The M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle

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.

There is a source for blackpowder cartidges for it. That is what I have used. You can also use low-power maodern cartridges with one.

I’ll get you the information on the source.

I want to start hand-loading my own and have a great little book on that - I’ll get you the name.

For a hunting gun, you could probably take any animal in North America with the proper shot placement.

I didn’t notice any terrrible kick with the black powder charges. My guess is the carbines must kick quite a bit though.

Believe me, I have thought long and hard about the very points you brought up, esp. the reliability factor under harsh conditions. I tried to balance that out against the weight of the .308 ammo to carry and the ability (inability) to keep something like an AK47’s second and third shot on target.

I think I’m going to build a high quality AR15 although I may also pick up the Panther that I would also love to have. I look at this as a process to complete a tool set.

Yes, I am aware of that. There are many calibers available on the M16 Platform other than .233/5.56, they range from .204 to the .50Beowolf.

The military could have easily chosen the Stoner AR10, .308 cal, however, they did not. They needed a longer range semi-auto rifle, the M14 was still in use in some units, so it was chosen for the upgrades.

The article goes over the upgrades and performance of this rifle, not the pros and cons of what rifle makes the most sense and what would have been the best choice. The comments quickly became sidetracked by opinions on what rifle and caliber is best, that was not the point of the article for those that bothered to read it.

Reading is fundamental.

I like it, but just HOW MANY sight systems do you need on a rifle? ;)

Need? Two. I want iron sight backup with even the finest optics. Prefer? Three. That red dot Docter is perfectly visible through the M16-type sight channel under the scope, and is zeroed in for 50m, which is basically point-blank on this rifle. Besides, my eyes need all the help I can give them.

Not a bad idea.
I don’t have the rail space on my ARs, unless I replace my rail system with a same-plane rail. LaRue Tactical makes optics mounts that now allow for a secondary optic to be offset from the main optic at a 45 or 60-degree angle. Usuall a small Aimpoint Micro on a target/tacical scope.

Is Docter still making sights? I thought then went out of business about 8 years ago, and everybody else is now making copies.

Are you going though a gun shop or a private dealer that works gunshows?

I can send you the name of the outfit in NC that built my lower but you may have to find somebody in your state because the lower is the FFL component.

If you have a business, even if it is real estate, Brownells will allow you to register as a shop and give you a dealer discount which saves between 10-30%.

Also you have to do a lot of the labor yourself but the AR platform was designed so the low potential low achievers could field strip the system during combat.

I figure in round numbers:
$200 Complete lower (stock & trigger group)
200 barrel + gas block & shipping
100 upper - populated flat top
130 complete carrier bolt
40 forend
20 charging handle
20 gas tube
10 Magazine

$690 based on prices from Brownell, M1, and Yankee Hill Machine (http://yankeehillmachine.com/store/uppers.html)

then you will need some sort of sight, including rings, or iron sights if you go with a carry handle.

but you can beat the above prices at gun shows and eBay, except the lower. However, you can buy a complete DPMS AR 15 for about $600 new at the shows but if you build it yourself you can use better parts.

I bought an M1A from Springfield Armory (National Match model) back in 1998 and sent it to ROBAR to be sniper tuned with a list of suggestions given to me by a buddy of mine who was a SEAL sniper at the time. I still have it and I can still cover a 3 shot group at 100 meters with a dime. A good scope helps, too. If you're going to stick with the 5.56mm load then sure an AR15 is a great platform, but for heavier chores go to the M14 frame.

How about a modified M1 with a magazine and a 30-06 round? I would think they would reach out and touch someone too.

The problem with the venerable .30-06 as a sniper round is that the length of the case neck will allow a variable amount of space that provides an inconsistent burn of the powder in that area from shot to shot. The .308 reduces this gap and makes for more consistency.

You can feed your FN FAL addiction at wwwlfalfiles.com. That said, of the FALs, and I have built four inch-pattern L1A1 and C1A1 versions replicating Australia, Britain, and Canada, I really like inch-pattern over the metric-pattern. The inch pattern uses the more robust, front-lugged magazine and folding rear sight and cocking handle. I find these very handy and I also like the ambidextrous magazine release.

FAL parts and kits have pretty well dried up, and those heady days are pretty much gone. However, you can still find this classic rifle. DS Arms in Barrington, IL builds them in any flavor you could ever want.

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.