M21 and XM25 Sniper Systems

[buffalowinter]

I've become enthralled with the M14 and its sniper variants. In fact, I have a round-about, I was there, connection to the XM25. The XM25 sniper system...the successor to the M21 system, was largely developed by SFC Tom Kapp of 10th SFG (A). SFC Kapp left ODA 075, right before I became Team Leader, to work on the development of the M25 system. Below is a pic of my XM25. It is a Springfield M1A Super match with Leupold Mk 4 LR/T. These retail for $3708, but I found mine at a pawn shop on-line for a little more than half that. It's always a risk buying a smoking deal from an on-line pawn shop, but I took the risk. I fired 20 rounds of Hirtenberger .308 to foul the barrel and sight in the scope. Below are the 25th through 30th shots fired at 100 yds using Federal Gold Medal Match.
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/i.imgur.com\/FcqInZzl.jpg"}[/IMG2]


That's more than satisfactory. Of course, the Super Match is no ordinary M1A, here are the details:

The rear-lugged action of the Super Match M1A™ is masterfully glass bedded into an oversized stock. At the core of the Super Match M1A™’s unparalleled performance is the heavy match Douglas barrel. These oversized match barrels are the heaviest possible match-legal barrels that can fit in the M1A™, and they feature a 1 in 10 twist that gives optimal performance for the .308 match bullets we recommend. The Super Match M1A™ also features a National Match recoil spring guide and a match-tuned gas cylinder. Add the match tuned 4.5 – 5lb two-stage trigger, .0595” hooded rear aperture (½ MOA adjustable) and .062” front sight, and the resultant rifle will blow away the competition with its precision and accuracy.

Here's a pic of my XM25
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/i.imgur.com\/1YTE3lAl.jpg"}[/IMG2]



I'm also working on the Vietnam era M14 sniper system with ART II scope. The basis for that will be a Springfield M1A National Match. Here are some historical pics of the XM25 and its development.

SFC Kapp with M25 with Leupold 10x Ultra scope, M3 turrets. The Ultra is basically an early M4 LR/T [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/i.imgur.com\/3VF6GDL.jpg"}[/IMG2]


Yes, I have an AN/PVS-4 [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/i.imgur.com\/VZqb61Jh.jpg"}[/IMG2]

This is what we used on our M21's...Sionics Sound Supressor [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/i.imgur.com\/ElJJ6Nn.jpg"}[/IMG2]

Bausch and Lomb 10x [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/i.imgur.com\/bCs3WYQ.jpg"}[/IMG2]
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/i.imgur.com\/9UtVLqWl.jpg"}[/IMG2]

SFC Kapp passed away as a result of injuries sustained as related in the article below. I found this on the M14 forum from an un-named source and all I can say is the story jives with the facts as I had related to me from my 075 team mates.

A Little M25 History.........

---

...........in case anybody is interested. Back in 1985 I graduated from the SFQC and was assigned to the 10th SFG(A) at Ft. Devens, MA. One of the guys I graduated with was SFC Tom Kapp. He was later assigned as I recall to the 3rd Battalion. I didn't really know him well in 85' but he was a friendly, affable guy and we used to talk guns when we ran into each other.

Around 1986 as I remember, 3rd Bn. engaged a number of their SF Teams (ODA's) in what was called the "Lighweight Rations Test". Back then we were still deep in the Cold War. The mission of the 10th SFG was to drop most of the group behind the lines into (essentially a suicide mission and thank God it never came to that) the Warsaw Pact and conduct missions. Some of those missions could go on for weeks if not months and it would be very difficult for these teams to jump/carry in enough rations. Natick Lab was just down the road towards Boston and they would dream up all sorts of gadgets, devices, and foods for us to try out. They came up with "Lightweight Rations" which were VERY small, highly concentrated food rations, like a days worth would fit in the palm of your hand. A number of ODA's were in isolation at Ft. Devens and were planning for an extended training mission where they would be inserted into the White Mountains of Vermont. While at Devens in the ISOPREP area (WWII barracks), they would eat three normal meals a day of food mermited from the messhall. Following their meals they would play a small video game that would test reaction time, judgement, and memory. Then, when they were inserted into the field, they would play the same game but would be eating the lightweight rations. The game had a memory chip that would record their performance which would later be analyzed to see the effect of the new rations. I remember seeing the rations-they were about 2/3's the size of a Snickers bar-it was also the first time I saw those small bottles of Tabasco sauce now standard in MRE's. I thought those little bottles were kinda cool and I asked one of the guys if I could have one. He said, "Hell no! I don't have enough to eat as it is!".

Well, the teams were inserted, and the guys started to live off them. Soon they realized that this just flat out wasn't enough food. A lotta guys said screw it, ate up the rations, and then went begging for food from locals they could find in the mountains. Some guys however sucked it up and followed the parameters of the test. Tom Kapp was one of those. The problem he later told me, was that when some people are severely malnourished, their system never really recovers from it. The starvation diet I understand negatively impacted upon Kapps health-so much so that he could not remain on a Team. So, they put him on the "Sniper Committee" also called the "SOTIC Committee" (Special Operations Target Interdiction Committee). A little after Kapp was put on SOTIC, I was on the staff of the 2nd Bn. I ran into Kapp, we started talking, and he invited me over to their shop which I accepted.

SOTIC was ran at the time by MSGT Amelung (don't recall his first name) but he was getting ready to retire and then Kapp would take over. Their shop was located by the 10th SFG motor pool in a WWII barracks. Most of their work was done on the ground floor. After that I used hang around occasionally, pick their brains, and just learn about what they were doing. At the time the US Army didn't really have a sniper rifle worth a [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/m14forum.com\/images\/smilies\/censored.gif"}[/IMG2]
. The few M-21's I saw were kinda beat to snot. SOTIC was building M-25's (an unofficial designation in their shop) essentially one rifle at a time and also learning and developing new techniques while they went along. Also Kapp had done a lot of High Power rifle shooting and used that as a base of knowledge. Here's something y'all may not know. Technically NONE of the M-14's they converted to M-25's were actually on the 10th Groups property book i.e. they were not "owned" by us.

10th SFG at Devens was not authorized to have but two M-14's, one for each battalion as training weapons. And the Army wouldn't budge on the MTOE (Modified Table of Organization and Equipment). So, to get around this, a "drug deal" was made between the Post Commander and 10th Group. You see the Post had an honor guard, and the honor guard was allowed to have M-14's. There was no limit to the number they could have. So, the post would order X number of M-14's from Anniston, they would be placed on the post property book, and then they would be hand receipted to 10th SFG. The only parts Kapp and crew (after Kapp took over it was just him and a SSG who were building rifles-there was also another MSGT there for a while but Kapp was in charge) would keep was the receiver, trigger group, gas system, oprod, and flash suppressor.

I remember Kapp telling me how they tried out some of the M-14/M1A scope mounts. He said they liked the concept of the ARMS mount a lot because it would have been nice to easily swap a rifle scope for an AN/PVS-4 scope and back again. However when they fired the rifle, the scope mount fell off after 27 rounds. They also tested the Springfield Armory mount but that wasn't rugged enough. At the time we jumped exposed weapons i.e. NO padded weapons case. Any scope mount would have to be damn rugged and not lose zero (we found out just how flimsy the M-16A2 rear sight was when jumping them exposed as well). Well, Kapp related to me how he sat down and designed a new type of M-14 mount, gave it to Brookfield and said, "You make this mount and we'll buy it". He also told me he couldn't take credit for it because he was worried about a possible conflict of interest situation.

So, Kapp was cranking out M-25's but it wasn't something that could be done quickly and the plan was to have at least one, if not two snipers with a sniper rifle on each ODA. My battalion commander for instance believed that each 18B on the team (there are two) should be a sniper. Nice thought but not everybody, even an SF weapons NCO has what it takes to be a sniper. So, what to do? Around the winter of 1988, I was in the battalion arms room and the armorer hands me a BRAND NEW M-1D. I mean not a scratch on it. Now, back in 1988 real M-1D's were scarce. If you saw one it was probably surplused from Israel and somewhat beat up. The cone flash hider was still in the cardboard can. It was niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice. I asked the armorer where it came from and he said, "We pulled it outa POMCUS stocks". POMCUS stands for Prepositioning Of Materiel Configured to Unit Sets". POMCUS for SF was a huge warehouse in England. From what I was told by a few guys that actually had been there, it was like that warehouse in the last scene of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark". It was this mythical supply dump/bunker where everything SF guys would need to fight WWIII, from Rolex watches to boots was stored. I asked him how many M-1D's we got and he said, "2nd Battalion has 24, 3rd has 23". I'm going "Wowwwwwwww!" Then he says, "guess how many are still in POMCUS?". I think for a few seconds and say, "Uh, a hundred?" He grins and says "1500............." When I heard that I was speechless. Anyway these were supposed to be issued as Team sniper rifles. And while they were very neat rifles, frankly I never though much of an M-1D as a sniperrifle-I mean in 1988 it would have been like issuing Pershing tanks to the 11 ACR at the Fulda Gap.

 

[Anchor Zero Six]

F-ing cool shit right here!

 

[Threadcutter308]

Fascinating and entertaining Read !!!!! Thank You very much !!!!!!

(And, keep 'em coming, looking forward to more....)

 

[sandwarrior]

Wow! ...Just Wow! The Army in it's infinite wisdom. Coupled with some egotistical bastard's opinions on what we shall and SHALL NOT have. The frustrating part is that right after that time frame, I believe it was immediately after GW1, that Pres. Bush Sr. had 700k new stock M-14's destroyed. Clinton did the same thing a few years later during his administration. For a grand total of 1.5 mil guns.

And, here Tom Klapp fights to get a dozen!

I was in the 1st RGR Bn. around that time. I watched the success we had with the M21 in Grenada and thought it was all the rage. I find out later, after I went to S-3, they were having a hard time keeping them bedded.

During a 350m night train-up our guys killed every hostage. I made the STOOPUD move of saying we might want to go to a bolt action like the Marines. We had several qualified snipers go through their course and said it was the schnitza. Getting feedback from different snipers over the years validated that to me. "That ain't happenin'." I was told. Three years after I get out, Voila!, M24's appear.

But, had somebody understood how to keep these bedded, they may have had a much longer life.

 

[buffalowinter]

Well, they did figue out how to keep the gun bedded...that's one reason why the Super Match shoots .6 moa. The answer lies in the "lugged" rear receiver of the Super Match being glass bedded in the stock versus the un-lugged rear receiver on all other, including National Match, M1A's.

Lugged rear receiver of M1A Super Match
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/i.imgur.com\/BAOBi77m.jpg"}[/IMG2]


Standard M1A receiver
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/i.imgur.com\/VA1eokKm.jpg"}[/IMG2]

 

[kraigWY]

When I went to the USAMU Sniper school in '78, the M21s weren't lugged, just bedded.

There was an article in the NRA several years about about the Snipe Rifles in Vietnam. They compared the M21 to the Marines M40, and discovered the M40 spend more time in the repair shops overall then the M40s

My Sniper Rifle shooting now consist of shooting the M1903A4 in the CMP Vintage Sniper Matches but I loved the M21, having used it in sniper school and taught sniper schools using it.

I have no experience with the M25s. My personal M1A was converted to a super match by Gene Barnett (Barnett Barrels) who was the NGMTU Armor back then. He told me if I was going to shoot for the Guard the Guard should overhaul my rifle.

Only time I've had to re-bed it was when I replaced the shot out barrels. But then I never take it out of the stock UNLESS I'm re-barreling it.

Got the old girl in 1977, she still shoots now.

 

[FatBoy]

There's so much stick'em on there it may not be CMP legal width anymore. Who peels it off your hand?

Gene is teaching my buddy the M1 and M1A barrel cuts. They have already done a barrel for his M1 in 243Win. Ronnie Morris welded on the rear lug. Tim did everything else. It's a huge amount of work compared to building an M700, etc.

 

[jbell]

Very cool!

I had an M1A built up as a shooter with a rear lugged Super Match receiver that was also bolted into a pillar bedded McMillan. The rifle was tuned to the max with a lot of gas system work and the heaviest Krieger that would fit in the stock. It was heavy but shot like a good bolt gun. They are fun rifles...

 

[sandwarrior]

So, the question begs, were the latest and greatest model of M25's modified with the rear lug?

 

[BangBangBlatBlat]

M25 Sniper Rifle
https://imgur.com/a/U4AcF

Here's a link to my M25 using USGI parts. The Army never welded lugs onto their rifles to my knowledge. I can ask the guy that built my rifle because he has an archive and personal notes for everything that was ever done to try and make them shoot well.

He built/converted the shooting teams M14NMs into M25s for a National Guard unit when they deployed to Iraq early in the war. And was a school trained National Match builder/armorer.

The thing that set their M25s apart from most of the M14s that were thrown at units was that they had a lifetime of loving care.

Basically, the rifles had medium heavy or heavy Kreiger barrels with less than 3000 rounds on them, McMillan stocks bedded with Titanium Devon, and had all of the National Match modifications done to them. And then the guns were tested to be 1 MOA or better with M118LR, or 1.5 MOA with selected lots of M80 ball. If they didn't shoot well, parts were changed until they did shoot well.

A few things set apart their M25s.

A pull-thru reamer was used on final clambering that was optimized for M118LR and set headspace at a minimum.

Devcon titanium compound was used. It's a lot more durable than Marine-Tex and other compounds. Just expensive and a bitch to work with.

The scope mounts were mounted by the armorer. And then glued in place after the scopes were zeroed.

Barrels were also more or less brand new Kreiger 1:12 twist barrels.

Soldiers had to be selected and attend a train-up course in order to be issued one. This helped negate some of the bone-headedness associated with the Army. In Iraq, the rifles had to be run dry, and usually had a towel or something to cover the action while you were riding around in trucks.

 

[sandwarrior]

Bangbang,

It appears the stock is composite. Those being after my day, how stiff were they? Being as how out here in the civilian world we have composite stocks that range from damn near as strong as steel, to floppy tupperware. Some seem stiff, but really aren't.

In viewing the close-up photo on the right, it appears the bedding doesn't go down in behind and underneath the rear area. I find it strange, as that is something I have success with on bolt guns, but then again, I have a rear action bolt right there. Thanks for posting!

 

[njohn890]

"So, the question begs, were the latest and greatest model of M25's modified with the rear lug?"

I always thought that the Brookfield Precision Tool Co stock liner was used in some variant of the M25? I believe that when you ask Mcmillan to inlet a new stock for it they still refer to this as the Ft Devens inlet? They sure didn't make their way into civilian hands in large numbers but I honestly don't know what period guns used them......

 

[Triggered]

Damn impressive group there, Buffalo.

In high school, a friend's father had a National Match (was maybe a Super) that I fell in love with and gave me the bug for the M1A and its associates.

Have yet to pick one up, but it'll be a National or Super when the day comes.

 

[longebow]

Buffalowinter:

I'm sorry to hear about Tom Kapp. RIP Brother...

I was in 5th SFG(A) back in the early 90's. I had heard about the great things that Tom Kapp was doing with the M21 system up at Devens. Our ODAs had M24s, which was not ideal (fixed magazine to begin with). We had brand spanking new M25s in Gulf War 1, but they were not issued for use. They were kept in the arms room in the rear in Saudi Arabia (heard that the leadership did not want them issued). These M25s had the McMillan fiberglass stocks, Brookfield steel scope mounts, and Baush & Lomb 10x Tactical scopes on them. My first impression was that the rifle overall, was very heavy. They had standard M14 receivers, so were NOT lugged. I had heard that those rifles were built at Crane.

When we got back to Ft. Campbell, we started training with the M25's and found that the large windage knob of the B&L would cause some ejecting cases to bounce back into the bolt's way, and cause malfunctions. It was sometime in that time period that I contacted Mitch Mateiko directly, and got a mount to have a scoped rifle built up. I was a M21 fan, as I used one from our Company arm's room in 1988 when I was in the 101st. Joe White, SFC (Retired) was our instructor, back in the day when the 101st had its own Divisional Sniper School. Had a lot of fun learning from that quiet professional! During that course I saw that the Artel/ART-1 was much more reliable than the "new" ART-2's.

He also built my first M1A on a standard Springfield Armory (civilian company) receiver. I used it for my first year in over the course matches chasing that little gold badge...

Later, while at Benning for my IOAC, I met James McQuien of the Fort Benning Rifle and Pistol club (Service Rifle champion at the AMU in the early 70's). He then introduced me to Gerald J. "Hook" Boutin. Hook built me a number of great rifles over the years. The last rifle Hook made for me was a LRB lugged rifle as my "M21." It was quite the labor of love: I went to Fred's "warehouse" in NC to spend hours picking through his stacks of M14 stocks. Found a nice tiger stripe birch stock. Stumbled on a medium weight NM marked USGI barrel on ebay. Had an old Artel scope lying around that I picked up years ago waiting for the proper rifle to be built.

Yup, I too have a deep respect for the M14/M21/M25!

longebow

 

[sandwarrior]

Longbow,.

What exactly about the ART/ARTEL scope was better for you?
I know I preferred the reticle of the ART over the ART II.

 

[longebow]

Longbow,.

What exactly about the ART/ARTEL scope was better for you?
I know I preferred the reticle of the ART over the ART II.

From my observation and personal experience, the ARTel/ART-1 held zero better (if left mounted to the rifle), fogged less than the ART-II (a number of ART-II scopes fogged when exposed to the Tennessee/Kentucky summer heat and humidity, followed by cool mornings), and the ART-1 had a better reticle (I saw ART-II reticles break). Also, the ART-II's often lost zero, due to the "poker chip" ballistic cam design. I was the arms room officer for C/3/187th, and used one for our two M21s for the course. It was a damn fine rifle, but we also know than in that form, needed a NM armorer to keep it running. Joe White was responsible for keeping the 101st Division's approximately 110 M21s running, until they were replaced by the M24s.

 

[Random Guy]

buffalowinter - I am in the process if building an XM25 replica. Might I inquire if any of the documents in the bottom picture of your original post relate to the XM25 rifle? If so please let me know.

Recently saw the attached Feb 1991 picture of NSWC personnel evaluating/test firing a suppressed XM25 at Ft Deven, MA, and I'm always looking for more info. (Also shown is my XM25 stock liner that I will use in the same stock as seen in that 1991 picture).

 

[buffalowinter]

Random Guy, I don't know much about the M25, my experience was with the M21, PSG-1, and FPK. I left 10th Group in 1991. The M25 info in the bottom of my post was found on the M14 Forum, from an un-named source, and was posted for info on my brother Tom Kapp.

 

[Random Guy]

buffalowinter. Okay, thanks. If any others have any firsthand experience re the XM25/M25 (circa late 1980s to early 1990s) I'd like to learn more. Here's the history that I recently wrote re the XM25.

"....From 1986 to 1988 the U.S. Army 10[SUP]th[/SUP] Special Forces at Ft. Devens, MA developed a 'Product Improved' sniper rifle that was designated as an XM25 (1988) or M25 (1991) for their specialized M14 sniper rifles. It does not appear that National Stock Numbers (NSNs) were developed for these rifles and special parts, as they were more or less an unofficial sniper system built at Ft. Devens. The XM25 used a unique steel stock liner made by Brookfield Precision Tool (BPT) that was permanently glass-bedded inside a black or forest camo McMillan M1A fiberglass stock that ensured a solid steel-to-steel mating surface between the receiver and stock liner. Unlike the traditional M21 rifle, the XM25 stock liner prevented "bedding break down", and allowed the operator to repeatedly remove the action from the stock for cleaning and maintenance without any degradation of accuracy of the rifle over time.

In addition to the standard configuration with a medium weight Barnett/Douglas match barrel, the U.S. Army Special Forces also made some suppressed versions of the XM25s, with suitably modified threaded barrels with the front sight mounted on the gas cylinder, and a special gas piston to allow the use the Ops, Inc sound suppressor. The XM25 utilized a Brookfield Precision Tool scope mount system that incorporated a 3-point mounting system, and the day optics were typically either a Leupold and Stevens (L&S) M3 or M3A Ultra 10x scope, or a Bausch & Lomb (B&L) 10x Tactical scope, both with Mil-Dot reticles. Depending on specific mission requirements, a special BPT adapter was also used to accommodate the AN/PVS-4 night scope, and some missions may have utilized the REM-7 laser pointer."

 

[NukeMMC]

Well, they did figue out how to keep the gun bedded...that's one reason why the Super Match shoots .6 moa. The answer lies in the "lugged" rear receiver of the Super Match being glass bedded in the stock versus the un-lugged rear receiver on all other, including National Match, M1A's.

The Navy M21s I got to train on for DM rifles in 1993 were of 2 variants. A wood stock with the ARTII seen on the right in the 1st picture below. This was an un-lugged M14 with SAK medium weight NM barrel, unitized gas (welded the front band to the gas cylinder), reamed flash suppressor, trigger worked and bedded in a standard wood stock with ARTII scope/mount. These were supposed to have been turned back into NSWC Crane for the newer M21 DMRs, but our armory was clueless. I will say, these rifles could SHOOT. They were a SOLID 1moa rifle with M80 ball ammo to 200yds!!! That SAK medium weight barrel was awesome for shooting ball ammo.

The other, pictured in the 2nd picture with some handsome, much younger squid shooting it, was a fiberglass stocked M14 that had a rear lug welded on and pillar bedded into the stock. It had a heavy match barrel, unitized gas, reamed flash suppressor and used a Brookfield Precision mount with Leupold M1A Ultra 10x with Dick Thomas' mil-dots and Ultra steel rings. The Navy match grade M14s at the time were double-lugged (I had one issued to me). The Navy lugs were quite a bit different than the USMC double lug system in both size and where the front lug screw bedded.

We had an issue of DODIC A170 Match ammo (Federal Match 168gr with spun-nose) but ONLY for actual callout use. We had NONE to train with or get zeros (NAVSEA had a gross lack of ANY clue about how to employ these rifles). In retrospect, this wasn't quite as bad as I thought back then, because that ammo SUCKED. I got the base armory to supply M80 ball ammo for the majority of the training, while I used a case of A171 (M852) I had been allocated as part of the Navy Rifle Team to get good zeros on the rifles at 100/200/300 (expected maximum engagement ranges on the base), gave them a couple boxes for each of the 3 McMillan-stocked rifles to use for callouts and gave the other can to the guys from 3rd Bn, 20th SFG(A) who helped provide us some of the training. Our lead instructor (SF SGM) was a former team Sgt from them, and a former USMC 8541. Apparently their supply of Match ammo was pretty dismal to support their rifles.

The base Security students and a JSO Sheriff Deputy (with the Remington PSS)

McMillan-stocked M21DMR (sighting in after re-mounting scope following training/zeros with irons)

 

[buffalowinter]

Random Guy, The person shooting the XM25 was a team mate of mine. I have sent you a PM with his address. As for the suppressor, my M21 used the Sionics. It was not impressive. It was very long and the attachment to the barrel was not very secure...as evidenced by the elliptical hole at the end from rounds contacting it.

 

[Random Guy]

"The other, pictured in the 2nd picture with some handsome, much younger squid shooting it, was a fiberglass stocked M14 that had a rear lug welded on and pillar bedded into the stock. It had a heavy match barrel, unitized gas, reamed flash suppressor and used a Brookfield Precision mount with Leupold M1A Ultra 10x with Dick Thomas' mil-dots and Ultra steel rings. The Navy match grade M14s at the time were double-lugged (I had one issued to me). The Navy lugs were quite a bit different than the USMC double lug system in both size and where the front lug screw bedded."

NukeMC - thanks for posting that info and that picture(!). Can you tell me what year that was taken?

Their are not a lot of color pictures of that Navy rifle with the black McMillan stock. Based on my research, I don't think the Navy referred to that rifle as a M21DMR, but was formally known in the original 1989 Requirements document as a "Navy Physical Security Sniper Rifle" and when its NSN was established it was referred to as a "Navy Port Security RIfle" . I'm in the process of building a replica of one of those rifles, and I have written some history of that rifle that I will be sending to Lee Emerson for consideration should he update his excellent book, M14 Rifle Development and History (Vol 1-5). Regardless, its a neat rifle not often seen.

Here is my understanding of the history of that rifle in the picture:

"...Unlike the Army's XM25/M25 variant, the Navy's equivalent M14 sniper rifles were formally adopted and given National Stock Numbers, identified in the nomenclature as Navy Physical Security Sniper Rifle or more commonly as M14 Port Security Rifle. (Note: Some books refer to these early 1990s era Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Crane-built sniper rifles as "Navy M25" rifles, but technically speaking, the Navy never adopted the M25 nomenclature). The original M14 Port Security rifles were based on NSWC-built Navy Match "Grade A" M14 rifles as utilized by the Navy's rifle team, and had either a double-lugged receiver (NSN: 1005-LL-H18-7614) or rear-lugged receiver (NSN: 1005-LL-H18-7615).

Apparently the front lug on the double-lugged match receivers would often crack, possibly due to poor welding technique, so they Navy switched to simpler rear-lugged receivers for their Port Security rifles. These match grade sniper rifles had heavy profile match barrels, and were converted into sniper rifles via epoxy-bedding them into forest camo or plain black McMillan M1A stocks, along with the installation of the Brookfield Precision Tool (BPT) scope mount, and typically the Bausch & Lomb 10x tactical scope.

According to Navy documentation, funding was provided in Fiscal Year 1989 for the Naval Weapons Support Center (NWSC) to build 250 of the Navy Physical Security Sniper Rifles, and that approximately 70 "Grade A" Match M14s were already in storage at Crane at that time, and apparently suitable for the conversion process into a sniper rifle configuration. The bulk of the Navy' s Port Security rifles were likely built in 1989-1990.'"

...Anyhow, Attached are two pics from Peter Senich's book, The Long-Range War. If anyone has any more info re the Army XM25 or Navy Port Security sniper rifles (or pics) from the late 1980s to mid-1990s, I'd really like to see more info. (Also shown is the 1993 heavy profile USN marked marked barrel I am using for my Navy M14 Port Security tribute rifle.)

buffalowinter - thanks for the info in your email