M1A's.



Yes, and they were accounts posted on the internet, which is always true.

I still call BS on that one.



There were accounts posted by active duty members of this board. Complete with pics.




WOW. I'll look at my M1A a little differently next time I take it out of the safe. That's kind of cool actually.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 1:52:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Military has a literally tons of low use M-14's squirelled away.


No they have a few thousand left.



Try a quarter of a million.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 1:53:40 PM EST
I have a sniper and a squad designated marksman in my squad and they both like new weapons. We just got issued old M24s and are getting used M14s as well (the SDM gets the M14). I don't know of any unit that gets the new SOCOM shiz.

As for somebody trusting Springfield Armory with their lives' I suppose it's up to that guy's unit and who actually set up the purchase of the weapons in question.

Like I said before, we all have cases of "shiny-gear-syndrome" every once in a while. This is especially true if you're shiz is falling apart and isn't likely to get looked at any time soon.

I wouldn't kick any M14 out for eating crackers in bed, if you know what I mean....
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 2:01:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/22/2004 2:02:05 PM EST by Lumpy196]
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 2:17:51 PM EST
what i wouldn't have dont for a battle riffle overhtere it gets really annoying when you shoot and they keep standing. sure the 5.56 is good for headshots and blasting alot of ammo really fast out of a SAW, but i wanted a round that woud stop someone in their tracks and reconsider life. heck even an AK would have been better than that plinker I carried
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 2:21:44 PM EST
I got to handle one of these today. THEY ARE SWEET! Solid as a rock and very comfortable. Good, wide range of optical options. Nice irons too. Very smooth feeling (not the texture). I'd use one too if I had the chance. I tried to trade my PSS off for one
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 6:02:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
There were accounts posted by active duty members of this board. Complete with pics.



Purchased FOR their unit, with government funds?




Yes, and ACOGs to go with them.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 10:32:01 PM EST
I have a friend in a Sniper Unit in Afganistan. They have M-14's. These I can tell you have been VERY effective.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 1:43:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2004 4:12:32 AM EST by rifleman2000]

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Troy:
Let's be very clear: the military is NOT buying guns from Springfield Armory, Inc. They are using M14s manufactured in the late 50s and early 60s. Some are modified, but most are relatively stock.

-Troy



Troy,
During the early part of OIF there were several first hand accounts posted of military units, usually US Army, using unit funds to buy off the shelf M1A's.



HELL, my battalion 1-327 IN is LEASING eight M1As for the snipers, since M14s are not in our inventory. A lot of units are.

Edited to add: They are match grade Springfield M1As, semi-auto only, full length barrel w/ Leopold MK3 scopes.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 2:03:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By StormSurge:
I have seen a few pics of the "SOCOM" type 16" barrel M-14 in use by US troops...




The M1a pictured looks like a M1a Scout Squad rifle to me, they have 18" barrels.

Scout Squad.



SOCOM
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 4:48:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Oly-M4, I read that the military wanted to switch to AR10s/SR25s because there is no one in theater qualified to work on M14s anymore. These guys are all retired. It only takes acouple of days to make an M16 armorer qualified too work on its bigger brother.



Nice come back with the 250,000 figure .

What is the rifle in use in the USN?

What rifle is used during 21 gun salutes, funerals, honor guards, etc?

It is much easier to train people to do something when you can go to the GPO and order up reprints of old M-14 user manuals, armorer's manuals, training course guidlines, etc.

You are right, M16 to M11 (same math AR-15-M16, AR-10 to M11), transition should in theory be very easy. Of course some would want the magic "mil-spec" stamp.....................
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 6:03:32 AM EST
Did you ever think maybe the AF dude is shooting on his off time? Just because you see some guy in uniform shooting, doesnt mean the weapon is issue. The guy in this pictur just doesnt look very AFSOC.

Its possible that units are purchasing M1As off the shelf. It can be done. Units do get credit cards, which they can take down to Jim's Pawn just outside Ft.Bragg and pick up an M1A.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 10:33:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2004 10:34:14 AM EST by Lumpy196]
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 10:41:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Military has a literally tons of low use M-14's squirelled away.


No they have a few thousand left.



Which technically is "Tons"
"A few thousand X What 5-6 pounds each? = Tons
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 10:51:22 AM EST
And just exactly what do you think is wrong with Springfield Armory?
I think they were our first National Armory.
They made and serviced millions of firearms for our troops for about 200 years.
I know they went from a Government Armory to a privately held business years ago, but I still think they are a fine company.

Lots of competition shooters start with a Springfield .45 and trick it out rather than buying the more expensive Colt and still having to trick them out. I have some Springfield firearms and they are superb.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 11:06:03 AM EST
My n00b question for the day.

Does SA have a rep for crappy firearms?

Based on what I've read through this post it would appear so. Just curious, I always thought they were a trustable name, then again the only SA firearms I own were made by Croats.

There is probably another thread on this topic elsewhere... any pointers?

- Gazzy!
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 11:07:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:
And just exactly what do you think is wrong with Springfield Armory?
I think they were our first National Armory.
They made and serviced millions of firearms for our troops for about 200 years.
I know they went from a Government Armory to a privately held business years ago, but I still think they are a fine company.

Lots of competition shooters start with a Springfield .45 and trick it out rather than buying the more expensive Colt and still having to trick them out. I have some Springfield firearms and they are superb.



There is more to a history then just a name!

FWIW, I have shot a full-auto M-14 and anybody that can hit well and handle a M-14 is a bigger man than me! While I have a great deal of respect for what the M14 and M1A can do when properly setup I personally would hope Uncle Sam would put some AR-10 or SR-25 Carbines in inventory. Yea, they don't have the history but that doesn't mean these are not better systems then the rather old M14 design...
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 11:08:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2004 11:10:08 AM EST by macman37]

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:
And just exactly what do you think is wrong with Springfield Armory?
I think they were our first National Armory.
They made and serviced millions of firearms for our troops for about 200 years.
I know they went from a Government Armory to a privately held business years ago, but I still think they are a fine company.

Lots of competition shooters start with a Springfield .45 and trick it out rather than buying the more expensive Colt and still having to trick them out. I have some Springfield firearms and they are superb.



Springfield Armory, Inc., was not our first armory... It's a company that bought the name. In the last couple of years they've had some quality issues. See Battlerifles.net or our own M14/M1a forum for more.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 11:15:10 AM EST
Not to hijack the thread, but what kind of accuracy can you get with the M1A Scout Squad 18" Rifle with the right optics (and assuming you do your job) ?

Link Posted: 8/23/2004 11:21:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:
And just exactly what do you think is wrong with Springfield Armory?
I think they were our first National Armory.
They made and serviced millions of firearms for our troops for about 200 years.
I know they went from a Government Armory to a privately held business years ago, but I still think they are a fine company.

Lots of competition shooters start with a Springfield .45 and trick it out rather than buying the more expensive Colt and still having to trick them out. I have some Springfield firearms and they are superb.




As they say "What's in a name?" Not the same company. The current Springfield Armory is a name that was purchased by a group of investors. The REAL Springfield Armory that you are thinking of ceased operations a long time ago.

Their products vary. Some have been outstanding, others left a little to be desired. As with anything else, I suppose. I don't think cast parts appropriate for military use. A lot of people don't even want them for their own use, even though they would not be subject to the rigors of field operations.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 11:27:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2004 11:28:12 AM EST by Lumpy196]
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 11:29:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By rjroberts:
As they say "What's in a name?" Not the same company. The current Springfield Armory is a name that was purchased by a group of investors. The REAL Springfield Armory that you are thinking of ceased operations a long time ago.




Exactly. ArmaLite is the same way. It's not the original company.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 11:34:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:
[HELL, my battalion 1-327 IN is LEASING eight M1As for the snipers, since M14s are not in our inventory. A lot of units are.

Edited to add: They are match grade Springfield M1As, semi-auto only, full length barrel w/ Leopold MK3 scopes.



LEASING???? Well, whatever works, I guess.

When I was in 2/327th (1988 this was) we got M-14A1's to substitute for our M-21's when we went to JRTC. They were in brand new condition, either never opened or rebuilt and put away. Our guys took them out of the foil wrappers. Hell, a guy in A company (Eric Rudolphs company, BTW) had one marked M-15. Yes, I did examine the receiver.

A couple of my very good friends were in 1/327th in the first Gulf War....it's a great unit with a proud past, and you guys make us all proud to have been part of it at one time or another.

Wishing the "Always First" Brigade good luck whenever you all deploy again!

NO SLACK!
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 11:45:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 11:49:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 11:53:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Military has a literally tons of low use M-14's squirelled away.


No they have a few thousand left.



So about 10 tons then?
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 11:54:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2004 11:55:59 AM EST by AZ-K9]

Originally Posted By Paul:

Originally Posted By DeadSled:
what i wouldn't have dont for a battle riffle overhtere it gets really annoying when you shoot and they keep standing. sure the 5.56 is good for headshots and blasting alot of ammo really fast out of a SAW, but i wanted a round that woud stop someone in their tracks and reconsider life. heck even an AK would have been better than that plinker I carried



But bring a 20 mm onto the playing field normally requires a vechical of some sort. Any weapon that is going to knock a soldier down with one shot is going to take a crew served weapon mounted on a platform of somesort. Newton's laws of physics aren't just suggestions, they're actual laws of nature that can't be broken - really.

Do you really want to get into it over the 5.56 vs. the 7.62x39 because it's only going to make you look really foolish.


Muzzle brakes are a wonderful thing.
Barrett rifles

And I second the request for IN SERVICE PICS of M1's and AR10's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 12:07:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2004 12:09:15 PM EST by krazy_karl]
http://www.imageseek.com/m1a/

is a good source for M14 rifles in current issue.

edited to add:
click on "photo gallery" on left side.
click on "M14 in Action" in center.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top