Armory Sponsor
Posted: 8/9/2010 12:31:33 AM EDT
|
What are the Pros and Cons on the M14 EBR?
Does anybody have one and like it or dislike it? Would it be worth getting one? |
|
It an adequate weapon for the stated requirement, provide effective fire to 550 ms, the cons coming from troops in the field are its it considered heavy for what you get, it has issues with maintainability, accuracy and repeatability.
This is an excerpt from a study done by the army last year in regard to the system. I am sure in a few hours a certain person who is a fan boy of the system will come along and say the troops in the field don't know what they are talking about. FOA Team XI conducted the EBR14 operational assessment with Soldiers operating in and around multiple locations in Afghanistan from 5 December 2008 through 1 January 2009. This assessment is not to be construed as the United States Army Test and Evaluation Command (USATEC) system evaluation report for the EBR14. Per direction of the Army Evaluation Center, surveys were also collected on the legacy M14. 33 EBR users, 6 legacy users. Able Main, Sery Base, FOB Boris, FOB Curry, FOB Fenty, OP Hatchet, OP Honaker-Miracle, COP Joyce, COP Keating, COP Lowell, FOB Monti, FOB Orgun-E, FOB Salerno, and COP Zerok • Maintenance and disassembly • Bipod legs and taking the weapon apart • Maintenance • Heavy and not as accurate as the M24 • Difficult maintenance • Scope Mount • Weight, no operators tools came with the rifle for assembly/disassembly, no one in theater is qualified to perform higher level maintenance, the scope mounts are weak and cause you to lose zero. • The fact that I can’t clean it unless I remove the scope and disassemble the weapon. After removing a scope mount I am supposed to verify my zero by shooting. After shooting I am supposed to clean my weapon. It’s a never ending cycle with this inferior Sage stock system. • Weight – 4 responses • Close quarters and disassembly of the weapon. It’s good to have an Allen Key in your cleaning kit to tighten the nuts. On average it takes 5-10 minutes to completely disassemble the weapon. • Taking it apart • Hard to break down • Hard to clean • Side rail mounts loosen up too easily • Bipod legs fall apart easily • Weight • The magazine can be difficult to load at times, causing a miss-feed with the weapon • Loses zero frequently, too many moving parts on the stock, magazines have issues being locked in quickly, failure to feed/extract with the smallest amount of dust, extremely painful to break down to clean, no adapter for a silencer, scope mount comes loose on patrols. • The length makes covering this terrain a little more difficult. • Not being a sub MOA rifles makes it less accurate than it should be. The weight is hugely increased from the original M14 and that makes a big difference in Afghanistan's rugged terrain and high altitude. The mounting bracket for the scope only attaches to the left side of the weapon, which allows for scope twist whenever it is pushed against. The extremely long barrel makes it difficult to move around in this terrain and nearly useless in MOUT/CQB environment. • Weight, sight acquisition time, difficulty to clean or repair • Close quarters and weight in the EBR stock • It is too much of an inconvenience to find Allen keys to remove the rail system so I can perform maintenance. • Needs to be re-zeroed too much • Needs to be re-zeroed often • Make lighter, Issue tools with weapons, issue night sight with gun, issue extra parts to units for fixing the weapon (there are no parts in theater), • Give it a synthetic stock for ease of takedown, cleaning, weight, balance, and accuracy. • Use a better stock system • Redesign so that disassembly is possible without losing zero, different stock system • The weapon needs to be easier to take apart. • Exchange the Bipod legs with the ones from the SOFMOD kit • Make it lighter and more compact – 2 responses • Different stock; replace the SAGE kit - 2 responses • Provide a more user friendly stock • Lighter stock, provide more durable scope dust covers – 3 responses • Tan colored stock • Find a simple way to take it apart • Use a Troy Industry chassis or the McMillan composite stock with built in adjustable cheek piece to upgrade this system. This does away for the need of a side rail mount. Change to a heavier barrel, lighter trigger pull, aftermarket muzzle break or vortex flash suppressor. Stock flash suppressor has a tendency to jump to one side making hard for follow on shots. Have a butt stock that is level with the top rail of the weapon, this will make check to stock well position easier to obtain. • Night sight • The safety is in an awkward position (inside the trigger guard), difficult to take off and on safe. • Sturdier butt stock as the current one seems to come loose easily • Take away the EBR stock all together. Then original M14 stock was outstanding due to almost no moving pieces, accuracy and easily able to clean the rifle. It makes an effective LRM weapon, but I have doubts of its accuracy and reliability due to how many times I have seen it lose its zero. • Less weight and better quality of the stock in areas dealing with the Allen screws. • I would incorporate a more accurate barrel, use a different scope mount that allows the rail system to extend further and would not loosen up as often. Make adjustments to the magazine or magazine well that would allow a more dependable magazine insertion. Make the weapon lighter with a different stock. • Different style stock and different scope. • Issue Allen keys to take apart. No one in my unit received any when we were issued our EBR14s. Also sound suppressors would be a great addition to the inventory. • Find a different way to attach a rail system. • Better scope • Put a more effective scope on the rifle Legacy M14 is great for flat terrain like Iraq. It doesn't seem very useful to me in a mountainous environment. It’s rare that you see the enemy because of trees and terrain. • Not good for Close Quarter Combat |
This is my rifle.
The M4 EBR stock is based on the Navy SEAL EBR stock. It is lighter and more versatile than the original SAGE stock and can readily be adapted to most version of the M14/ M1A rifle barring those with rear lugged receivers. The bipod is TangoDown, not as adjustable as the Army Harris bipod, it is still much more rugged and dependable. Heck, a Grip-Pod could do better service on these rifles than what the additional weight and headache of the Harris provides. A fine sport rifle bipod, it is not up to the heavy use and abuse the military dishes out, at least not yet. With adapters it also adds over a pound of additional weight verses the TangoDown, more when compared to the Grip-pod. The original SAGE system has been modified to allow faster diassembly/reassemble without the original dome head allen drive screws shearing off or buggering out by replacing them with Allen Drive Mil-Spec cap screws. A factory dome head screw is shown on the bottom of the stock and a mil-spec cap screw is shown securing the stock to the operating rod block at center. 
Several flash suppressor sound moderator/suppressor adaptable muzzle devices are available and can be readily fitted to the Army M14 EBR rifles. Either they don't know this or choose to ignore this fact. This is the Surefire version, current with Navy SEAL rifles. 
This is the Smith Enterprise Direct Connect version and I thought the Army was using these along with SEI sound suppressors. 
I have devised a cleaning and implement case that provides all the necessary tooling and cleaning accessories needed to adequately service the rifle in the field. 
The kit packs into a universal pouch weighing less than 3 pounds. 
A detailed packet listing these improvements was sent by me to Department of Defense free of charge, a citizen doing his civic duty. It was apparently shelved and no response was ever received. The fixes are out there, they choose not to utilize them. |
|
Quoted:
It an adequate weapon for the stated requirement, provide effective fire to 550 ms, the cons coming from troops in the field are its it considered heavy for what you get, it has issues with maintainability, accuracy and repeatability. This is an excerpt from a study done by the army last year in regard to the system. I am sure in a few hours a certain person who is a fan boy of the system will come along and say the troops in the field don't know what they are talking about. FOA Team XI conducted the EBR14 operational assessment with Soldiers operating in and around multiple locations in Afghanistan from 5 December 2008 through 1 January 2009. This assessment is not to be construed as the United States Army Test and Evaluation Command (USATEC) system evaluation report for the EBR14. Per direction of the Army Evaluation Center, surveys were also collected on the legacy M14. 33 EBR users, 6 legacy users. Able Main, Sery Base, FOB Boris, FOB Curry, FOB Fenty, OP Hatchet, OP Honaker-Miracle, COP Joyce, COP Keating, COP Lowell, FOB Monti, FOB Orgun-E, FOB Salerno, and COP Zerok • Maintenance and disassembly • Bipod legs and taking the weapon apart • Maintenance • Heavy and not as accurate as the M24 • Difficult maintenance • Scope Mount • Weight, no operators tools came with the rifle for assembly/disassembly, no one in theater is qualified to perform higher level maintenance, the scope mounts are weak and cause you to lose zero. • The fact that I can’t clean it unless I remove the scope and disassemble the weapon. After removing a scope mount I am supposed to verify my zero by shooting. After shooting I am supposed to clean my weapon. It’s a never ending cycle with this inferior Sage stock system. • Weight – 4 responses • Close quarters and disassembly of the weapon. It’s good to have an Allen Key in your cleaning kit to tighten the nuts. On average it takes 5-10 minutes to completely disassemble the weapon. • Taking it apart • Hard to break down • Hard to clean • Side rail mounts loosen up too easily • Bipod legs fall apart easily • Weight • The magazine can be difficult to load at times, causing a miss-feed with the weapon • Loses zero frequently, too many moving parts on the stock, magazines have issues being locked in quickly, failure to feed/extract with the smallest amount of dust, extremely painful to break down to clean, no adapter for a silencer, scope mount comes loose on patrols. • The length makes covering this terrain a little more difficult. • Not being a sub MOA rifles makes it less accurate than it should be. The weight is hugely increased from the original M14 and that makes a big difference in Afghanistan's rugged terrain and high altitude. The mounting bracket for the scope only attaches to the left side of the weapon, which allows for scope twist whenever it is pushed against. The extremely long barrel makes it difficult to move around in this terrain and nearly useless in MOUT/CQB environment. • Weight, sight acquisition time, difficulty to clean or repair • Close quarters and weight in the EBR stock • It is too much of an inconvenience to find Allen keys to remove the rail system so I can perform maintenance. • Needs to be re-zeroed too much • Needs to be re-zeroed often • Make lighter, Issue tools with weapons, issue night sight with gun, issue extra parts to units for fixing the weapon (there are no parts in theater), • Give it a synthetic stock for ease of takedown, cleaning, weight, balance, and accuracy. • Use a better stock system • Redesign so that disassembly is possible without losing zero, different stock system • The weapon needs to be easier to take apart. • Exchange the Bipod legs with the ones from the SOFMOD kit • Make it lighter and more compact – 2 responses • Different stock; replace the SAGE kit - 2 responses • Provide a more user friendly stock • Lighter stock, provide more durable scope dust covers – 3 responses • Tan colored stock • Find a simple way to take it apart • Use a Troy Industry chassis or the McMillan composite stock with built in adjustable cheek piece to upgrade this system. This does away for the need of a side rail mount. Change to a heavier barrel, lighter trigger pull, aftermarket muzzle break or vortex flash suppressor. Stock flash suppressor has a tendency to jump to one side making hard for follow on shots. Have a butt stock that is level with the top rail of the weapon, this will make check to stock well position easier to obtain. • Night sight • The safety is in an awkward position (inside the trigger guard), difficult to take off and on safe. • Sturdier butt stock as the current one seems to come loose easily • Take away the EBR stock all together. Then original M14 stock was outstanding due to almost no moving pieces, accuracy and easily able to clean the rifle. It makes an effective LRM weapon, but I have doubts of its accuracy and reliability due to how many times I have seen it lose its zero. • Less weight and better quality of the stock in areas dealing with the Allen screws. • I would incorporate a more accurate barrel, use a different scope mount that allows the rail system to extend further and would not loosen up as often. Make adjustments to the magazine or magazine well that would allow a more dependable magazine insertion. Make the weapon lighter with a different stock. • Different style stock and different scope. • Issue Allen keys to take apart. No one in my unit received any when we were issued our EBR14s. Also sound suppressors would be a great addition to the inventory. • Find a different way to attach a rail system. • Better scope • Put a more effective scope on the rifle Legacy M14 is great for flat terrain like Iraq. It doesn't seem very useful to me in a mountainous environment. It’s rare that you see the enemy because of trees and terrain. • Not good for Close Quarter Combat Excellent! I have been saying all this stuff for years and years. Despite all this, we still can enjoy our M14s and M14-EBRs because we are range ninja's. No need to make stuff up about how awesome the platform is like some people do here 
|
|
Quoted:
This is my rifle. http://www.fototime.com/98BC1BA33ED3510/standard.jpg The M4 EBR stock is based on the Navy SEAL EBR stock. It is lighter and more versatile than the original SAGE stock and can readily be adapted to most version of the M14/ M1A rifle barring those with rear lugged receivers. The bipod is TangoDown, not as adjustable as the Army Harris bipod, it is still much more rugged and dependable. Heck, a Grip-Pod could do better service on these rifles than what the additional weight and headache of the Harris provides. A fine sport rifle bipod, it is not up to the heavy use and abuse the military dishes out, at least not yet. With adapters it also adds over a pound of additional weight verses the TangoDown, more when compared to the Grip-pod. The original SAGE system has been modified to allow faster diassembly/reassemble without the original dome head allen drive screws shearing off or buggering out by replacing them with Allen Drive Mil-Spec cap screws. A factory dome head screw is shown on the bottom of the stock and a mil-spec cap screw is shown securing the stock to the operating rod block at center. http://www.fototime.com/0BAAF44BE0CB42F/standard.jpg Several flash suppressor sound moderator/suppressor adaptable muzzle devices are available and can be readily fitted to the Army M14 EBR rifles. Either they don't know this or choose to ignore this fact. This is the Surefire version, current with Navy SEAL rifles. http://www.fototime.com/CFF22545553FC8B/standard.jpg This is the Smith Enterprise Direct Connect version and I thought the Army was using these along with SEI sound suppressors. http://www.fototime.com/21CDADA95D66DC7/standard.jpg I have devised a cleaning and implement case that provides all the necessary tooling and cleaning accessories needed to adequately service the rifle in the field. http://www.fototime.com/7F8AC5A905E741F/standard.jpg The kit packs into a universal pouch weighing less than 3 pounds. http://www.fototime.com/2EDC2CE639AD659/standard.jpg A detailed packet listing these improvements was sent by me to Department of Defense free of charge, a citizen doing his civic duty. It was apparently shelved and no response was ever received. The fixes are out there, they choose not to utilize them. That's a nice rifle and a service kit! |
|
Quoted:
The fixes are out there, they choose not to utilize them. Do you think anyone wants to carry around a 3 lb pack to service a rifle? If it needs all that, than it really is "field ready", its "very specific fight ready" The rifle with all the mods is something that really does not work in the afgan environment, humping weight. Maybe in Iraq it might work for city work in static positions but way too much crap to haul just to clean/service it. I have one of the first sage kits, and though it was the shit, UNTIL I carried it, tried to clean it, add a scope to it. If it gets into mud with those holes, it will make it inoperative really quickly. With a can it balances very poorly in the front. I removed the plastic handguard, used a piece of aluminum to cover the op rod, in a effort to reduce weight/improve handling. Much better options but the M14 lovers wont let it go. Nice write up BTW. |
|
Three pounds is LESS than what two loaded and pouched M14 magazines weight.
That weight is inconsequential to the overall equipment weight an individual soldier carries and a soldier doing a day patrol does not need to carry everything in that kit. ANY weapon dropped into thick mud in a combat environment is going to have function problems until cleaned well, the kit allows that cleaning to take place even if the operator is left in the field for an extended period prior to extraction. USGI Soldiers are MUCH tougher than you make them appear to be, they hump weight and they do it day in and day out, in Afghanistan and many other places. Having used, owned, and worked on M14 type rifles for about twenty five years I will tell you I have yet to find a truely adequate system for installing a scope on these rifles. I am guessing you are an AR10 lover with a beef against the M14 Because DOD is making no inroads to fixing the issues quickly suggests PiP programs such as the SCAR may be heading forward at a faster pace to get high quality full power battle rifles into the hands of soldiers who need them. The M14 has never been considered a permanent fix to the full power individual weapon issue. |
|
Just food for thought.....I have gone thru RFI and been at Bragg when some new piece of gear was left for division to issue out. Each neat little 3oz gadget looks so cool and light sitting on a table but when I filled my ruck with them the combined weight was WAY too heavy.
Try this......take a pack and put a brick in it. Then think up all sorts of things and put 1 brick for each item you think up. Now add food, water, radio batteries, IFAK.....you get the pix..you wind up with one heavy ass pack.............and for what reason? |
|
Quoted:
I am guessing you are an AR10 lover with a beef against the M14 . Nope, each has a place, a M14 with a big ass stock does not belong in a auster location, that cannot be properly clean/assembled with out tools. I love the M14, its just a very mission specific weapon. I have worked for the guys that carry that shit, they say the same tale, just like RONs post above, they agree it is too heavy, hard to use for the price it bears in weight and complexity. M14 lovers will spit on the 308 semi guys for reliability, AR10 guys will put for the weight/scoping/complexity/accuracy argument. The guys Ive seen like the knights over the M14s Quoted:
Three pounds is LESS than what two loaded and pouched M14 magazines weight. That weight is inconsequential to the overall equipment weight an individual soldier carries and a soldier doing a day patrol does not need to carry everything in that kit. . you will not find anyone that works in OEF say that, ever. |
|
One thing that has not been mentioned is how easy AR10's are to fix when they go down. Also they come with a scope mount ready to go. The M14, you have to get magic headspace by lapping a bolt and timing the barrel, which is 10 times harder than swapping an AR10 barrel and bolt. Everything on the AR10 can be replaced by a grunt.
A guy who does not think weight is an issue obviously never had to walk that far, or must be in the ultimate shape. I have seen Triathletes trim material off their shorts and shoes to save every little of fraction of an ounce. Also I want to remind everyone that it is ok to love the M14's, just like we should love our Bow and arrows and slingshots too. Even obsolete weapons are still cool. |
|
Quoted:... Also I want to remind everyone that it is ok to love the M14's, just like we should love our Bow and arrows and slingshots too. Even obsolete weapons are still cool. Oh, gee, thanks ! I couldn't have gone on with my life without that bit of condescending prattle.  |
|
He is right the to state the M14 system is near to obsolete as obsolete can be without actually being obsolete.
He is wrong to think or imply that the SR25 systems are lighter in weight, more reliable, and any grunt can swap parts on the rifle. They aren't and all repairs are done by the Armorer or at depot level. While I advocate a precision field maintenance and repair tool kit, I am also well aware the average combat grunt can't field strip a combat boot without breaking or losing something on or from the boot. Their ability to clean and maintain combat weapons is usually even more embarassing. My ideas are and were offered with small arm specialist troops in mind. |
|
Quoted:
He is right the to state the M14 system is near to obsolete as obsolete can be without actually being obsolete. He is wrong to think or imply that the SR25 systems are lighter in weight, more reliable, and any grunt can swap parts on the rifle. They aren't and all repairs are done by the Armorer or at depot level. While I advocate a precision field maintenance and repair tool kit, I am also well aware the average combat grunt can't field strip a combat boot without breaking or losing something on or from the boot. Their ability to clean and maintain combat weapons is usually even more embarassing. My ideas are and were offered with small arm specialist troops in mind. I know you think you are better than every grunt, and they are not capable, I will beg to differ. Now maybe certain individuals get lazy and they don't want to, or maybe their CO makes them turn in weapons to the arms room for even the simplest repair. But even then, it makes it a lot easier for the unit armorer. A bolt swap will fix most issues when an AR breaks. Everything on an AR is so easy to service that even a monkey can do it. That's not an insult, that's a compliment to the system. For the M14, you need to properly time the barrel and lap the bolt if you make any kind of barrel or bolt swap. An AR-10 will also be lighter with comparable parts (heavy barrel, FF rails). AR10's are also very good with hot loads, they seem to handle it much better than an M14, One hot load to the M14 and say hello to Mr. Bent Op-rod and Hello to Mr Frequent Jams. AR10 is also easy on brass. The Military might not reload, but some of us do so that is another positive. For scope mounting, AR10 is light years ahead because it is already on the Receiver and their is nothing to adjust or break. I think the best M14 option to mount a scope is the Larue SPR-E (or similar) mounted backwards on the Sage top rail. This way you can take off the entire top rail with scope in place to clean the M14, and when you put it back, POI shift will be very minimal and not even noticeable. Extraction on the M14 gets weaker and weaker with the round count, and it does not take a lot of rounds before you have super weak extraction where the shell barely leaves the rile. AR extraction is always positive. The biggest drawback to the M14 System is all the little doo hicky parts that you can't replace yourself. There is nothing on an AR that I think can break out of the blue. Even if it does, you can replace it yourself without tools (for the most part). On an AR, worn extractor? No problem! Broken cam pin hole? No problem! Oprod notch on the receiver broke? Big problem! But that's not an AR issue 
|
|
I shall address that reply from the aptly named GeorgeCostanza,,,
1. I AM a better gunsmith than the average grunt, thank you for recognizing that fact. 2. "Bolt Swaps" are not authorized at the unit level, that is a depot repair. 3. No it isn't, both rifles will average 11-13 pounds+ with a full compliment 4. 173 grain Match ammo is issued for both the SR25 and the M14, the ammunition is identical 5. I agree, haven't found an effective scope platform for the M14 rifle that compares to the excellence of the flattop Armalite receiver. 6. Extraction on ALL semi/full auto rifles gets weaker and weaker with repetitive cycles of the action, both the M14 and the M16/SR25 systems are easily corrected at maintenance level. 7. The number of "doo hicky" parts are comparable on the SR25 and the M14. Both systems require a tool to replace the extractor, a punch for the SR25 and a chamber brush and combo tool for the M14. Both should have the springs and detents/pins replaced at the same time. Break an op rod notch on M14, big problem! Drop an SR25 upper hard onto the lower and break the pivot lug, big problem! What you describe in an uncommon occurrance with a properly machined and hardened M14 receiver, a broken pivot lug on an SR25 is actually more common because the bearing surfaces are smaller and less inclined to take impacts without breaking If the lug doesn't break, the pivot pin can bend preventing the weapon upper from pairing correctly with the lower and having the ability to be relatched.. |
|
Quoted:
I shall address that reply from the aptly named GeorgeCostanza,,, 1. I AM a better gunsmith than the average grunt, thank you for recognizing that fact. 2. "Bolt Swaps" are not authorized at the unit level, that is a depot repair. 3. No it isn't, both rifles will average 11-13 pounds+ with a full compliment 4. 173 grain Match ammo is issued for both the SR25 and the M14, the ammunition is identical 5. I agree, haven't found an effective scope platform for the M14 rifle that compares to the excellence of the flattop Armalite receiver. 6. Extraction on ALL semi/full auto rifles gets weaker and weaker with repetitive cycles of the action, both the M14 and the M16/SR25 systems are easily corrected at maintenance level. 7. The number of "doo hicky" parts are comparable on the SR25 and the M14. Both systems require a tool to replace the extractor, a punch for the SR25 and a chamber brush and combo tool for the M14. Both should have the springs and detents/pins replaced at the same time. Break an op rod notch on M14, big problem! Drop an SR25 upper hard onto the lower and break the pivot lug, big problem! What you describe in an uncommon occurrance with a properly machined and hardened M14 receiver, a broken pivot lug on an SR25 is actually more common because the bearing surfaces are smaller and less inclined to take impacts without breaking If the lug doesn't break, the pivot pin can bend preventing the weapon upper from pairing correctly with the lower and having the ability to be relatched.. So what you are saying is a long as Depot makes the repairs who gives a dam how hard the work is? And since we all use underloaded ammo then it's ok? |
|
So what you are saying is a long as Depot makes the repairs who gives a dam how hard the work is? And since we all use underloaded ammo then it's ok? I'm saying that is the way it is done in the military. Match and specialized sniper/long range ammunition is far from underloaded. There are specialized gas plug screws made fro the M14 type rifle that allow a wide variety of ammunition to be utilized so there is no drawback to choosing one over an AR10 type platform for civilian use and again, a properly manufactured and heat treated modern M14 type receiver is no less reliable than a modern manufactured AR10 two piece receiver system. Price wise, there is no advantage of one rifle over the other as comparable rifles of both systems are priced comparably once a scope mounting system is added to the M14 type rifle and optics with rings are added to both. I will concede in the civilian arena, the AR10 allows the owner to more readily change barrels with less trouble than changing the barrel on an M14 type rifle but doing so on a regular basis will place undue wear and strain on the AR10 upper receiver so this trait really only provides the individual builder the option of creating a specialized rifle built to his specifications and doing most or all of the work him/herself.. There are plenty of very good M14 gunsmiths working in the civilian sector and they will do barrel changes at reasonable rates if it is determined to be necessary. Once the barrel is installed on the receiver, ALL of the rest of the work necessary to build a rifle can be accomplished on the M14 type rifle just as easily as the AR10 type rifle by the individual builder so very little advantage goes to the AR10 verses the M14 in this aspect. |
| Used it in the Korengal (thats Afghanistan people)valley for a few months as a DM but traded in the heavey stock rifle for an m21 with a fiberglass stock. The rifle worked fine if you kept after it, but was cleaning it a whole lot more than the average grunt was clean his plastitrash spacegun. |
|
Quoted:
So what you are saying is a long as Depot makes the repairs who gives a dam how hard the work is? And since we all use underloaded ammo then it's ok? I'm saying that is the way it is done in the military. Match and specialized sniper/long range ammunition is far from underloaded. There are specialized gas plug screws made fro the M14 type rifle that allow a wide variety of ammunition to be utilized so there is no drawback to choosing one over an AR10 type platform for civilian use and again, a properly manufactured and heat treated modern M14 type receiver is no less reliable than a modern manufactured AR10 two piece receiver system. Price wise, there is no advantage of one rifle over the other as comparable rifles of both systems are priced comparably once a scope mounting system is added to the M14 type rifle and optics with rings are added to both. I will concede in the civilian arena, the AR10 allows the owner to more readily change barrels with less trouble than changing the barrel on an M14 type rifle but doing so on a regular basis will place undue wear and strain on the AR10 upper receiver so this trait really only provides the individual builder the option of creating a specialized rifle built to his specifications and doing most or all of the work him/herself.. There are plenty of very good M14 gunsmiths working in the civilian sector and they will do barrel changes at reasonable rates if it is determined to be necessary. Once the barrel is installed on the receiver, ALL of the rest of the work necessary to build a rifle can be accomplished on the M14 type rifle just as easily as the AR10 type rifle by the individual builder so very little advantage goes to the AR10 verses the M14 in this aspect. I have a M14-EBR myself so I am not hating on the system. Just pointing out how the AR-10 is cheap and easy to work on. If it is easy for me, then it will be easy for the Army. One thing I learned is availability of USGI M14 parts are rare. I can't even pick up a M14 USGI bolt anymore at a decent price. $250 for a stripped USGI Bolt seems to be the going rate now (and another $75 to lap and headspace). Again, if it is rare for me, it's probably rare for the Military too. Supply has to be running about dry by now even with all those parts we had in stock. A complete ready to do AR-10 bolt is only $115 and I don't have to pay anyone to install it. A cheap non-usgi M1A is now about $2200 with a Sage stock and no scope mount. A Forged AR-10 with Chrome Line Barrel is $1500 with FF rails, CTR stock, and scope mount. I am no rocket scientist, but I can swap everything on my AR10 myself. I am not a big fan of "I must take my car to the shop to change oil". To me swapping a bolt or barrel for my AR10 is free. For a M14 it's $75 each time. Now SR-25's are dam expensive, and I have no idea why as it is really not that much different than an AR-10. Maybe the US Military will be wise like the Canadian Military and pick up AR-10's? You seem to be set on the M14 platform, and for your own personal desires, I think this is OK. I just hope you never have to make decisions for the US Military. Heck who am my kidding, the Military has full of decision-makers like you 
|
|
Quoted:
You seem to be set on the M14 platform, and for your own personal desires, I think this is OK. I just hope you never have to make decisions for the US Military. Heck who am my kidding, the Military has full of decision-makers like you Very correct, The ONS that was put out said to allow riflemen to engage targets to 550 ms. Part of the problem is doctrine problem and part of the problem is a training issue, Army doctrine was that riflemen were to shoot from 0-300 meters and this lead to a training regime in which troops were not trained on much more than COM hold and no training for mid range shooting. Because of this doctrine they bought a 0X sight for their troops, combine with little training they were not able to deliver effective fire at mid ranges. So as the Army has a tendency to do they attempt a material solution to a doctrine and training issue. The best part of the DMR program is not the weapon but the training that the some shooters get and some don't. They could save time, by just issuing a weapon in the M16 pattern and giving them training on mid range shooting. Contrast this with the Marines who training to shoot mid-ranges and issue a 4X sight, they don't seem to have these all those complaints or problems. In fact the only change they needed was to give shooters a 3-9 sight and slightly more accurate gun and have been able to kill guys out to 800ms without issuing a 7.62 rifle to the squads. That being said, the Army has had issued handing small arms programs for years, the M110 is a fancy version of the Mk11 yet the Mk11 doesn't have all the issues the M110 has. Don't even start on the M60 or M16 problems they had when they managed their fielding. |
|
Actually I am not set on any one platform.
My favorite AR15 is a 20" barrelled rifle with a 1-9" twist and to be honest, the M14 isn't my hands down favorite full power rifle system. However, I do own that SAGE stocked M1A and a couple others and frankly, they shoot, with respectable results, at long range so I certainly am not the individual who is going to bash the rifle. Truth be told, my next rifle project is an AR10 type rifle,,,in .338 Federal caliber,,, so don't count me as a hater of that weapon system either because I am not. I do believe the Army can take the time to correct the complaints fostered with their SAGE stocked rifles, they are correctable, but training and leadership are not what they should be and all too often the brass accepts the complaints from line grunts and choose to drop the weapon system rather than provide the proper training the soldiers need to use and maintain the weapon system effectively. Oh and yes, the Marines are much better at training their shooters. ETA: when it comes to parts for the M14 rifle system, remember you are competeing with Uncle Deep Pockets. New parts are being made but the manufacturers know if they can set a profitable price with Uncle Your Tax Dollars at Work, that price will carry over to the civilian market. Uncle Your Tax Dollars at Work isn't in the habit of releasing surplus gun parts right now either. |
|
Quoted:
Actually I am not set on any one platform. My favorite AR15 is a 20" barrelled rifle with a 1-9" twist and to be honest, the M14 isn't my hands down favorite full power rifle system. However, I do own that SAGE stocked M1A and a couple others and frankly, they shoot, with respectable results, at long range so I certainly am not the individual who is going to bash the rifle. Truth be told, my next rifle project is an AR10 type rifle,,,in .338 Federal caliber,,, so don't count me as a hater of that weapon system either because I am not. I do believe the Army can take the time to correct the complaints fostered with their SAGE stocked rifles, they are correctable, but training and leadership are not what they should be and all too often the brass accepts the complaints from line grunts and choose to drop the weapon system rather than provide the proper training the soldiers need to use and maintain the weapon system effectively. Oh and yes, the Marines are much better at training their shooters. ETA: when it comes to parts for the M14 rifle system, remember you are competeing with Uncle Deep Pockets. New parts are being made but the manufacturers know if they can set a profitable price with Uncle Your Tax Dollars at Work, that price will carry over to the civilian market. Uncle Your Tax Dollars at Work isn't in the habit of releasing surplus gun parts right now either. To me it sounds like you are stuck on keeping the M14 platform for the Army, only thing I am doing is disagreeing with that stance. I am aware there exists lot of band-aids for the M14-EBR system, but every band aid you add, you create other problems. I heard of new M14 parts being manufactured but have yet to see any. I myself think the M14 is a great system in stock form, because it's free, and it does work. However, in stock form you can't scope it, as receiver mounted scope mounts just don't cut it. I like the M14, and will never get rid of my M14-EBR or my other standard M14. However, I think it's time the Army ditch the platform all together. Right now the AR10 is a nice temporary solution, might even be "THE" solution for the next 20 years. |
|
Quoted:
That being said, the Army has had issued handing small arms programs for years, the M110 is a fancy version of the Mk11 yet the Mk11 doesn't have all the issues the M110 has. Don't even start on the M60 or M16 problems they had when they managed their fielding. Yeah, the M16 had all sorts of problems in the beginning. However, all the big problems have been pretty much resolved, and overall it has served great the past 50 years. I am curious to know who is "they" though, the "they" who are causing the problem managing the fielding? Are you talking about the "Army Decision Makers" in general? Who corrected the M16 problems? Was it not the same "Army Decision Makers" or did an outside source come in? Also who handles the Marines small arms program? From all the clippings I have read, they seem to got their act together. |
|
Milo5
ETA: when it comes to parts for the M14 rifle system, remember you are competeing with Uncle Deep Pockets.
New parts are being made but the manufacturers know if they can set a profitable price with Uncle Your Tax Dollars at Work, that price will carry over to the civilian market. Uncle Your Tax Dollars at Work isn't in the habit of releasing surplus gun parts right now either. Really, just what new parts are being made for the M14?? and By which contractor?? And you comment about 3 lbs of gear be inconsequential tells me that your .Mil MOS if you were in fact in was as Pogue. cause 3lbs is a big deal. 
|
Armory Sponsor