XM25 replica M14 sniper rifle (circa 1990ish, as made at Ft Devens/10th SFG)

[Random Guy]

My replica of a U.S. Army XM25 sniper rifle project that began in the summer of 2017 is now basically complete. I just got it back from the builder, so I don’t have a range report yet, but here are some pictures and info for those interested in this type of retro-project.

BRIEF HISTORY: From 1986 to 1988 the U.S. Army 10th Special Forces Group at Ft. Devens, MA developed a ‘Product Improved’ sniper rifle that was internally designated as an XM25 (1988) and subsequently as the M25 (1991) for SF-specific M14 sniper rifles. National Stock Numbers (NSNs) were not developed for these rifles or the special parts used, as they were more or less an unofficial sniper system originally built at Ft. Devens, and possibly other units (5th SFG?). Here's a vintage picture where you can see the unique Pachmyer buttpad that was used on these rifles instead of the standard M14 steel buttplate. (The scope shown is the old B&L 10X Tactical scope from the late 1980s-1990s era).

The XM25 rifles were unique in that they employed a steel stock liner made by Brookfield Precision Tool (BPT) that was permanently epoxy-bedded inside a black or forest camo McMillan M1A (and later an M3A) fiberglass stock that ensured a solid steel-to-steel mating surface between the receiver and XM25 stock liner. Unlike the traditional M21 rifle, the XM25 stock liner permanently secured with Bisonite or MarineTex epoxy, effectively prevented ‘bedding break down’, and also allowed the operator to repeatedly remove the action from the stock for cleaning and maintenance without any degradation of accuracy over time. The McMillan M1A stock specified for the XM-25 rifle by its co-developer, SOTIC instructor Sfc. Thomas Kapp (RIP) was unique in that it utilized a Pachmayr rubber buttpad, instead of the traditional M14 buttplate.

Only 250 BPT stock liners were manufactured, and one source states that only 200 XM25 rifles were likely assembled by US Army Special Force units. They were reportedly first used in Panama in December 1989 and apparently some were still in use during the early parts of the Afghanistan war circa 2002 or so. Not much official history exists, as they were not a 'Program of Record' and were built at the unit level. Thus I am always interested in seeing any pictures of these rifles when they were in service, or any anecdotals from those familiar with these rifles.

Anyhow, here’s my latest project.

Here's the BPT stock liner, which was a unicorm part until the BPT owner came out of retirement and made a few dozen in 2017 for the collector community.

Here's a picture of the BPT stock liner before it was bedded into this stock:

I’m glad it is finally complete. I'll take it to range in a few weeks.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Very cool!

They got up to interesting things at Devens.

Beautiful execution of an innovative project! Very Much looking forward to a range report!

Sirhr

 

[Random Guy]

Thanks, it was a challenging project, but I think it turned out okay.

For anyone interested, here are the parts used on this replica U.S. Army XM25 (starting at the front of the rifle)

• USGI flash hider reamed to NM specs
• USGI NM front sight, marked ‘NM 0.62’
• NM/Unitized gas cylinder (Has the BPT specified 1/16” hole at rear of part in the ‘trepan’ groove)
• Harris bipod 1A2-L Ultralight (9-13” non-swivel style)
• New Krieger medium weight, carbon steel barrel w/ 1:10 twist. This is one of the ten custom barrels made in 2018 that lacked any markings on the right side at the op rod opening. (Note: Krieger’s markings are at the top of this barrel, and cannot be seen unless the handguard is removed). It has been stamped by a buddy with markings that were typically seen on the old Barnett/Douglas barrels provided to the military during that era: “4 GR 1 10 7 62 MM 4 90”
• Brookfield Precision Tool (BPT) gas piston
• Brookfield Precision Tool (BPT) NM spring guide
• Brookfield Precision Tool (BPT) scope mount
• Leupold and Stevens M3A Ultra 10x scope w/ M118 BDC turret dial (1990 date)
• Leupold Ultra Tactical 30mm rings (Early style rings with rectangular surface on top)
• TRW bolt w/ USGI internals
• TRW op-rod
• Winchester trigger housing with mixed USGI parts. (Match trigger pull of 5 lbs & 5 ozs)
• Springfield Armory Inc. receiver (40k serial range, 1987 vintage, with receiver legs machined by Mitch Mateiko to ensure proper fit within the BPT stock liner)
• BPT XM25 steel stock liner (from the batch Mitch made in 2017)
• Rear sight – ‘NM/2A’ sight base w/ ‘M’ pinion & non-hooded NM rear aperture
• McMillan M1A stock molded in forest camo (likely early 1990s era) w/ multiple modifications, including:
1) Front bipod stud installed (McMillan 2017)
2) M14 selector cut (McMillan 2017)
3) M14 buttpate inlet filled-in w/ MarineTex and sanded to match stock (local gunsmith, 2017)
4) ‘Fort Deven’ cut for BPT XM25 steel stock liner (McMilllan 2018)
5) Buttpad area with MarineTex re-gel-coated dark green (McMillan 2018).
6) Pachmayr 500B buttpad contoured and installed w/ USGI sling swivel (by a buddy, 2018)
7) Previous inletting for a rear-lug filled and area re-milled to factory non-lugged inlet (builder, 2019)
8) Ft Deven cut slightly adjusted to allow BPT stock liner to fit flush in the stock (builder, 2019)
9) Pending: Light touch-up in a few areas with McMillan gel-coat patch kit (Random Guy, 2019)
• 1907 pattern leather sling with 1986 MRT date

The last part I really want for this project is a pre-2004 Leupold MK4, 40mm sun shade - which I can’t seem to find. Anybody have one to sell for about $50?

Here's a pic of a suppressed XM25 being tested at Ft Devens back in 1991. I wish I could find an old lace-on cheek piece made by London Bridge Trading (LBT) for my project like seen in this picture, but no luck...

 

[FatBoy]

You've just completed one of my dream builds. I have waffled trying to run down the stock liners. (Or having a repro made). I'm curious of your impression of it over time. If I'm not mistaken, the M25 didnt run them, just the XMs?

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Post that sunshade request in optics.... as a request for build help, not as a buy sell trade. Or. Anyone have an idea where I can find...

When I needed a scope for my MK 13, several appeared out of thin air and a SH member even volunteered to go inspect for me!

Also, check with @buffalowinter . He must have been his unit scrounger, because he has a way of finding anything!!!

They are out there!

Cheers, Sirhr

 

[Random Guy]

Fatboy, no one seems to knows for sure if the liner was dropped when the M25 designation occurred, but the consensus is that likely happened at the same time. It was presumably the early 1990s, but I wish some official memo could be found that documents the date of the M25 Type Classification.

sirhrmechanic, thanks for the tip. I will do that, and I’m hoping someone might be a little sympathetic with a spare sunshade for a replica/tribute project like this one...

 

[tactinstr1SFG]

Great build. As I recall the early guns had B&L tactical optics (which is what I have on mine). I know the liners were an issue due to variances in the rifles; you could get them to fit but some rifles would be loose and therefore not overly accurate. I was told that at least some rifles were bedded using SS bedding compound which is how my rifle is done.

 

[gunsnjeeps]

Looks a lot like the 14's Crane had on the Armorer's Van. Former Team guns built about the same time. I don't know if they had the steel insert. Some of the black stocks had been painted for urban or winter looks. Blue, white, grey and white and grey schemes.

Keep thinking about getting one built one myself. (DIY maybe? New build for me.)

 

[tactinstr1SFG]

The guns that Crane had last time I was there (quite a few years ago) did not have liners. They were using MARINETEX to bed them as I recall.

 

[Random Guy]

Great build. As I recall the early guns had B&L tactical optics (which is what I have on mine). I know the liners were an issue due to variances in the rifles; you could get them to fit but some rifles would be loose and therefore not overly accurate. I was told that at least some rifles were bedded using SS bedding compound which is how my rifle is done.

Thanks for that info. The scopes seen in Peter Senich's book, The Long Range War, are often the old B&L 10X Tactical. Those were procured via Crane (and they had Crane's local or "LL" NSN attached to them). Since Crane was building weapons for SOCOM by then, I think SF guys, and SEALs were all potentially using some of the same Product Improved M21s in the early 1990s. The Navy built M14 sniper rifles were official programs and designated as ‘Physical Security Sniper Rifle’ (National Stock Number: 1005-01-106-8975). Funding was approved in 1989 for the Navy to make up to 250 of these rifles, and they had 70 'Grade A' Match M14s in the inventory at that time that were also suitable for conversation to sniper rifles. I think this is also when B&L scopes were first procured.

Indeed, this picture from the same book by Senich was taken just after Operation Desert Storm, and was in the arms room of the 3/5 SFG, but the rifle with its yellow Navy weapon book and Navy hang tag show that this was indeed made at Crane. So I assume that some SFG units were already using Navy/Crane M14 sniper rifles for SOCOM missions circa 1991.

Here's my replica built around that picture (rear lugged SAI reciver, bedded in MarineTex, heavy 1993 Barnet barreled marked ‘USN’, in a black McMillan M1A stock, etc)

I used the B&L scope on my Navy replica, as it was reportedly preferred by SEALs at the time:

As far as I know, the Navy never used the BPT stock liners. One of their small arms engineers that I know did take two M14s to Ft Devens and bedded them in two of the BPT liners as an experiment (circa April 1992). I think Tom Kapp and Mitch Mateiko instructed him on the bedding process during that trip. However, the liners were never adopted as the Navy had concerns about the "producability" of the rifle with the liner (unique build process, etc) and the use of proprietary parts.

All of the Navy M14 sniper rifles were made with either double lugs (early) or single lug (later) receivers, and aside from the earliest rifles with camo stocks, most of them reportedly had solid black stocks. I might try to take a group picture of my XM25 and Navy Physical Security Sniper Rifle, as they were both developed during the same late 1980s era, but were a little different in the details.

 

[tactinstr1SFG]

That information is consistent with my memory and information. As a perhaps interesting side note in reference to the B&L, in the late 80's Leupold was pretty consumed with supplying the MK4 M3A for the M24 builds and trying to get some "extra" was a but problematic (not impossible) and they were pretty expensive (~$900). Around that time there was a rumor that L&S was having second thoughts about selling optics "to kill people" (the truth of this is illusive as I have asked L&S about this situation directly and while they do not deny it, they will not confirm it). Regardless, the optics industry saw an opportunity and several companies tried their hands at developing "tactical" optics; B&L and TASCO were the 2 most known. Both brands and their respective models were all fixed power with 1/4 moa adjustments. The optics were not bad and were cheaper than the L&S variants. Regardless, during the development of the M25, it was decided to use the B&L optic initially and what I put on my rifle.

We never had any M25's in 1st SFG although we did retain some M21's along with our M24's.

 

[Primus]

Great job OP. Looks fantastic.

 

[sandwarrior]

My replica of a U.S. Army XM25 sniper rifle project that began in the summer of 2017 is now basically complete. I just got it back from the builder, so I don’t have a range report yet, but here are some pictures and info for those interested in this type of retro-project.

BRIEF HISTORY: From 1986 to 1988 the U.S. Army 10th Special Forces Group at Ft. Devens, MA developed a ‘Product Improved’ sniper rifle that was internally designated as an XM25 (1988) and subsequently as the M25 (1991) for SF-specific M14 sniper rifles. National Stock Numbers (NSNs) were not developed for these rifles and special parts, as they were more or less an unofficial sniper system originally built at Ft. Devens, and possibly other units (5th SFG?). Here's a vinage picture where you can see the Pachmyer buttpad that was used on these rifles.

View attachment 7136209

The XM25 rifles were unique in that they employed a steel stock liner made by Brookfield Precision Tool (BPT) that was permanently epoxy-bedded inside a black or forest camo McMillan M1A (and later an M3A) fiberglass stock that ensured a solid steel-to-steel mating surface between the receiver and XM25 stock liner. Unlike the traditional M21 rifle, the XM25 stock liner permanently secured with Bisonite or MarineTex epoxy, effectively prevented ‘bedding break down’, and also allowed the operator to repeatedly remove the action from the stock for cleaning and maintenance without any degradation of accuracy over time. The McMillan M1A stock specified for the XM-25 rifle by its co-developer, SOTIC instructor Sfc. Thomas Kapp (RIP) was unique in that it utilized a Pachmayr rubber buttpad, instead of the traditional M14 buttplate.

Only 250 BPT stock liners were made, and reportedly perhaps 200 XM25 rifles were made for US Army Special Forces. They were reportedly first used in Panama in December 1989 and apparently some were still in use during the early parts of the Afghanistan war circa 2002 or so. Not much official history exists, as they were not a 'Program of Record' and were built at the unit level. Thus I am always interested in seeing any pictures of these rifles when they were in service, or any anecdotals from those familiar with these rifles.

Anyhow, here’s my latest project.

View attachment 7136199

View attachment 7136200

View attachment 7136201

View attachment 7136202

Here's the BPT stock liner, which was a unicorm part until the BPT owner came out of retirement and made a few dozen in 2017 for the collector community.

View attachment 7136204

Here's a picture of the BPT stock liner before it was bedded into this stock:
View attachment 7136210

I’m glad it is finally complete. I'll take it to range in a few weeks.

It's kind of frustrating through the years to revisit this subject as some people knew what was needed to make the M14 based sniper rifle accurate enough to be functional as a sniper rifle. The XM25 is proof of that. All too often, I've seen some do-gooder/bean counter get involved and ruin a project. Yeah, they wanted repeatability. But, they would never quite do it. The few you see out in the wild are what we should have had, instead of "I want this/that, have tomorrow, or no deal." kind of crap. Some programs flourished, but in the bean-counter world of the 1980's it was a crapshoot if good programs like this one got through. This only got a limited approval as you can see by such limited numbers. Nothing like having firepower and accuracy, NOT! ...On a limited basis it got done though. ?

 

[Random Guy]

It's kind of frustrating through the years to revisit this subject as some people knew what was needed to make the M14 based sniper rifle accurate enough to be functional as a sniper rifle. The XM25 is proof of that. All too often, I've seen some do-gooder/bean counter get involved and ruin a project

Actually, the XM25/M25 program is pretty complicated, and the issue wasn't a "do-gooder/bean counter" that sidetracked the project - it was the General in charge of US Army Special Forces, Army regs re firearm modification, and to some extent, federal regulations regarding how items are supposed to be procured with tax payer dollars. Below is post from an inactive member on the m14 forum, who was apparently very familiar with the program and its unfortunate history. I lightly edited his post for brevity, and added some comments of mine own as well:

There is a LOT of history behind the XM25/M25 development, manufacture and fielding.

Some of it is VERY contentious. There were investigations, lawsuits and careers got damaged. There are still to this day, some very raw nerves associated with that whole project.

To simplify things, please consider the fact that the XM25 was an Army project. It was specific to the 10th SFG at Ft Devens MA. It was a local in-house "project" run at unit level. It was NOT a Program of Record. There is a world of difference in the military acquisition universe. A Program of Record is assigned to Program Managers (PM's). Every PM falls under one of the Program Executive Offices (11 in the Army). These PEO's have multiple PMs that work for them - each PM is specific to very distinct groupings of similar commodity items. (i.e. Small Arms & Ammunition)

One interesting aspect of this is that SOCOM has only 1 PEO – this streamlines the acquisition process considerably and enables SOCOM to get equipment into the hands of the components far quicker than big Army….The theme through any acquisition effort is always: Cost / Schedule / Performance / Supportability. (My note: In order to have operational supportability, all weapon system must be “Type Classified,” and thus the plot thickens….)

As they say - the devil is in the details... The 10th SFG never produced an ICD, a CDD or a CPD. The program was off the books. The XM25 was a developmental/modification effort that was based on their issued M21's. They claimed that the XM25 did not “exceed” the original weapons system capabilities of the M21 (wink). Politics can play a role in the acquisition process. Even though the XM25 was not a formal program, it was effective and it did work. This lead to the 10th SFG trumpeting the modification program – basically saying that “Hey- check out our stuff – we fixed the M21 and made it better and it works!”

Bear in mind that this was in the era where the M21 was the official Army sniper rifle. The M24 was yet to be fielded. It was at that time that Major General Robert K. Guest, Commander, US Army Special Forces Command (USASFC) was going to Congress to ask for funding to replace the old and more or less beat to sh*t M21’s. This was an un-forecasted funding request and in order for Congress to authorize a plus up, some significant justification was needed. Consider then, that at the same time – the 10th SFG is showing off their new toy. How can Major General Guest stand in front of Congress with his hand out (figuratively speaking) when one of his own SF Groups is building a Product Improved M21 on what he had stated was a platform at the end of its lifecycle? To say he was unhappy is an understatement. In the ensuing investigations, it was found that the 10th had their own gun building shop as well as their own reloading facility. There is speculation that MG Guest was even more pissed off in that he started his own SF career with the 10th in Germany. It got a bit personal.

I am not going to discuss the lawsuits and other sideshows that ensued. Too many raw nerves there, but I will say they were contentious and very ugly. A few people got really hurt over the whole thing. Careers were impacted.

…What came out of this was a legitimate rifle/sniper system that was very capable. It was initially looked at as a replacement for the M21, then as a supplemental system for the M24 team (ie, spotter’s rifle). In order to keep the XM25 fed – with parts, support etc………..drum roll……….it had to be Type Classified.

It was not a “Standard A” Army system - being "Mission Essential", It was however "acceptable for Army use", but it still needed support. The Army made the decision to Type Classify (TC) it as LCC (Logistics Control Code) Standard B. Or STD B. This means that it is Post FOC (Full Operational Capability - Remember the M14 had been around for 25+ years), it was no longer procurable, it was not preferred equipment, BUT it was acceptable for Army use. (specifically the SF community).

Once the system is TC’d – then the XM goes away and it becomes the M. The reality is that every XM25 became an M25 once the Type Classification was stamped as approved. (My note: I have read that this occurred in 1991, but documentation is lacking). I don’t have hard data – but a lot of my experience tells me that the change from XM to M also carried with it, the change to drop the requirement for the stock liner. It became a procurement issue as well as assembly/maintenance issue. Remember that word from above - SUPPORTABILITY.

There is a maze of procurement / purchasing issues to justify a sole source contract for the liners. (My Note: No one at 10th SPG likely prepared a sole source justification document for the BPT liners for a Program Manager and Procurement Officer to review – because it was never a Program of Record and thus I guess there was no Program Mgr or Procurement Officer even assigned to the XM25 project. Big opps.)

The gradual movement of M25’s made by the Navy is easily understood as Crane is a go-to facility for a whole host of SOCOM requirements. They also have a capability to “produce” a lot of the stuff in far greater volume than a unit level shop….Hope this sheds some light on the history.”

There are 3 or 4 morals to this story:

• It is a bad idea for a SF unit to develop/build essentially an “off the books” weapon platform that was not approved by the higher levels in the chain of command – and that same system also happens to require the purchasing of proprietary parts that bypassed federal/US Army procurement regulations, and thus do not have NSN numbers.
• It is a very bad idea for a SF unit to develop/build an “off the books” weapon platform when the commanding General of all Special Forces has gone before Congress and testified under oath that said weapon platform is at the end of its life cycle, in part because it has not been made in over 20 years (the last M14s were made in 1964), and that the US Army humbly seeks new funding to buy a new sniper rifle system altogether (aka, the M24). http://old.qmfound.com/MG_Robert_Guest.html
• It is also a bad situation when Congress approves the US Army's funding request that includes funding for several thousand M24 SWS systems….while a SF unit under the General’s command is kind-of sending a signal that the General is wrong about the M21 being obsolete: ‘We don’t need those stinking bolt action M24s, we want our suppressed XM25s too.’ The problem for the General apparently got worse. I think what happened next was a vendor protest of some sort about the parts selection process for the XM25, some Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigations of this “off the books” project, a lawsuit or two, hurt feelings and short-circuited careers… As noted above, in order make it somewhat legitimate the Army reportedly classified the XM25 as a ‘STD B’ since reportedly around 200 of them had been built, or the parts for 200 of them had been acquired, so they all became M25s at that time. Meanwhile, U.S. Special Operations began experimenting with a suppressed version of the new Knights Armament SR-25 type rifle, which apparently was deployed in Somalia in the 1993-1995 period, and they left it to the Navy/Crane to build M14 sniper rifles for SOCOM missions…
• Bottomline, it was/is probably a better idea for the SOF community to use the SOCOM procurement process when possible, as it is very streamlined compared to Big Army, and the Navy Crane Surface Warfare Center is well equipped to build and support exotic weapon systems for elite units that could be used for various SOCOM missions (Special Forces/Rangers, SEALs, USMC Recon/MARSOC, etc). All such SOCOM-based platforms and procurements built at Crane will be official ‘Programs of Record’ and as such will have the proper approvals, organizational support/funding, and the sustainability issues (eg, Technical Manuals and Operator Manuals, etc) are also baked into that formal process…

I want to be clear that I don't have any first hand knowledge of this history, but my understanding is that it wasn’t the “bean counters” that got in the way of the XM25/M25 program - it was a quasi-roguish program that basically violated Army regulations; it may have been perceived to undercut the commanding General of US Army Special Forces, and to some extent the then-new M24 program… (In retrospect, perhaps Remington should have offered an optional suppressed version of the M24 back the late 1980s, concurrently with the standard M24 rifle, as a suppressor capability is something that the 10th SFG liked about the XM25, but I digress…)

Performance wise, I suspect the US Army XM25 (circa 1988) and similar Navy Physical Security Sniper Rifle (PSSR - circa 1989), performed equally well in combat opeations. The PSSR didn’t have a stock liner, but it was a lugged receiver bedded in MarineTex and had a torque screw to keep the receiver tight in the stock, and thus far more durable than the old XM21/M21 rifles bedded in wood stocks with Acculgass or Bisonite. Here's a group pic of 3 replicas: Navy PSSR (top), Army XM25 (middle) and Army M21 (bottom).

I like all 3 of these replicas, and have tried to educate myself on their histories. Speaking of history, it appears - based on anecdotals- that all 3 versions of the rifles seen in this picture were used during Operation Desert Storm, circa 1991. (I haven't seen any pics of an XM25 in Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/Iraq, but I read that it was used in that conflict...just an interesting factiod, if true.)

The critical historical difference between the middle and top replicas of "M21 Product Improved" rifles - is that the top one represents a variant built at Crane, and was a Program of Record with a National Stock Number. It is also interesting to note that Crane kept rebuilding and reconfiguring these old M14 rifles for two more decades (PSSRs were introduced around 1989-90, then rebuilt into the SSR configuration around 1996, and the non-lugged versions of those rifles were later rebuilt/configured into the various Mk 14 Mod 0 and Mod 1 rifles, and finally, the last precision/DMR-type M14 deployed by the U.S. military in a SAGE-chassis was the Mk 14 Mod 2, circa 2011. My 5cts.

ON EDIT (9-4-19) A guy on the M14 forum found this picture from Feb 1991. It’s a rare picture of the Navy PSSR in action. (Big rifle on left is likely a M88 w/ 16x Leupold scope):

 

[sandwarrior]

Actually, the XM25/M25 program is pretty complicated, and the issue wasn't a "do-gooder/bean counter" that sidetracked the project - it was the General in charge of US Army Special Forces, and to some extent, federal regulations regarding how items are supposed to be procured with tax payer dollars. Below is post from an inactive member on the m14 forum, who was apparently very familiar with the program and its unfortunate history. I lightly edited his post for brevity, and added some comments of mine own as well:



There are 3 or 4 morals to this story:

• It is a bad idea for a SF unit to develop essentially an “off the books” weapon platform that was not approved by the higher levels in the chain of command – and that said system also happens to require the purchasing of proprietary parts that do not have NSN numbers (ie, BPT stock liners).
• It is a very bad idea for a SF unit to develop an “off the books” weapon platform when the commanding Major General of all Special Forces has gone before Congress and testified under oath that said weapon platform is at the end of its life cycle, in part because it has not been made in over 20 years (the last M14s were made in 1964), and that the US Army humbly seeks several million dollars to buy a new sniper rifle system altogether (aka, the M24).
• It is an extraordinarily bad situation when Congress approves the General’s quasi-urgent request and allocates funding for several thousand M24 SWS systems….while a SF unit under the General’s command is kind-of sending a signal that the General is wrong about the M21 being obsolete: ‘We don’t need those stinking bolt action M24s, we want our suppressed XM25s.’ The problem for the General apparently got worse. I think what happened next was a vendor protest of some sort about the parts selection process for the XM25, some Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigations of this “off the books” project, a lawsuit or two, hurt feelings and short-circuited careers… As noted above, in order the clean up the mess the Army reportedly classified the XM25 as a ‘STD B’ since reportedly around 200 of them had been built, or the parts for 200 of them had been acquired, so they all became M25s at that time. Around that time U.S. Special Operations began experimenting with a suppressed version of the new Knights Armament SR-25 type rifle, which apparently was deployed in Somalia in the 1993-1995 period, and they let Crane build M14 sniper rifles for SOCOM missions…
• Bottomline, it is probably a better idea for the SF community to use the SOCOM procurement process when possible, as it is very streamlined compared to Big Army, and the Navy Crane Surface Warfare Center is well equipped to build and support exotic weapon systems for elite units that could be used for various SOCOM missions (Special Forces/Rangers, SEALs, USMC Recon/MARSOC, etc). All such SOCOM-based platforms and procurements built at Crane will be official ‘Programs of Record’ and as such will have the proper approvals, organizational support/funding, and the sustainability issues are also baked into that formal process…

I don't have any first hand knowledge of this history, but my understanding is that it wasn’t the “bean counters” that got in the way of the XM25/M25 program - it was a quasi-roguish program that was perceived to undercut the commanding General of US Army Special Forces, and to some extent the then-new M24 program… (In retrospect, perhaps Remington should have offered an optional suppressed version of the M24 back the late 1980s, concurrently with the standard M24 rifle, as a suppressor capability is something that the 10th SFG liked about the XM25, but I digress…)

Performance wise, I suspect the US Army XM25 (circa 1988) and similar Navy Physical Security Sniper Rifle (PSSR - circa 1989), performed equally well in combat opeations. The PSSR didn’t have a stock liner, but it was a lugged receiver bedded in MarineTex, and thus far more durable than the old XM21/M21 rifles bedded in wood stocks with Acculgass or Bisonite. Here's a group pic of 3 replicas: Navy PSSR (top), Army XM25 (middle) and Army M21 (bottom). I like all 3 of them, and have tried to educate myself on their histories.

View attachment 7136986

The critical historical difference between the replicas of the middle rifle and the top rifle in this picture - is that the Crane built rifles were a Program of Record. It is also interesting to note that Crane kept rebuilding and reconfiguring these old M14 rifles for more than two more decades (PSSRs were introduced around 1989, then rebuilt into the SSR configuration around 1996, and the non-lugged versions of those rifles were later rebuilt/configured into the various Mk 14 Mod 0 and Mod 1 rifles, and finally, the last precision/sniper type M14 deployed by the U.S. military in a SAGE-chassis was the Mk 14 Mod 2, circa 2011. My 5cts on this history.

Random Guy,

A little more on the politics as well. Both George H. W. Bush and William Clinton each had about 700k M14’s, being held in storage, destroyed during the years this “off the books” project was being developed. Which REALLY made these much more un-procurable. How any entity went about selecting individual rifles for modification is anyones guess. But, with that many disappearing in such a short time, I would assume makes for reasoning the Army was done with them.

What you are saying makes sense too, in that if a General is told “We are done with these”, goes to Congress and asks for something new... then the XM-25 pops out, it isn’t going to sit well.

Whatever the reasons, a big part of my frustration is that we teach these guys to be resourceful, then back them off of of all they can do.

In the couple months I was around SF (pre-scuba/scuba school time) I saw a lot of innovation. What 10th SF did was take a government manufactured rifle and build it up to a spec that it was accurate and durable. We have a long history of these type mods, i.e. hedge-cutters on tanks in France in WWII. Imagine the pissing and moaning and lawsuits if what was done then was done today. This isn’t any different. A design made by people who aren’t there, mandating they get a share of the money for a design they have no idea whether it will work or not. Where people who have worked with a piece of equipment, know what it needs to be more effective.

Bean Counting, unintended insubordination, money grubbing is all the same when it takes a good program and throws it away.

 

[Random Guy]

I think the good news is that while the XM/M25 program ended, development in "Product Improved M21s" continued, but not at the unit level, and more properly at the Program Level. The Navy facility at Crane was responsible for a lot of innovation re the M14 over the past 30 years, and in particular during the 2000s when it co-developed the SAGE chassis system that basically all branches of the US military subsequently adopted, thereby extending the life of the platform by another 10 to 15 years. The SAGE chassis allowed flexibility re lights, NV gear/optics and laser designators, and was more robust than any McMillan fiberglass stock, but it is heavy....

Partial history of post-M21 development of the platform:

US. Army
Small volume of M25s made in early 2000s during mobilization for Iraq, configuration based mainly on the USMC DMR rifles.
2005-2010?: Smith Enterprises provides the Army with the M21A5 or "M14 Crazy Horse" rifles as SDM rifles.
2008-2011: Adopted the EBR-RI with SAGE Chassis, ~6k made, and still in use as of 2017-18, but being phased out for the new H&K weapon

US Navy/SOCOM:
1989: PSSR
1996: SSR
Early to mid 2000s developed the SAGE chassis which became the Mk 14 Mod 0, and later what I consider to probably be the ultimate combat M14, the Mk 14, Mod 1. The final heavy barrel variant was the Mk 14, Mod 2, made circa 2011, of which 250 were produced.

Some of these variants are found on posters by this graphic artist: http://www.dogfightink.com/rifles.html

USMC
USMC worked on an accurized combat M14 from roughly 1992 to 1998, and then it became a standard item in 2000 - USMC M14 DMR (with NSN), and they saw heavy use until 2010ish.
USMC probably decided that re-bedding was a pain, and adopted the M39 in a SAGE chassis in 2008, and used them till 2012. (Replaced w/ M110s).

USAF
Mk 14 Mod 0/Mk 14 SEI with SAGE chassis (I think still in use)

US Coast Guard
M14 T with SAGE chassis (I think still in use)

Link to EBR variants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_14_Enhanced_Battle_Rifle

So, the M14 soldiered on well past the demise of the XM25 era in large part due to the innovation and especially development of the SAGE chassis in the 2000s, along with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, after almost 60 years of service from roughly 1960 to the late-201Xs, the M14 has finally reached the end of the road in the US military...

 

[tactinstr1SFG]

The lengthy explanation as to the issues with the M25 program is interesting and does lay out some of the issues that existed but not completely accurate. The fact was that SF was getting M24's for free because it was a "big Army" project. Because Special Forces is indeed a US Army component, any time big Army gets something Special Forces (and the Ranger Regiment) gets it or can get it. This is relevant to soldier systems specifically (obviously not tanks, artillery, airplanes, etc.). While it is true that MG Guest was indeed lobbying Congress for more funding, it was not specific necessarily to sniper rifles although they could have been listed in some funding documents as a line item.

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

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

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

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

As to why the system did not survive or was not in more wide spread use, there are a number of factors to this issue very little of which had to do with "bean counters" or even the command at the time. One of the largest reasons was the snipers community itself. During this time (early 90's), SOTIC was a relatively new entity but was very instrumental within SOF as it spoke for SOF snipers. The prevailing thought within SOTIC and the Army sniper school at Benning was that a "real sniper rifle was a bolt action". Therefore, there was a lot of resistance to pushing the M25 forward. Likewise, the M24 was brand new (88) and was enjoying a lot of love from the hard core snipers of the time. On top of this, the Army has a very hard time going backwards when it comes to weapons, once they get rid of something they do not like to admit it is still useful. In the case of the M14's brought out in 01/02, believe when I saw that this was not an easy task as many in the big Army side fought this tooth and nail. While the M14's were in fact brought out and issued, they were not all that well received and gotten rid of pretty quickly as everyone wanted the M110's. The short of this is that because the M25 was developed outside of normal acquisition channels, promoted "back channel" and not (as very accurately described above) a "program of record" it was doomed.

As to Remington offering a suppressed version of the M24, there was no requirement within the solicitation for this and therefore Remington (or any of the submitters) to offer it. You need to understand that suppressor technology and knowledge of the day was not even close to what it is today. I personally do not have a lot of knowledge or experience with the suppressor that was used on the M25, but I believe that it was a VN carry over and was not overly effective. I do have experience trying to suppress M1As and know that it can be a challenge; typically they have to be tuned to run only with the suppressor which means they don't like to cycle with the suppressor removed. Now before someone starts trying to "educate" me about this can or that can, I have no doubt that someone has a M1A that runs can on or off, but as I said, in my experience this is not an easy task to accomplish and definitely was not easy in the 90's. I did hear from others during that time that the guns accuracy suffered with the suppressor attached; someone from the 10th told me that the suppressors were used for near range work only, but I do not know if this was factual.

Sorry for the long post but I hope it was interesting to someone.

 

[Random Guy]

Sorry for the long post but I hope it was interesting to someone.

To the contrary, thank you very much for your post, it was very interesting and provides a lot of historical context. Thank you for chiming in and providing additional info, as you are wealth of knowledge re this subject - and a host of others like the M24A2/A3 program, etc.

Re the issue with suppressing an M14//M1A. I understand it is difficult, as gas-port/gas piston actuated rifles like the M14 are apparently way more picky than a typical gas impingement rifle like the AR-15/SR-25. In fact, BPT made some special "Rev 2" gas pistons specifically for suppressed M14 rifles, some of which were procured by Crane. As seen here at top of this pic, the gas port is tiny on the Rev 2 piston compared to the standard piston seen below (Source: Lee Emerson's book, M14 Rifle Development and History, Vol 1 (2016)).

I have the standard BPT gas piston in my XM25 replica as shown in this post (as seen on the bottom), but part of me wants to find a Rev 2 gas piston just in case I decide to suppress it one day. I have read about small holes being drilled in the front of the gas cylinder plug as well to relief excess pressure. As you noted, once properly set-up for a suppressor, they won't cycle with it removed...

BTW, I think the suppressor in the 1991 pic at Ft Devens might be an early Op Incs unit, not the older Vietnam era SONICS M14SS suppressor. I don't know much about the Op Incs unit, other than I think they were used with the above 'Rev 2' gas piston. The ingenious aspect of the old SONIC M14SS suppressor of the Vietnam era was the patented pressure relief valve, as see in these pictures from Peter Senich's book. To my knowledge, no other manufacturer has developed similar technology, which is too bad, as this is probably what works best on the M14/M1A.

Quick comment re this observation:

All this said, Crane has some limitations as outlined in their Charter, they generally cannot (or are not supposed) to be a weapons manufacturer, rather they can modify existing weapons. They can type classify weapons in some circumstances (SPR, MK13, etc.), however in general they are not supposed to be building new weapons. Of course like any organization attempting to justify their existence, Crane has indeed built new weapons (again, SPR, MK13, etc.)

I have been researching the "pre-Mk 13" rifles made and Crane, and one thing I learned is that the earliest 300 WinMag rifles had "C" prefix Remington receivers which date to about 1990-1992 era. Some of us got old Mk 13 Mod 0 cases via the DRMO process/gov't auction, and the original serial #s are usually taped to the cases. Here's one example of replica Mk 13 Mod 0 sitting on a vintage/real Navy transport case for SEAL Team 8:

I learned that when Crane was replacing their old M86 sniper rifles, they bought about 300 rifles from Redick Arms Development (RAD) in the early 1990s that were chambered in 7.62x51 NATO and designated as M91s - but like the M24s - they were Remington 700 long action rifles. So, in the mid-1990s Crane decided to re-barrel them in 300 Win Mag, and once the Mk 248 Mod 0 ammo was standardized and approved for combat use in 1994, they started deploying them to the SEAL teams around 1995. This helped me understand why so many "C' prefix actions are seen on these cases. Anyhow, I suppose one could argue that Crane was just "modifying" their original M91 rifles to accommodate the 300 WinMag caliber, but I understand that later they started buying Remington long actions to build them.

I thought you might find this interesting re the original pre Mk 13 rifles....I need to find a C-prefix long action for a Mk 13 project. (I have one other long action M700 that I really do like, my trusty M24R - pic attached). Anyhow, thanks again for sharing your knowledge and perspective, its much appreciated(!)

 

[tactinstr1SFG]

A couple of things here;

I am VERY familiar with OPS Inc and I am pretty sure that was not one of Phil's cans. I don't know exactly where it came from but if I had to guess I would say it came from Crane or through them as a part of a "black" purchase.

I was involved with the MK13 program while in the Army defining the specifications, however it was not activated until I retired at which point I was working for Remington and running sniper courses on the side. I was doing one of these courses for 2/75 when they told me that they were getting the MK13s. I knew the guy running the program at Crane (former SEAL team 5 guy). Anyway, I tried to get the contract stopped and changed to adopting the M24 in 300WM (which had been in production since 90). Unfortunately the contract was already let. Crane used whatever actions they already had and didn't come and buy new receivers for about an a year. Point being, any SN prefix was an accident and not an intentional effort. Eventually, we (Remington) did sell them new receivers and there was no special SN prefix or designation.

I visited Crane many times and spent a fair amount of time there on the weapons and electro-optic side. They had a lot of "parts" for a wide variety of weapons systems. Some of the things that people think were done purposely were absolutely accidents and/or the result of "just trying to get it done". Crane has built and developed a lot of "science experiments" over the years, many of which will never see the light of day. There also has been a lot of controversy and shaddyness with Crane over the years and they have been caught many times with doing things that were not correct. That said, they have done a lot of great things as well and I harbor no ill will towards them overall. There was some really good guys working there but there was also some real dick heads.

 

[Random Guy]

Thanks again for that info and perspective. If the suppressor from that 1991 picture is not an Ops Incs part, then I guess it will remain a mystery can... (BTW, feel free to share a pic of your M25 replica w/ B&L scope if you feel like sharing, but if not, that's okay too)

Re Crane, I wish the folks at Crane could get permission write a book on some of the innovative stuff they have developed for SOCOM re small arms weapon development over the past 30 years (minus the spooky science experiments and secret squirrel stuff), but I'm not holding my breath on that... Oh well.

Returning to the XM25 topic, and one other item re the 'producability' issue is that on commercial M1A receivers at least - the back of the receiver legs often have to be surface ground at the 3 degree angle to ensure that at least 90% of the receiver legs have good contact with the BPT liner. To obtain best accuracy potential, the BPT owner machined the legs of my commercial receiver to ensure a good fit (I think ~ 0.003 to 0.005" is removed in this process). Not sure if this was required on USGI receivers, but if so, it alludes to the work involved with this approach:

White arrows show area where receiver legs and liner must be true parallel/flush (vertical of receiver legs and liner mate at 3 degree angle, and of course along the full length horizontal area of the receiver frame rails)

So the XM25 stock liner is not exactly a drop-in part for commercial receivers, but not sure if this process was required on USGI M14 receivers.

FWIW, the final M14 precision rifle designed and built for US military appears to be the Navy's Mk 14 Mod 2. Reportly Crane made 250 of them around 2011-2012 for NECC use, and my goal is to somehow piece together these parts in 2020 so I can have a replica of the "Omega" of the Product Improved M21 rifle variants. This heavy barreled rifle in a custom SAGE chassis system with 3.5-15x NightForce scope, and unique SSR scope mount system - was the last stop for the precision DMR/sniper type M14 rifle.... If I build one, I might call it The Omega EBR.

 

[tactinstr1SFG]

When I get an opportunity, I will get a picture of my rifle. I have an EBR gun as well, essentially a Springfield Armory M1A Squad (18" barrel). I didn't build it to be a replica of anything, more so just because. I know the owner of Sage very well and when I was at Remington we did some business together. I will say this, the EBR is a very heavy gun; not that the M1A/M14 is all that light to start with but that Sage Intl chassis really puts on the pounds.

In an earlier post it was mentioned about using the gas cylinder plug, well one of my rifles has exactly this and it works very well to "tune" the cycling of the rifle. Down side is that you get a puff of gas out the front of the gun.

 

[THEIS]

There was some really good guys working there but there was also some real dick heads.

Hi,

Ahh you must be referring to the Dave Armstrong and Phil Mcm days, lolol...

Thanks for the great detailed and informative thread.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[tactinstr1SFG]

Hi,

I am not confirming or denying that.... Funny thing with Phil, I knew him very well when he was a west coast SEAL and I was from 1st SFG; we would attend conferences together and represent the west coast. He was a competitive shooter and long gun as I was, but when he went to Crane, evidently he stopped by the Koolaid fountain many times.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

I am not confirming or denying that.... Funny thing with Phil, I knew him very well when he was a west coast SEAL and I was from 1st SFG; we would attend conferences together and represent the west coast. He was a competitive shooter and long gun as I was, but when he went to Crane, evidently he stopped by the Koolaid fountain many times.

Hi,

Is this Michael H.?

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[tactinstr1SFG]

Yep, is this Daryl?

 

[Random Guy]

Resurrecting this old thread. New video of XM25/M25 replica at 300 to 710 yards. Rob is an excellent shot:

 

[sinister]

Nice steel farm in that video.

Much of the reason for drama and Special Forces' frustration in keeping their M21s and upgrading to an M25 (type) was fundamentally very simple: Big Army adopted M24 in 1984 and obsoleted M21. Big Army was also killing all its command, theater, numbered-Army, regional, corps, and division Marksmanship Training Units -- and their tables of distribution and allowances that authorized competition National Match M14s.

The SOTIC Committee in the JFK Center at Fort Bragg convinced the 1st SOCOM Commander, General James Guest, that Special Forces needed both a precision bolt capability AND the rapid-fire follow-up for the spotter. Unfortunately Big Army funded Leg Army and Special Forces, and "He who controls the Gold makes the rules."

The Nunn-Cohen Act of 1987 formed the United States Special Operations Command, with Congress giving USSOCOM its own service-like money program under DOD starting in October 1987. This allowed initial investment in the SR-25, but was too late to save M25.

 

[Random Guy]

USSOCOM….This allowed initial investment in the SR-25, but was too late to save M25.

I have a slightly different/nuanced impression based on what others have relayed re the M25 vs SR-25 history (Michael H. and Crane employers).
As noted in post #17:

"Crane can/has/does develop SOF specific systems based on an identified and vetted need and they do a lot more than just weapons. All this said, Crane has some limitations as outlined in their Charter, they generally cannot (or are not supposed) to be a weapons manufacturer, rather they can modify existing weapons. They can type classify weapons in some circumstances (SPR, MK13, etc.), however in general they are not supposed to be building new weapons. Of course like any organization attempting to justify their existence, Crane has indeed built new weapons (again, SPR, MK13, etc.) and came under a lot of heat for it, however because SOF units needed/wanted these items Crane was allowed to continue. Back to the M25; since the 10th (SFG) was not authorized to develop a weapons system but the system they did develop had some support and interest, it was moved over to Crane who did have the authorization to modify the weapons."

So, I think it was about 1994 when the 10th SFG was no longer allowed to build M25s, but Crane could. In fact they had been authorized in mid-1989 to make 250 M14 Physical Security Sniper Rifles for SOCOM missions. They were based on the Navy’s “Grade A” match M14s, but with black stocks and a 10x B&L scope. They were made in 1990 and some were reportedly used by Special Forces and NSW guys during 1991 Desert Storm. Some suppressed versions were also made of this rifle with a special BPT Rev 1 gas piston. A pic from Peter Senich's, The Long-Range War (1996). Senich's book has one semantics-related error when he calls this a "Navy version of the M25," as Crane never used "M25" but rather I recall the official nomenclature was "M14 Physical Security Sniper Rifle' and informally called "M14 Port Security rifles."

Two hundred and fifty rifles is not a lot, but it had an NSN number (1005-01-106-8975) and was supported and even updated in 1996 as the M14 Sniper Security Rifle (SSR). Not sure if the SSR was a SOCOM weapon. Anyhow, here's my replica of a Navy/USSOCOM M14 Physical Security Sniper Rifle:

The SR-25s came into the picture during 1993-94, but SOCOM did support what we call the M25 for a short period of time in the early 1990s, but you are right that the M14s were overshadowed by what Reed Knight specifically developed for Crane/SOCOM use in the 1993-1996 era - a suppressed 1 MOA capable semi-auto SR-25 (formally adopted in 2000 as the Mk 11 Mod 0).

 

[Random Guy]

Pics of my newest XM25 replica. I finally built one around an early '1st generation' McMillan M14 stock (these were made circa 1981-1988). It is basically the same as the rifle originally shown in this post, but it has an early woodland smear pattern that I like. No range report yet. Just some fyi pics.

 

[FatBoy]

You found another bedding liner! Hats off. That’s a beautiful build.

 

[towerofpower93]

Your devotion and attention to detail are incredible.

Thanks for sharing all the pics and knowledge on these rifles.