- Thread starter Rudy Gonsior
- Start date
We had different scopes for our M-21s but I can't recall any M3s failing. FWIW I was a sniper during OIF 1 and was in the Scout platoon for 4 years so plenty of time to see stuff break. By the time I returned to a unit with sniper systems we still had the M3s but they weren't in use on any of our rifles. About 2 years later they took all the M24s away as the M2010s were issued. I was sad to see the M24s go.
Looking forward to seeing that.
Were the scopes on your M-21's the ART II? Interesting to see if you had something different from our guys.
I was in S-3 for only a year and a half, and sniper training was somewhat limited. shoehorned between other training. Also, the companies, not the battalion, took care of the maintenance of them. So, when training at a battalion level, I never saw rifle or scope go down.
pmc,
That would be cool as hell if you got a pic of a Tom Kapp built rifle.
No, we didn't have the ART IIs. We did a government purchase of current Leupold Vari-X scopes (VX-3s I think). The M-21s were never-issued NM M-14s which I think were from a National Guard armory somewhere. Most built in the early 70's but we had a couple late 60's as well. The triggers were horrible and apparently supposed to have been polished by an armorer which never happened. Probably 14-16 lb pull weight. Mounted the scopes in ARMS QD rings which sucked and I think a Smith Enterprises mount.
Wow, this all brings back memories; thanks Chris for sending me the link. I haven't been on this site for a very long time, had to reregister in fact. I have intimate knowledge of much of this as I helped write the original proposal with Gene Econ. Dean and I were involved quite extensively as we were running all of the SOTIC LII courses on Lewis at the time and Gene was looking for an opportunity to run out his career. I remember working on he development of the 1st SFG SOTIC locker, at the time 10th had theirs and 5th either had one or was developing theirs.
The M25 stuff came up because Gene was a big fan of the M14/M21 and we didn't have any SA sniper systems at the time. We obtained all of the M25 information from someone who had been in 10th when they went through it. I probably still have most of that information as I am a bit of a sniper subject hoarder. We never actually went through with it for a variety of reasons although I did built a M25 clone without the liner.
In late 94 I went back to Oki, Gene and Dean were able to stand up the locker and in 96 I came back from Oki with jay Lathrop to run a LI course during which I had to recommend Dean's firing to Gene (long story). Anyone who knows Dean understands. When I came back from Oki in 2000, I stood the locker back up and ran it until I retired in 04. I was the OIC of the 96 course because Gene was not a SOTIC graduate. That course was full of drama.
The guy who was referenced that "built the WA state NG rifles" is John Hubbard and he did attend but did not graduate a SOTIC since at the time we only trained 18 series and 11BV soldiers.
That course critique is interesting, Mike was on my team in Oki and I believe attended a SOTIC LII at Lewis in 95 or late 96. The locker folded I believe in 97 or 98 when Dean and Gene retired.
Some may find it interesting to know we ran a LI course in Guam in 97 (I believe), I was the OIC of that course as well.
The M25 stuff came up because Gene was a big fan of the M14/M21 and we didn't have any SA sniper systems at the time. We obtained all of the M25 information from someone who had been in 10th when they went through it. I probably still have most of that information as I am a bit of a sniper subject hoarder. We never actually went through with it for a variety of reasons although I did built a M25 clone without the liner.
In late 94 I went back to Oki, Gene and Dean were able to stand up the locker and in 96 I came back from Oki with jay Lathrop to run a LI course during which I had to recommend Dean's firing to Gene (long story). Anyone who knows Dean understands. When I came back from Oki in 2000, I stood the locker back up and ran it until I retired in 04. I was the OIC of the 96 course because Gene was not a SOTIC graduate. That course was full of drama.
The guy who was referenced that "built the WA state NG rifles" is John Hubbard and he did attend but did not graduate a SOTIC since at the time we only trained 18 series and 11BV soldiers.
That course critique is interesting, Mike was on my team in Oki and I believe attended a SOTIC LII at Lewis in 95 or late 96. The locker folded I believe in 97 or 98 when Dean and Gene retired.
Some may find it interesting to know we ran a LI course in Guam in 97 (I believe), I was the OIC of that course as well.
No, In the Army we never welded mounts to the receivers.
John worked for me and went through SOTIC when he worked for me at Lewis. In fact I brought him to Remington to work for me there as well. That said, he was/is a dick so you are not wrong on that..
If I may ask, when you went to Remington, did you work on the M24 or M2010 projects? A lot of good stuff got thought up... then dropped. Any tidbits on what was considered and left behind?
Interesting too, is the different approach to the M40 and M24 projects. (I know, many years apart) The M40 being built up by the Marines and the M24 wholly controlled and built by Remington. Any thoughts?
Yes I worked on the M24, M2010 and MSR/PSR programs. When I got to Remington in late 03 (a month before I retired), they did not have a military division or even a program despite being the manufacturer of the Army's primary sniper system.
With regards to the M24 itself, it was well established obviously by the time I got there but since I was very immersed in all things "sniper" I found it exceptionally interesting to see "behind the curtain" as to how it was made and some of the history behind it. One of the first programs I developed was the M24A2 program followed by the M24A3. The M24A2 was an enhanced M24 in which we would take a unit's M24 and rebarrel it with a barrel that was threaded, drop it into a different HS stock which provided an adjustable cheek rest and LOP, added a different optic mount that allowed the use of night vision (I deeloped the McCann rail while I was in, but didn't like the fixed wings so I had Badger make what became known as the MARs which we put on the A2 and A3). We also added a MKIV M3 variable power optic and provided an OPS INC. suppressor. This was early into the war and units were using their deployment funds to do the conversion which the Army didn't like but in the end, we did probably 40-50 of them.
The A3 was a 338LM version of the M24 and there were several models. One used a 26" barrel and was in a HS stock whereas another used a 19" barrel and was in a AICS. We discovered that the 19" barrel with the suppressor exhibited almost the same MV as the 26" w/o a suppressor and were able to hit targets reliably at 1400 meters (we demonstrated this at gunsight for the USMC who were interested in a larger caliber but ultimately didnt procure anything).
The M2010 project was a bit of a whirlwind of activity. By this point I was running all of the international MIL/LE sales however remained involved with the development and testing of the M2010 albeit not on a daily basis. Greg Baradat who I hired and brought to Remington was running the domestic MIL side and the M2010 was really his baby, but since we had served together overseas, he had worked for me in the Army in Lewis and I had brought him to Remington, he and I conferred quite a lot. As to things left off, the big one was the barrel. The Army specified they wanted a 26" barrel because they "believed" that 300WM needed the long barrel. We (Greg) proved to them that a 19" barrel with a suppressor would yield the same performance but they insisted they had to have the long barrel. I always felt bad for the soldiers who had to carry those things and have seen pictures of shorter guys carrying a rifle that was almost as long as they were tall.
As to the M40 v the M24, as you note they were/are exceptionally different in their development and approaches to procurement. In order to really get your head around it you have to understand the history behind it all. Its easy to get parochial and say one is as good or better than the other but the truth is that both perform exceptionally well and while serving essentially the same purpose they serve different mindsets of how to perform. I have shot and trained with a lot of Marines having been stationed in Okinawa for over 9 years (all of the ranges are owned by the USMC) and have done some head to head and side by side comparisons between the 2 rifles; I can say that both are superb pieces of kit and serve their respective users well.
With regards to the M24 itself, it was well established obviously by the time I got there but since I was very immersed in all things "sniper" I found it exceptionally interesting to see "behind the curtain" as to how it was made and some of the history behind it. One of the first programs I developed was the M24A2 program followed by the M24A3. The M24A2 was an enhanced M24 in which we would take a unit's M24 and rebarrel it with a barrel that was threaded, drop it into a different HS stock which provided an adjustable cheek rest and LOP, added a different optic mount that allowed the use of night vision (I deeloped the McCann rail while I was in, but didn't like the fixed wings so I had Badger make what became known as the MARs which we put on the A2 and A3). We also added a MKIV M3 variable power optic and provided an OPS INC. suppressor. This was early into the war and units were using their deployment funds to do the conversion which the Army didn't like but in the end, we did probably 40-50 of them.
The A3 was a 338LM version of the M24 and there were several models. One used a 26" barrel and was in a HS stock whereas another used a 19" barrel and was in a AICS. We discovered that the 19" barrel with the suppressor exhibited almost the same MV as the 26" w/o a suppressor and were able to hit targets reliably at 1400 meters (we demonstrated this at gunsight for the USMC who were interested in a larger caliber but ultimately didnt procure anything).
The M2010 project was a bit of a whirlwind of activity. By this point I was running all of the international MIL/LE sales however remained involved with the development and testing of the M2010 albeit not on a daily basis. Greg Baradat who I hired and brought to Remington was running the domestic MIL side and the M2010 was really his baby, but since we had served together overseas, he had worked for me in the Army in Lewis and I had brought him to Remington, he and I conferred quite a lot. As to things left off, the big one was the barrel. The Army specified they wanted a 26" barrel because they "believed" that 300WM needed the long barrel. We (Greg) proved to them that a 19" barrel with a suppressor would yield the same performance but they insisted they had to have the long barrel. I always felt bad for the soldiers who had to carry those things and have seen pictures of shorter guys carrying a rifle that was almost as long as they were tall.
As to the M40 v the M24, as you note they were/are exceptionally different in their development and approaches to procurement. In order to really get your head around it you have to understand the history behind it all. Its easy to get parochial and say one is as good or better than the other but the truth is that both perform exceptionally well and while serving essentially the same purpose they serve different mindsets of how to perform. I have shot and trained with a lot of Marines having been stationed in Okinawa for over 9 years (all of the ranges are owned by the USMC) and have done some head to head and side by side comparisons between the 2 rifles; I can say that both are superb pieces of kit and serve their respective users well.
This would be a great paragraph for a different thread to expound on.
As to the M40 v the M24, as you note they were/are exceptionally different in their development and approaches to procurement. In order to really get your head around it you have to understand the history behind it all. Its easy to get parochial and say one is as good or better than the other but the truth is that both perform exceptionally well and while serving essentially the same purpose they serve different mindsets of how to perform. I have shot and trained with a lot of Marines having been stationed in Okinawa for over 9 years (all of the ranges are owned by the USMC) and have done some head to head and side by side comparisons between the 2 rifles; I can say that both are superb pieces of kit and serve their respective users well.
As to the M40 v the M24, as you note they were/are exceptionally different in their development and approaches to procurement. In order to really get your head around it you have to understand the history behind it all. Its easy to get parochial and say one is as good or better than the other but the truth is that both perform exceptionally well and while serving essentially the same purpose they serve different mindsets of how to perform. I have shot and trained with a lot of Marines having been stationed in Okinawa for over 9 years (all of the ranges are owned by the USMC) and have done some head to head and side by side comparisons between the 2 rifles; I can say that both are superb pieces of kit and serve their respective users well.
Burris made the Springfield Armory ART IV scopes.
I never heard that
I never heard of the ART IV either....do tell.
It was technically dual focal plane. That's how the horizontal reticle wire appears to move up and down when changing magnification. I worked at Burris in the repair dept about 10 years ago, and we would occasionally get them in for service work from SAI. The original design was Redfield Denver, then Burris continued the design. The founders of Burris came from Redfield.
Re the ART IV scope, I bought an old (circa 1980) M1A Supermatch last month that came with a lot of extras, including a 1990s era SAI "ART IV" scope. It's an interesting scope but I am not sure what I think if it ...(I have not used this rifle but the scope and old "B-Square" mount were included, so its in my safe....see 2nd picture of what came in this package deal)
I have not taken any pics of the reticle but it is kind-of interesting and hard to explain in words - basically 1 horizontal cross hair moves up and down relative to the 3-9x magnification adjustment, and intersects a 2nd, stationary horizontal crosshair at a certain magnification. I have not messed with it and as I noted, I'm not sure exactly how it works (I didn't get a manual with the scope). Here's some pics:
Honestly, I would like to put this rifle in an old McMillan M1A 3-color forest camo stock as it has all the NM mods (currently bedded in a commercial wood stock). The barrel is an unmarked heavy profile barrel, probably a Douglas, and NM sights, a nice 4.5 lb trigger pull, unitized gas cylinder, USGI parts, etc. The barrel's throat erosion is only a 2.0, so it has not been shot too much over the past 35+ years. Anyhow, you can see the old ART IV scope that I guess Burris made for SAI 20 plus years ago....(PS: If anybody has a manual of the ART-IV that they could copy, I would be grateful)
FWIW: I guess I like the vintage military scopes a little more, although they are quirky too (My ART II is on top, and my original AR TEL on bottom):
I have not taken any pics of the reticle but it is kind-of interesting and hard to explain in words - basically 1 horizontal cross hair moves up and down relative to the 3-9x magnification adjustment, and intersects a 2nd, stationary horizontal crosshair at a certain magnification. I have not messed with it and as I noted, I'm not sure exactly how it works (I didn't get a manual with the scope). Here's some pics:
Honestly, I would like to put this rifle in an old McMillan M1A 3-color forest camo stock as it has all the NM mods (currently bedded in a commercial wood stock). The barrel is an unmarked heavy profile barrel, probably a Douglas, and NM sights, a nice 4.5 lb trigger pull, unitized gas cylinder, USGI parts, etc. The barrel's throat erosion is only a 2.0, so it has not been shot too much over the past 35+ years. Anyhow, you can see the old ART IV scope that I guess Burris made for SAI 20 plus years ago....(PS: If anybody has a manual of the ART-IV that they could copy, I would be grateful)
FWIW: I guess I like the vintage military scopes a little more, although they are quirky too (My ART II is on top, and my original AR TEL on bottom):
Last edited:
I learned last week that Tom Kapp passed away on April 26, 2018. He was the co-inventor the XM25 rifle, and a well respected 10th Special Forces Group instructor. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/telegram/obituary.aspx?n=thomas-kapp&pid=188852370&
I only knew him by reputation and from this picture in Peter Senich's book, The Long-Range War (1994)
RIP Tom Kapp
I only knew him by reputation and from this picture in Peter Senich's book, The Long-Range War (1994)
RIP Tom Kapp
Last edited:
Random,
There is an auction on flEea-bay that the guy has instructions with. He might make a copy for you. I couldn't find one on GB.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Springfiel...789905?hash=item545a924b91:g:wtMAAOSwzpFa1krF
FWIW, just playing around with it, like you bought a new duplex, take it to the range. Set up a grid type target at 100 ans see the spacing at each power. i.e. at lowest power 6 moa between the lines, hightest power, 2 moa. Then check it at 200 if you have a range with that distance. Worth a look.
Added: You posted the next post before my response to your second.
RIP Tom Kapp. I wish he could have seen this thread.
There is an auction on flEea-bay that the guy has instructions with. He might make a copy for you. I couldn't find one on GB.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Springfiel...789905?hash=item545a924b91:g:wtMAAOSwzpFa1krF
FWIW, just playing around with it, like you bought a new duplex, take it to the range. Set up a grid type target at 100 ans see the spacing at each power. i.e. at lowest power 6 moa between the lines, hightest power, 2 moa. Then check it at 200 if you have a range with that distance. Worth a look.
Added: You posted the next post before my response to your second.
RIP Tom Kapp. I wish he could have seen this thread.
I learned last week that Tom Kapp passed away on April 26, 2018. He was the co-inventor the XM25 rifle, and a well respected 10th Special Forces Group instructor. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/telegram/obituary.aspx?n=thomas-kapp&pid=188852370&
I only knew him by reputation and from this picture in Peter Senich's book, The Long-Range War (1994)
RIP Tom Kapp
When I visited Devens I spoke to a gent there that said Mr Kapp was in poor health.
Stated he was involved in some study while in USA to determine minimum amount of rations needed to survive and still be able to fight. It messed him up some.
He still hunted at Devens. They would get him out to a tree stand and get him set up to take his deer.
Told a story of how one time when he was in better shape another hunter was out there and all of the sudden his ankle got grabbed and it scared the crap out of him.
It was Tom Kapp all in stalk mode and the guy almost stepped on him.
RIP Tom
I corresponded with him when I was at 1st SFG and we were looking at developing a version of the M25. I built (and still have) a copy of the M25 but without the liner. As I recall, one of the major issues building with the M25 was/is the variance in receivers and associated parts. They made a stock liner to allow the barreled action to be installed and removed repeatedly without a loss of zero. As I recall, he told me that in order to make a liner that worked with all of the receivers encountered, the tolerances were so loose that accuracy was hard to obtain. The rifle I built was done so with SS bedding compound and shoots well. We determined that with advent of modern bedding compounds it would alleviate the need for the liner. The problem here was that each rifle had to be bedded which was prohibitive as the resources and people in the Army capable of doing it were pretty much centered at the AMU. On top of this, .308 ARs were becoming more available (this was like 91) so going to a M14/M21 just wasn't advantageous.
I corresponded with him when I was at 1st SFG and we were looking at developing a version of the M25. I built (and still have) a copy of the M25 but without the liner. As I recall, one of the major issues building with the M25 was/is the variance in receivers and associated parts. They made a stock liner to allow the barreled action to be installed and removed repeatedly without a loss of zero. As I recall, he told me that in order to make a liner that worked with all of the receivers encountered, the tolerances were so loose that accuracy was hard to obtain. The rifle I built was done so with SS bedding compound and shoots well. We determined that with advent of modern bedding compounds it would alleviate the need for the liner. The problem here was that each rifle had to be bedded which was prohibitive as the resources and people in the Army capable of doing it were pretty much centered at the AMU. On top of this, .308 ARs were becoming more available (this was like 91) so going to a M14/M21 just wasn't advantageous.
I have been shooting an M1A for years in Service rifle competition, and that mirrors my experience... back when everyone used an M14/M1A for competition, it was not unusual to have thee rifles, one for practice, one to compete and a third that was in the shop getting rebuild.
I never took mine out of the bedding except for an end of season cleaning.
The M1A/M14 design never was an Super accurate design, it was a Product improved M1 Garand, built for min of man combat accuracy...
But I still like to compete with it as it is a rifle with great nostalgia. I would never want to carry or use one in combat if other choices were available, which they are today, not so much in the 80's
Once the Army AMU started cleaning up on the matches with M16's, the Marines finally gave it up and switched to the M16 as well...
Back then it was the M40/M24 rifles and that's it...
I never took mine out of the bedding except for an end of season cleaning.
The M1A/M14 design never was an Super accurate design, it was a Product improved M1 Garand, built for min of man combat accuracy...
But I still like to compete with it as it is a rifle with great nostalgia. I would never want to carry or use one in combat if other choices were available, which they are today, not so much in the 80's
Once the Army AMU started cleaning up on the matches with M16's, the Marines finally gave it up and switched to the M16 as well...
Back then it was the M40/M24 rifles and that's it...
In my experience the M14 (M1A) was/is like the 1911 in the sense that it can be made to be very accurate, however what you get in accuracy you lose in reliability and usefulness. Not to say that a M1A isnt accurate (don't jump on me here) but it isnt bolt gun accurate. Those who are honest will admit that the M1A/M14 platform is typically a 2 MOA gun, once you begin trying to squeeze more accuracy out of them they begin to have other issues. We tend to forget that it was as you say, a M1 product improvement and was designed to be a battle rifle, not a precision rifle.
In fact, it was my involvement with the M1A/M21 that got me started down a path of "how accurate is accurate enough?". In our school (SOTIC) we held the students to a 2 MOA accuracy standard (rifle, ammo, environment, and shooter) which of course equates to being able to hold a 16" target at 800. Despite what book and movies portray, snipers are not doing head shots at 1000 + meters as a matter of course. This doesnt mean it hasn't or can't be done, just that the "average" sniper generally cannot reliably deliver this level of performance on demand with a .308 rifle.
Back to the subject at hand; the M25 was an attempt to develop a SA precision rifle using what was available at the time. It was/is a very cool rifle but by today's standard not exactly steller. That said, it will still deliver an acceptable level of accuracy for most environments, however a 308 AR platform is generally a much better choice for today's professional shooter for a variety of reasons. I love my M25 (clone) as well as my EBR, however neither would be my first choice to deploy with, that said if that is what I had I would make it work.
In fact, it was my involvement with the M1A/M21 that got me started down a path of "how accurate is accurate enough?". In our school (SOTIC) we held the students to a 2 MOA accuracy standard (rifle, ammo, environment, and shooter) which of course equates to being able to hold a 16" target at 800. Despite what book and movies portray, snipers are not doing head shots at 1000 + meters as a matter of course. This doesnt mean it hasn't or can't be done, just that the "average" sniper generally cannot reliably deliver this level of performance on demand with a .308 rifle.
Back to the subject at hand; the M25 was an attempt to develop a SA precision rifle using what was available at the time. It was/is a very cool rifle but by today's standard not exactly steller. That said, it will still deliver an acceptable level of accuracy for most environments, however a 308 AR platform is generally a much better choice for today's professional shooter for a variety of reasons. I love my M25 (clone) as well as my EBR, however neither would be my first choice to deploy with, that said if that is what I had I would make it work.
You would be surprised at what gets put into some official documents...
I had read this a while ago and started to give it some thought.....then I lost it and can't find it. That is until today.
We've always seem to have gotten into the "how accurate is necessary" tug-of-war. What in essence we've done is take something that is battle rifle worthy and reduce it's outer accuracy limitations by half, and added an optic that allows us to fine tune range.
Once we start doing good at that range, we decide we need "just that little more accuracy." But, every time we tighten up the accuracy to get a little farther, we make the rifle less "battle worthy". We make it too delicate. Glass is way more delicate than iron sights, At least until very recently. And anytime the tolerances are reduced, so is the reliability.
This seems to be the point that ALL non-snipers seem to get involved with the "That costs too much" (bean counters). The "If you can't shoot your way out of the fight, why have it." types (all command levels that don't see sniping as a necessary tool. Meaning they want control, and until you show them that your rifle can take out pesky oposition that regular riflemen, grenadiers and machine gunners can't, you have no value. Worst is the moral objectors. We should get men killed because they want to leave a capability on the table to take the opposition out? Because it's not fair?
Anyhow, just some observations. That the delicacy of the enhanced accuracy rifle pays off. But, it can't be treated like a battle rifle.
Thanks to all of you for a great and comprehensively done "packet" of information on the M24, M25 and M40 rifles and the snipers' development programs as well. I didn't know there is a modern sniper shoot at Quantico. I wouldn't even try in the WW2 era class as the most powerful sniper scope I have is an Ajack 4X on an M-41b and these old eyes need all the help they can get. Now it looks like I need an M24 or M40 to complement the others I have. Once again, my humble thanks, this is a great site.
I let a friend borrow my M25 for a 3 Gun Long Range match and he actually took 2nd for the Heavy class with plain old 168gr Federal and a 100 yard zero. We had good dope for 175's out to 600 yards but we ended up with the wrong ammo.
BangBangBlaBlat - can you send me a PM? A guy I know has a stock just like your M2A and wanted to build an M25 clone like you previously discussed, thanks.
I am new in this forum, just early today I posted a question on this specific rifle subject, yet to be approved I gues by the moderator. I acquired recently an M1A/M14 with pretty much all the fatures as the M25, rear lug , McMillan etc... I ust read the article and all pages. So my question is. In one paragraph is mentioned the M3Aa Ultra ,same as on the M24 rifles, as the proposed scope and then in another page is mentioned as the Ultra M3, the budget or next page describing the budget. Were they fitted with both The M3 and the M3A Ultras?.
santaro66,
Due to the overwhelming interest in this topic it would be awesome if you could provide pics. Not only of the rifle in it's stock, but the action out of the stock as well. These get more and more interesting each time we delve into the topic of them.
If you would instruct me how to up load pictures I could try. I'm not so good with computers etc.. This forum is a bit more complicated to navigate than others for someone limited as I am. The McMillan stock is a black heavy match stock early example , waiting on Kelly McMillan to reply with more details . I'm looking for clues as to who may have built it. Douglas heavy NM barrel and everything else is NM competition work. Have the BPT mount and a mint Ultra M3A to mount on it. The stock is not an M25 , it looks more like an M21 . I believe is a Carl Maunz prototype that he sent to the McMillan's back then to start producing them when he was active. Hope I can up load pictures. Thanks
santoro666, as far as I know the USAMU didn't weld lugs on their receivers. The Marines did.
I went through the USAMU Sniper Course in 1982 (I think five years before the Infantry School established theirs). We shot M21s with legacy (original Vietnam-era) ARTs. Mine had a medium-weight SAK match barrel in a McMillan stock, no liner.
I graduated in November 1982. When I took my recon platoon in Korea in December we had really old and abused wood-stocked M21s with sad ART IIs. I wrote Tom Leatherwood in Brownwood, Texas, and he sent me loaner scopes while I sent my non-functional scopes directly back to him for repair.
Big Army got the M24 in 1988 and the M21 was declared obsolete. We still had them in Okinawa during my first tour 1987-90. I went away to Fort Lewis and Washington, DC. In DC I had an M21 with a Bausch and Lomb tactical 10X based on recommendations from the SEALs. Their waterproofing test for the Bausch and Lomb was to mount it to a Crane-built National Match M14 and leave it on the bottom of a pool for three weeks.
When I got back to Okinawa in 1995 we started getting SR-25s.
We had National Match M14s and one M21 at the USAMU when I assumed command in 2003. They went away in 2005. We had six Armalite AR-10Ts before the Army put out their XM-110 requirement in 2005.
I went through the USAMU Sniper Course in 1982 (I think five years before the Infantry School established theirs). We shot M21s with legacy (original Vietnam-era) ARTs. Mine had a medium-weight SAK match barrel in a McMillan stock, no liner.
I graduated in November 1982. When I took my recon platoon in Korea in December we had really old and abused wood-stocked M21s with sad ART IIs. I wrote Tom Leatherwood in Brownwood, Texas, and he sent me loaner scopes while I sent my non-functional scopes directly back to him for repair.
Big Army got the M24 in 1988 and the M21 was declared obsolete. We still had them in Okinawa during my first tour 1987-90. I went away to Fort Lewis and Washington, DC. In DC I had an M21 with a Bausch and Lomb tactical 10X based on recommendations from the SEALs. Their waterproofing test for the Bausch and Lomb was to mount it to a Crane-built National Match M14 and leave it on the bottom of a pool for three weeks.
When I got back to Okinawa in 1995 we started getting SR-25s.
We had National Match M14s and one M21 at the USAMU when I assumed command in 2003. They went away in 2005. We had six Armalite AR-10Ts before the Army put out their XM-110 requirement in 2005.
Thanks, then what my rifle can be compared to is the Navy so called Port security, as I found some pictures with what looks like the same McMillan stock I have. Another forum member I think is going to help me with loading some pictures. Thanks for your response. Is the picture of the soldier with glasses holding the M21 , is it you?
Yes, a long time ago.
I'm not great with computers either. What I do is have either my camera plugged into a USB or my phone directly. With my camera plugged in, I turn it on, this go to my post here. At the bottom hit "ATTACH FILES". From there I find the folder, usually D: or E: then go into that. My camera file comes up as DCM or something. I click on that and then I'm at the pics. I sort through until I'm at the pic I want to post. Because my internet isn't so good here, I can usually only post one or two pics per post.
My phone is the same, except I don't have to plug it in. I hit attach files... follow that down to the pic I want then hit upload.
I take back all the mean things I said about the AMU
I think my wife would be more familiar , she uses more computer for work, I will ask for assistance and try and load some pictures. I will keep you posted. Thanks
"So my question is. In one paragraph is mentioned the M3Aa Ultra ,same as on the M24 rifles, as the proposed scope and then in another page is mentioned as the Ultra M3, the budget or next page describing the budget. Were they fitted with both The M3 and the M3A Ultras?. "
The only difference b/t the M3 and M3A scope is that the M3 had 1" windage and elevation adjustments per click at 100 yards (or meters), whereas the M3A or sometimes called the M3A Ultra had 1/2" windage adjustments per click, while retaining the 1" per click elevation adjustment.
My understanding is that the US Army evaluated the M3 scopes in the mid-1980s and during the M24 program evaluation from 1986-1988 they presumably asked Leupold if they could provide the same scope - but with a finer windage adjustment. Leupold responded with the M3A, which must have met the requirements, as the US Army subsequently accepted it as a standard item in 1988 as part of the M24 SWS system. M3s are kind-of rare and I think dated more in the mid-1980s, whereas the M3As are plentiful and dated from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. My two M3As are dated (via prefix) from 1989 and 1990.
The 1989 has some finish wear and is on my M24R (they both match re patina). The 1990 scope is in better cosmetic shape and will go on my pending XM25 replica. Both will be mounted with the correct Leupold Ultra 30mm Mk 4 tactical rings (steel, medium height). I have no idea how many M3 scopes were provided to the US military in the mid-1980s for evaluation purposes (or possibly procured in small numbers), but some of the old 10th SFG documents refer to the "M3" scope and its unclear if they are referring to the mid-1980s M3 with 1" adjustments, of the late 1980s M3A with 1" & 1/2" adjustments. I think the M3A is probably what they meant after the 1988/89 time period. Hope that info helps.
The only difference b/t the M3 and M3A scope is that the M3 had 1" windage and elevation adjustments per click at 100 yards (or meters), whereas the M3A or sometimes called the M3A Ultra had 1/2" windage adjustments per click, while retaining the 1" per click elevation adjustment.
My understanding is that the US Army evaluated the M3 scopes in the mid-1980s and during the M24 program evaluation from 1986-1988 they presumably asked Leupold if they could provide the same scope - but with a finer windage adjustment. Leupold responded with the M3A, which must have met the requirements, as the US Army subsequently accepted it as a standard item in 1988 as part of the M24 SWS system. M3s are kind-of rare and I think dated more in the mid-1980s, whereas the M3As are plentiful and dated from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. My two M3As are dated (via prefix) from 1989 and 1990.
The 1989 has some finish wear and is on my M24R (they both match re patina). The 1990 scope is in better cosmetic shape and will go on my pending XM25 replica. Both will be mounted with the correct Leupold Ultra 30mm Mk 4 tactical rings (steel, medium height). I have no idea how many M3 scopes were provided to the US military in the mid-1980s for evaluation purposes (or possibly procured in small numbers), but some of the old 10th SFG documents refer to the "M3" scope and its unclear if they are referring to the mid-1980s M3 with 1" adjustments, of the late 1980s M3A with 1" & 1/2" adjustments. I think the M3A is probably what they meant after the 1988/89 time period. Hope that info helps.
Last edited:
I know this has been asked before, But, how did/does the shooter fine tune his zero? I'm all for the rougher adjustments in the field (maybe the 1/2" @ 100 is better), But if your scope is exactly half out with the 1" knobs, what was the trick to getting it aligned to a proper zero?"So my question is. In one paragraph is mentioned the M3Aa Ultra ,same as on the M24 rifles, as the proposed scope and then in another page is mentioned as the Ultra M3, the budget or next page describing the budget. Were they fitted with both The M3 and the M3A Ultras?. "
The only difference b/t the M3 and M3A scope is that the M3 had 1" windage and elevation adjustments per click at 100 yards (or meters), whereas the M3A or sometimes called the M3A Ultra had 1/2" windage adjustments per click, while retaining the 1" per click elevation adjustment.
My understanding is that the US Army evaluated the M3 scopes in the mid-1980s and during the M24 program evaluation from 1986-1988 they presumably asked Leupold if they could provide the same scope - but with a finer windage adjustment. Leupold responded with the M3A, which must have met the requirements, as and the US Army subsequently accepted it as a standard item in 1988 as part of the M24 SWS system. M3s are kind-of rare and I think dated more in the mid-1980s, whereas the M3As are plentiful and dated from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. My two M3As are dated (via prefix) from 1989 and 1990.
The 1989 has some finish wear and is on my M24R (they both match re patina). The 1990 scope is in better cosmetic shape and will go on my pending XM25 replica. Both will be mounted with the correct Leupold Ultra 30mm Mk 4 tactical rings (steel, medium height). I have no idea how many M3 scopes were provided to the US military in the mid-1980s for evaluation purposes (or possibly procured in small numbers), but some of the old 10th SFG documents refer to the "M3" scope and its unclear if they are referring to the mid-1980s M3 with 1" adjustments, of the late 1980s M3A with 1" & 1/2" adjustments. I think the M3A is probably what they meant after the 1988/89 time period. Hope that info helps.
As far as I know, there isn't one. You can turn an M3 knob between clicks and mine has been stiff enough to hold the adjustment ( newer variable with exposed turret caps) but it's not a viable solution for a dead nuts zero, just a windage swag. These are meat eaters and designed to put lead on in the triangle quickly and move on. You're just going to record your offset at zero and favor at distance. I tend to pull my shots left, so I leave my scope favoring right. Honestly, I don't shoots a 308 into 1/4" groups anyway, so I don't notice any real difference, just a trend.
If it's a breathing target your after, always error on the low side. A skip in is better that a over the head miss.
All my M3's are just a shade low an to the left of POA for SD at long. I do not find the M3 a disadvantage for anything I shoot to include HardRock. matches. If I could get M3's installed in every Leupold I have they would be there. For Subsonic shooting after you run out of ret nothing trumps them. No way to get lost at night or low light vs the m1, an I know lots of guys who have lost track of their M1's or other 1/4 moa up's in daylight. Remember in breathing targets there are no different levels of dead.
You're speaking to the downrange, Gunfighter, and I get that. In fact, as I mentioned I'm all for it. I just wondered if a half moa variance at zero would matter at maximum distances. Not being centered in the scope to begin with drives me nuts, but, I've often had to work with it myself. At least I could usually fine tune the dial.
Or, if there was any adjustment in the mounts? I have a set of USO rings that can be adjusted L-R. there's a tiny bit of play between the rings and bases (picatinny). I know that puts stress on the scope, but with soft inserts, it's supposed to take the stress off.
One of the things to consider is that we didn't have ballistic calculators back in the day, we had come-ups, and shot on pretty large targets. Zeros were handled by shooting on Known Distance ranges and writing down the result. The M3A had a BDC dial on it as well which was good enough. We had charts as well.
Being off 1/2 MOA is the maximum deflection and that isn't going to happen at every yard line. There was also a method for dialing your 500 yard zero and holding under or over for every distance; way before Horus put a piece of graph paper inside the scope.
Burris XRT rings will allow perfection if required. I shoot M3's all the time an have never had issues, as there are many thigns you can do with the ret to off set the moa only up. I have used the top of the cross hair vs the bottom, same with windage right or left. A lot depends upon the cross hair your using or where you set your zero with in said cross hair. My ret's are 32 moa trees an it's easy to break them down to 1/8-1/4 moa at any point.
I found this thread to be very interesting as I am trying to find the correct parts for an XM25 project. I have been looking for the correct scope but without any luck, the hunt continues.
Thanks for all the info!
Thanks for all the info!
Hello this thread was good reading a lot information M21 and M25 and the pictures I just read this thread 3rd time thank you for pulling the paper work from the dumpster and sharing it with us ,geoff3
Resurrecting this thread, as my Navy M14 Physical Security Sniper Rifle (aka Navy Port Security Rifle and to some people an "M25") is now finished after 2 years. First picture was the inspiration (pic is from 'The Long-Range War' by Peter Senich). Other pics are completed project.
Attachments
Similar threads
