7.62X51 NATO M14 Reissued in Afghanistan

[Vikram]

M14 Re-issued


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.

The M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle

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.

The M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle

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.

[nagarifle]

about time too. never made no sense to leave the 7.62, thanks for the update

[xl_target]

M14 EBR (Hmmm, kinda looks like Baljit's rifle)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_14_Enha ... ttle_Rifle

[Sakobav]

Agree with nags this is a great cartridge wish they do the same with SLRs

best

[timmy]

In a way, I'm not surprised at this! The whole idea, at first, was that something was wanted that would replace the .30 M1 Carbine. Various wars, tactics, battlefield situations, etc., along with a bunch of development money, made the M4 the issue weapon. Now a different conflict seems to require a different answer. Recognizing that evolution of warfare got us to the present solution, what is the reason for expecting that such evolution would stop? No matter how "modern" we are, it all becomes old history after a while, just as it always has...

[Baljit]

xl , Picture in that link is my springfield and that gun is sold, but i have other one so here is the picture of my poly teck M14.Enjoy

Baljit

[jonahpach]

A couple of years ago, when I posted the "Civilians review of the Insas" in the 'other' forum, I was challenged by an american member regarding my comments that US of A was looking for a larger calibre and had started fielding the M-14's both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here's an excerpt on the conversation..
Re: A Civillians Review of the INSAS

Author: beartooth » 13 Nov 2007 03:25 am
5 questions: please help me out here since you seem to be an authority due to combat or being part of a design team developing weapon systems or both.

1. Have you ever been in combat?

2. If so did you use a M16?

3. Where did you get the info that the US Military was looking for a bigger cal. rifle for their frontline use?

4. Where and on what bases do you assume US was lucky or did not want to use their front line rifle and preferred air power because the US for some reason in your wealth of knowledge do not believe in their front line rifle?

5. If in combat which main line weapon did the enemy you were engaging use, AK-47 or M16?

Please take time with the above questions.
Discussion is an art that lends itself to clarity of thought and validation of thesis but does require taking ownership of ones beliefs. That is why most refuse to engage in discussion once their thesis is under the weight of scrutiny. Mike Price

beartooth
Veteran

Re: A Civillians Review of the INSAS
Author: beartooth » 25 Nov 2007 02:41 am

Still would like my questions answered. I am glad I am not in India's army having to use as a frontline weapon the rifle that was reviewed in the above article. My life depends in combat upon accurate fire power that can be placed on the enemy in volume. I was in the US Army from 1968-1979 and I still am looking for any source in the US military that says they want a bigger cal. frontline rifle? I have asked those who are in a position to know in the US Army and their comments and understanding do not support the comments in the article. I think it is great to do a review on India's front line rifle but to make comments on the US rifle with out first hand accurate knowledge is miss leading. All my sources in the US military do not in any way indicate what was in the article concerning the US front line rifle.
Discussion is an art that lends itself to clarity of thought and validation of thesis but does require taking ownership of ones beliefs. That is why most refuse to engage in discussion once their thesis is under the weight of scrutiny. Mike Price

beartooth
Veteran


Posts: 224
Joined: 25 Jun 2007 12:12 am
Top
Re: A Civillians Review of the INSAS
Author: beartooth » 27 Nov 2007 09:14 pm

This is a picture of a five shot group out of a Frontline US rifle in .223 at two hundred yards and why would we want to change this at the moment???

Discussion is an art that lends itself to clarity of thought and validation of thesis but does require taking ownership of ones beliefs. That is why most refuse to engage in discussion once their thesis is under the weight of scrutiny. Mike Price

beartooth
Veteran


Posts: 224
Joined: 25 Jun 2007 12:12 am
Top
Re: A Civillians Review of the INSAS
Author: jonahpach » 01 Dec 2007 11:32 pm

Hmmm...

Seem to have ruffled a few feather here huh?? Sorry I couldnt answer Beartooth earlier but my comp crashed a few weeks ago, just when I had gathered enough info to answer beartooth accurately.

To get the facts straight, I am not and have never been a frontline soldier nevertheless, I do believe I have a clear perspective of what is BS and what is not! As a 'civvy' I am lucky to have handled and tried out both the AK-47 and the M-16, I even had the opportunity to inspect closely a M-4 version of the M-16 during a training visit by US troops at Vairengte, one of the best Counter Insurgency Training centres in the world! Pity I didnt have the chance to try it out though! Regarding the AR-15/M-16 and its final avatar as used by the frontline US troops of today,, I used to be (and to a certain extent still am) an ardent fan of this weapon.

Nevertheless if one reads about the history of the M-16 and its escapades in various war theatres starting Vietnam one gets a feeling that this weapon is certainly not the ultimate weapon as suggested by Rambo and various Hollywood films! I clearly remember my first reading of adverse remarks about this weapon (was it newsweek/Time??) during the beginning of the Gulf War. And even now if one does a cursory search of the internet, one has access to hundreds of adverse remarks about the M-16 by US soldiers in the frontline in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I havent remarked or judged the accuracy of the M-16 in anyway and am convinced that it is accurate. The INSAS is also accurate! But beartooth must accept that accuracy is not 'the end all' spec for a frontline army weapon! What about dependability and reliability! What about ease of maintenance and killing power! I agree that these too may not be the final requirements of a frontline infantry weapon (depends on end use) but you must agree that these are important critera for the frontline weapon of any army! there are 100's of blogs by US soldiers on the net describing the lack of faith of (some) US soldiers in the M-16.. Mainly concerned with the need for constant cleaning and lack of killing power!
(Please dont tell me you know nothing about this!)

Anyway my only adverse comments about the M-16 in my original post were mainly concerned with the development costs involved with creating the 'ulitmate wepon' (for a frontline soldier) The M-16 has evolved to what it is now after how many years/versions??? My stress was on the fact that India cannot afford to follow the way of the M-16 by trying to 're-invent' a frontline weapon when there are lots of battle tested designs out there!

About the comments about the US getting ready for a switch to 7mm.. I havent been able to retrace some of my Ctrl-H flags but I do remember reading Chuck Hawks proposition somewhere. http://www.chuckhawks.com/243_service_rifle.htm

Also, funnily the US army has suddenly started to deploy thousands of M-14's in Iraq and Afghanistan (I believe the M-14 is a rejected 7.62NATO calibre) And why are the all elite commando units of the US army like the Delta Forces carrying the H&K 416 and not the M-16/M-4??

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=5262
ARMING THE TROOPS II
Posted by: Dale Franks on Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Is a very interesting read..

Another one here

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sec ... chive=true

Army, Marines rate weapon success
By Mark Oliva, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Sunday, July 13, 2003

And another one..
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/ ... 2346.shtml
Is Faulty Ammo Failing Troops?
Field Report, Government Tests Raise Questions About Bullet For M-16 Rifle
June 7, 2006

I am sorry I dont have the resource to do a more exhaustive answer to your queries as I only have a dial-up connection and it is almost getting me bankrupt!

But in our part of this world it is the Ak-47 that rules hands down and it is being used by both the enemies!

I have a lot of pics of US soldiers using and swearing by captured Ak-47's in Iraq rather than their regular issue 'Ultimate weapons'

Hope I havent ruffled any more feathers here.. please keep in mind that My only comparision of the M-16 and the INSAS was related to the development costs involved and the fact the India of all the countries of the world cannot afford to go the M-16 way by trying to 'evolve' a new frontline weapon system which would take 50 odd years to evolve and perfect!

Happy shooting!

Jonah

jonahpach
Cal .223


Posts: 112
Joined: 06 Oct 2007 09:45 pm
My Guns: .
City: Aizwal
Top
Re: A Civillians Review of the INSAS
Author: beartooth » 04 Dec 2007 09:37 am

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. I have used it in combat and it was accruate, laid down a lot of fire and I could hold it on my target. I trained with the M-14 in basic and it is a good long range rifle but it can not lay down the fire power on the enemy like the M-16. I think you do a lot of reading but you lack the real experience of having used a weapon to stay alive in a fire fight and I think that lack of experience has certainly shaped your views. You are a good writer and as long as we all veiw you that way we can consider the source and understand that your experience is limited. Once again thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. And I know you will continue to enjoy shooting and comparing rifles in your writing.
Discussion is an art that lends itself to clarity of thought and validation of thesis but does require taking ownership of ones beliefs. That is why most refuse to engage in discussion once their thesis is under the weight of scrutiny. Mike Price

beartooth
Veteran


Posts: 224
Joined: 25 Jun 2007 12:12 am
Top
Re: A Civillians Review of the INSAS
Author: jonahpach » 07 Dec 2007 07:47 pm

have used it in combat and it was accruate, laid down a lot of fire and I could hold it on my target. I trained with the M-14 in basic and it is a good long range rifle but it can not lay down the fire power on the enemy like the M-16


May I ask where you used the M-16 in action and against what kind of weapon??

Jonah

jonahpach
Cal .223


Posts: 112
Joined: 06 Oct 2007 09:45 pm
My Guns: .
City: Aizwal
Top
Re: A Civillians Review of the INSAS
Author: beartooth » 07 Dec 2007 09:08 pm

Yes, you may ask. I will say it this one time because of memories and this will be the end of our conversation. 1968 Vietnam against sks's, ak's and Mosin's and what ever else they felt like using.
Discussion is an art that lends itself to clarity of thought and validation of thesis but does require taking ownership of ones beliefs. That is why most refuse to engage in discussion once their thesis is under the weight of scrutiny. Mike Price

beartooth
Veteran


Posts: 224
Joined: 25 Jun 2007 12:12 am
Top
Re: A Civillians Review of the INSAS
Author: beartooth » 15 Mar 2008 08:52 am

I will have to apologize to Jonahpach because the US military is developing a 6.5 round that will have more knock down power and penetrate hard objects.
Jonahpach, you were correct in your research.

[xl_target]

xl , Picture in that link is my springfield and that gun is sold, but i have other one so here is the picture of my poly teck M14.Enjoy

Baljit

Very Nice Baljit, Very Nice!
That is one Evil Black Rifle
How do the two compare to each other? Do you prefer one over the other?

Jonah,
Good clear writing and analysis. A good read.

[captrakshitsharma]

Jonah made him eat his words

[nagarifle]

he tried this sort of thing here but got his butt kicked in.

nice one Jonah

[Baljit]

xl , Picture in that link is my springfield and that gun is sold, but i have other one so here is the picture of my poly teck M14.Enjoy

Baljit

Very Nice Baljit, Very Nice!
That is one Evil Black Rifle
How do the two compare to each other? Do you prefer one over the other?

xl, i like both gun but the problum is Springfield is fullauto and my range is prohb. for fullauto now , so i can't shoot that toy, only i can keep in my safe,this is the main reagin that toy is gone but other then that i love Springfield , Poly teck is not bad it's semiauto but if you ask me overall i love Springfield.

Baljit

[TomM]

Not the American mentioned earlier, but I know a little on the subject.

The US has never droped the 7.62 NATO round - it has been our standard sniper round since the 1960s. It is also used in our GPMGs. The SAWs (Squad Automatic Weapon), or LMG. use the 5.56 round.

The M14s that were being issued in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of which are still in service, were never issued as general service rifles. They were issued as "Designated Marksman Rifles". Basically issued to select soldiers that had undergone extra long range marksmanship training. Think of them as Sniper Light; not having the very specialised training in field craft, intelligence gathering, and fire controll of a "real" sniper. They would be considered snipers in many other armies though. These came about because of our militaries inabilty to train enough snipers to the established very high standards. These Designated Marksmen, however, have proved very effective; I know of one with over 100 cobfirmed kills in Iraq.

The M14s are being replaced, however, presently with specially accurized .223 and 7.62 AR platform rifles. Our countries Civilan Marksmanship Program is currently selling parts kits made from cut-up M14s as I type this. Basically the M14 is being allowed to fade away due to lack of spare parts, trained armourers, and a desire to ease training.

At the same time the combat terrain has sometimes shown the deficiencies of even the 7.62 NATO round. Reason snipers are being issued .300 Winchester Mag and .50 BMG sniper rifles.

As to US personnel being disatisfied with the M16/M4 platform. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is definitely some disastification with the current 5.56 round which was designed to penetrate Warsaw Pact body armour at long range. Unfortunately our enemies right now dont wear much body armour. Evaluations are being done with 6.5 and 6.8MM rounds, but nothing is expected to come about for years. There will be no return to a standard rifle firing the 7.62 NATO round!

I would be very disappointed in any soldier that did not want superior equipment to what he is presently issued.

Basically the M16/M4s are considered superior to AK47 in accuracy, range, adaptibility, and user friendlyness. 7.62x39 AKs do not present a serious threat at five hundred yards. The AKs strength being reliability, and ease of maintenance.

I have read that the kill ratio is firefights is something like 20 to one. A great deal of that is due to fire support, but dont disregard the US heavy use of scopes, NVS, training, and supperior marksmanship. There was even an investigation done about the very high percentage of Enemy KIA found with rifle shots to the head. Investigations showed that most of these were made at some distance, and not close range executions as some were claiming.

I have quite a few friends who have commented about the extremely poor marksmanship of the average Afghan/Iraqi combatant. Comments usually refer to a complete lack of skill, and a reliance on "Spray and Pray". The "foreign fighters" are considered in a totally different class though.

As to leatheality. Because of our issue body armour - US soldiers routinely survive close range hits from 7.62x39 AKs. Even the 7.62x54R round fired from SVDs. Enemy snipers are reported to be instructed to go for head shots to get a kill. A bullet that goes through a person is probably better than one that never enters.

Basically if I was so bold as to list the leasons learned. There is no one rifle than can do all things. No one cartridge either. Different tools for different tasks. Scopes are going to become general issue. Trained Snipers will play an ever increasing role in conflicts. Night vision scopes will be essential. Suppressors have proved an invaluable tool to the sniper/marksman.

No offense ment. Hopeing some will find my experience and knowledge to be helpfull on the subject.

[Vikram]

TomM,

Thank you for your well informed inputs.


Best-
Vikram

[fantumfan2003]

TomM,

Really great info...thanks....

Here is a cool pic for everyone....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _rifle.jpg

(Large image hence just a link....)

One of the Delta Force snipers Sergeant First Class Randy Shughart used an M14 on the day according to Blackhawk down by Mark Bowen. It also discusses briefly the inadequacy of the 5.56x45 round as compared to the 7.62x51

M.