Posted on 03/08/2011 11:47:32 AM PST by King_Corey
The M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle The changing nature of the war in Afghanistan led to the re-issue of the 7.62x51 mm NATO M14 rifle. By Maj. John Plaster, U.S. Army (Ret.) Not long after U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan, al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies came to realize that America’s 5.56x45 mm NATO infantry rifles lost most of their lethality beyond 500 meters. Demonstrating their adaptability, the insurgents exploited Afghanistan’s sprawling valleys and distant mountainsides to seek engagements beyond the M16’s and M4’s effective ranges.
This is borne out by U.S. Army data, which reveals that more than half of the war’s small arms engagements are now beyond 500 meters, with the enemy employing heavier weapons and then withdrawing before air support or artillery fire can arrive.
One solution, military planners could see, was employing a more capable cartridge already in the system: the 7.62x51 mm NATO. Today’s standard U.S. sniper cartridge, the 175-grain, M118 Long Range load, delivers four times the foot-pounds of energy as the standard 62-grain, 5.56 mm round at extended ranges. In other words, at 600 meters the 7.62 mm round packs about as much energy—1,000 ft.-lbs.—as the 5.56 mm round at 100 meters.
Although M14 rifles were pulled from depot storage, fitted with scopes, shipped to Afghanistan and issued to Army and Marine designated riflemen, the guns proved less than ideal for today’s warfare. First, their fixed stocks could not be adjusted to fit the length-of-pull needed for today’s body armor. And second, the 40-year-old rifles could not accommodate modern accessories such as lasers, night vision scopes and lights, which require MIL STD 1913 Picatinny rails. Fortunately, a solution had already been developed by the U.S. Navy’s Surface Warfare Center at Crane, Ind.
The SEAL CQB Rifle One year before the 2001 terrorist attacks, U.S. Navy SEALs had gone to Crane to request an updated version of the 42-year-old M14. Great believers in the M14’s reliability and the 7.62x51 mm NATO cartridge’s lethality, they wanted a shortened version with a pistol grip and adjustable-length buttstock for close-quarters use.
The design task fell to David Armstrong, an accomplished small arms engineer who previously had developed the well-received SOPMOD (Special Operations Peculiar Modification System) for the M4 carbine. A mechanical engineer, machinist and recreational shooter, Armstrong began by searching for an off-the-shelf collapsible buttstock.
After trying several, he chose a Sage Int’l collapsible, pistol-grip stock made for the Remington Model 870 shotgun. The telescoping design offered five lengths of pull, in 1-inch increments, that worked well with body armor. Armstrong connected the Sage buttstock to the forward section of a modified M14 fiberglass stock. He also replaced the rifle’s standard 22-inch barrel with an 18-inch unit, reducing its overall length by nearly 10 inches, to 35 inches.
The fiberglass stock, however, did not satisfy him. “The [M14] design has always been tough to beat for reliability, but required laborsome bedding and tuning for best accuracy,” he explained. Earlier sniper versions of the M14, especially the M21 Sniper System, which used a resin-impregnated stock with epoxy bedding, proved so temperamental that snipers were instructed not to remove the action from the stock while cleaning it.
Armstrong took the bold step of designing his own chassis stock, machined from aircraft-grade aluminum. Not only would this be more rigid than fiberglass, but it would include an aluminum bedding block and an assortment of Picatinny rails for optical and illumination accessories. The result was a true “drop-in” stock, requiring no bedding or special fitting. “This stock floats the gas system through a replacement operating rod guide screwed to the rigid stock fore-end and a simple spacer replacing the front band,” he said. He also modified the Sage buttstock’s cheek rest to give it 2 inches of vertical adjustment in 1/4-inch increments.
In addition to installing quad Picatinny rails around the fore-end, he attached a short-rail scope mount that replaced the M14’s stripper clip guide. The final additions were a more effective flash suppressor, three ambidextrous 1 1/4-inch sling slot locations, and a Harris Engineering S-LM Series S bipod. Patented to the U.S. Navy with Armstrong as its inventor, the chassis stock is now produced under license by Sage Int’l in Oscoda, Mich.
“Simply adding the chassis stock system cut the group size of a basic M14 in half without the need for glass-bedding,” he reports. Firing five-shot groups with M118 ammunition at 600 yards, Naval technicians at Crane recorded 2 to 2.5 minute-of-angle (m.o.a.) extreme spreads—meaning 12 to 18-inch groups. Standard M80 ball ammunition shot nearly as well.
The EBR & EMR When the U.S. Army and Marine Corps later sought modernized M14s, Armstrong merely switched the Navy’s Mk. 14 Mod 0 rifle’s short barrel for a full-length 22-inch version to create the Army’s Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR) and the Marine’s M39 Enhanced Marksman’s Rifle (EMR). These versions measure 38.5 inches overall, with the stocks collapsed, and 45 inches when fully extended.
Although 3 pounds heavier than the standard M14, the EBR and EMR compare favorably to America’s current 7.62 mm sniping platforms, such as the Army’s M24 and M110, and the Marine Corps’ M40A3. The Army is issuing two EBRs per infantry squad, while the Marines have placed the EMR at platoon-level.
The Army EBR is fitted with a Leupold 3.5–10X scope, and the USMC’s EMR optic is the Schmidt & Bender M8541 Scout Sniper Day Scope, the same scope used by Marine snipers. Thus equipped, these designated riflemen have the ability to engage enemy personnel to 800 meters.
Each service is now building its own rifles, with Navy Mk. 14 Model 0’s being produced at the Crane facility, while Army rifles are assembled at Rock Island Arsenal, Ill., and the USMC version at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va.
Some 5,000 EBRs have been produced at Rock Island Arsenal, with funding for another 1,200. A further 2,000 Sage stocks have reportedly been sold directly to military units and individuals for conversion of M14s. Still more rifles issued to Marines and SEALs suggest that perhaps 10,000 of these modernized M14s are now in service.
Firing The EBR Thanks to Fulton Armory of Savage, Md., I was able to test fire a platform nearly identical to the EBR. Available to civilian shooters, this semi-automatic-only rifle incorporates Fulton’s own M14 Receiver, installed on the same Sage Int’l chassis stock that David Armstrong designed.
Examining the rifle in my shop, I found that its military two-stage trigger broke cleanly at 3 pounds, 7.5 ounces—about perfect for me. For test-firing, I mounted a Bushnell Elite 6500 4.5–30X Tactical Scope, which was a simple task with the rifle’s Picatinny rails.
Ergonomics had concerned me because of the stock’s square edges. Nonetheless, I found its balance and heft surprisingly good with the center-of-balance at the magazine well. Having trained on the M14 in the 1960s, I already appreciated the reliability of its gas piston and operating rod system, and the action’s resistance to sand and carbon buildup. Of course, I experienced no stoppages or malfunctions of any kind.
Weighing 14 pounds with a scope, a bipod and a loaded 20-round magazine, this weight plus the straight-line stock resulted in a mild recoil “push,” making it very comfortable to fire. This also assisted target reacquisition for follow-up shots.
The basic difference between the military EBR and Fulton Armory’s version is a National Match barrel—and that really showed on the range. Accuracy with the Fulton Armory EBR was impressive. Firing off sandbags at 100 yards, my Federal Gold Medal Match, .308 Win., 168-grain ammunition punched a three-round group measuring 0.721 inches. Switching to the U.S. military’s load specifically designed for sniping—the 175-grain, M118 Long Range round—the rifle fired even better, scoring a 0.50-inch three-round group.
In the hands of a trained marksman, the EBR—especially with a National Match barrel—is more than capable of dealing with insurgents to 800 meters and beyond. Perhaps the Taliban and its allies have proven adaptable; but, as demonstrated by these 21st century M14s, so have we.
Also, the Garand is very particular about the powder type and load. Powder that is too slow or fast or too much powder and you can damage your op rod.
I was being a little bit facetious about using the 1903 Springfield.
On the other hand, I am totally serious about having a fair number of scoped bolt action rifles made up for accuracy. Maybe a mixture of half using them and the others using whatever else is issued.
Actually the Springfield might not be as ridiculous as one might think.
Maybe 30 years ago, I had a 1909 Argentine Mauser. It was almost unbelievably well made by Deutsch Waffen Und Munitionsfabriken, of Berlin. My Nephew and I were just plinking with it when we decided to shoot at an old tar bucket. I would guess it was maybe 16X20 inches and still had a bunch of tar and then dirt in it.
To make a long story short, it was fairly easy to hit at a measured quarter mile. This was with open sights and surplus FN 7.65 ammo. The fact that the sights were dead on at that distance helped a lot. It shot very high at 100 yards.
In short if the Springfield had the O3A3 peep sights it just might be effective at 500 yards.
Have one, but never fired it. It’s a “Big Iron” piece’ ammo not readily available.
Interesting. The Garand does have a rather long, slender rod, as opposed to the very short, beefy piston of the M-14.
Only experience with the Garand was ITR at Pendleton. Suppose they gave us beat up, worn out rifles so we could flop in the mud and such. Mine had a rod so worn at the piston, it was effectively a single shot. Would rarely cycle. A good slathering of Lubriplate would maybe get me through a clip. Borrowed a buddy's rifle for the move and shoot stuff............
Thanks. I had heard of the L1A1 variant.
I never heard of “The Pig.” Essentially a shortened FN-FAL with 30 rounds of 7.62 versus 20 rounds and selective fire? I want one. Three words “rock and roll.”
Meanwhile, McNamara was handing out M-16s that would jam at the worst possible time in the hands of kids who just got off the plane. Very sad.
I am sure LBJ got a piece of that contract.
How about a modified M1 with a magazine and a 30-06 round?................................. I had the M1 as an EM, the 8 rounds may have been 16-24 if they adapted it to a magazine. The M-14 had a different receiver. It was gas operated too. The Italians found a way to convert the M-1 to carry more ammo. We could have saved a bundle on R&D. I only disassembled a M-14, I went through OCS with a M-1. The next rifle I saw the M-16 that was still around in 92’when I left. They still had M-1 carbines when I was in.
Where are expected engagement ranges for your use of the weapon?
Far as I know, the BAR was the only rifle that had a magazine that took the 30-06. Funny, same as I posted earlier about worn out M-1 Garands, we familiarized with the BAR. Learned fast to find the magazines with firm springs, the sloppy ones would not feed.
What most people don't realize is that this is the golden age of the M14, and the 7.62mm NATO round in general. There are specialized gunsmiths that transform every lowly M14 the government can find into match-grade rifles with all kinds of specialized optics and furniture on it.
The M16-type 5.56mm carbine has been a world-wide success story for most soldiers. Accurate, easy to learn, easy to maintain, and very shooter-friendly, but not perfect for every job. Nobody will ever design a rifle like that. But for a unit's "designated marksman", a rebuilt M14 or new AR10-type is great for filling the gap out to about 500m where the real snipers and rifles take over. The 7.62 round is easily lethal to 1000m, but the challenge is on the shooter, and not the weapon.
And there are times when you want good things in small packages. That's why I put my SOCOM-16 into this Troy Industries all-aluminum chassis and added a folding stock.
It even has the luxury of accessory storage in the pistol grip and cheekpiece pad. This ain't your daddy's M14, but I'm sure he'd appreciate what can be done with it.
The M-16/AR platform is not limited to .223/5.56. An AR in .308 is lighter, more accurate, and more dependable than a M1.
This depends AR15 for CQB and built up areas is a good choice. Ammo is lighter and length is short for confined spaces.
AR10 is Closer to Stoners original design, better build quality less mass produced. Longer weapon, longer range, bigger bullet more damage more ability to overcome cover.
If you live in very urban areas with limited distant shots then AR15.
If you live in rural area with long sightlines go AR10
And speaking as one who has built many AR 15s, do not entrust your life to a homebuild. There are too many variables, and flawless performance on the range does not guarantee that the gun won't fail in a SHTF situation where you are gunning and running and feeding it all kinds of crap ammo and mud and dirt. I love ARs, but I keep a bone stock Chinese AK around for the Zombie War.
That is simply not true. The gun was designed around a 5.56 made with extruded powder. This burns hotter but there isn’t as much fouling. The military then started production of ammo with ball powder against the objection of the designers. Then the military deployed the rifle without cleaning kits of any kind. The situation this put our soldiers in was a damn shame...but it wasn’t a design flaw of the rifle.
Agreed.
Our government and the BATFE have driven American designers out of the market.
New firearms, like the Magpul/Bushmaster ACR, are the exception. Only after the AWB ended did they start working on new firearms. We started seeing SIG offer the 556 (bleh) and more .308 on the AR platform.
Military contracts are tough, and nobody is going to risk a design that they can’t sell on they civvy market if a DOD contract never appears.
Reload.
Much cheaper.
Oh, you won’t “save” any money, but you’ll shoot A LOT more :)
>> . . . but not perfect for every job. Nobody will ever design a rifle like that.
On that note, an historical observation.
In WWII, the Army seemed to realize that One Size Does Not Fit All. You’d have guys with Garands, M-1 Carbines, Thompson SMGs, maybe even the odd ‘03 sniper rifle, down to a fairly low level (platoon, squad).
Up until Afghanistan, the Army seemed Hell-bent on jamming the square peg M16/M4 into every hole of every shape. Whether this was for ease of procurement, training, logistics, all of the above, some of the above, other, it doesn’t matter.
Afghanistan really showed the idiocy of the “one size fits all” approach, and we’re finally remembering institutionally what it seems we knew quite well in WWII, which is still in living (though long-retired) memory.
Did this happen because of too much small arms doctrine by the desk bound?
Partly.
The original M-16 cartridge spec called for stick powder, which burns much more cleanly. And, the original spec had a chromed chamber.
McNamara noticed that the US was sitting on a large quantity of surplus ball powder, which burns much more dirty. He also eliminated the chrome chamber as another cost-saving measure.
Those two, combined with a no-clean attitued, caused the initial problems.
Both of those were finally corrected and the M-16/M-4/AR is now a terriffic platform. I’d wager money that 99% of all stoppages are due to cheap magazines. A good, TESTED magazine will make them run like a sewing machine. And I use modern W748 ball powder as my primary because it meters so well. No problems with dirt.
Wow, I think I’m doing what you’re doing except the SS barrel (cost) with maybe a couple other goodies such as adj. stock, flash suppressor, etc. and my quote is twice your $600 figure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.