TACOM M14EBRs in Afghanistan
“It’s a very precise weapon system,” said Spc. Andrew McMeley, a squad designated marksman serving in
Afghanistan with B Company, 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment. “All the improvements on it are fantastic.”
.
- Thread starter MK14 SEI
- Start date
TACOM M14EBRs in Afghanistan
“It’s a very precise weapon system,” said Spc. Andrew McMeley, a squad designated marksman serving in
Afghanistan with B Company, 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment. “All the improvements on it are fantastic.”
.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
wonder how he hits anything with the cover closed.
wonder how he hits anything with the cover closed.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
yep, pretty sure it's broken and that's why he doesn't have a front cap.
There is one of the reasons we used rubber "bikini" caps in the field.
yep, pretty sure it's broken and that's why he doesn't have a front cap.
There is one of the reasons we used rubber "bikini" caps in the field.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
Your going to start seeing all Army units in Astan wearing multicam.
Your going to start seeing all Army units in Astan wearing multicam.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DFOOSKING</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Rangers get all the fun stuff!</div></div>
Nitpick of the day!
He's not assigned to the Ranger Regiment any more, the caption says "Sgt. Casey Liffrig, a squad designated marksman with C Company., 2nd Battalion, <span style="font-weight: bold">12th Infantry Regiment</span>". The 2nd Ranger Battalion scroll is a combat patch since its on the right shoulder, so he was assigned to the unit and deployed with them in combat at one time but is now with the regular army. You see a lot of former batt. dudes all over the regular army, most wear their combat scrolls as a point of pride.
75th Ranger Regiment does not wear unit identifying markings of any kind on deployment.
EDIT: Reworded first sentence to avoid a potential misunderstanding, as that is not my intent at all.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DFOOSKING</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Rangers get all the fun stuff!</div></div>
Nitpick of the day!
He's not assigned to the Ranger Regiment any more, the caption says "Sgt. Casey Liffrig, a squad designated marksman with C Company., 2nd Battalion, <span style="font-weight: bold">12th Infantry Regiment</span>". The 2nd Ranger Battalion scroll is a combat patch since its on the right shoulder, so he was assigned to the unit and deployed with them in combat at one time but is now with the regular army. You see a lot of former batt. dudes all over the regular army, most wear their combat scrolls as a point of pride.
75th Ranger Regiment does not wear unit identifying markings of any kind on deployment.
EDIT: Reworded first sentence to avoid a potential misunderstanding, as that is not my intent at all.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Alex Nenadic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He's not a Ranger any more, Etc.
</div></div>
I would like to see anyone tell him that.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Alex Nenadic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He's not a Ranger any more, Etc.
</div></div>
I would like to see anyone tell him that.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wirehand</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I would like to see anyone tell him otherwise. </div></div>
It was implied that that the equipment had something to do with unit assignment, and I was merely pointing out that the unit in question is from the regular army. My post was not meant to start a pissing contest of any kind.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wirehand</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I would like to see anyone tell him otherwise. </div></div>
It was implied that that the equipment had something to do with unit assignment, and I was merely pointing out that the unit in question is from the regular army. My post was not meant to start a pissing contest of any kind.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
No worries, mine was a general statement, not addressed to you directly.
No worries, mine was a general statement, not addressed to you directly.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wirehand</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No worries, mine was a general statement, not addressed to you directly. </div></div>
Good deal, I do know what you mean.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wirehand</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No worries, mine was a general statement, not addressed to you directly. </div></div>
Good deal, I do know what you mean.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yep, pretty sure it's broken and that's why he doesn't have a front cap.
There is one of the reasons we used rubber "bikini" caps in the field.</div></div>
Is that his front cap on his ACH?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yep, pretty sure it's broken and that's why he doesn't have a front cap.
There is one of the reasons we used rubber "bikini" caps in the field.</div></div>
Is that his front cap on his ACH?
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
No, its a mount for his NV device.
ETA....now I see what you are talking about, that does look like a lite.
No, its a mount for his NV device.
ETA....now I see what you are talking about, that does look like a lite.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: victory</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your going to start seeing all Army units in Astan wearing multicam. </div></div>
It's about time the Army gets a functional camoflage(sp?) instead of the ACU. Frankly, I think all services should go to multicam, and ditch the individual digital patters. Except for the Marines perhaps. But the ACU, the ABU, and whatever the Navy calls the "you ain't gonna find me if I go overboard" camo are just for show.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: victory</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your going to start seeing all Army units in Astan wearing multicam. </div></div>
It's about time the Army gets a functional camoflage(sp?) instead of the ACU. Frankly, I think all services should go to multicam, and ditch the individual digital patters. Except for the Marines perhaps. But the ACU, the ABU, and whatever the Navy calls the "you ain't gonna find me if I go overboard" camo are just for show.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
Looks like he is at ASC! LOL
Looks like he is at ASC! LOL
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
you have to wear an offset headlamp when you have your NV bracket on the mount; On the m14 I like 7.62mm but dusting off the M14 according to some was not best solution. The explanations given was 1950's technology, lack of trained armorors and parts availability, accuracy and maintenance requirements (can't address the last 3 as out of my lane). After hearing all this though, I concluded for my own personal 7.62 selection, I'd look at other options.
you have to wear an offset headlamp when you have your NV bracket on the mount; On the m14 I like 7.62mm but dusting off the M14 according to some was not best solution. The explanations given was 1950's technology, lack of trained armorors and parts availability, accuracy and maintenance requirements (can't address the last 3 as out of my lane). After hearing all this though, I concluded for my own personal 7.62 selection, I'd look at other options.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
So are they taking older M14's and fitting them with sage stocks or is it a whole new rifle?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The M14EBR-RI is both accurate and reliable... if only the ARMY would spend more
time teaching marksmanship skills that would take advantage of the EBRs capabilities... </div></div>
??
I've met lots and lots of good army shooters.
So are they taking older M14's and fitting them with sage stocks or is it a whole new rifle?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The M14EBR-RI is both accurate and reliable... if only the ARMY would spend more
time teaching marksmanship skills that would take advantage of the EBRs capabilities... </div></div>
??
I've met lots and lots of good army shooters.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
Wonder why the AR-10 platform isn't more utilized? It's more similar to their standard weapons.
Wonder why the AR-10 platform isn't more utilized? It's more similar to their standard weapons.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JRose</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wonder why the AR-10 platform isn't more utilized? It's more similar to their standard weapons. </div></div>
Because the ones they chose costs lots of money. I don't know for sure but I'm betting they are fitting "stock" m1a's they had in storage who knows where with sage stocks, scopes, and putting them back into service. It's a good idea considering they probably have warehouses of old m1a's m14's.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JRose</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wonder why the AR-10 platform isn't more utilized? It's more similar to their standard weapons. </div></div>
Because the ones they chose costs lots of money. I don't know for sure but I'm betting they are fitting "stock" m1a's they had in storage who knows where with sage stocks, scopes, and putting them back into service. It's a good idea considering they probably have warehouses of old m1a's m14's.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
I carried one throughout my deployment in AFG. There are advantages and disadvantages to this weapon system, However i would take this weapon over any MK-11 (AR platform) we had to a gun fight. The one and only reason, reliability.
I carried one throughout my deployment in AFG. There are advantages and disadvantages to this weapon system, However i would take this weapon over any MK-11 (AR platform) we had to a gun fight. The one and only reason, reliability.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
What kind of barrels are they using, when i was in afg we had unmothballed m-14s with woodstocks
What kind of barrels are they using, when i was in afg we had unmothballed m-14s with woodstocks
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
The ones my unit has had since 2007 look just like the old one I carried in 04-06 but with the EBR.
The ones my unit has had since 2007 look just like the old one I carried in 04-06 but with the EBR.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Birddog1911</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><snip>...whatever the Navy calls the "you ain't gonna find me if I go overboard" camo are just for show. </div></div>
Being ex Navy (forty years ago), I sure wondered about this myself. Course, the blue dungarees may not have been much better.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Birddog1911</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><snip>...whatever the Navy calls the "you ain't gonna find me if I go overboard" camo are just for show. </div></div>
Being ex Navy (forty years ago), I sure wondered about this myself. Course, the blue dungarees may not have been much better.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So are they taking older M14's and fitting them with sage stocks or is it a whole new rifle?</div></div>
Production of the M14 ceased decades ago... TACOM uses M14s that are new or that were refitted long ago.
This thread should explain a few things LINK
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So are they taking older M14's and fitting them with sage stocks or is it a whole new rifle?</div></div>
Production of the M14 ceased decades ago... TACOM uses M14s that are new or that were refitted long ago.
This thread should explain a few things LINK
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kopfjager 4-96</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I carried one throughout my deployment in AFG. There are advantages and disadvantages to this weapon system, However i would take this weapon over any MK-11 (AR platform) we had to a gun fight. The one and only reason, reliability. </div></div>
The rifle pictured above is US Marine M39 EMR and it has a new, heavier profile barrel that is optimized with a real nice scope.
Kopfjager, have you seen this BLOG?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kopfjager 4-96</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I carried one throughout my deployment in AFG. There are advantages and disadvantages to this weapon system, However i would take this weapon over any MK-11 (AR platform) we had to a gun fight. The one and only reason, reliability. </div></div>
The rifle pictured above is US Marine M39 EMR and it has a new, heavier profile barrel that is optimized with a real nice scope.
Kopfjager, have you seen this BLOG?
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JRose</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wonder why the AR-10 platform isn't more utilized? </div></div>
Issues with reliability.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JRose</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wonder why the AR-10 platform isn't more utilized? </div></div>
Issues with reliability.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ruxeedo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The ones my unit has had since 2007 look just like the old one I carried in 04-06 but with the EBR. </div></div>
The M14 modernization program didn't get started until late 2008... early 2009. The 18.0" MK14 Mod 0 and MK14 SEI were the first shop built
modernized M14s, all full length M14s in EBR stocks prior to the M14EBR-RI and M39 EMR were not part of the current modernization program.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ruxeedo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The ones my unit has had since 2007 look just like the old one I carried in 04-06 but with the EBR. </div></div>
The M14 modernization program didn't get started until late 2008... early 2009. The 18.0" MK14 Mod 0 and MK14 SEI were the first shop built
modernized M14s, all full length M14s in EBR stocks prior to the M14EBR-RI and M39 EMR were not part of the current modernization program.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MedCpt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On the m14 I like 7.62mm but dusting off the M14 according to some was not best solution. The explanations given was 1950's technology, lack of trained armorors and parts availability, accuracy and maintenance requirements </div></div>
I understand that was before the current M14 modernization program was fully funded. The situation has greatly improved over the
last year and a half, armorers have been trained, new and better parts are available, accuracy is excellent and maintenance is low.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MedCpt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On the m14 I like 7.62mm but dusting off the M14 according to some was not best solution. The explanations given was 1950's technology, lack of trained armorors and parts availability, accuracy and maintenance requirements </div></div>
I understand that was before the current M14 modernization program was fully funded. The situation has greatly improved over the
last year and a half, armorers have been trained, new and better parts are available, accuracy is excellent and maintenance is low.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand that was before the current M14 modernization program was fully funded. The situation has greatly improved over the
last year and a half, armorers have been trained, new and better parts are available, accuracy is excellent and maintenance is low.</div></div>
I call bullshit. Your source, please.
A 5,000 weapon modification order is NOT a modernization program. The EBR is NOT an Army record program but another band-aid.
Soldiers holding MOS 45B, Small Arms Repairman do not work on the M14 or derivatives. If they didn't get it in Initial Entry Training they do NOT get it in their Intermediate NCO training since they transition to turret weapons.
PM Small Arms M14EBR New Equipment Training is limited to two classroom days and one on the range.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fort Benning, Ga., officials are working on a requirement for the SDM rifle that should be ready sometime next year, Tamilio said. (From an Army press release) </div></div>
The DM Rifle as specified by the US Army Infantry Center Commanding General in 2005 is an M4 with an ACOG.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand that was before the current M14 modernization program was fully funded. The situation has greatly improved over the
last year and a half, armorers have been trained, new and better parts are available, accuracy is excellent and maintenance is low.</div></div>
I call bullshit. Your source, please.
A 5,000 weapon modification order is NOT a modernization program. The EBR is NOT an Army record program but another band-aid.
Soldiers holding MOS 45B, Small Arms Repairman do not work on the M14 or derivatives. If they didn't get it in Initial Entry Training they do NOT get it in their Intermediate NCO training since they transition to turret weapons.
PM Small Arms M14EBR New Equipment Training is limited to two classroom days and one on the range.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fort Benning, Ga., officials are working on a requirement for the SDM rifle that should be ready sometime next year, Tamilio said. (From an Army press release) </div></div>
The DM Rifle as specified by the US Army Infantry Center Commanding General in 2005 is an M4 with an ACOG.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand that was before the current M14 modernization program was fully funded. The situation has greatly improved over the
last year and a half, armorers have been trained, new and better parts are available, accuracy is excellent and maintenance is low.</div></div>
I call bullshit. Your source, please.
A 5,000 weapon modification order is NOT a modernization program. The EBR is NOT an Army record program but another band-aid.
Soldiers holding MOS 45B, Small Arms Repairman do not work on the M14 or derivatives. If they didn't get it in Initial Entry Training they do NOT get it in their Intermediate NCO training since they transition to turret weapons.
PM Small Arms M14EBR New Equipment Training is limited to two classroom days and one on the range.
</div></div>
He has no sources, he just posts pointless shit about how great/accurate/reliable the M14 is that he hears secondhand or reads online. That's why he was banned from lightfighter 2 years ago (posting under the name Rex Kramer). He has never fielded one operationally and has no firsthand experience other than the fact that he paid Ron Smith a ridiculous amount of money to pimp out his M14s.
H20man is an online village-idiot of sorts among several different forums. Best to just ignore or point/laugh at him.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand that was before the current M14 modernization program was fully funded. The situation has greatly improved over the
last year and a half, armorers have been trained, new and better parts are available, accuracy is excellent and maintenance is low.</div></div>
I call bullshit. Your source, please.
A 5,000 weapon modification order is NOT a modernization program. The EBR is NOT an Army record program but another band-aid.
Soldiers holding MOS 45B, Small Arms Repairman do not work on the M14 or derivatives. If they didn't get it in Initial Entry Training they do NOT get it in their Intermediate NCO training since they transition to turret weapons.
PM Small Arms M14EBR New Equipment Training is limited to two classroom days and one on the range.
</div></div>
He has no sources, he just posts pointless shit about how great/accurate/reliable the M14 is that he hears secondhand or reads online. That's why he was banned from lightfighter 2 years ago (posting under the name Rex Kramer). He has never fielded one operationally and has no firsthand experience other than the fact that he paid Ron Smith a ridiculous amount of money to pimp out his M14s.
H20man is an online village-idiot of sorts among several different forums. Best to just ignore or point/laugh at him.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickeness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
He has no sources, he just posts pointless shit about how great/accurate/reliable the M14 is that he hears secondhand or reads online. That's why he was banned from lightfighter 2 years ago (posting under the name Rex Kramer). He has never fielded one operationally and has no firsthand experience other than the fact that he paid Ron Smith a ridiculous amount of money to pimp out his M14s.
H20man is an online village-idiot of sorts among several different forums. Best to just ignore or point/laugh at him. </div></div>
Wow that seems kinda personal, and maybe unwarrented.
Im not defending his statistical claims (If he has even made any), but you cant just poo poo everything he says.
The M14 is great. The usage of "great" is subjective to each of our personal opinions. It is accurate (subject to what its being compared to). The m14 is reliable according to a whole sub-culture of m14 shooters (personal experience with civi semi only version).
If H2Oman makes false claims that can be proven false, then by all means out him, but this seems like it has the makings of fanboi fighting.
Your post doesnt seem to add any info.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickeness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
He has no sources, he just posts pointless shit about how great/accurate/reliable the M14 is that he hears secondhand or reads online. That's why he was banned from lightfighter 2 years ago (posting under the name Rex Kramer). He has never fielded one operationally and has no firsthand experience other than the fact that he paid Ron Smith a ridiculous amount of money to pimp out his M14s.
H20man is an online village-idiot of sorts among several different forums. Best to just ignore or point/laugh at him. </div></div>
Wow that seems kinda personal, and maybe unwarrented.
Im not defending his statistical claims (If he has even made any), but you cant just poo poo everything he says.
The M14 is great. The usage of "great" is subjective to each of our personal opinions. It is accurate (subject to what its being compared to). The m14 is reliable according to a whole sub-culture of m14 shooters (personal experience with civi semi only version).
If H2Oman makes false claims that can be proven false, then by all means out him, but this seems like it has the makings of fanboi fighting.
Your post doesnt seem to add any info.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
The point of my post is that he has been banned already from several other gun forums (notably M4carbine and Lightfighter) for posting sensational claims about accuracy/reliability of M14 ebrs (and giving himself an excuse to post pics of his guns), and refusing to back up his claims or cite any sources.
Many people who were actually issued the M14 in theater have come back saying it is a heavy POS that doesn't hold zero: H20 attempted to force his opinion on them that they are wrong, despite his complete lack of experience, hence why he was banned.
The article he posted was already hashed out on Lightfighter, read the thread if you are so interested.
http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4706084761/m/233105616
The point of my post is that he has been banned already from several other gun forums (notably M4carbine and Lightfighter) for posting sensational claims about accuracy/reliability of M14 ebrs (and giving himself an excuse to post pics of his guns), and refusing to back up his claims or cite any sources.
Many people who were actually issued the M14 in theater have come back saying it is a heavy POS that doesn't hold zero: H20 attempted to force his opinion on them that they are wrong, despite his complete lack of experience, hence why he was banned.
The article he posted was already hashed out on Lightfighter, read the thread if you are so interested.
http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4706084761/m/233105616
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickeness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point of my post is that he has been banned already from several other gun forums (notably M4carbine and Lightfighter) for posting sensational claims about accuracy/reliability of M14 ebrs (and giving himself an excuse to post pics of his guns), and refusing to back up his claims or cite any sources.
Many people who were actually issued the M14 in theater have come back saying it is a heavy POS that doesn't hold zero: H20 attempted to force his opinion on them that they are wrong, despite his complete lack of experience, hence why he was banned.
The article he posted was already hashed out on Lightfighter, read the thread if you are so interested.
http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4706084761/m/233105616 </div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold">I thought I recognized your rhetoric</span>
I am guilty of posting accuracy/reliability reports on the 4 outstanding modernized M14s SEI has
built for me and I have posted many pictures of my MK14s and newer M21A5 Crazy Horse rifles.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickeness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point of my post is that he has been banned already from several other gun forums (notably M4carbine and Lightfighter) for posting sensational claims about accuracy/reliability of M14 ebrs (and giving himself an excuse to post pics of his guns), and refusing to back up his claims or cite any sources.
Many people who were actually issued the M14 in theater have come back saying it is a heavy POS that doesn't hold zero: H20 attempted to force his opinion on them that they are wrong, despite his complete lack of experience, hence why he was banned.
The article he posted was already hashed out on Lightfighter, read the thread if you are so interested.
http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4706084761/m/233105616 </div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold">I thought I recognized your rhetoric</span>
I am guilty of posting accuracy/reliability reports on the 4 outstanding modernized M14s SEI has
built for me and I have posted many pictures of my MK14s and newer M21A5 Crazy Horse rifles.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
Post your sources, please.
Post your sources, please.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickeness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The article he posted was already hashed out on Lightfighter, read the thread if you are so interested.
</div></div>I am unable view the thread you linked to. Please provide the details of what was "hashed out".
Also, how does one "force" an opinion?
Are you saying that strong opinions were offered up and I was banned because I voiced a stronger opinion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MedCpt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On the m14 I like 7.62mm but dusting off the M14 according to some was not best solution. The explanations given was 1950's technology, lack of trained armorors and parts availability, accuracy and maintenance requirements </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand that was before the current M14 modernization program was fully funded. The situation has greatly improved over the
last year and a half, armorers have been trained, new and better parts are available, accuracy is excellent and maintenance is low. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I call bullshit.</div></div>
Are you stating that the M14 situation has not improved over the last year and a half or...
are you claiming the situation was just fine prior to the TACOM M14EBR-RI becoming available?
Also, are you claiming that no armorers have been trained and that new and better parts are not available?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickeness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The article he posted was already hashed out on Lightfighter, read the thread if you are so interested.
</div></div>I am unable view the thread you linked to. Please provide the details of what was "hashed out".
Also, how does one "force" an opinion?
Are you saying that strong opinions were offered up and I was banned because I voiced a stronger opinion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MedCpt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On the m14 I like 7.62mm but dusting off the M14 according to some was not best solution. The explanations given was 1950's technology, lack of trained armorors and parts availability, accuracy and maintenance requirements </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand that was before the current M14 modernization program was fully funded. The situation has greatly improved over the
last year and a half, armorers have been trained, new and better parts are available, accuracy is excellent and maintenance is low. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I call bullshit.</div></div>
Are you stating that the M14 situation has not improved over the last year and a half or...
are you claiming the situation was just fine prior to the TACOM M14EBR-RI becoming available?
Also, are you claiming that no armorers have been trained and that new and better parts are not available?
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
I'm simply asking for an open source / open press reference for your claim (DOD, Army, independent press, anything). I am curious.
I started swinging an M14 for real in 1981, and the M21 in 1982. I carried it in Ranger School, my scout snipers had them in Korea when I was a platoon leader, I used them operationally on Special Forces ODAs, I was there when we turned in M25s for SR25s, and I had them on the AMU until we sent them to Anniston where they go to die, de-mil, get reissued, or to be sold or given away as grants, DRMO weapons to cops, or Foreign Military Sales.
I was there when we retired them from the USAMU and All-Army competition. I watched it fail in the first SASS solicitation, and was at Benning last year on the neighboring range while they ran the DM demonstration where the M16 spanked the EBR.
I'd like to know where you're getting this stuff.
I'm simply asking for an open source / open press reference for your claim (DOD, Army, independent press, anything). I am curious.
I started swinging an M14 for real in 1981, and the M21 in 1982. I carried it in Ranger School, my scout snipers had them in Korea when I was a platoon leader, I used them operationally on Special Forces ODAs, I was there when we turned in M25s for SR25s, and I had them on the AMU until we sent them to Anniston where they go to die, de-mil, get reissued, or to be sold or given away as grants, DRMO weapons to cops, or Foreign Military Sales.
I was there when we retired them from the USAMU and All-Army competition. I watched it fail in the first SASS solicitation, and was at Benning last year on the neighboring range while they ran the DM demonstration where the M16 spanked the EBR.
I'd like to know where you're getting this stuff.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am unable view the thread you linked to. Please provide the details of what was "hashed out".</div></div>
I had no trouble reading it. It was very informative. Why can't you read it? It has some interesting opinions from people who have deployed an M14 EBR in combat. Uniformly they hated it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am unable view the thread you linked to. Please provide the details of what was "hashed out".</div></div>
I had no trouble reading it. It was very informative. Why can't you read it? It has some interesting opinions from people who have deployed an M14 EBR in combat. Uniformly they hated it.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd like to know where you're getting this stuff.</div></div>
He's smoking crack - and he runs a site dedicated to the M14 EBR. Why, I have no idea.
http://www.athenswater.com/my_weapons.htm
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd like to know where you're getting this stuff.</div></div>
He's smoking crack - and he runs a site dedicated to the M14 EBR. Why, I have no idea.
http://www.athenswater.com/my_weapons.htm
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
Gee, there seems to be a lot of pent up anger and agression on this board. You guys need to go to the range and relax by converting gun powder into noise.
For your information, The M14EBR-RI is built with rack stock Code A M14s right out of Anniston AL. Each one is shot for group prior to it being shipped out to the troops to verify that it will shoot less than 1.5 MOA. So far our average is under 1 MOA with 5000 rifles built. The only modification we do to the barreled action is ream the flash suppressor to NM specs, like we did on the M21 program.
The M14EBR-RI was developed in response to the large number of ONS (Operational Needs Statements) received from units in the box. All we did was bring the gun into the present day by restocking it and adding Leupold optics.
We must of done something right, as we are still getting requirements for them and will be building far above the original 5000 requested.
Is it the final solution.... No. But it is here, in stock, shipping and doing the job killing bad guys. It fullfills 90 to 95% of the requirements.
Yes we have had some problems with support, but that is being worked on. We have weapons at all the SASCs for one for one replacements and have shipped support packages there as well. All parts are currently being provisioned and soon will be competed for stockage.
I see a couple of people talk about a new gun next year. A normal procurement can take 5 years fast tracked and more through the normal requirements development, testing and selection. There is no fast or easy solution.
If you really think that an M4 with an ACOG is right for a DM lets find a big hill and you can be at the bottom and I will take an EBR to the top and see if you change your mind. I have only fired about 30 thousand rounds so far this year.
Gee, there seems to be a lot of pent up anger and agression on this board. You guys need to go to the range and relax by converting gun powder into noise.
For your information, The M14EBR-RI is built with rack stock Code A M14s right out of Anniston AL. Each one is shot for group prior to it being shipped out to the troops to verify that it will shoot less than 1.5 MOA. So far our average is under 1 MOA with 5000 rifles built. The only modification we do to the barreled action is ream the flash suppressor to NM specs, like we did on the M21 program.
The M14EBR-RI was developed in response to the large number of ONS (Operational Needs Statements) received from units in the box. All we did was bring the gun into the present day by restocking it and adding Leupold optics.
We must of done something right, as we are still getting requirements for them and will be building far above the original 5000 requested.
Is it the final solution.... No. But it is here, in stock, shipping and doing the job killing bad guys. It fullfills 90 to 95% of the requirements.
Yes we have had some problems with support, but that is being worked on. We have weapons at all the SASCs for one for one replacements and have shipped support packages there as well. All parts are currently being provisioned and soon will be competed for stockage.
I see a couple of people talk about a new gun next year. A normal procurement can take 5 years fast tracked and more through the normal requirements development, testing and selection. There is no fast or easy solution.
If you really think that an M4 with an ACOG is right for a DM lets find a big hill and you can be at the bottom and I will take an EBR to the top and see if you change your mind. I have only fired about 30 thousand rounds so far this year.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
im sorry but why exactly is an ebr stock required for 1.5 moa. wont most springer m1a's do this out of the box?
im sorry but why exactly is an ebr stock required for 1.5 moa. wont most springer m1a's do this out of the box?
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
What is the government paying for these, given that they already own the barreled receivers?
What is the government paying for these, given that they already own the barreled receivers?
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
Cost per EBR is under 3K. Most of this is optics and accessories.
The 1.5 MOA is the reject point. Installing an M14 into a Sage stock is equivalent to when we glass bedded the NM and M21 systems, however installation in a Sage stock takes about 15 min as opposed to 16 hours bedding a normal stock to achieve the same results.
I am not selling any one system as I work on all of the currently fielded systems. It is the Soldiers and Commanders who keep submiting the ONSs.
Cost per EBR is under 3K. Most of this is optics and accessories.
The 1.5 MOA is the reject point. Installing an M14 into a Sage stock is equivalent to when we glass bedded the NM and M21 systems, however installation in a Sage stock takes about 15 min as opposed to 16 hours bedding a normal stock to achieve the same results.
I am not selling any one system as I work on all of the currently fielded systems. It is the Soldiers and Commanders who keep submiting the ONSs.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
Please keep in mind, that there have been close to 3 thousand Sage stocks sold to individual Army units whom converted their rack stock M14s into EBR like configurations. Not all of these were successful as the experience level was lacking. Many of the complaints that we received in the early days of the system turned out to be these rifles when they were tracked down by the Pentagon.
Please keep in mind, that there have been close to 3 thousand Sage stocks sold to individual Army units whom converted their rack stock M14s into EBR like configurations. Not all of these were successful as the experience level was lacking. Many of the complaints that we received in the early days of the system turned out to be these rifles when they were tracked down by the Pentagon.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marduk185</div><div class="ubbcode-body">im sorry but why exactly is an ebr stock required for 1.5 moa. wont most springer m1a's do this out of the box? </div></div>
IMO, the stock is more about user-friendliness and hit probability than accuracy requirements.
The M14 stock was the LAST of the old-school "fit the shooter to the stock" systems ever fielded. AFIC, the M14, Garand, Springfield, Enfield, Krag, and everything else before didn't even meet the low standards of the "jack of all trades, master of none" theory. They just don't fit everyone equally poorly, they fit some shooters VERY poorly. Like me. Far easier to get a decent cheek weld on an AR platform.
Just talking about fit/ergonomics, nothing else.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marduk185</div><div class="ubbcode-body">im sorry but why exactly is an ebr stock required for 1.5 moa. wont most springer m1a's do this out of the box? </div></div>
IMO, the stock is more about user-friendliness and hit probability than accuracy requirements.
The M14 stock was the LAST of the old-school "fit the shooter to the stock" systems ever fielded. AFIC, the M14, Garand, Springfield, Enfield, Krag, and everything else before didn't even meet the low standards of the "jack of all trades, master of none" theory. They just don't fit everyone equally poorly, they fit some shooters VERY poorly. Like me. Far easier to get a decent cheek weld on an AR platform.
Just talking about fit/ergonomics, nothing else.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wirehand</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Alex Nenadic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He's not a Ranger any more, Etc.
</div></div>
I would like to see anyone tell him that. </div></div>
Actually, that's exactly right. He's not. He is a <span style="font-weight: bold">former</span> Ranger. He'd tell you the exact same thing.
I'm saying it, too. I am a <span style="font-weight: bold">former</span> Ranger from 2/75. Damn proud of it. Nonetheless, if you're not in Regiment, you're only <span style="font-style: italic">Ranger Qualified</span>.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wirehand</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Alex Nenadic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He's not a Ranger any more, Etc.
</div></div>
I would like to see anyone tell him that. </div></div>
Actually, that's exactly right. He's not. He is a <span style="font-weight: bold">former</span> Ranger. He'd tell you the exact same thing.
I'm saying it, too. I am a <span style="font-weight: bold">former</span> Ranger from 2/75. Damn proud of it. Nonetheless, if you're not in Regiment, you're only <span style="font-style: italic">Ranger Qualified</span>.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand that was before the current M14 modernization program was fully funded. The situation has greatly improved over the
last year and a half, armorers have been trained, new and better parts are available, accuracy is excellent and maintenance is low.</div></div>
I call bullshit. Your source, please.
A 5,000 weapon modification order is NOT a modernization program. The EBR is NOT an Army record program but another band-aid.
Soldiers holding MOS 45B, Small Arms Repairman do not work on the M14 or derivatives. If they didn't get it in Initial Entry Training they do NOT get it in their Intermediate NCO training since they transition to turret weapons.
PM Small Arms M14EBR New Equipment Training is limited to two classroom days and one on the range.</div></div>
Read this:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EBRbuilder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gee, there seems to be a lot of pent up anger and agression on this board. You guys need to go to the range and relax by converting gun powder into noise.
For your information, The M14EBR-RI is built with rack stock Code A M14s right out of Anniston AL. Each one is shot for group prior to it being shipped out to the troops to verify that it will shoot less than 1.5 MOA. So far our average is under 1 MOA with 5000 rifles built. The only modification we do to the barreled action is ream the flash suppressor to NM specs, like we did on the M21 program.
The M14EBR-RI was developed in response to the large number of ONS (Operational Needs Statements) received from units in the box. All we did was bring the gun into the present day by restocking it and adding Leupold optics.
We must of done something right, as we are still getting requirements for them and will be building far above the original 5000 requested.
Is it the final solution.... No. But it is here, in stock, shipping and doing the job killing bad guys. It fullfills 90 to 95% of the requirements.
Yes we have had some problems with support, but that is being worked on. We have weapons at all the SASCs for one for one replacements and have shipped support packages there as well. All parts are currently being provisioned and soon will be competed for stockage.
I see a couple of people talk about a new gun next year. A normal procurement can take 5 years fast tracked and more through the normal requirements development, testing and selection. There is no fast or easy solution.
If you really think that an M4 with an ACOG is right for a DM lets find a big hill and you can be at the bottom and I will take an EBR to the top and see if you change your mind. I have only fired about 30 thousand rounds so far this year. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand that was before the current M14 modernization program was fully funded. The situation has greatly improved over the
last year and a half, armorers have been trained, new and better parts are available, accuracy is excellent and maintenance is low.</div></div>
I call bullshit. Your source, please.
A 5,000 weapon modification order is NOT a modernization program. The EBR is NOT an Army record program but another band-aid.
Soldiers holding MOS 45B, Small Arms Repairman do not work on the M14 or derivatives. If they didn't get it in Initial Entry Training they do NOT get it in their Intermediate NCO training since they transition to turret weapons.
PM Small Arms M14EBR New Equipment Training is limited to two classroom days and one on the range.</div></div>
Read this:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EBRbuilder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gee, there seems to be a lot of pent up anger and agression on this board. You guys need to go to the range and relax by converting gun powder into noise.
For your information, The M14EBR-RI is built with rack stock Code A M14s right out of Anniston AL. Each one is shot for group prior to it being shipped out to the troops to verify that it will shoot less than 1.5 MOA. So far our average is under 1 MOA with 5000 rifles built. The only modification we do to the barreled action is ream the flash suppressor to NM specs, like we did on the M21 program.
The M14EBR-RI was developed in response to the large number of ONS (Operational Needs Statements) received from units in the box. All we did was bring the gun into the present day by restocking it and adding Leupold optics.
We must of done something right, as we are still getting requirements for them and will be building far above the original 5000 requested.
Is it the final solution.... No. But it is here, in stock, shipping and doing the job killing bad guys. It fullfills 90 to 95% of the requirements.
Yes we have had some problems with support, but that is being worked on. We have weapons at all the SASCs for one for one replacements and have shipped support packages there as well. All parts are currently being provisioned and soon will be competed for stockage.
I see a couple of people talk about a new gun next year. A normal procurement can take 5 years fast tracked and more through the normal requirements development, testing and selection. There is no fast or easy solution.
If you really think that an M4 with an ACOG is right for a DM lets find a big hill and you can be at the bottom and I will take an EBR to the top and see if you change your mind. I have only fired about 30 thousand rounds so far this year. </div></div>
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
Sinister said, "The EBR is NOT an Army record program but another band-aid."
I think that's right on the money.
The Marine Corps handed me an M14 more than 4 decades ago, and I have great respect for the platform. However, it's not what I would want for a DMR rifle.
My personal preference would be for a AR10 chambered in an intermediate caliber like the .260 Remington or the 6.5 Creedmore, but that's unlikely to become an Army weapon system any time soon.
Eventually the Army will find a better solution for the DMR, and the M14 EBR is, as Sinister said, a bandaid until the happens.
Sinister said, "The EBR is NOT an Army record program but another band-aid."
I think that's right on the money.
The Marine Corps handed me an M14 more than 4 decades ago, and I have great respect for the platform. However, it's not what I would want for a DMR rifle.
My personal preference would be for a AR10 chambered in an intermediate caliber like the .260 Remington or the 6.5 Creedmore, but that's unlikely to become an Army weapon system any time soon.
Eventually the Army will find a better solution for the DMR, and the M14 EBR is, as Sinister said, a bandaid until the happens.
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
You say it's not what you would want for a DMR, but it's what we have right now and it works very well.
Yes, the Army will eventually find their new whizzbang DMR,
but the M14 will continue to serve until that day comes.
IMO, the day after the M14 is replaced by a brand new rifle someone will
say that the brand new rifle is not what they would want for a DMR either.
And so it goes...
You say it's not what you would want for a DMR, but it's what we have right now and it works very well.
Yes, the Army will eventually find their new whizzbang DMR,
but the M14 will continue to serve until that day comes.
IMO, the day after the M14 is replaced by a brand new rifle someone will
say that the brand new rifle is not what they would want for a DMR either.
And so it goes...
