The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated how critically important snipers are to a fight marked by urban canyons and high-mountain caves. Problem is, those highly-trained sharpshooters are in short supply, and the need for accurate, long-range fire has outpaced the services’ ability to field one-shot killers.
So both the Army and Marine Corps began a program to seed infantry squads with so-called “designated marksmen” — call them “snipers-lite.”
The growing need to equip these new marksmen with accurized rifles prompted the Army to reconsider the role of the venerable M-14 rifle for the war on terror. Back in Desert Storm, armorers from the 10th Special Forces group took M-14s equipped with a match barrels and fitted a gas piston on them for optimal performance, re-designating it the M-25. They replaced the stock with a McMillan M1A fiberglass one, developed a scope mount and added a Bausch & Lomb 10x40mm fixed-power optic or a Leupold Mark 4.
The revamped M-14 provides the Army squad designated marksman with on-command direct fire support for his squad, a fire team or his platoon. The heavier-caliber sharpshooters provide cover when machine guns displace, counter-sniper fire in urban areas, and they help in overtaking valuable real estate.
Infrared targeting lasers such as the AN/PEQ-2 and PAQ-4C make the DM’s job more like 24-hour shift work. Now that suppressors for the M-14-series of rifles are available, the night-vision capabilities coupled with sound mitigation makes the Soldier’s ability to own the night even more secure.
Taking the M-14 modifications a step further, Crane Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center teamed up with Sage International to create an M-14/M1A package that is dubbed the “Enhanced Battle Rifle.”
Using the M-14 barrel, receiver and trigger groups, the EBR chassis adds a retractable stock, a cheek piece that’s adjustable for height and a floated Picatinny quad-rail fore-end made of high-strength aluminum. The EBR also adds a pistol grip for additional control and ergonomic sling points.
But the new rifle is heavier than the M-16 or M-4 which weighs nearly seven pounds, with each 30-round magazine adding another pound. The basic M-14, however, weighs nearly 10 pounds with an addition of almost two pounds for every 20 rounds of 7.62 the EBR fires.
A soldier’s wisdom varies from one to another but many don’t care about the weight. The confidence in the effective range and terminal ballistics of the M-14’s 7.62mm round brings the argument back to the Vietnam-era rifle.
The EBR feels a little heavy at the fore end, but this helps the rifle address criticism that it is uncontrollable when firing on full-auto. The additional weight — and the fact that the stock is in line and parallel with the barrel — helps reduce muzzle climb.
The EBR chassis comes with a Picatinny rail that replaces the stripper-clip guide, helping Soldiers mount high-powered scopes that can extend the rifle’s range. Unique to the EBR is an extended rail just forward of the receiver. For the followers of the Jeff Cooper doctrine on scout rifles, red dot optics work well in making this rifle an effective close quarter battle scout rifle. Regardless of scope height, the shooter can obtain proper cheek weld by adjusting the EBR’s stock.
As the Army and Marines Corps continue to develop a semi-auto designated marksman rifle, many within the tactical community feel that the resurrection of the M-14 is just a stopgap. But praise from troops using the M-14’s variants and moves made by the Navy suggest otherwise. In 2004, the Navy signed a contract to upgrade nearly 3,000 of their M-14s with the Sage EBR chassis.
What will remain, in any case, is the designated marksman. The smallest infantry unit includes a team leader, two riflemen and a gunner. One of these riflemen will be expected to fill the role of the designated marksman, using optics to distinguish combatants from non-combatants and minimizing collateral risk with precision fire in urban areas.
The book on small unit tactics has evolved to defeat a new kind of enemy, and the old standby Springfield Armory M-14 has evolved right along with it.
A new rifle with either the 6.8mm or 6.5mm round and corresponding SAW will eliminate the need for a lot of different types of weapons. Add a .40 cal SMG and pistol and we have effective light infantry weapons for the first time since WWII.
I would think that AR-10, would be the answer in the medium term. Changing ammo, has a lot of logistical issues that are hard to fully understand before hand, and opens up issues of changing the army’s main rifle at the same time. AR-10 and AR-15, are very similar for the end users, and for the armorers. And the parts train can’t be worse than trying to support M-14.
The rifle and cartridge is a good compromise for the mission. The rifles are in inventory and available. The 7.62 NATO cartridge works well to 800 yards though a thousand is a stretch unless you are using custom ammo (and have really young eyes and a very good spotter working with you).
The M14/M1A has been used in marksmanship programs for decades and good armorers and manufactures know how to tune them and still keep them reliable in the field. The recent developments really keep the rifle on top of the tech curve. And it has a piston gas system rather than gas port like the M16 & AR-10. I personally prefer the feel of the M14 over the M16 in the prone positions as the grip seems to get in the way.
The AR-10 uses the “dirty” Direct Impingement, that gets really dirty with the extra powder of the bigger round. One of the funs of the M14 is the piston system.
Yes, we certainly haven’t had any effective light infantry weapons since WWII. What else could explain our nearly unbroken string of losses since 1945?
Forgive my snideness, it was a guilty pleasure. I only know enough about the 5.56 debate to be certain that I don’t know enough to have an informed opinion.
im just wondering why we didnt keep the .45 and make a larger mag capacity and adopt a smg of the same caliber. dpms ar-10 is a really fine black rifle or an fnc. availability is good and it has no problem reaching out to 600 yds consistently. the m-14’s will get old quick and will need replaced too. m1a’s for designated marksmen
“Bring back the M-14!” (sorry couldn’t resist)
This does bite on one level: I was hoping these weapons would be released to the CMP soon. Looks like I wait a little longer.
I wonder…Will collectors 40 years from now give the same cr** to the future owners of the fiberglassed-stock versions that I now get for my grandfather’s ‘updated’ M94?
Good Evening Folks,
The old M-14’s are worn out and it makes no sense to refurbish them when the military can buy off the shelf M1A1’s, with a $1,500.00 list price, I would imagin that the military could even cut a dealer’s discount of 40% with Springfield, with a 165gr. bullet made by Black Hills, the current supplier of 7.62mm sniper/marksman ammo, the M1A1 will hold a <1MOA out of the box.
They are cheap, ready to go, and the M1A1 is combat proven. What more could the military ask for. I know, no big defense contractor has a piece of the action and can drive the price up to $10K w/o scope.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
The M1A would never pass acceptance testing. Not made to Govt standards.
SMSgt Mac, CMP can’t sell them because the are full auto. Once a machine gun, always a machine gun per BATFE. Besides, Obama is going to shut down the CMP and feed everything to captain crunch.…either that or reissue them and all that greek ammo to his new civilian security force that will be as large as the military.
OK. This makes absolutely no sense at all.
First, they’re going to keep the M14 barrel and trigger group. Granted that armorers can work magic on GI firearms, but the lack of a match barrel will severely limit accuracy and effective range. Every M14 barrel has been subjected to automatic fire, and some of these EBRs will be fired auto in the future. Not the best situation for top accuracy — match ammo not withstanding.
Second, I went to the Sage Int’l web site and observed that the photo of their stock system shows it mounted with a 1.5-5X scope. This is being sold as a limited-range weapon.
It seems to me that this is being marketed for the same mission as, and in competition with, the 5.56mm DMR. If the DMR is “sniper lite”, then this is “DMR much heavier”. It doesn’t have the accuracy and maybe not the optics to take advantage of additional range.
I’d hate to think that GIs need a woobie, but that’s what this sounds like. “Be of good cheer, troopies! There’s a 30 cal. (with a rock-‘n roll switch)watching over you.“
OTOH, I’ll take one if it means that I can sit on a roof with a camp chair and cooler. OTOOH, if I have to hump it, I’ll take the DMR and poke somebody’s eye out.
Sniper-lite LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Give em Cheytac Intervention
FWIW: Technically, there are no dashes in US military small arms designations. This was hashed out multiple times in “The American Rifleman” back in the days when most of their technical staff were ex-Army Ordnance.
Dave, at one time select M14’s were upgraded to unit sniper rifles with National Match barrels and sights. The selector was welded and the spring guide upgraded and some were glass bedded. Army level and higher had quarter click NM sights and tuned up lockwork. We had several per company in our Army Reserve Engineer unit. Unless they were sent to the crusher they are a very good starting point for a squad level designated rifle. The 7.62 NATO round carries enough energy to be a decent mid-range cartridge. Full auto is not a consideration, that’s what a SAW or M4 is for.
Here’s my 2cents. I qualified with the M14 in the Marines in ’71 and also fired the old M16s with Full-Auto & without the Forward Assist, the M16A2, and the short female-friendly versions at OIF with the Army Infantry. The M14 was a true rifle, reliable, accurate and powerful. ALL of the M16 versions had jamming problems so you had to keep them heavily oiled. In ‘Nam the M14 was the weapon of choice unless you could snag an AK47.
As for the appropriate weapons for OIF I recommend: 12ga Pump & .38cal Revolvers for building raids, Otherwise an M1 Carbine would work just fine. The old 45auto was safer and more deadly than the female-friendly 9mm. On another note I was shocked to learn the HETT has an automatic transmission. Stalls in the latrine, curtains in the barracks, the Monica beret, what’s next abolishing don’t ask-don’t tell.
6.5 grendel FTW
i was a cpl , usmc, when i arrived at my unit in nam , i was assigned to the reactionary plt, mag13, my issued weapon was a old m-16 with the wire cutter flash supressor, i didn’t like the weapon . so a msgt who so happen was froum the same home town gave me a ak47 as a spare weapon i had qual with both the m-14 /later at stagging the m-16. my cousin who was also at chulai but in 66–67 used the m-14, in nam but was was wounded in a ambush the m-14 saved his life although wounded badly by a rpd machinegun what was left of his plt was saved . later in 1969 i was issued the new m-16 with the birdcage flash supressor. at that time i was at the end of my tour in nam
Mass produce this for the Marine Snipers & Force Recon & Delta Force & US Secret Service &
Scotland yard.
& for home use.
Nice.
2 bad U cant add a drum mag for sniping or make into Multicaliber by adding new barrel & mouunt for: 40mm,9mm,50 cal, 70mm rounds.
Neat.
I want one
One rumor needs to be quelled: The M14s being used for conversion to M25s are not old worn-out weapons. They are previously unfired weapons that have been stored using cosmoline preservative, and have been kept in vapor-tight crates stored in controlled temperatures. Essentially, these M14 rifles have been kept in virtual time-capsule status. They are excellent weapons. If I weren’t already medically retired I’d be begging to be issued an M25 as my T.O. weapon.
Oh, come on Byron Skinner.
ANY M-14 derivative is “1940s” technology.
In fact a new manufacture M-1A, with its cast-steel reciever is INFERIOR to the M-14s fabricated in the 1960s, with their forged steel recievers. And the stamped and cast smaller parts in an M-1A are vastly inferior too to the forged M-14 parts.
Plus the M-14 design itself is archaic and not easy for armorers to maintain.
Direct gas M-16 and 6.5 Grendel FTW
How many M-14’s are left? Weren’t a bunch of them destroyed back in the Clinton Admin?
DI is also a 1940 tech (or older), silly
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl17-e.htm
I’ve never seen active service, but had reserves training. I’ve fired M16A2, Steyr AUG & FN FAL.
The change in ballistics power between the 5.56 and the 7.62 is phenominal.
I’ve seen a range line up of newbies consistantly (as in 8–9 out of ten targets down) hit mansize targets at 600 metres on a mechanised range with iron sights.
And given the terminal ballistics of the 7.62 round, and it’s ability to defeat light cover,I have no doubt that even with limited optical improvements, the M14’s will greatly increase a fireteams tactical options and lethality.
The M14 is a proven combat effective weapon-system. Its a good mediator rifle from a lighter assault rifle in 5.56x45mm NATO and a heavier precision rifle like the M40 or the M21. With semi auto capability and the pistol grip stock it produces good, accurate, medium range fire power. Soldiers will feel more confident with the stopping power of the 7.62x51mm NATO round
I qualified with the M14…I wish I still had it…
The EBR is an amazing rifle. When I fired it (about two mags) I was surprised at the low recoil. It did feel a little heavy towards the muzzle but that’s because of the collapsing stock and the rail system in the front-middle. It did keep on target better than I thought I could in the dark. just luv the 7.62. the guy who owned it sold his custommized m-14 to get it.
overall sweet weapon, maybe a little heavier, but hey, you can’t have 5lbs and serious firepower. if the bigger rd keeps haiji from getting off a few rounds of the same size better than the puny 5.56 its worth it.
I think it’s high time we got serious about man portable firepower. None of this sissy 5.56 this and 6.8 that. Tactical battlefield thermonukes are where the future is at. That’ll put some daylight into the enemies calculatin.
The new life for the M-14 is very redeeming. In 1965 (44 years ago) when I was in the U.S. Army (West Germany) our unite did the boots on the ground evaluation of the M-14, M-16 and Stoner rifles for USAEUR. The results were a toss-up. All were very good on the firing ranges out to 400 meters, if you were good with the M-14 you were good with the M-16 and Stoner and vise-versa. Some liked the light weight M-16 and it
@“Beliver” (sic): The plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’. Sure, 7.62 is a better round once it leaves the barrel. But 20mm is better still, so why not use it? There are always going to be trade-offs in these acquisitions, and it’s just unfortunate that Afghanistan presents ranges and elevations which exceed some of the limits of the M4. It’s not clear that there’s a better ‘overall’ platform, though.
Both 5.56 and 7.62 are vital and employed together in a correct weapons mix are very effective (Yes, even the 20, 25, 30 MM Ect have their place) Considering the logistics and capability, availity, and all the other “ilities”, the M-14 is fulfilling a valuable modern-day combat role. It meets an obivious need, adds balance and effectiveness to to a combat unit. The Teams recognized this many years ago, other SF’s followed suit and it is eventually becomming SOP for many others. (SNAFU’s not withstanding) As far as a newer weapons (replacements) are concerned, there are many studies, prototypes, field trials and perhaps actual combat trials for several calibers/mechanisms. Procurement will still depend upon the balance between guns and butter versus need.