Marksmen issued better M14 rifles in Afghanistan

#101
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Well I see he is embracing the short term strategy... clearly there is a vested interested, with the link included as evidence by completely ignoring what else was said and only answering the one question he felt he could.

So, we'll see how long this lasts, my bet is, not long.
 
#102
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well I see he is embracing the short term strategy... clearly there is a vested interested, with the link included as evidence by completely ignoring what else was said and only answering the one question he felt he could.</div></div>

Can you be clear and ask a specific question?
 
#103
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">H20 MAN,

Whats your experience with M14's?

The reason I ask, you seem to be pimping a system upgrade/adder to a problem I've never ran into, with my limited M14 experience. Most likely, I've missed something somewhere, and I'd like to know what it was. </div></div>

Pimping
laugh.gif


My M14 experience stated in the late 70's when I was able to shoot my friends fathers M1 Garand. I loved that rifle, but ended up buying AR type rifle for myself... time passed.

Following the advise of my friend that served on Enterprise, I went shopping for an M14 type rifle and purchased a Springfield Scout in 2001. My Scout must have been made on a Friday because it had zero USGI parts and it was a problematic POS that required four trips back to the factory for warranty repairs. I ended up with a National Match Scout with all TRW parts, but my confidence in it was low.

With the sunset of the AWB I began looking for something different and found the black SAGE EBR stock pictured below.
30+ years of shooting ARs had me wanting a pistol grip.
ebrbuild.JPG


My research lead me to the military MK14 Mod 0 and then to the military MK14 SEI. Crane does not build rifles for civilians, but SEI does.
Lee Emerson suggested that I contact Ron Smith and enquirer about the MK14 SEI and I thank him for that. "In 2003, Ron Smith and Smith Enterprises Inc. created its own version of the M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle (MK14 SEI Mod 0), which was more widely favored than the rifle made by Rock and Ribordy." Wikipedia

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">upgrade/adder to a problem I've never ran into</div></div>

The reliability problems I ran into with my Springfield are one thing, but if you plan to own an M14 that is AK reliable and capable of extreme accuracy you may learn from my experience and be able to avoid known problems. No glass bedding and no unitized gas system are part of the SAGE chassis. Permanent tension bedding, a shimmed gas system and a barrel that is semi free floated forward of the op rod guide block all help with accuracy and having the action built by SEI didn't hurt a thing.

I fired less than 800 rounds from my Scout and it required four warranty repairs to make it that far.

I have fired about 1800 rounds from each of my two MK14 SEI rifles (3600 total) and I have not experienced a single problem with either rifle.

The M14 is like a big block American Muscle car that responds extremely well to an engine that has been balanced and blue printed and a suspension that is set up for daily use/abuse. SEI balanced and blue printed the action and SAGE supplied the suspension... my M14s are set-up to tolerate daily use and abuse... more than I'll ever dish out.

The closest thing I have to the TACOM M14EBR-RI would be one of my Poly Tech rifles with a GI bolt conversion, stock Poly barrel bolted into the correct SAGE stock... I may build one this way sometime next year.

</div></div>

That is funny right there, I don't care who you are.
Just so you know, I've never had those issues with either the TRW XM21 I owned or the H&R M14e2. Uncle supplied all my 14's back when, they ran at -38* as well as +125* all over this rock. A M1A is not, nor never will, be a M14
Will it do everything a scoped bolt gun will, no. Will it make a great entry weapon, no. Will it be a great SAW, again no. What it will do is everything a Main battle rifle needs to do. Tactics run with the weapon/s, not the other way around.
I've seen an been given lots of pie in the sky over the years, and this is just another taste of money flowing from one pocket to another w/o a justified end result.
Tell me the mission this item fills better than anything fielded todate, given the whole M14 family. I submit the amount of money spent on this could be better used in training the end user, prove me wrong.
 
#104
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickeness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

He has no sources, he just posts pointless shit about how great/accurate/reliable the M14 is that he hears secondhand or reads online. That's why he was banned from lightfighter 2 years ago (posting under the name Rex Kramer). He has never fielded one operationally and has no firsthand experience other than the fact that he paid Ron Smith a ridiculous amount of money to pimp out his M14s.

H20man is an online village-idiot of sorts among several different forums. Best to just ignore or point/laugh at him. </div></div>

I've posted on BARFCOM, Lightfighter, and M4Carbine in the past and they are pretty much all the same crap.
BARFCOM is generally filled with internet commandos who think that they know everything.
LIGHTFIGHTER, for the most part, is filled with a bunch of good-ole-boys who think that they are the only ones that ever served in the Military or LE. What a disappointment that site was.
M4CARBINE is combined with both types.

So saying that he got banned from LIGHTFIGHTER isn't saying much.
 
#105
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ Brown</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I'm pretty sure those are the MK14 Mod 0s built by Crane and they defiantly had problems. </div></div>

How about you to backing-up your accusation with unimpeachable proof.

Alan </div></div>
I'm pretty sure the story is documented in Lee Emerson's book... read it.

</div></div>

Why would I read second hand info from a book when I was there from the start of the EBR until Oct of 2009.

Alan
 
#106
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A M1A is not, nor never will, be a M14</div></div>

What does this even mean?
 
#107
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickeness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

He has no sources, he just posts pointless shit about how great/accurate/reliable the M14 is that he hears secondhand or reads online. That's why he was banned from lightfighter 2 years ago (posting under the name Rex Kramer). He has never fielded one operationally and has no firsthand experience other than the fact that he paid Ron Smith a ridiculous amount of money to pimp out his M14s.

H20man is an online village-idiot of sorts among several different forums. Best to just ignore or point/laugh at him. </div></div>

I've posted on BARFCOM, Lightfighter, and M4Carbine in the past and they are pretty much all the same crap.
BARFCOM is generally filled with internet commandos who think that they know everything.
LIGHTFIGHTER, for the most part, is filled with a bunch of good-ole-boys who think that they are the only ones that ever served in the Military or LE. What a disappointment that site was.
M4CARBINE is combined with both types.

So saying that he got banned from LIGHTFIGHTER isn't saying much. </div></div>

The point is that there is a pattern of idiotic behavior which leads him to be banned from every forum he posts on.

May just be my opinion, but not many people are banned from LF.net who don't deserve it. I personally enjoy the fact that people with no credentials/credibility can't just run their sucks on there without backing up up. But to each his own.
 
#108
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EBRbuilder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gee, there seems to be a lot of pent up anger and agression on this board. You guys need to go to the range and relax by converting gun powder into noise.

For your information, The M14EBR-RI is built with rack stock Code A M14s right out of Anniston AL. Each one is shot for group prior to it being shipped out to the troops to verify that it will shoot less than 1.5 MOA. So far our average is under 1 MOA with 5000 rifles built. The only modification we do to the barreled action is ream the flash suppressor to NM specs, like we did on the M21 program.

The M14EBR-RI was developed in response to the large number of ONS (Operational Needs Statements) received from units in the box. All we did was bring the gun into the present day by restocking it and adding Leupold optics.

We must of done something right, as we are still getting requirements for them and will be building far above the original 5000 requested.

Is it the final solution.... No. But it is here, in stock, shipping and doing the job killing bad guys. It fullfills 90 to 95% of the requirements.

Yes we have had some problems with support, but that is being worked on. We have weapons at all the SASCs for one for one replacements and have shipped support packages there as well. All parts are currently being provisioned and soon will be competed for stockage.

I see a couple of people talk about a new gun next year. A normal procurement can take 5 years fast tracked and more through the normal requirements development, testing and selection. There is no fast or easy solution.

If you really think that an M4 with an ACOG is right for a DM lets find a big hill and you can be at the bottom and I will take an EBR to the top and see if you change your mind. I have only fired about 30 thousand rounds so far this year. </div></div>

Lots of personnel Oxes being gored and tempers heating up. The Subject of this thread is "Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan". The above post clearly points out that this program is in response to requests from the field for something better asap. This program seems like a common sense means to make the best of what we have on hand into something better and getting it into the field asap. Personally I'd rather have the M14EBR in hand than a M4 with a 4X ACOG, a box of 77 grain loads and a promise that a new wonder weapon is coming....some time...soon as the government approves it....and congress funds it...maybe. I say well done and keep them going as long as they are asking for them.
 
#109
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

What I don't get is, with all of these nice .308 weapons coming out like the Larue, LMT, LWRC, POF, SCAR-H, why wouldn't the military test those out and try one of them. We are talking 5K rifles, not 300K.

And if these M14's really are shooting 1.5 MOA or better, I don't see a problem with them. These are DMR's, not sniper rifles. Has anyone here actually used these exact ones in combat to comment on them? I'm not talking about other M14's, I'm specifically talking about the 5K.
 
#110
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

From my count on this thread, there have been three opinions submitted by operators of EBR's.
Whether or not it is the same version, mfg / builder, etc, is a different story.

My thoughts on that are if these weapons systems are so sensitive to who builds and tunes them, that would in my opinion be contradictory to the entire principle of milspec weapons.
It is basically saying that the system will work great until it doesn't.
Then you need to send the system back to that miracle worker that got it to perform so well in the first place.
That just isn't the way things work.
A basic requirement for a combat system is serviceability.
This is done on three levels, operator, unit armorer, and depot / mfg.
If a weapons system goes in for depot level maintenance, it is essentially gone from the unit.
The only logical solution to that problem would be to train the armorers up to a level where they could do the same job as the MFG.

Like I have previously stated, I have no dog in this fight and truly don't care.
However, it is important to separate fantasy from reality.

That being said, I think the EBR setup mentioned is damn sexy looking and would be a nice addition to my collection.
I can certainly see why one would be drawn to it and owners can be fierce advocates of products regardless of any flaws.
 
#111
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

So saying that he got banned from LIGHTFIGHTER isn't saying much. </div></div>

smile.gif
I don't miss the place or the attitude, not one bit.
 
#112
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Prairie Dog Dundee</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EBRbuilder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gee, there seems to be a lot of pent up anger and agression on this board. You guys need to go to the range and relax by converting gun powder into noise.

For your information, The M14EBR-RI is built with rack stock Code A M14s right out of Anniston AL. Each one is shot for group prior to it being shipped out to the troops to verify that it will shoot less than 1.5 MOA. So far our average is under 1 MOA with 5000 rifles built. The only modification we do to the barreled action is ream the flash suppressor to NM specs, like we did on the M21 program.

The M14EBR-RI was developed in response to the large number of ONS (Operational Needs Statements) received from units in the box. All we did was bring the gun into the present day by restocking it and adding Leupold optics.

We must of done something right, as we are still getting requirements for them and will be building far above the original 5000 requested.

Is it the final solution.... No. But it is here, in stock, shipping and doing the job killing bad guys. It fullfills 90 to 95% of the requirements.

Yes we have had some problems with support, but that is being worked on. We have weapons at all the SASCs for one for one replacements and have shipped support packages there as well. All parts are currently being provisioned and soon will be competed for stockage.

I see a couple of people talk about a new gun next year. A normal procurement can take 5 years fast tracked and more through the normal requirements development, testing and selection. There is no fast or easy solution.

If you really think that an M4 with an ACOG is right for a DM lets find a big hill and you can be at the bottom and I will take an EBR to the top and see if you change your mind. I have only fired about 30 thousand rounds so far this year. </div></div>

Lots of personnel Oxes being gored and tempers heating up. The Subject of this thread is "Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan". The above post clearly points out that this program is in response to requests from the field for something better asap. This program seems like a common sense means to make the best of what we have on hand into something better and getting it into the field asap. Personally I'd rather have the M14EBR in hand than a M4 with a 4X ACOG, a box of 77 grain loads and a promise that a new wonder weapon is coming....some time...soon as the government approves it....and congress funds it...maybe. I say well done and keep them going as long as they are asking for them. </div></div>

Well said - Bravo!
 
#113
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan


confused.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have the insider information, the fact shortly after starting this thread the owner of the company is here right along with you... it all sort of adds up to a viral marketing strategy </div></div>Just who would that be and what company does he own?
 
#114
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ Brown</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ Brown</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I'm pretty sure those are the MK14 Mod 0s built by Crane and they defiantly had problems. </div></div>

How about you to backing-up your accusation with unimpeachable proof.

Alan </div></div>
I'm pretty sure the story is documented in Lee Emerson's book... read it.


</div></div>

Why would I read second hand info from a book when I was there from the start of the EBR until Oct of 2009.

Alan </div></div>


Mr. H20, I do believe they call that (as much as I hate the word) PWNED! I Hope Retirement finds you well Mr. Brown.
smile.gif
 
#115
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Just who would that be and what company does he own? </div></div>

Not sure if he actually owns anything, but he's certainly presenting himself in a spokesman type role...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: "EBRbuilder"</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We must of done something right, as we are still getting requirements for them and will be building far above the original 5000 requested.</div></div>

Just saying...

-matt
 
#116
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monteboy84</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Just who would that be and what company does he own? </div></div>

Not sure if he actually owns anything, but he's certainly presenting himself in a spokesman type role...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: "EBRbuilder"</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We must of done something right, as we are still getting requirements for them and will be building far above the original 5000 requested.</div></div>

Just saying...

-matt </div></div>

laugh.gif
I don't think EBRbuilder owns TACOM, but he is working there and he is sharing first hand information in real time.
 
#117
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SR71</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


Mr. H20, I do believe they call that (as much as I hate the word) PWNED! </div></div>

Hardly. It's more like delayed disclosure.
 
#119
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I don't get is, with all of these nice .308 weapons coming out like the Larue, LMT, LWRC, POF, SCAR-H, why wouldn't the military test those out and try one of them. We are talking 5K rifles, not 300K. </div></div>

They chose the KAC rifles, which look nice but not exactly cost effective.
 
#120
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I don't get is, with all of these nice .308 weapons coming out like the Larue, LMT, LWRC, POF, SCAR-H, why wouldn't the military test those out and try one of them. We are talking 5K rifles, not 300K. </div></div>

They chose the KAC rifles, which look nice but not exactly cost effective. </div></div>

the KAC is more of a true Sniper Rifle. I was referring to a lighter, smaller DMR type like an 18" barreled rifle like the SPR. Actually, why not just deploy more SPR rifles?
 
#121
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I don't get is, with all of these nice .308 weapons coming out like the Larue, LMT, LWRC, POF, SCAR-H, why wouldn't the military test those out and try one of them. We are talking 5K rifles, not 300K. </div></div>

They chose the KAC rifles, which look nice but not exactly cost effective. </div></div>

the KAC is more of a true Sniper Rifle. I was referring to a lighter, smaller DMR type like an 18" barreled rifle like the SPR. Actually, why not just deploy more SPR rifles? </div></div>

I like this rifle from KAC, but $5600.00 without optics is kind of expensive especially when compared to less than $3K for a fully kitted M14EBR-RI.

SR-25EMCARBINE1.jpg
 
#122
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

The SPR/Mk12 Mod1 is a SOCOM weapon, (admitedly adopted now by the USMC), it is not a US Army weapons.

The M110 will likley filted down replacing the M-14 stuff, once the M24E program is being delivered.

Frankly I would support an open and honest DMR program for the Army, run by the Sniper School in Benning.

Logistically the M14 is an odd duck, and it does not make sense to continue to pour good money after bad. Not to say it does not fill a current void, but the long term benifits of pouring money into it, will net us less in the long run.
 
#123
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It is basically saying that the system will work great until it doesn't.
Then you need to send the system back to that miracle worker that got it to perform so well in the first place.
That just isn't the way things work.
A basic requirement for a combat system is serviceability.
This is done on three levels, operator, unit armorer, and depot / mfg.
If a weapons system goes in for depot level maintenance, it is essentially gone from the unit.
The only logical solution to that problem would be to train the armorers up to a level where they could do the same job as the MFG.</div></div>

From my experience with the M21 in the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea; the 1st Special Forces Group on Okinawa and Fort Lewis, Washington; and in a Special Mission Unit, active US Army units on US bases, supported by Army, Marine, Air Force, and contract Direct and General Support small arms maintenance you are correct, sir.

Broken M21s could NOT be repaired overseas and in-country. Rifles and scopes had to go back to somewhere in the states for repair and could be gone for up to two whole years -- this in peacetime when the M21 was a Standard-A line weapon! A "Float" weapon you got in the meantime (if there were any available) more than likely had issues.

Multiply the challenges of wartime, deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan on the other end of the world and supply/maintenance chain, and issued to a Soldier WHO HAS NEVER SEEN OR SHOT ONE BEFORE and you have the potential for disaster (especially if he's deployed away from a Small Arms Support Center or maintenance hub).

If the weapon does not belong to that Soldier or gunner once he leaves but is simply passed on to the next crew, my experience with GI gear is if it's not permanently assigned to the troop he will take even less care with it than if it was his. The problems I saw with our M21s were with school-trained snipers with dedicated weapons -- they got what they got and made do, but it was less than ideal.

If you had seasoned NCOs with experience with the M14 (as shooters or maintainers) you were extremely fortunate -- but these are normally guys staff sergeant and above who were not your new line doggie. Some National Guard units seem better than regular and reserve units because you have guys who like to shoot and tinker, and they may compete at state, regional, and National Guard Championships.

The Sniper Schools at Benning and Camp Robinson can't produce enough snipers for the force as it is -- adding the DM requirement to the mix would sink them.

Divisions should run their own local DM courses from a central POI, much like any forward-stationed airborne battalion or brigade can run their own jumpmaster courses -- but you have to have a solid cadre foundation to build from.
 
#124
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monteboy84</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Just who would that be and what company does he own? </div></div>

Not sure if he actually owns anything, but he's certainly presenting himself in a spokesman type role...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: "EBRbuilder"</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We must of done something right, as we are still getting requirements for them and will be building far above the original 5000 requested.</div></div>

Just saying...

-matt </div></div>

laugh.gif
I don't think EBRbuilder owns TACOM, but he is working there and he is sharing first hand information in real time.
</div></div>

Standing on semantics is going to be your ticket off this site for sure, especially if you keep playing games with me the way you are as my patience only runs so far.

Then you can hang out on your own forum and sell your ideas to yourself.
 
#125
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Broken M21s could NOT be repaired overseas and in-country. Rifles and scopes had to go back to somewhere in the states for repair and could be gone for up to two whole years -- this in peacetime when the M21 was a Standard-A line weapon! A "Float" weapon you got in the meantime (if there were any available) more than likely had issues.</div></div>

That's my biggest problem, requires far more specialized tools an expertise than does a comparable M110 or SPR (I know, that's not Army, doesn't negate my point though). Any wrench-slinging schmuck can put an AR style rifle together and have it function at at least a 1.5 MOA level, but typically better.

The problem with this idea of outfitting existing M14's with a new chassis is the assumption that these things are in good working order before application of the chassis system. If they're not, can the average soldier or Armorer diagnose and repair it overseas? Not likely, going to take special tools, parts, and possibly machining.

From an economic standpoint the idea has merit, seeing as how we have a number of M14's in storage, but if it means putting a system in the hands of a soldier who has no means to repair it, then, well, you can assume what my thinking is. I'm not advocating we outfit to repair these things overseas either, that'd be counter intuitive to the cost-saving idea that landed them in a chassis in the first place.

-matt
 
#127
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Sniper Schools at Benning and Camp Robinson can't produce enough snipers for the force as it is -- adding the DM requirement to the mix would sink them.

Divisions should run their own local DM courses from a central POI, much like any forward-stationed airborne battalion or brigade can run their own jumpmaster courses -- but you have to have a solid cadre foundation to build from. </div></div>

I agree whole heartedly sir, however the central POI, and real doctrine and MTOE are key.
Click to expand...
 
#128
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

There are over 90,000 ready-to-issue M14s at Anniston, right now, today, in ready-to-issue Condition-A. Guns fielded can be maintained by cannibalization but the wrench-turners have to know what they're doing. This was problematical even when Rock Island had a National Match Armorers course. We have smart kids with technical ability -- it is not voodoo or rocket science, it is standard maintenance and repair.

Once you've consumed what you've cannibalized you've got to have someone willing to manufacture bits and pieces to MILSPEC at a price Uncle is willing to spend (which in today's CNC world shouldn't be hard) at the expense of other things we need to send to war -- which could end up being pricey.

Gut 15% of the available M14s for parts and you've still got years' worth of supply at 15% stockage.

The bottom line is the Army and the Infantry have still not defined a squad-level MOS/unit immaterial marksman's capability. Today he's supposed to be a line-doggie who can shoot to 500 or 600 yards and hit a man, period.

Enough folks squawked long and hard that they need 7.62 capability at the squad that division commanders sign off on the request for free guns without first defining their mission need. There is no standard so there is no standard gun or training, but free is free. If divisions aren't directly paying for raw M14s or EBRs they come out ahead and it doesn't affect them.

There aren't enough snipers to go around, and everyone wants capability whether they know how to deploy and exploit it or not.

5,000 rifles doesn't even permanently field a rifle to each sniper-qualified guy authorized an M24 / M110 in the force -- how are we supposed to get at least one to each maneuver squad in the Active and Guard structure, let alone operational floats and maintenance guns?
 
#129
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are over 90,000 ready-to-issue M14s at Anniston, right now, today, in ready-to-issue Condition-A. Guns fielded can be maintained by cannibalization but the wrench-turners have to know what they're doing. This was problematical even when Rock Island had a National Match Armorers course. We have smart kids with technical ability -- it is not voodoo or rocket science, it is standard maintenance and repair.

Once you've consumed what you've cannibalized you've got to have someone willing to manufacture bits and pieces to MILSPEC at a price Uncle is willing to spend (which in today's CNC world shouldn't be hard) at the expense of other things we need to send to war -- which could end up being pricey.

Gut 15% of the available M14s for parts and you've still got years' worth of supply at 15% stockage.

The bottom line is the Army and the Infantry have still not defined a squad-level MOS/unit immaterial marksman's capability. Today he's supposed to be a line-doggie who can shoot to 500 or 600 yards and hit a man, period.

Enough folks squawked long and hard that they need 7.62 capability at the squad that division commanders sign off on the request for free guns without first defining their mission need. There is no standard so there is no standard gun or training, but free is free. If divisions aren't directly paying for raw M14s or EBRs they come out ahead and it doesn't affect them.

There aren't enough snipers to go around, and everyone wants capability whether they know how to deploy and exploit it or not. </div></div>

Damn! Your pretty much on the money!

The Army does not really understand the role of the sniper and how to employ them anymore! To big Army they are just a guy with a rifle that shoots a little farther and that is about it. They are viewed as a pain in the ass and getting ammo for their rifles is a pain!! The amount of rounds that was allocated for snipers to train on is laughable at best imo. Units are afraid to employ them correctly as a result of risk aversion. There are ways to mitigate that risk but not to the level that units feel comfortable, sadly. Part of this risk aversion stems from senior leaders failing to support their junior leaders creating fear in the ranks, I'm not sure if this is a result from the zero defect Army, politics or something else?

It kills me when I just see these systems being wasted or find out about ammunition for said systems just sitting and waiting to be used when it should be and could be!!

Just my .02 aka this is just my opinion.
 
#130
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stefan73</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It kills me when I just see these systems being wasted or find out about ammunition for said systems just sitting and waiting to be used when it should be and could be!!
</div></div>

That's pretty much every single gov't operation out there, why should the military be any different.
 
#131
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

This is some good shit, lol...

What I've got from reading this post is: The current M14 or kind of like a American made AK, except it performs worse? The few people that have posted that are still serving or have served and fielded this thing seem to deeply dislike it. To me, from a civilian common-sense point of view an AR10 based platform would make WAY more sense.

Jake
 
#132
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jakerz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
What I've got from reading this post is: The current M14 or kind of like a American made AK, except it performs worse?</div></div>

Yeah, TBH I think the M1A gets an inordinate amount of Nerd Love on the internet.
 
#133
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

The M14 is a '57 Chevy with standard transmission (it's literally from the same era). It is the equivalent to putting it on the line today -- some will be damn near new, some will be tired, most will be acceptable and ready to issue.

Why are we issuing it?

It is big, heavy, and dependable if in good condition and maintained. It should have a definite mission, a training pipeline, parts, and maintainers at the unit and battalion level.

If he can get it to work with a timing light and common tools he's good -- does he have parts to swap for stuff that breaks? Once he's got the hood up does he know what to monkey with? 'Cause he's sure as hell not getting it in today's Army initial entry training or tech school.

Give him one that has been modded to what is now a non-standard hot-rod or low-rider without manuals and he may figure it out -- or not.

Does the average non-sniper trained line E1-E5 today know how a standard works (i.e., is he looking at mildots on a cross hair like a hog staring at a wristwatch wondering what the hell they're there for and how they work)?

He shouldn't be introduced to it cold at the reception, marshaling, and forward deployment base/camp just before he goes into combat -- that's criminal malfeasance.
 
#134
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The M14 is a '57 Chevy with standard transmission (it's literally from the same era). It is the equivalent to putting it on the line today -- some will be damn near new, some will be tired, most will be acceptable and ready to issue.
</div></div>

That's not a wholly fair metaphor considering the 57 is easier to work on than modern cars. Other than that you're pretty well on the money, but I'd think of it more as a 57 Chevy with some form of finicky mechanical fuel injection, amongst a fleet of modern-built race cars all running more simplistic Holley carburetors.

Probably doesn't mean much to most here, but in my own screwy brain it makes sense
grin.gif


-matt
 
#135
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Color me surprised.

I sincerely hope that Rock Island is posting a web accessible .pdf EBR maintenance and service guide so that troops can print or download off private, MWR, or NIPR computers.
 
#136
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

CRANE has a 133 page manual for the Mod 0 that
covers just about everything you need to know.

SW370-A2-OPI-010
SOFWEP-04-G10-0003-83-00
OPERATOR’S MANUAL
for
RIFLE, 7.62MM MK 14 MOD 0,
Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR)
 
#137
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

And a private in Afghanistan is going to know that how with two days in the classroom and one on the range (and it's a Naval document not on the US Army Publications Agency site)?

I already tried googling anything for specific Rock Island configuration -- this is the closest I found:

http://www.m14.ca/manuals/SAGE_EBR_INSTALL.pdf

Anyone know what Basic Issue Items the Soldier gets with the rifle, and where to get replacements once the first guy pilfers, loses, or rotates home with them? Allen wrenches are in short supply once you leave the states.
 
#138
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">CRANE has a 133 page manual for the Mod 0 that
covers just about everything you need to know.

SW370-A2-OPI-010
SOFWEP-04-G10-0003-83-00
OPERATOR’S MANUAL
for
RIFLE, 7.62MM MK 14 MOD 0,
Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR) </div></div>

H20 Man

Do you have a copy of this? If not can you get your hands on a copy?
 
#139
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And a private in Afghanistan is going to know that how with two days in the classroom and one on the range (and it's a Naval document not on the US Army Publications Agency site)?

I already tried googling anything for specific Rock Island configuration -- this is the closest I found:

http://www.m14.ca/manuals/SAGE_EBR_INSTALL.pdf

Anyone know what Basic Issue Items the Soldier gets with the rifle, and where to get replacements once the first guy pilfers, loses, or rotates home with them? Allen wrenches are in short supply once you leave the states. </div></div>

I ordered my parts and tools from Fulton Armory! There were no instructions with the EBR stock which was just handed to us with the rifle and no optics (I had a friend who was kind enough to send me a Sprinfield Armory optic and a scope mount). So I did what I could and cleaned up the system the best I could. I did experiment a little with polishing the trigger some which made a slight improvement wether it was mental/percieved or real I couldn't tell you but it was worth it either way imo.

Very Respectfully,
Stefan
 
#140
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Maintenance on the M14EBR-RI is really no different from that on the M24SWS, the M110 SASS or the M107 Barret. They are all sent back to the manufacturer for maintenance. There are plenty of M14 parts in the system to support the barreled action, and Sage unique items will be in the pipeline soon. The M14EBR-RI IS NOT an Army program of record. Until the determination is made to make it one, we are not funded to write a new manual for it. I have written a suppliment to the original TM that is overpacked with each rifle as well as the 1972 TM for the M14. The Army is requirements driven, meaning that until there is a need and that need is verified through the Commnad Chain we cannot do anything. We respond only to validated requests from Soldiers and their Commanders, there is no agenda and we do not profit from providing these weapons to the troops.

Secondly the decision was made to not have SARET Teams perform maintenance on these weapons as they are only provided as loans. The unit can request them up to 6 months prior to deployment and are to turn them in for RESET at RIA at the end of their deployment. They are brought back to Code A and put back into the warehouse for the next requesting unit. This policy was developed by DA, not us.

The PM is constantly doing user assesments in theatre to validate that the system is doing what it is designed to do. To date, all user assesments have been favorable or we would not be building them. I have no personal stake in this, as I have a job no matter what system I am working on. I have used this particular system since Viet Nam and believe it fills a need. Yes I own a couple of Civilian M1A in different configurations including EBR as well as several AR-15s. Each system has it's strong points and weaknesses.

I have done 6 tours as a DA Civilian in Iraq and have seen Soldiers come into the SASC with rack stock M14s with a scope that was sent from Mom and Dad and who knows what kind of rings and mounts with foam rubber and 100 MPH tape on the stock so that they could achieve some kind of cheek weld. The intent of the TACOM M14EBR-RI program is to provide the Soldiers and their Commanders a supportable system with a common set of components.

We will continue to do this until a suitable replacement is procured or the requirement goes away.
 
#141
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EBRbuilder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The PM is constantly doing user assessments in theater to validate that the system is doing what it is designed to do.
To date, all user assessments have been favorable or we would not be building them. </div></div>

That's good to know. Keep up the good work.
 
#142
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

... I think the M1A gets an inordinate amount of Nerd Love on the internet. </div></div>

No more than the AK, FAL, AR, HK etc...
 
#143
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

The Army has a requirements disconnect.

Divisions say they have a squad-level 7.62mm rifle requirement. G3/5/7 either concurs or validates the requirement for free issue based on the fighting commanders' request.

G8, the TRADOC Army Requirements Integration Center, and the Infantry School Commandant say it's not supportable by DOTMLPF.

Free is free, so the program will go on until a General Officer puts a boot in someone's ass to justify money spent for sustained on-the-ground capability or fraud, waste, and abuse.

Like water, programs will find their own level until money becomes an issue or a unit gets overrun. Cost vs. capability isn't an issue while the military spends GWOT supplemental money like a drunken sailor.

This issue will not be decided until time comes to pin blame as opposed to promoting and decorating -- that is a fact of life and politics.

Success has many fathers while failure is a bastard.

In the meantime units either have force multipliers or arms room queens.
 
#145
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Whoops! Sorry.

A DOTMLPF says we've looked at a capability shortfall and whether or not a new gadget (from screwdriver to aircraft carrier) can fix an identified problem.

If it's a real need you figure out what the whole system needs to look like and cost to buy, train, fix, field, use, use up, and finally dispose of a system -- everything from training, tools, documentation, ammo, ranges, whatever, cradle-to-grave. The Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle wasn't a DOD priority fix until five years ago.

The B52 hangs on as do the Chinook, CH46, U2, M2 machinegun, and the M16. The M14 officially hangs on in the Navy as a line-throwing gun.

In the meantime the Army M14 is free, while the money for 5,000 or 10,000 EBRs (at $3K apiece, or up to 30 million dollars) isn't even a rounding error for some programs (i.e., Future Weapon System or the F22).
 
#148
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Success has many fathers while failure is a bastard. </div></div>

Great Quote
 
#149
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jakerz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is some good shit, lol...

What I've got from reading this post is:
The current M14 or kind of like a American made AK, except it performs worse? </div></div>

Jake,

I don't have the current M14EBR-RI that are said to reliably shoot 1 MOA or better, but my MK14 SEI
Mod 0 delivers AK47 reliability & sub MOA accuracy and it's been doing this for 5 years and counting.
... kind of like an American made AK, except it performs better and it's much more accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

powerspc
SOLD Leupold DAGR (Dual Aperture Gunsight Riflescope) - $3,800
Replies
0
Views
189
powerspc
powerspc
gr8fuldoug
Industry News and Updates
Replies
0
Views
539
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Optics What's Going On At Camera Land
Replies
0
Views
333
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
What's Going On At Camera Land
Replies
0
Views
219
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
SHOT Show Day 3
Replies
1
Views
535
Sblzrd65
S
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts