Interesting M25 Info and Pics

[geoff3]

Hello the rifle came out great and I think it was worth the wait ,geoff3

 

[Random Guy]

Geoff, thanks, that scope I got from you in Jan 2017 (along with a BPT scope mount), were the 2 original parts that launched this project. So thanks again.

 

[geoff3]

Hello I have all the parts waiting for my ( M25 ) barrel to get finished then I can send it out to be built ,geoff3

 

[sandwarrior]

Good to see this thread back up. I'm not sure I saw it as I reviewed this, but does anyone have groups of what their M25/M25 clone will do?

 

[Random Guy]

Regarding groups, its too early to say definitely, as I have only shot 30 rounds out of my just built replica earlier this month. I used 10 rounds for function testing and to get the scope on paper at 100 yards. After that I had 20 rds of a handloads left during that brief range trip. (42.7 Varget w/ 168 SMK w/ CCI BR-2 primers in LC brass at 2.820" OAL). I did two 10-shot groups at 100 yards out of curiosity. I had a low hit on each target that opened both groups to 2.0 MOA extreme spread - but 8 of the 10 rd on one target, and 6 out of the 10 rds on the other target - each printed one enlarged hole about 1.0 to 1.1 MOA. (see attached pic #1)

The barrel is an 1993-dated, Barnett/Douglas, US Navy heavy profile, 1:10 twist tube, with a throat erosion of 2.0. So it has some miles, but not too many. (see pic #2)

I suspect with more break-in and ammo experimentation, my Navy M14 sniper rifle will be a 1.0 to 1.25 MOA rifle with 10-rd groups of ammo that it likes. Again, this was the first test since the rifle was built and bedded, but it shows some promise. Hope that info helps.

 

[sandwarrior]

An interesting short film of one guys journey in getting his build done:

 

[Random Guy]

Moved post to separate thread.

 

[Random Guy]

Resurrecting this old thread based on a rifle I recently purchased. I spotted on gunbroker a vintage M1A that was likely made in the mid-90s as a police sniper rifle, and decided to buy it, as I think will make a decent donor rifle for a replica of the last M25s made at Ft. Devens, MA, by 10th Special Forces Group (SFG). As a re-cap, the first pic is from the 1994 dated "Sniper Locker Proposal" from 1st SFG, which based their proposal on what 10th SFG was doing with their program. It's the only pictures I've seen of the black-stocked M25s of that era.

The rifle I bought is about 50 percent "correct" for a replica, and I have gathered the other 40 percent needed to make a decent replica, except the still-elusive BPT gas piston, and of course the 'black box/black ops' sound suppressor that was apparently used back in the early 1990s.

The main challenge I have is figuring out a way to gently remove what I think is black automotive undercoating that was applied to the stock back in the mid-1990s. The 3rd picture is what I presume was a Police Dept/SWAT stamp that was done on this undercoating when it was fresh/first applied (a long time ago). It has chipped off some at the bipod stud (see 4th pic), but I need to remove the rest without using abrasives or anything that will damage the underlying original gel-coat. Any suggestions are welcome. (I am entertaining mildly heating up the stock in the sunlight, and the trying Citris-Strip, since I think that will not damage the original gelcoat.

Anyhow, that is my latest vintage sniper rifle project for 2022-23. Should be unique when its completed. If anyone has any pictures or anecdotal information regarding the original M25s with black McMillan M3A stocks, please let me know. Outside that 1994 Sniper Locker Proposal, they are an enigma. I should have reached out to Tom Kapp a few years ago who was at Ft. Devens during this era and was involved with these rifles, but I heard his health was poor, and he subsequently passed away. So I never got to inquire with him about the history of these M25s. Not sure who else knows much about the final M25s made by 10th SFG before the program was apparently shut-down by Big Army. Just an update re this thread's topic area.

 

[tactinstr1SFG]

From what I can tell about everything known about these rifles is pretty much listed/posted on this thread. We (in 1st SFG) looked at developing some back in the early 90's but it never came to fruition. I called out to the 10th and talked to some guys there about them as well back then but the short story is that despite the development of the "M25" individual units in the Army are not supposed to be building guns, thus we had no budget for it and no command acceptance.

Good luck with your build.

 

[Random Guy]

Thanks for chiming in. You might be right about this thread having most of the available historical info about a rifle that was never a 'Program of Record.' I am still hoping that someone might post a previously unknown picture of the enigmatic SF M25 from back in the day (circa 1990s).

My replica build should go okay - assuming I can carefully remove all that automotive undercoating without damaging the underlying gel coat...

 

[sinister]

I don't know if anyone had durability issues with the M3A. My junior engineer came to us in Okinawa in 1987 with fairly fresh experience from Devens with it and held it in high regard. 10th Groupers called it "Dial-a-Death" -- if you were "On" with your range estimation, you dialed it, shot it, and killed it.

Civilians may not understand that you don't necessarily need sub-MOA performance to hit and kill an E-type silhouette. This photo gives you a general idea / comparison for what success looks like -- can you put a 7.62mm bullet through your target to 800 meters (with 7.62)?

An Army/NRA 1,000-yard bullseye target, a white IPSC target, and an E-type silhouette. If you can put a bullet in the black you have a 50% chance of hitting an E-type. If you can hold 8-ring high and 10-ring wide you can hit the E-type. The IPSC target is 9-ring high and ten-ring wide:

Random Guy, the "NPD" might be Norfolk (Virginia) Police Department. If it is, there's a good chance it was built by Sammy Dayton out of the Newport News - General Dynamics Shipyard. He built a number of the Virginia Rifle Team National Match M14s.

 

[tactinstr1SFG]

The M3A was/is a very good optic overall, in all the years of shooting them I only saw a handful ever fail in any way. In one case in the mid 90's we had one that the glass on which the reticle was etched came loose and rotated inside the scope. I did see a few that the elevation turret became problematic making it very hard or in one case impossible to rotate. I currently have perhaps 4 or 5 M3's and they are all great scopes for what they are. It seems so weird that we were shooting fixed 10X optics out to and past 1000 meters where now everyone wants 15 - 25X.

I do know that some of the original M25's had B&L Tactical's on them which was B&L's answer to the M3 (still fixed 10X).

 

[Random Guy]

Random Guy, the "NPD" might be Norfolk (Virginia) Police Department. If it is, there's a good chance it was built by Sammy Dayton out of the Newport News - General Dynamics Shipyard. He built a number of the Virginia Rifle Team National Match M14s.

Thanks, the rifle was shipped from TN, so the "NPD" stamp is a mystery. I have heard of Sam Dayton, and seen some of his work on a rear-lugged match M1 Garand with a heavy profile stainless steel barrel. I actually tried to contact Mr. Dayton with a phone number that I was given back in 2017 or 2018 to see if he wanted to build my Navy M14 sniper replica but the number I got was wrong/disconnected. So I had Isaac build it.

The "M25ish" rifle I recently bought was well built back in the mid-1990s, with a highly polished M1 hammer and a nice trigger pull of 4 lb 12 ozs. The bedding in MarineTex looks pretty good too. However, the former owner (presumably a police dept) never bothered to clean the gas piston or gas plug. I couldn't believe how much old carbon came out of it. My small drill bit cleaning tool only went in about half way into the small end, and I spent several minutes really torqueing the cleaning tool to scrape old carbon out of the gas plug and gas piston, with a good size pile of carbon residue left over. Bore was cleaned however, but the gas system was really dirty.

Anyhow, I wish you had an old pic of the 10th SFG M25s, as hardly any exist. If you run across one, please post it on this thread, thanks.

 

[Random Guy]

The M3A was/is a very good optic overall, in all the years of shooting them I only saw a handful ever fail in any way.....I did see a few that the elevation turret became problematic making it very hard or in one case impossible to rotate.

I can't say enough good things about Leupold's customer service. I had a 1989 dated M3A Ultra on my M24R that had small dust or sand specs in the rear ocular, and the adjustments hardly worked. In 2017 I sent to them under their warranty/inspection program. Came back with new glass and internals, perfect working order, and at no charge (other than what it cost me to ship it to Oregon). Check out the 'before and after' adjustment range. For an old military scope that was 28 years old and had likely been around the world a few times, that is just awesome customer service...but I digress.

 

[sinister]

I have heard of Sam Dayton, and seen some of his work on a rear-lugged match M1 Garand with a heavy profile stainless steel barrel. I actually tried to contact Mr. Dayton with a phone number that I was given back in 2017 or 2018 to see if he wanted to build my Navy M14 sniper replica but the number I got was wrong/disconnected. So I had Isaac build it.

Anyhow, I wish you had an old pic of the 10th SFG M25s, as hardly any exist. If you run across one, please post it on this thread, thanks.

"Mac" builds good M1s and M14s. I first met him at Dam Neck in 1999 when he worked out of the Navy Team van during the LANTFLEET, All-Navy, Interservice, and Camp Perry matches.

I wish I had photos of my M25, but I don't think I ever took any before I sold it. John Eckenrode on the Marine Reserve Team re-built my Glenn Nelson National Match into a 3-color desert McMillan. The Bausch and Lomb 10X was on a McCann mount.

 

[Random Guy]

....Resurrecting this old thread with my most recent replica of the mysterious M25 rifles seen in that 1994 Sniper Locker Proposal:

These snippets in particular are from a 1st SFG 1994 proposal for the development of a SOTIC Lv. II at Ft. Lewis WA. Any how I figure some folks might be interested, particularly in some of the M25 stuff as the 10th SFG M25 program at Ft. Devens is heavily reference and there are some interesting pics. I assume some of this stuff hasn't seen the light of day in 20-25 years.

Yes indeed, that 1994 proposal motivated me to build a replica of the "late" - or final version - of the M25 sniper rifle that was built by 10th SFG back then. To the best of my knowledge, those are the only pictures of M25s with black M3A McMillan stocks that I am aware of. It took a couple of years and a lot of effort, but here it is. Just mounted scope last night, but have not tested it yet...

Fwiw, the starting point was a former police dept sniper rifle that I found on gunbroker two years ago. The barrel was dated 1995 and I think that is when it was originally built. (The FFL was in Tennessee, so I think "NPD S1" stamp was either Nashville Police Dept or Nolesville Police Dept). It had a rubberized finish that was a major PITA to carefully remove and restore the stock back it's original finish without hurting the gelcoat.

...by the spring of 2024 it was getting close, just needed the stock carefully milled, and then bedded with the BPT stock liner. So I shipped these parts off in May 2024 to the builder.

...I received it this week from the builder and mounted the scope last night, but no range report yet.

BPT steel stock liner shown below, bedded into stock with MarineTex. Faux M14 connector arm was installed for original aesthetics.

Found a lightly used 1994 dated Barnett/Douglas heavy barrel for this project.

Scope is a 1990-dated Leupold M3A Ultra 10x and rings are the old Leupold Ultras, same parts used on M24 sniper rifles at the time.
I went nth degree, like adding a small spot weld to the fake selector lock to ensure only semi-auto fire, as seen on USGI M21s and NM M14s.

I think the only part or two it could use is perhaps a SIMRAD cap for the old Leupold 30mm Ultra rings, an maybe early 1990s dated M1907 leather sling - if I could find one in good shape.

There was no National Stock Number (NSN) associated with the small number of XM25/M25 rifles made by U.S. Special Forces armors from approximately 1988 to 1994. It was not a ‘Program of Record’ with a formal Program Manager, all of which makes their history pretty obscure. All we know is that 250 BPT stock liners were made and most were then distributed to SF armorers, but without an NSN number for inventory tracking, their is no way to know how many M14s and M21s were actually built into "product improved" M25 sniper rifles.

That said, it is likely only a small handful of these ‘late’ M25s were made with the black M3A stock, as Big Army had reportedly conducted a formal investigation during the mid-90s, and came down hard on the 10th SFG. The outcome of that investigation was Army leadership disallowing 10th SFG and other Special Forces units from manufacturing, and/or permanently modifying a combat rifle. This is not permitted under US Army regulations, as all combat weapons reportedly must be "returned to their as-procured configuration within 24 hours following any field modifications." (Or something to that effect). Likewise, 10th SFG was also disallowed from hand-loading combat ammunition, which is also forbidden under Army policy. So, that investigation ended the M25 program at Ft. Devens.

Here's a comparison picture of my two replicas, the original configuration XM25 at top, and the later M25 configuration at the bottom:

Anyhow, that's my latest M1A-based replica of one of these mysterious ‘second generation’ M25 sniper rifles, which was the final configuration of M14-based sniper rifles built at Ft Devens. Ideally I would like to have a copy of that 1994 Sniper Locker Proposal, and perhaps have a replica sound suppressor made for it that aesthetically looks the early Ops Inc sound suppressor shown in the 1994 Proposal, but that is a challenging project not yet pursued. For those curious, the weight of this late M25 with bipod, sling and empty mag is 16 pounds, 3 ozs. It fits a hole in my collection. Just need to arrange a range trip now to test it…

 

[sinister]

....Resurrecting this old thread with my most recent replica of the mysterious M25 rifles seen in that 1994 Sniper Locker Proposal:

It was not a ‘Program of Record’ with a formal Program Manager, all of which makes their history pretty obscure.

That said, it is likely only a small handful of these ‘late’ M25s were made with the black M3A stock, as Big Army had reportedly conducted a formal investigation during the mid-90s, and came down hard on the 10th SFG. The outcome of that investigation was Army leadership disallowing 10th SFG and other Special Forces units from manufacturing, and/or permanently modifying a combat rifle. This is not permitted under US Army regulations, as all combat weapons reportedly must be "returned to their as-procured configuration within 24 hours following any field modifications." (Or something to that effect). Likewise, 10th SFG was also disallowed from hand-loading combat ammunition, which is also forbidden under Army policy. So, that investigation ended the M25 program at Ft. Devens.

10th Group failed to keep up with paperwork.

All Army units are authorized to maintain competition-modified National Match weapons per obscure Common Tables of Allowance and Tables of Distribution and Allowances -- why the USAMU, National Guard, and Army Reserve Teams can keep M14s, .45s, M9s, bolt guns, etc. on the books and in arms rooms for military matches and Camp Perry. Had 10th Group maintained the paper trail those guns could still be in the arms rooms today.

Older FORSCOM training regs (before SF Groups came under 1st SOCOM and later USASOC and USASFC) authorized the USAMU, USAJFKSWC, and all the Groups (including Guard and Reserve) to hand load their own competition ammo. Those went away after USSOCOM was formed under 1987 NDAA law and the groups were chopped from FORSCOM.

 

[Random Guy]

10th Group failed to keep up with paperwork

From my research, me thinks 10th SFG actually never bothered completing or even submitting paperwork to manufacture or modify combat weapons. No funding was allocated either, so no NSN was developed. Mitch Mateiko was local and friends with 10th SFG, and he reportedly gave the 200 or more BPT stock liners to them - at no charge. Those parts lacked NSNs too…

Switching topics, but me thinks its one thing to modify competition weapons, as no one’s lives are at stake if a competition rifle fails or breaks at a Camp Perry match - but obviously weapon failure in combat/war can be a life-and-death issue. Same goes for hand-loaded competition ammo versus combat ammunition. Combat weapons are not to be modified per Army regulations. The two (correction: three) primary military entities that have authority to modify combat/sniper weapons are Crane in Indiana and the USMC PWS shop at Quantico, VA. In the later case, only MOS 2112 can modify precision combat weapons. Not the 2111s, only the 2112s can do this. On edit/correction: the Army Tank Armament and Automotive Command (TACOM) can modify Army combat weapons. The M14 EBR-RI built at Rock Island Arsenal from 2009-2012 is the best example of TACOM allowing a modified M14 rifle in a SAGE chassis to be used in combat as a stop-gap 7.62mm SDM rifle.

Here’s the perspective of Mike Haugen who I think you know. (He was an SOTIC instructor for 1st SFG in the early 1990s era, and recalls the XM25/M25 platform):

“The lengthy explanation as to the issues with the M25 program is interesting and does lay out some of the issues that existed but is not completely accurate. The fact was that SF was getting M24's for free because it was a "big Army" project….

…What killed the (M25) program is the fact that the 10th SFG began making/producing a (combat) weapon system locally. No Army unit is funded, tasked, resourced or authorized to conduct this activity. The Army has a very lengthy set of rules and regulations about new equipment acquisition, modification and development. The "modification" of a piece of equipment is covered under the Force Modernization regulations in which it states that Army equipment cannot be modified in any way which cannot be reversed within 24 hours back to a "as procured" condition. Many units (special operations) have used this clause somewhat liberally to do things they wanted to do (I am guilty of this having modified a number of pieces of equipment ranging from HUMMVVs to firearms). Most times you can get around issues by keeping the item/s local, however in this case the 10th went "public" with the XM25 and causes some large ripples in the pond.

What set General Guest (and the Army management) off was that the 10th had developed a robust organization specifically to do these types of things (modify, build) as well as the reloading effort. Both of these things are forbidden in the Army and while SF could get away with somethings, once these became well known it became a huge issue. To the Joint Chiefs, the 10th was thumbing its nose at the big Army and had gone rogue. Keep in mind that SF is a very small component of the Army and has a reputation of being outlaws, so this was a huge embarrassment to the developing command structure. There were a lot of younger officers who wanted to be Generals and had hitched their wagon to MG Guest, so this could not stand as it was, thus it was removed from the 10th and given to Crane.

A quick (simplified) note about how items are acquired in the Army; first there has to be a need which is usually explained by means of a "needs statement" (there are a variety of different types). The Army then looks at the issue to determine if they have something "in house" to meet the need, if not then they began an effort to drill down to identify not only the need but whether there are other issues that need to be addressed (different capabilities, variants, performance criteria, etc.). Once this is done, a solicitation is developed and issued which industry then responds to by submitting proposals. After this, samples are submitted for testing, once an item has been selected an award is issued to the manufacturer. Now, this is super simplified and there are many moving parts to this process, but this is generally how it is done. This process can take a very long time for big ticket items, but it can also be done relatively quickly in some cases should the item needed already exist and is needed immediately.

Where Crane comes into this effort is specific to Special Operations; Crane was developed to provide SOF specific/unique items which the military usually did not want to be widely known, in other words Crane obtained or developed classified items that the military did not want publicized. Basically, Crane was/is kind of the "skunk works" of SOF and would/do develop low volume, highly unique items for SOF's specific use. Despite Crane being a Navy facility, the "Crane" we are referring to here is a SOCOM owned and run component (Crane is a large facility with a specific tasking, Crane as it is referred to when discussing SOF issues is a small unique component).Crane can/has/does develop SOF specific systems based on an identified and vetted need and they do a lot more than just weapons. All this said, Crane has some limitations as outlined in their Charter, they generally cannot (or are not supposed) to be a weapons manufacturer, rather they can modify existing weapons. They can type classify weapons in some circumstances (SPR, MK13, etc.), however in general they are not supposed to be building new weapons. Of course like any organization attempting to justify their existence, Crane has indeed built new weapons (again, SPR, MK13, etc.) and came under a lot of heat for it, however because SOF units needed/wanted these items Crane was allowed to continue. Back to the M25; since the 10th was not authorized to develop a weapons system but the system they did develop had some support and interest, it was moved over to Crane who did have the authorization to modify the weapons.

(My note: Here's Crane's version of the "M25" - even though SOCOM never used that nomenclature, it was the Physical Security Sniper Rifle. Funding was first approved in FY89 for Crane to build and support 250 of these rifles for SOCOM use. NSN: 1005-01-106-8975).

(Back to Haugen's recollection of the M25 history)
As to why the M25 system did not survive or was not in more wide spread use, there are a number of factors to this issue very little of which had to do with "bean counters" or even the command at the time. One of the largest reasons was the snipers community itself. During this time (early 90's), SOTIC was a relatively new entity but was very instrumental within SOF as it spoke for SOF snipers. The prevailing thought within SOTIC and the Army sniper school at Benning was that a "real sniper rifle was a bolt action". Therefore, there was a lot of resistance to pushing the M25 forward. Likewise, the M24 was brand new (in 1988’) and was enjoying a lot of love from the hard core snipers of the time. On top of this, the Army has a very hard time going backwards when it comes to weapons, once they get rid of something they do not like to admit it is still useful. In the case of the M14's brought out in 2001/02, believe when I say that this was not an easy task as many in the big Army side fought this tooth and nail. While the M14's were in fact brought out and issued, they were not all that well received and gotten rid of pretty quickly as everyone wanted the M110's. The short of this is that because the M25 was developed outside of normal acquisition channels, promoted "back channel" and was not a "program of record" - it was doomed.

****
…That‘a about the full history as I understand it. No Program of Record, no Program Manager, no Contract Officer, no allocated funding, and no National Stock Number (NSN), hence it was off-the-books…and eventually Big Army shut it down (and the reloading operation that 10th SFG was also doing…opps). After that only Crane built the SOCOM M14 sniper rifles. Which was a Program of Record and thus had an NSN and related support (ie, Operator's Manual, dedicated cleaning kit, a transport case, etc).

The only mystery is what happened to the small number of M25s during the mid 1990s-2000s....but we do know some old M25s were used in Iraq as late as 2003, before the M110s were more broadly issued. (Reportedly some M25s were also used early in Afghanistan too).
These pics from Northern Iraq in 2003 show an M14 sniper rifle with a rubber Pachmayr buttpad, so this sure does look like the M25s that 10th SFG made in the late 1980s/early 1990s...as SOTIC instructor Thomas Kapp had specified these buttpads on the original XM25 stocks...

Caption reads: 'Soldiers of Joint Special Operations Task Force stay alert on the front line of the northern front of the war in Iraq April 7th, 2003 in Pir Duad, northern Iraq. Kurdish Peshmergas militia and U.S. Special Forces have advanced from Pir Duad towards the roads between Kirkuk and Mosul and cut it off.' - Patrick Barth Getty images

 

[sinister]

Mike and I are brothers of different mothers, both having been on the same ODA and B Team. He went from ODA to ODB kicking and screaming but I think eventually came around to doing more for SF and the Army than had he stayed.

Lots of things between Big Army and SOCOM were in flux as SF and the Ranger battalions were chopped -- G3 Army didn't like it and G3 1st SOCOM was overwhelmed as a new command with PSYOP and Civil Affairs forced on them. Army was still butt-hurt that SFOD-D wasn't under FORSCOM control.

Crane and Army Tank Armament and Automotive Command can safety-certify modified battle weapons. TAACOM hated SF and would take over a hundred years to approve any mods or changes. SOCOM went to Crane for the same services, faster and cheaper (and still does to this day) -- the Special Operations Peculiar Modifications and ammunition programs are prime examples funded by USSOCOM -- not Army dollars.

Crane is NOT a SOF activity, per se -- they are a naval depot facility that mods and overhauls SEAL and SOF weapons. The Navy does NOT have to follow Army regs and policies.

The M25 was a perfect example of Big Army National Match and sniper-approved modifications and ammo (the difference and similarity being the McMillan stock). TAACOM has not approved a National Match rifle or pistol weapon or ammunition item since 1968 -- but M14NM, M21, and M1911A1 NM are in the books until rescinded. There has never been an M16, SR-25/AR-10, M9, or M17 National Match standard, and yet the Army (USAMU, Army Reserve Team, and National Guard Marksmanship Training Center) still build them.

 

[Random Guy]

Mike and I are brothers of different mothers, both having been on the same ODA and B Team. He went from ODA to ODB kicking and screaming but I think eventually came around to doing more for SF and the Army than had he stayed.

Nice, I recall that you were a fan of his on an older thread he posted on the history of the M24, M24A1 and M24A2, etc.

TAACOM has not approved a National Match rifle or pistol weapon or ammunition item since 1968 -- but M14NM, M21, and M1911A1 NM are in the books until rescinded.

Thanks for reminding of TACOM's role as the third DoD entity that can approve modifications to a combat weapon. Digressing, but I will note to the best of my knowledge, the only significant US Army modifications approved for the M14 platform during the 21st century was TACOM approving several thousand "condition A" M14s to be pulled out of Anniston, and converted to the M14 EBR-RI platform from 2009-2012. Aside from removing the op rod guide to allow the use of the SAGE EBR chassis op rod guide, the only other 'real' modification that they allowed was reaming the USGI flash hiders to NM spec and re-installing it afterwards. Based on my understanding, that was really the only two modifications allowed. A couple of guys at RIA made all of those rifles. Here's a pretty good article on the EBR-RI and TACOM's role:

How the U.S. Army Builds the M14 EBR-RI - Guns and Ammo

The M14 EBR-RI has become a legend in the military community, and this was the only time a writer was allowed inside TACOM to document the building of these chassis-based M14s.

www.gunsandammo.com

We met Doug Carlstrom inside a simple reinforced structure reminiscent of the Cold War. It's subtly located in a corner of the 946-acre island within the historic gates of Rock Island Arsenal. A career U.S. Army veteran with experience brought back from the Vietnam War, Carlstrom has witnessed the military trials of nearly all modern infantry small arms spanning the adoption of the M9 and M11 pistols to more recent variants of the M16. In 2011 Carlstrom and his five-man team were continuing their service as civilian contractors to TACOM, leading the development, testing and issue of the M14 EBR-RI.

...here's the M14 EBR-RI in the RIA museum:

On the 5th day of May 2011, this team built the 5,000th rifle, one of only two ever inducted into the Rock Island Arsenal Museum the same day it was built (the other being a M1903 Springfield serial number 1).

RIA does have one typo, referring to an 'eighteen inch barrel' when in fact the M14 EBR-RI used the standard USGI 22" barrel, but oh well...

The M25 was a perfect example of Big Army National Match and sniper-approved modifications and ammo (the difference and similarity being the McMillan stock).

Honestly, the build process for the XM25/M25 was quite a bit more involved that the NM M14 or M21 build process. If you will forgive me re some verbosity, I'll use my replica to explain why Crane engineers who went to Fort Devens in 1991 and 1992 decided there was some concerns about both "producibility" and the use of "propriety parts" re the XM25 rifles. (Those were words used in their evaluation/report)

First, the most innovative part of the XM25 revolved around 10th SFG and BPT owner Mitch Mateiko manufacturing a unique stock liner made of steel that allowed the M14 action to be repeatedly removed in the field for cleaning, etc without any “bedding break-down” or degradation of accuracy. Who is Mitch? Well, he worked at H&R up in MA on the original M14 as a tool and die maker, and also worked on other projects at H&R until they closed in the mid-80s. He founded BPT and did various subcontractor work for the DoD, and co-developed the XM25 from 1986-88 with Tom Kapp and another 10th SPG armoer. Here's Mitch with the original XM25 prototype at Ft Devens. I think this was taken in 1987-88. Note rubber buttpad.

Here's the issue for top accuracy: the XM25 stock liner is not always a 'drop-in' part. To work effectively the rear legs of the M14 receiver must make at least 90% contact with the BPT stock liner. Not all legs at that 3 degree angle are completely symmetrical and parallel, after all M14s receivers were made from 1959-1963, way before computer controlled machines were used for precision work. (Note: the side rail of my commercial SAI receiver was thinned to USGI width to better accommodate a faux selector rod, but on a real M14 that was obviously not needed)

...so how does one insure 90% plus engagement b/t the receiver and the BPT stock liner? USGI and commercial receivers can have some small variance. Well, if you are a tool and die maker for the M14, you build a special surface grinding fixture for that purpose back in the late 1980s:

...then you have the back side at the 3 degree angle carefully grinded in that fixture to ensure perfect uniformity on both legs, as seen here.

...Now, does anyone think Big Army would ever allow M14s to be carefully machined like this to ensure 100% proper fit with an exotic steel stock liner that is bedded to the stock? Me thinks not(!) Why? Big Army is pretty conservative about modifying combat weapons - and even the small arms engineers at Crane felt this process might be a bit too labor intensive.... luckily Mitch did it for me for $50 a while back, but he's retired now. I guess his old custom fixture still worked fine.

Secondly, how do you make a highly precise stock liner that is welded together with three pieces yet with specs such as +/0.001"? If you are a skilled tool and die maker, you make a custom articulated welding fixture that holds the liner to extremely close tolerances when being welded. I don't think even the US AMTU guys would attempt to build stuff like this that went into the M25 builds....

Thirdly, how exactly does one install the XM25/ BPT stock liner into a McMillan Fiberglass stock that was never designed for any stock liner? We’ll, you do some very careful milling with a custom jig to create the so-called “Fort Devens cut.”

A talented machinist friend made this nice "jigasuarus" to mill some stocks for the BPT stock liner. It's pretty labor intensive, and no room for error when doing this on old McMillan stocks or that are not really replaceable. This stuff exceeds my skill level by a wide margin.

There are a few other exotic things on the XM25/M25s that exceed NM M14 mods, and I kind of doubt Big Army would have approved some of these things. I'll point out the M25 gas system modifications as an example:

Here's the Titanium coated BPT gas pistons. I would love to find one of the rare "Rev 2" gas pistons that has the tiny port for use with a suppressor, but I have never seen one for sale. Reportedly Crane bought a few back in the early 1990s, but that's all I know.

Apologizes for the digression, just wanted to point out that the XM25/M25 was a unique rifle set apart from generic M14 NM or M21 rifles, and the build process was a bit more involved and labor intensive, based on what BPT and 10th SFG had designed back then...

Since the Navy/Crane engineers felt the XM25 was too hard to produce, they stuck with the traditional Navy "Grade A" match M14 build guide with a welded-on rear lug, but they used a black stock and of course an optic system for the SOCOM M14 sniper rifles. Here's a Crane built M14 sniper - easy to tell apart from the XM25 given it has the traditional flipper buttplate, and the B&L 10X tactical scope with SIMRAD cap. BTW, these are US Army Special Forces soldiers outside Kuwait City on Feb 22, 1991, but not sure which SF group they belonged to.

Note the standard M14 'flipper' buttplate.

...even Peter Senich incorrectly used the "M25" reference in his book The Long Range War (1996), but this is clearly a Crane built PSSR.

...my replica based on that picture in Senich's book. Yes, a fanboy with a collection problem I guess...but I do enjoy the challenge.

 

[sinister]

USAMU and Crane both had their separate ways of doing things. I think unless you were a Camp Perry competitor you wouldn't know what was and what wasn't allowed by National Match rules and the Army regs (Army Ordnance and TAACOM published a new book for every Camp Perry showing what new was authorized and how to modify your weapons). The XM25 looked a whole lot like National Match rifles with the additional Brookfield proprietary enhancements:

The USAMU also published their National Match rifle and pistol build books:

I know nothing of the Port Security M14 but my old rifle was a SEAL clone I built in 1990 when I returned from an Okinawa tour. Leupold M3s were impossible to get on the outside (unless you were a SOTIC grad and Leupold sold you a "Blem"). I bought one of the 30mm tube Bausch and Lomb 10X Tactical scopes and mounted it on a McCann M14 mount (the same guy who built the M24 MARS rails for Mike Haugen).

The Marines insisted that a separate heavy rear lug was required, while Crane also had a separate forward receiver lug (like their 700s) with an Allen bolt that allowed for an additional bedding tension point.

The USAMU (at least once the McMillans were adopted) dropped the liner entirely, while the titanium Brookfield gas piston was optional for many shooters.

Besides the 1/16" hole at the "Trepan groove" the USAMU also drilled a pressure vent hole in the gas cylinder plug for 175 and 180-grain bullets in both M14NM for 600, 800, 900, and 1,000-yard matches and the M21.

Navy and Marine double-lug variants:

From Random Guy's post on M14Forum, I think this was the Navy scope mount bridge that was like a Remington 700 barrel lug -- it fit between the threaded barrel shank shoulder and the front of the receiver:

 

[Random Guy]

The Marines insisted that a separate heavy rear lug was required, while Crane also had a separate forward receiver lug (like their 700s) with an Allen bolt that allowed for an additional bedding tension point.

On the Crane built PSSR rifles circa 1990, they would weld on a rear lug and thread it for the torque screw. Below pic is a factory rear-lugged commercial SAI Supermatch, but we did the same set-up for my PSSR replica.

The initial PSSR rifles were double lugged with front and rear torque screws, but they had issues with the weld cracking at the front lug, so they switched to just rear lugged sniper rifles. I was told it was a likely due to “poor welding technique” and hard use from SEALs. My replica has just a rear lug too, as seen above.

One can’t see all the different build details in this group picture, but this pic shows three distinct configurations and the chronological progression from mid-80s into early 90s.

Top: Crane PSSR replica circa 1990-91; rear lug with torque screw bedded into a McMillan stock. (Early versions were double-lugged). Heavy profile commercial match barrel. B&L 10x scope.

Middle: XM25 circa 1989-90: no lugs, but has the unique BPT /XM25 stock liner bedded into a McMillian stock. Medium weight commercial match barrel. Leupold M3A 10x scope.

Bottom: M21 circa 1980s: no lugs, just a standard receiver bedded into a beefy USGI walnut or birch wooden stock. Standard or medium weight USGI NM barrel. ART II 3-9x scope.

The PSSR was a Navy “Grade A” match rifle based on their 1985 build guide, but it used a black stock and had an optic system. It was just as robust and accurate as XM25, but not quite as labor intensive to build, and it didn’t utilize any proprietary parts. Unlike the XM25, the PSSR was not a rifle that a SEAL or SF solider should attempt to dissemble in the field for cleaning. Why? A torque wrench was needed for proper removal and careful re-installing of the luged action with torque screws. (I think 55 inch/lbs +/- 5 inch/lbs)

On edit: There is one other important and labor intensive thing I should have shown in above thread about the M25 build process. The installation of the BPT stock liner requires careful milling of the McMillan stock to allow the thick steel liner to bedded into it. Here you can see the milling marks from 'hogging out' my black M3A stock. McMillan has a custom CNC program for this, and they called it the “Fort Devens cut.” Again, the XM25 was a very labor intensive build, and I should have highlighted this aspect of the "Fort Devens Cut."

Here’s the heavy duty BPT liner before being permanently bedded into the stock with MarineTex. Needless to say, but this M25 part and this unique build aspect is not found in any NM M14 build manuals.. Mitch offered a little custom-made tool that facilitated the bedding process, it fit in those two small holes seen in the middle of the BPT stock liner.

There are only a few M14 gunsmiths in the country that know how to do this type of unique build with the BPT liner. Mine was done in AZ by a guy who has built six XM25s over the past several years, including two for me. Anyhow, I hope that additional info was useful.

 

[sinister]

Guidance for M21 and M14NM cleaning was disassembly only if necessary, usually once a year for gunsmith inspection and skim-bedding. M14 shooters usually got a new barrel every other season.