Marksmen issued better M14 rifles in Afghanistan

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All that stuff for a non-sniper line rifleman with two classroom training days and one range day. </div></div>

Quiet you, this is a momentous day! The 5000th EBR M1A somethingrather has been built!

 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

There still seems to be alot of strong, and possibly hurt feelings here. Im surprised that this thread is still going as strong as it is.

I have no mil exp, and have no idea if soldiers like these setups. It appears that some do and others do not. The issue of training with this platform is valid, but I think it is a seperate issue all together.

I dont want to get too far offtrack, but even if these turn out to be unpopular with the mil, I think they are great for civi shooters with a more modern semi setup. The issues of weight dont matter to those of us not required to hike long distance, or patrol anything. The wandering zero should be settled with the intigrated rail, or perhaps with the LRB integrated rail setup. This isnt what the military is doing, but I think a soldier should be able to fight with whatever he wishes (I know that this would be fantasy though.)

I think that the cost of these isnt anything to consider compared to other costs. Training could also be had for what would probably be considered minimal cost, and im sure there are people willing to get paid to provide it.

Ill admit that im a fanboi, and as such am biased. Its no crime to favor one over another.

I would like to see the Govt having them made again, and include some more modern modifications like the integrated scope rail, or stocks that dont need bedding. I like the idea of the stock being on centerline with the bore. Thicker barrels timed to ensure that the projectile is gone before things start moving for better harmonics. I think the irons are excellent, the system is reliable, and with modern pieces, can reliably mount a scope. The issues needing work are weight, and tightening groups, but like what was said earlier, these arent for snipers anyway.

Time to get out my asbestos suit brb
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All that stuff for a non-sniper line rifleman with two classroom training days and one range day. </div></div>

The std Americam way from WW II on has been, "We" can kill targets with the untrained, as long as we throw enough money at the system.

H20 MAN

I'm still waiting on my answer as to how this thing is better than a trained set of boots, with any M14 family weapon (it replaces) thats been fielded prior to this thing flushing, my tax money.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kenhil2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think all the talk about the weight of the M14 being such a huge issue to soldiers seems kind of silly. No one likes hauling around anymore weight than they have to, but if there are guys who have no problem hauling around M249s and 1000 rounds for it, somehow I doubt the weight of an M14 would really bother individuals. Most the SAW gunners I served with had no problem handling the weight and this was in Iraq summer 130 dgr avg temp. on 8 hr foot patrols. I really believe weight is a non issue to the men on the ground. </div></div>

In Iraq, no.

In Afghanistan? yes. There are more concerns with the amount of weight and gear with Afghanistan right now than I can count. the issue is the terrain. Iraq you can walk for 8 hours and not see more than a hill. in most parts Afghanistan you can't walk for more than 8 minutes without seeing a mountain. The US Army has issued lightweight plate carriers, light weight assault packs, smaller PEQs, lighter (mountain) boots, or authorized usage of non gov't approved boots. One of the more recent articles focused on the actual weight savings on a standard 3 day patrol setup, weight savings of 23 lbs (IIRC). Even the standard MREs are gone in favor of the new Fast Attack meal packages or whatever we are calling them.

Afghanistan is where the weight is a factor. The real issue is some units are/were starting to leave their M240 Machine guns back because they were having issues with the weight. I have seen/heard units are starting to get fielded the Mk46 and 48s to replace the M249s and M240s, but I do not have confirmation of this.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Why all the hostility boys? I do not get it. H2O likes this platform, so what. Heck, I went through sniper school with the M21 and have a fondness for it too. I've enjoyed seeing his pictures & videos.

Is it the "best" current option of all weapon systems if politics or budgets would allow fielding the cutting edge tomorrow? Obviously not, but it appears it is an attempt to make what we have better for our boys & appears someone in the military is ordering'm - go bitch about it to them. If they were not doing this, some of you would be bitching about how the shooters do not have a 7.62 option...whine....bitch....moan. You have a better option for the same or less money than these conversions cost? Get off your ass and go do something about it ladies.

M110 or stock AR-10 a better option? Sure, but thats not what the surplus warehouse is full of. Whining about that here is pretty useless, and it sure isnt H2O's fault.

Thanks for the information H2O.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

So long as the tools our boys in the box and "better" (as the end user defines it) then it's fine with me. I've been paying taxes since I was 12 years old and I've seen my money fund and go to things that I can't beleive are still legal yet I have no problem having to pay more so that our servicemen can come home safe and sound.

The merits and defencies of the M14 platform are well known, same with evry other tool currently used in the United States military. So long as you play towards that tools strengths your set. If you go against it? Well you know comes next. It makes more sense to have some of the newer manufactuer make you a specific DM rifle but if you have 100,000 rifle in inventory that will serve then why spend the money and time on a new system (I am not defending this practice just showing it)? Some day they'll get the perfect rifle for the job, until then they have to go with what they have now.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I am in southern Afghanistan in Kandahar province; my unit has M14 EBRs. My Soldiers who are carrying them received them 3 months prior to deploying. They received a Tactical Tailor drag bag, Tactical Tailor scope cover, Tactical Tailor M-14 mag pouches, 5 magazines, a databook, a Kestrel 4000 windmeter, M24 mini-binoculars, and an Otis cleaning kit. They got a day of classroom training, followed by a week on the range at Ft. Lewis and two weeks (some on the ranges and some being taught TTPs for DMs) at Yakima Training Center, WA instructed by Brigade snipers and civilians from the CMP. My Soldiers fired about 800 rounds each during that time, and got on the range twice after the class and before deployment to shoot another couple hundred each.

The snipers have M110s, M24s, and M107s. They like the M110s, other than the fact that they break. The sniper section for another company in the Battalion had both M110s break in the first 3 months of the deployment. The M24s we (the Brigade) submitted an ONS (Operational Needs Statement- used to justify a request for equipment that is nonstandard or not permitted by the MTOE) to get changed over to .300WM, but the big Army shot it down. The snipers carry them, but no one likes moving through a village with a bolt action rifle at the ready, and the snipers generally carry an M4 in addition to the M24 (The weight starts to add up, plus he's got to figure out how to carry the ammo for both). The M107s are heavy and not as accurate as some other .50 cal SWS over here, but it has it’s niche. Some of the snipers have actually laid claim to M14 EBRs, because they are semiautomatic, reliable (we haven’t had ANY problems with any of them in 10 months of combat), the ones we have seem to hold zero pretty well, and accurate enough to get repeated hits on E type armorplate targets at 800m if the shooter and spotter are doing their parts. Some units in the Brigade have a DM in each squad, we have the M14s at platoon level teamed up with a DM and spotter. For us it has worked better that way so far.

Ammunition when we first got here was an issue. I scrounged from everywhere to get match grade- my guys have shot M118SB, M118LR, M852, .civ match ammo, Canadian match grade, M80 ball, and M993 AP. Kandahar Air Field’s ASP finally started to get things right, and my guys now go out with 100 rounds of M118LR for a basic load. We carry a couple extra boxes on the Strykers, but if the guys got to the point they had to they could shoot M80 ball taken from the nearest M240B. They have shot enough of it to know what it will do vs. the LR.
I set up a range at my FOB that has targets I had TASC at Ft. Lewis make- E type targets, F type targets, pepper poppers, and plates of various sizes, all made of steel able to withstand 7.62 AP. The range has targets from 200m out to 1350m, and we have 55 gallon barrels and some wrecked cars for the .50s to shoot at. My guys get out to the range about once a week, mission depending, and shoot 20-40 rounds each trip (driven mostly by the time available and by ammunition availability). They have been using the M14 for a little over a year now, and no one has bitched to me yet that it’s too heavy. It’s close to the same weight as an M24 all set up with rails and other stuff, and lighter than a SAW. As for accuracy, we don’t spend much time measuring shot groups on paper. However, my best shooter, on a bet, was able to hit a Bic lighter with one shot at 100m. He followed that up by shooting 3 12 GA shotshell hulls in 9 seconds at 100m. We are pretty confident of the DM’s abilities to take headshots at 400m, because we use #10 cans taken from the DFAC and filled with water to approximate a human head and all of the DMs can reliably hit them that far away. My best shooter is able to get hits on the cans as far as 600m about 3 of 4 shots.

I am sure that there are better rifles out there, but the M14 EBR is what we have, and it is getting the job done. Can another rifle do the job better? I am sure one could, but with the Army you wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets filled up first. I could cry all day about what I don’t have and want, but it won’t do shit for the mission, the men, or me to do so. In the meantime I train my boys to do the best they can with what they have.

Mike
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Mike,

That is great to hear that you guys got the proper training, TASC Support and properly equipped. Sounds like you have a great range setup too.

If you guys have time, make sure TACOM knows about the issues with the M110s. There's should be elements of Army Materiel Command there, if you get with them, they can get you TACOM contacts. it might not help you guys out, but it might help out the guys down the road.

If you can't seem to find anyone, let me know, I will get in contact with them here, and have them find you.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Mike504, thanks for the assessment. Yours is pretty much in line with the other feedback that we have been receiving on the M14EBR-RI from in the Box. I have sent you a PM with my official contact information if you have any problems or suggestions on the system. We always appreciate feedback from our users. I have forwarded your comments on to the PM for their reveiw.

Keep your head down.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike504</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am in southern Afghanistan in Kandahar province; my unit has M14 EBRs. My Soldiers who are carrying them received them 3 months prior to deploying. They received a Tactical Tailor drag bag, Tactical Tailor scope cover, Tactical Tailor M-14 mag pouches, 5 magazines, a databook, a Kestrel 4000 windmeter, M24 mini-binoculars, and an Otis cleaning kit. They got a day of classroom training, followed by a week on the range at Ft. Lewis and two weeks (some on the ranges and some being taught TTPs for DMs) at Yakima Training Center, WA instructed by Brigade snipers and civilians from the CMP. My Soldiers fired about 800 rounds each during that time, and got on the range twice after the class and before deployment to shoot another couple hundred each.

The snipers have M110s, M24s, and M107s. They like the M110s, other than the fact that they break. The sniper section for another company in the Battalion had both M110s break in the first 3 months of the deployment. The M24s we (the Brigade) submitted an ONS (Operational Needs Statement- used to justify a request for equipment that is nonstandard or not permitted by the MTOE) to get changed over to .300WM, but the big Army shot it down. The snipers carry them, but no one likes moving through a village with a bolt action rifle at the ready, and the snipers generally carry an M4 in addition to the M24 (The weight starts to add up, plus he's got to figure out how to carry the ammo for both). The M107s are heavy and not as accurate as some other .50 cal SWS over here, but it has it’s niche. Some of the snipers have actually laid claim to M14 EBRs, because they are semiautomatic, reliable (we haven’t had ANY problems with any of them in 10 months of combat), the ones we have seem to hold zero pretty well, and accurate enough to get repeated hits on E type armorplate targets at 800m if the shooter and spotter are doing their parts. Some units in the Brigade have a DM in each squad, we have the M14s at platoon level teamed up with a DM and spotter. For us it has worked better that way so far.

Ammunition when we first got here was an issue. I scrounged from everywhere to get match grade- my guys have shot M118SB, M118LR, M852, .civ match ammo, Canadian match grade, M80 ball, and M993 AP. Kandahar Air Field’s ASP finally started to get things right, and my guys now go out with 100 rounds of M118LR for a basic load. We carry a couple extra boxes on the Strykers, but if the guys got to the point they had to they could shoot M80 ball taken from the nearest M240B. They have shot enough of it to know what it will do vs. the LR.
I set up a range at my FOB that has targets I had TASC at Ft. Lewis make- E type targets, F type targets, pepper poppers, and plates of various sizes, all made of steel able to withstand 7.62 AP. The range has targets from 200m out to 1350m, and we have 55 gallon barrels and some wrecked cars for the .50s to shoot at. My guys get out to the range about once a week, mission depending, and shoot 20-40 rounds each trip (driven mostly by the time available and by ammunition availability). They have been using the M14 for a little over a year now, and no one has bitched to me yet that it’s too heavy. It’s close to the same weight as an M24 all set up with rails and other stuff, and lighter than a SAW. As for accuracy, we don’t spend much time measuring shot groups on paper. However, my best shooter, on a bet, was able to hit a Bic lighter with one shot at 100m. He followed that up by shooting 3 12 GA shotshell hulls in 9 seconds at 100m. We are pretty confident of the DM’s abilities to take headshots at 400m, because we use #10 cans taken from the DFAC and filled with water to approximate a human head and all of the DMs can reliably hit them that far away. My best shooter is able to get hits on the cans as far as 600m about 3 of 4 shots.

I am sure that there are better rifles out there, but the M14 EBR is what we have, and it is getting the job done. Can another rifle do the job better? I am sure one could, but with the Army you wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets filled up first. I could cry all day about what I don’t have and want, but it won’t do shit for the mission, the men, or me to do so. In the meantime I train my boys to do the best they can with what they have.

Mike </div></div>

This is one of the most interesting threads I have ever read. I suggested above in this thread that this program is about making the best of what we have and getting it into the field asap. This thread suggests that this program seems to have been troubled by; bad examples of the rifle early on, lack of training for the troops, lack of understanding of the systems application by commanders in the field and misunderstandings and both real and perceived maintenance/support issues.

Mike504s post is a breath of fresh air. It tells us that at least in part of the Army; the system is being used correctly, the system is mission capable, people have faith in the systems ability and (most importantly)some have the American "Can Do" attitude of doing the best you can with what you have. Thank you Mike. I hope Mike's post reflects a typical situation regarding this program within the Army.

The M14 platform has been slammed as being 1950s technology. Yes it is an old design. It was designed at the height of the cold war by men who could remember WWII and Korea. It was replaced during my generations war by the M16. I would suggest that Afghanistan with it's bare mountains has little in common with Vietnam's jungles. It has more in common with parts of Korea. I like the M16/AR15 platform. I qualified expert with the M16 in Basic. I own and shoot ARs in SP1, M4, A4 and Varmint configurations. I also own and shoot M1 Garands and a M1A NM and enjoy both. I'm still in my learning curve with the M1A NM.

However, in my view the 1950s, 7.62 caliber is the central issue where this program is concerned. The 1950s M14 is what we own. Making it the best it can be and issuing it while addressing the associated problems still seems to be the fastest short term solution to getting a longer range weapon into the hand of those in harms way.

Yes, I know the M16/AR15 platform has broken most of if not all the records of the M1/M14. But an eighty or ninety grain load that is to long for the magazine is not suitable for combat. The 77 grain combat loads are a great improvement over the 55 grain and 62 grain loads. However terminal ballistics are a factor and between 500 and 800 yards I'll take the 7.62.

It seems the final Army SDM program has a long way to go.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<span style="font-weight: bold">Mike, <span style="font-size: 14pt">you've set the standard.</span></span>

Now the hard part (since no job is finished until the paperwork's completed) -- <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">WRITE YOUR SHIT UP AND SEND IT INTO THE CENTER FOR ARMY LESSONS LEARNED, INFANTRY MAGAZINE, AND AKO WHERE JOES AND CHAINS OF COMMAND <span style="text-decoration: underline">CAN SEE WHAT RIGHT LOOKS LIKE</span>.</span></span> A proper sustainment program means the troops in your next rotation are just as well prepared and don't have to re-learn everything as gunners get promoted to team leaders, get lateraled, or ETS -- even if <span style="font-weight: bold">you</span> get promoted, transferred, or retired.

If no one sees, reads, or hears about it it didn't happen. There are leaders, Soldiers, and units out there that need the help (including the Infantry School, who need to know what's working and what's not). A CALL or Infantry article is no more difficult or onerous to write up than your formal AAR -- and it becomes formal record for others to use and refer to. Russ Eno and Michelle Rowen at Infantry will gladly edit it, and Scott Blaney at CALL will post it.

We really don't have to re-learn basic unpublished TTP every time a unit deploys to Iraq or Afghanistan. If it really is important it should be in pre-deployment trainups and Mission Rehearsal Exercises.

Hardware can be a problem, and as you've shown and experienced it doesn't have to be -- a properly trained <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">and experienced </span></span>Soldier knows how to work around obstacles, adapt, and improvise. It would be tragic if what you've demonstrated as routine is difficult or impossible for a unit (including non-Infantry issued M14s) with similar mission or threat exposure to try to execute, simply because their green tab and NCO chains lack rifle experience.

<span style="font-weight: bold">There shouldn't be a single guy out there issued an M14 that doesn't know how to use it if that's now his primary weapon, and if it breaks then it ought to be fixable without having to go all the way back to Rock Island -- it's a squad-level weapon, not a death-ray add-on to the Bradley or Stryker.</span>

Bravo. Now spread the word.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EBRbuilder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TOPO-Sniper, I think they banned H2O man from this board for 30 days. </div></div>

What did he do to get banned? This is a discussion board. If guys don't like the topic, then don't post. After reading Mike's post, maybe H20 Man isn't looking as bad as some guys are trying to make him out to be.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I am not a soldier, and I very much appreciate hearing how gear works in the real world of combat.

I am a firearms enthusiast (aka "gun nut")and I have semi-auto G3's, FAL's and LRB M-14 type .308 rifles. No design is perfect, but I have found the M14 to be the most impressive.

I recently decided to try a Sage stock for myself. I took an LRB M-25 with an 18.5" chrome-lined Criterion barrel out of it's USGI wood stock (where it was shooting 2-3 MOA) and put it in a Sage Mod 0.

From the bench, using Federal GMM, the new setup consistently gives me 1 MOA. AND I have experienced 100% reliability!

The Sage easily accommodates lights, lasers, bipods, etc. The integrated cheek-rest of the Mod 0 works well. I am very impressed by the Sage stock!

Slightly off topic (but not really) the most comprehensive and detailed review of all the major Battle Rifles I have come across is "Boston's Gun Bible" by Boston T. Party. He really gets into the pros and cons of each design, using a points based system. He does not approach it from a "fanboi" perspective, but tries to make his analysis as "scientific" as possible.

His results, the M14 design came in #1 and the FAL was a close 2nd. He does not consider the AR-10 a viable candidate as he could not get his to run reliably enough. Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, the book is well worth the price of admission.

Back on topic - I think the Sage stock is a great idea and well-executed. My Sage-stocked LRB is my "zombie" SHTF rifle now. I honestly don't see why the idea of a modernized M14 chassis is somehow "controversial" and I am glad the system is working well for our troops that are deploying it as intended.

Cheers,

i8mtm
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

All this talk about training and "nerd love" has me thinking...

The M14 heavy? OK so its not a chik gun.

Training? Sure. No one would argue that training is good but how hard is it for a soldier to figure out a gun with what? less than 10 moving parts, trigger group excluded?

Whether M1A or Garand, the platform had one purpose...to rain .308 rounds upon a target and the key here is <span style="font-style: italic">"raining .308 rounds upon a target"</span>. It's a big round and makes a big bang...I'm sorry gents but it needs to be heavy. Hell, an AR10 platform isn't lighter by much and isn't quite as reliable.

What many fail to consider is that this platform performed in conditions that are far worse than encountered in modern warfare, including desert environments. Logistically speaking, modern platforms have had a distinct advantage over a rifle that once relied on parts delivered by sea (and even mule).

It's a simple equation and the reality is that if you want to use this round in combat and reap the benefits it provides, grab some 50's technology and be prepared for a little extra weight. If you want "light" then .308 isn't the right round...just grab your favorite .223 and don't fart or steal my beef jerky while you're hiding behind me.
grin.gif
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I can't speak for big army or mass production however having had a career that required and allowed guys to fit themselves with whatever gear they choose to complete their role in the group I have to say that alot of modified M1A's are in use. I am a long range bolt gun guy-my job and I'm old(er)42 but worked with guys who are in their 50's now and maybe its an "old school" thing or you like what you like and trust what yout trust deal. But alot of guys carried NM style M1a's with old leather cheekpiece or aluminum chassis style bolt on stocks. Alot of the guys who needed short barreled weapons went with 16 inch M1's over an AR. The guys who carried AR's carried 12 inchers and used suppressors and often used full auto, but that weapon was in the minority or was a slung over your pack backup weapon. Guys looked at the shorty AR as a more powerful MP5 which still had alot of users.

I will say the M1 guys liked it because it put heavy rounds on target, busted body armor and concrete walls with ease from range. But these guys NEW THE WEAPON.......they carried spare parts and unless they split the action they could get that weapon back into the fight ASAP. Also everyone carried a solid sidearm with plenty of ammo for it. These guys didn't trust the reliability of the AR platform.......too many failures and too field sensative in most opinions. Nobody griped about the weight....actually guys griped the AR was too light. But as snipers we didn't go out in groups of 5 or 6 in urban environments with each of us carrying 100lb packs either. Man I go to Hawaii with my family and we carry less luggage combined. Carrying 15 gallons of water, 3 days food, portable stove, NV, spotting scope, laptop, heavy comm gear, 3 different colored camo's and 2 ghillie's. Black back drop sheet, sleeping bag, heavy medical gear etc etc. I guess at that point I may want a lighter rifle too. But I would leave the extra camo and all the ghillie suits at home.....5-6 guy sniper teams with a 100lb packs each........not going to do much hiding. I would rather do it old school.....the clothes on your back, rifle and sidearm. Total other weight limit 20 lbs including food, ammo etc. Make due and travel light and fast, forage and make anything else you need.

Personally I would think that in large Army thinking no matter what weapons you use with air support and emergency pickup available by air or ground and the great comm's and UAV's you might as well have a freaking gunsmith or three at your operating base........if you can have payphones and myspace can't you have a good supply of tools and parts and guys who know how to fix stuff? Or else take the time to teach each soldier weapon repair and issue him said parts with his weapon. Trust the guy who is carrying the weapon to keep it running..his life depends on it.

I know alot of younger guys I have trained look forward to their birthdays and Christmas not for "real" gifts but for Mom and Dad or Grandparents to send them the optic or accessory they NEED to stay alive and do their job.

Derek
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Problem is restrictions on levels of maintenance that can be performed. Supply parts and tools durring my time was an issue but I am not sure how it is now. I purchased an optic for my deployment(for my M4) and had another one shipped by a friend of mine (for the M1A). I know a kid who was in the RSTA with me who's dad bought a NXS for him. Part of our supply issue was that we had just formed the unit from scratch so we took whatever excess weapons PBO directed to have transfered to us to build up what we had for our impending deployment in 05. That did not leave us with much time to prep at all. We did an excellent job of training imo which reflected in our operations and how our soldiers fought (absolutly incredible) but the initial fielding of equipment was painful! We started out with absolutly nothing equipment wise with the exception of a 500 gallon water blivet which was on my property book (oh joy).


Back to the M1A/M14,
Like I said in my earlier post. It is another tool in my kitbag. I enjoyed having it around. This was me back in 2006 in Baghdad (east side of the river, just across from the Green Zone in Rusafa).
t_capte806a08d74374108aefa82848c34ad82iraq_saddam_trial_bag134_122.jpg


I saw someone who wrote about weight not being important? There has been a lot of debate about todays soldiers load! With a lot of this gear today (communications package, basic load or basic loads, chow/food, water, individual protective equipment eetc etc) the weight tends to add up! You factor in heat, stress, rest/break cycles, diet and such and it wears on soldiers wether or not the terrain is flat! Try running after some clown who just engaged you with 100 pounds on kit on! Try jumping over walls to get him? Tell me how effective you are?
The worse I ever felt in Baghdad was clearing a 8 story building with one other American soldier on my team and my Iraqi "Strike" Platoon in the middle of summer with no AC and we cleared all eight story's (actualy nine since they don't count the ground floor). Nothing like kicking,battering, prying open those thin steel doors for every room! It was a smoker and all I had on me was two basic loads (M4 and M9, I left the M1A ammo back in the HMMWV since I was doing room clearing ie I tailored my load for the mission which not every soldier has the oppertunity to do), IBA complete (with DAP's, groin protector, throat and neck protector and the hip plates). I wasn't the only one who was smoked after this op so I know it wasn't just me. I still remember what I wrote on the claims card for that building (actualy makes me chuckle every time I think about it).

The post by mike is awsome! Good job getting that done! I know at Campbell we had an MTT come through and I believe it was a 3 week POI for the snipers back in 05. It was a good deal and something that I would have love to have attended but being what I am I didn't get to attend all the fun stuff.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

This thread just keeps getting better and better. It very much reminds me of what I read of the early years regarding the development of the sniper program in the Army. I'm sure most here know the story. A few dedicated individuals working with what was at hand (scoped pre64 Winchester model 70s in 30-06 used as hunting rifles for recreational hunting gear, target rifles, scopes donated from home etc.) to refine the training and prove the need and success of the program.

This thread is evolving into a thumbnail chronology of history being made in the DM program. It also shows the "can do" attitude is alive and well with the current generation of those serving on the ground. Well done and keep em coming.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Indeed the American Soldier is a smart critter and will get the job done, above standard.

By definition the DM is a line Soldier (usually a squad Infantryman but could be any dismounted cavalryman, artilleryman, Engineer, MP, etc.). If he's a line grunt where the rubber meets the road (E1-E5) and NOT a sniper he's been given an M14 or clone (and in some cases is dictated to carry BOTH the 7.62 and M4/M16 at the same time).

He should be trained and know what the weapon is supposed to be able to do. If he's been given one of these new TACOM rifles with a mil-dot scope he should know how to use it.

He may not have a chain of command that has hands-on rifle experience besides what the Army has taught them on the M4/M16 -- that is a fact of life in units and branches that are afraid of troop weapon ownership.

He's NOT supposed to be the platoon's or company's sniper, taken away from his organic maneuvering formation and squad leader.

It's an M14 with potential capability for what it is right now. The Soldiers it gets issued to should know how to use and maintain it, and if it breaks it should be fixable or replaceable within three days. It SHOULD be his for the term he is in that squad -- not given to him when he gets in-country, and passed to the next rotation when he leaves.

It's not trained in ANY AIT, and line Small Arms Repairmen are not equipped nor trained to fix it. Having been on the ass end of the Army supply system (both peacetime and combat) platoon leaders and company commanders shouldn't have to be paying registered mail (if available) and weapon down time waiting for a system to go back the states and back. Been there - done that with organic assigned weapons and optics.

For historical perspective the concept was resurrected when we adopted the Stryker. The US Infantry basically copied the Russian BTR-60 equipped motorized rifle company and platoon structure. The Russians had all-AKs in the line, and recognized they needed longer-range capability once dismounted, hence the platoon SVD. US structure had all M4s, but nothing like the SVD.

We recommended the M21, but the bottom-to-top analysis came back unsupportable due to the M21's age and the identified difficulties maintaining and sustaining an obsolete, out-of-production weapon.

Adding qualified sniper billets was killed because the Sniper School can't meet CURRENT demand.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kenhil2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">all posts deleted, apologies for any misunderstandings, in the future will defer to experts and not personal experience </div></div>

Alot of this is personal opinion and personal experience. I wouldn't remove your posts if what you posted is your personal experience. It helps to get the good and the bad.

Nobody has the perfect answer!
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Indeed the American Soldier is a smart critter and will get the job done, above standard.

By definition the DM is a line Soldier (usually a squad Infantryman but could be any dismounted cavalryman, artilleryman, Engineer, MP, etc.). If he's a line grunt where the rubber meets the road (E1-E5) and NOT a sniper he's been given an M14 or clone (and in some cases is dictated to carry BOTH the 7.62 and M4/M16 at the same time).

He should be trained and know what the weapon is supposed to be able to do. If he's been given one of these new TACOM rifles with a mil-dot scope he should know how to use it.

He may not have a chain of command that has hands-on rifle experience besides what the Army has taught them on the M4/M16 -- that is a fact of life in units and branches that are afraid of troop weapon ownership.

He's NOT supposed to be the platoon's or company's sniper, taken away from his organic maneuvering formation and squad leader.

It's an M14 with potential capability for what it is right now. The Soldiers it gets issued to should know how to use and maintain it, and if it breaks it should be fixable or replaceable within three days. It SHOULD be his for the term he is in that squad -- not given to him when he gets in-country, and passed to the next rotation when he leaves.

It's not trained in ANY AIT, and line Small Arms Repairmen are not equipped nor trained to fix it. Having been on the ass end of the Army supply system (both peacetime and combat) platoon leaders and company commanders shouldn't have to be paying registered mail (if available) and weapon down time waiting for a system to go back the states and back. Been there - done that with organic assigned weapons and optics.

For historical perspective the concept was resurrected when we adopted the Stryker. The US Infantry basically copied the Russian BTR-60 equipped motorized rifle company and platoon structure. The Russians had all-AKs in the line, and recognized they needed longer-range capability once dismounted, hence the platoon SVD. US structure had all M4s, but nothing like the SVD.

We recommended the M21, but the bottom-to-top analysis came back unsupportable due to the M21's age and the identified difficulties maintaining and sustaining an obsolete, out-of-production weapon.

Adding qualified sniper billets was killed because the Sniper School can't meet CURRENT demand. </div></div>

That is interesting since I remember discussing the same thing at Benning about the Strykers.

In 05-06 I carried my personal stash of SARP whichI had purchased from Bushmaster for emergencies. I was on a remote COP back then with no immediate acces to a B shop for repairs which was the case here recenlty also. I don't like the idea of a weapon going down and not being able to repair it immediatly.

I think partof the question is what would it take for sniper school to build the capacity to increase class sizes to an acceptable amount? The other question is, how to get unit leaders/commanders to bite the bullit and send a guy to school? It would probably help if leaders understood the capabilities and the benefits to the unit of having qualified snipers as well as the benefit to the soldiers.

Sorry my typing sucks! This key board out here is barely working.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I think when I went to school in 95 we had 24 guys or 12 teams. I believe we dropped 4 but picked up two from the previous class. The long distant ranges at Benning were able to handle that amount easily, I am not sure how many instructors we had at one time I would say 4 instructors and one Range OIC. It was enough for the class, but then we had more when we stalked and even more when we did a live fire stalk, a few less when we had classes etc. The old WW II barracks would not hold much more than we had. Its been a while since I was there, some of the new Sniper School grads would have a better idea.
Mobile Training Teams would be an Idea, have the Instructors go to the joes.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: krm375</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Mobile Training Teams would be an Idea, have the Instructors go to the joes. </div></div>

That has been done in years, and many wars past. While not Ideal, it does provide a two fold training, lesson. The student gets quality OJT, and the instructor gets a up to the minute battlefield lesson, on present enemy tactics/weapons as well. While not ideal, it still works when times are hard, and schools may or may not be just a cab ride away. Like someone said, GI's will over come an push on, one way or the other.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

The AMU sent MTTs to Vietnam to run division sniper schools. In the 80s many divisions ran their own two to four week sniper schools just like any other local course (truck driver, mortar safety, NBC, etc.). Each numbered Army had their own Marksmanship Training Unit (which went away in the late 80s). Each state National Guard is supposed to have their own State Marksmanship Coordinator (SMC). The Army Reserve is supposed to have a FORSCOM Marksmanship Coordinator and Small Arms Readiness Groups.

These are the exception now, rather than the rule.

The AMU runs a one-week DM course with Civilian Marksmanship Program augmentation, both at home and on the road.

It isn't hard to do. The CMP Instructors earned their Distinguished Badge and President's Hundred tabs as military and civilian M14 and M16 shooters. Some have YEARS experience as M14 gunsmiths.

The problem is marrying knowledge with the untrained/unsupported before they get a weapon they've never seen before and deploying into combat without maintenance support.

Throwing gadgets at groups without training or support doesn't help them keep an edge over bad guys -- that is a feel-good band-aid trying to make up for a capability shortfall.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I admittedly have no operational experience in a military DM/Sniper role, so I would like to pose a question to those with more experienced than myself:

What exactly does an M14 EBR do better than a Mk12 SPR? And are the advantages of the .308 semi platform over a .223 worth the disadvantages?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickeness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What exactly does an M14 EBR do better than a Mk12 SPR? And are the advantages of the .308 semi platform over a .223 worth the disadvantages? </div></div>

The only modern units with <span style="font-style: italic">extensive</span> experience employing the M14 as a combat rifle are the SEAL teams and they don't use them because they're stuck with them. They're more dirt/muck tolerant, have fewer moving parts, and are less sensitive to cleaning/lubrication issues than an AR platform. The only real weak link is the old stamped op-rod which is easily upgraded, and the weight which is subjective. To answer the .308 vs .223 question...308 gives you better range and a better ability to disable machinery and/or penetrate barriers/armor. If you don't need that capability then you arguably don't need .308.
 
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 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.</div></div>

Funny, my assessment wasn't positive.

I've been carrying the M14 off and on since 2003. I'm currently carrying one in Afghanistan, as well as an M4. I will sooner (and have...between 6 & 7000' ASL) hump an M4 and M14 (with reduce ammo loads for both) for 12Km than just the M14. That's how much I don't like the platform. I will admit that the gun is fairly reliable (but so is a well lubed AR) and my weapon does shoot sub MOA (but not by much). I understand that this program is primarly a band-aid as sinister refered to it, however it is a very ill-fitting one and here's why:
1) Retraining: so now I have to retrain guys from M4s to M14s. Sure it doesn't sound like much, until your trying to train them to also use an M14 like an M4 because it's the only weapon system they have. Ever tried to do a speed reload with an M14? I'm sure some out there are going, "He's an SDM, why would he need to do that?" Because contact happens and it most likely isn't on your terms. CQM? Yeah, good luck with that and let me know how it works out for you. The M14 has a completely different manual of arms vs the M4-not to mention much shittier ergonomics. It's not an instant thing to replace the training with the AR family with an M14. I'd rather see something like KACs 16" SR25 be issued, if we're married to the idea of 7.62. At least then we'd have the same controls for minimal retraining and we'd have a small enough package to use in CQB if needs be (or in the damn jungle that a portion of my AO-and anyone else working in a farming area in Afghanistan-is).
2) Ammo commonality: At least with an SPR I can grab a mag from another guy in the squad if shit goes really south. Yes it'll be M855 and not Mk262 but it's ammo and will keep me in the fight. Good luck running back to where the gun teams are with 7.62 link, delinking it, and loading up enough mags to make yourself viable in a TIC. Think American units can't wind up in a shitstorm if they're not a SOF element dropped in well into enemy territory? Read Sebastian Junger's book "War" or read about C 2-503 and Firebase Ranch House.
3) Size/Weight: The gun is too damn big and too damn heavy for it's intended purpose. It's nearly as long as an M16 with the stock collapsed but without things (with stock collapsed) natural to an M16, like a useable length of pull, eye relief, etc.
4) SDMs are not squad snipers! Yet everyone seems to think this. The limited doctrine that exists supporting the SDMs says accurate hits to 600m. Well I've taken a rack grade M4 with a M203, shooting Brit L2A2 ball to 650m, and one of my former Soldiers hit at 700m with an M4 & ACOG. So where's the real need for SDMs? How about a marksmanship training program that actually teaches Soldiers to shoot to the ranges of their weapons. The SDM program is a result of training to the lowest common denominator.
5) Support, it's there and it isn't. Apparently one of our 45Bs was able to repair something on one of the M14s our Scout Plt has, but our unit armorer can't do anything on the gun. I hear/read about all these things that are supposed to come with the gun, well where is it if it's BII for the gun? Sekonk torque wrenches would be nice since we're getting handed scopes in Leupold rings? A Larue mount would have been a better choice (self torquing levers, what a novel idea). Good luck trying to get all the stuff that should have come with the gun to begin with.


sinister,
I don't think the EBRs come with all that equipment. At least mind didn't (I'd kind of liked the supressor to reduce dust signature, quietly remove dogs on the COP at night, etc.). PVS22s were TPE though.



Mac

ETA:
The reason folks (ie commanders) keep requesting the M14 is they don't know any better. Hell I shoot more on leave than I do at work whenever I can.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Different</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the upgrade for the M14 operating rod? </div></div>

Any decent match grade op-rod that can be swapped out in under 5 minutes with no tools. Sadlak makes a very good one that's even better than the SA NM rod.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickeness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I admittedly have no operational experience in a military DM/Sniper role, so I would like to pose a question to those with more experienced than myself:

What exactly does an M14 EBR do better than a Mk12 SPR? And are the advantages of the .308 semi platform over a .223 worth the disadvantages? </div></div>

Like you I have no operational experience in a DM/Sniper role.
But in comparing the performance of a .224 caliber 77 grain SMK at 2700 fps and a .308 175 grain SMK at 2650 fps fired at 800 yards at 8000 ft elevation I find a slight advantage in favor of the .308 regarding drift and drop. Not enough of an advantage to argue in favor of the 308 caliber. We all know the 5.56/M16 combination can shoot very well at distance with the right ammo and rifle modifications. However, the 308 is delivering three times the energy. Barrier penetration and terminal ballistics are the advantage. I used the JBM ballistic calculator to crunch the numbers.

BTW the MK12 SPR is a SOCOM rifle. The SDM rifle is different as covered here, http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1746734#Post1746734
and here
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23922065/Infan...YOU-spring-2005
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

The Army has attempted to define a marksman simply because they don't train one anywhere within the current system (snipers are not organically trained or assigned to units besides infantry, cavalry, and Special Forces). They've identified the skill is needed but haven't figured how to resource, even at the Infantry School. The AMU's DM course is not a full-time job.

By doctrine and design the rifleman <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">should</span> </span>be able to hit to 600 yards -- but he's never trained nor evaluated on that capability. He should be doing his job in his squad with his buddies as part of his organic maneuver unit (fire team, squad, crew, whatever). It's not the (experienced) squad leader's job to be the marksman if he's trying to maneuver his guys.

The M14 is free. When CGs ask for it they get it within the system's ability to provide stuff at the expense of other equipment. You get what you get and are happy with it.

Even by EBRbuilder's statement, since it's not a formal program they can't even post a simple .pdf for user/unit base maintenance? That's insane.

The Army doesn't train Soldiers to the capability of the equipment they're already issued and have in-hand from basic training -- how does the EBR help?

A simple (albeit more expensive) solution is a 7.62mm carbine -- which will do no good either unless there's training and sustainment behind it as well.

It's a simple musket with a scope -- not some death-ray made of unobtanium. Our current shortfall is in training and the software, the experience to train it and do it at the base Soldier level with a kid that could have been in high school less than three years ago.

They're smart, but they have to be trained to get there. Their equipment can't be willy-nilly shit klooged up and maintainable only by a single shop or the manufacturer back in the states.

Matched set, 7.62 and 5.56. Not much difference in manual-of-arms and ergonomics. ACOGs are already in-system.

2eec7c4.jpg
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

That'll work. From what I'm reading the EM-25 has fixed the SR-25K's shortcomings.

My reservation on the HORUS is again, training. If you have to have a PDA to use it, it ain't fast enough.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My reservation on the HORUS is again, training. If you have to have a PDA to use it, it ain't fast enough.</div></div>

Training on a Horus takes about 15 minutes, no PDA required. Once the scope is mounted and zeroed, here are the steps involved in training the transition from a conventional MOA scope to a Horus:

1. Take your MOA dope. Divide it by 3.438 to convert it to mils.

2. Determine the dope in mils for the range you're about to shoot.

3. Find the line below the main crosshair which corresponds to that dope in mils. The lines are numbered for your convenience.

4. Put that line on the target. Add some windage using the convenient marks if needed.

5. Smoothly press the trigger to the rear so as not to disturb the lay of the sights.

6. If the bullet hit the target, it's Miller time. If not, with the reticle on the original point of aim, notice where on the reticle the bullet went, using the convenient grid reference.

7. Put that spot on the reticle on the center of the target.

8. Repeat step number 5.

It's hard to get much easier than that. And you'll never get a turn off on the elevation knob.

Personally, I don't like a single person who works for Horus. I'd set myself on fire before I'd ever give them a dollar of my money. But the reticle works.

 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

BattleAce - the gap is what our 34mm Rings have, does not affect performance or zero retention, though it is not cosmetically pleasing.

We are pretty please with the SR-25 EM Carbine
wink.gif


Yeah PDA is cool, but (should) not required with the Horus, however you are right with the training aspect, I'd rather a DM get at least 30 days, plus follow on, but a week at the range will work.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What's with the gap in those scope rings?</div></div>

All scope rings have gaps on both sides. If they don't, they're not installed correctly. It's the proper tension on the screws which holds the tube in place and keeps it from moving. If there's no gap, it's installed incorrectly.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All scope rings have gaps on both sides. If they don't, they're not installed correctly. It's the proper tension on the screws which holds the tube in place and keeps it from moving. If there's no gap, it's installed incorrectly.
</div></div>

I undestand that gaps are needed but those gaps are HUGE. None of my mounts have gaps approaching that size.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

OK the topic has drifted a little bit, but there is a lot of good information being posted. A few people have posted about the M-14 and how they are using it currently in combat. This the weapon they are issued and they are making due with what they got. Would they like to use something else? I am sure they would, but for now it is what it is.

As for the DM, Sinster makes a lot of good points. The training is a big thing. Currently Benning is running a one week DM course and the National Guard MTC at Camp Robinson is running a two week course. Again it comes down to what you are issued and what kind of training you get.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stefan73</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kenhil2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">all posts deleted, apologies for any misunderstandings, in the future will defer to experts and not personal experience </div></div>

Alot of this is personal opinion and personal experience. I wouldn't remove your posts if what you posted is your personal experience. It helps to get the good and the bad.

Nobody has the perfect answer! </div></div>

I received notification that some of my posts were misunderstood and caused some hurt feelings, not my intent, not that big of a deal to me.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Different</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
BattleAxe said:
What is the upgrade for the M14 operating rod? </div></div>

Actually...I must have had op-rod on the brain. I was referring to the spring guide.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Repeatable mechanical movement is critical to accuracy in any auto. The USGI spring guide allows the spring to bunch up on the guide and it does this slightly differently with each shot. Just look at a stamped GI guide sitting still and the spring will be bunched on it. The stamped guide also flexes like a hand saw, much like if you were to push the ends together. The end result is slightly different spring tension with each shot fired. Since the spring resists movement of the gas piston, that variance of motion is passed along to every other part of the action and firing sequence. A NM spring guide creates a more <span style="font-style: italic">repeatable</span> action and is very critical to accuracy.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I'm just a civilian but are you guys finding the 7.62 AR type rifle reliable under combat conditions? Reliability is always the biggest knock I hear on the M110 style weapons - I even read somewhere that they shouldn't be fired any more than 20 rounds per day.

I have a springfield M1A scout bone stock with no accuracy modifications. It's shoots no better than 2.5 MOA even with tuned handloads (10x 5 shot groups), but it only weighs 8lbs and is reliable. I suppose that kind of accuracy lowers the hit probability at 600 yards to an unacceptable level, thus the need for the heavier, more accurate SAGE stock for the EBR role.

I'm considering a DPMS/M110 pattern AR for my personal use, but can't seem to get over the reports of poor reliability.