• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Marksmen issued better M14 rifles in Afghanistan

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

This thread seems to be some sort of magnet for nit picking and shit talking. I dont get it. Anyways, in regard to that picture of the m110 and all of it's accessories. The end user(soldier) will not be forced to carry all of that gear. Just the mission essentials. The armorers and the supply guys will have responsibility for all that gear, and sign it out to the grunts just like always. Also, just because a weapon is not organic to a soldiers unit doesnt mean that he wont care for it. My experience tells me that soldiers will care for this weapon just like any other weapon, because it is their life-line. I have deployed in the sand box as a scout sniper in the 82ns airborne, and have only been out for two years. I doubt that grunts have changed much in two years. Unfortunately this forum seems to contain alot of speculation and misguided verbal rants. If this doesnt apply to you, dont worry about it. As for me, it's kind of turning me off.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickeness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

You know he's not gonna answer that question. I don't think its related to marketing, he just gets his rocks off by posting pics of his guns online and trying to piss people off, which he is doing to you.

Dude has already been banned from lightfighter, M4carbine and AR15.com, just ignore him. </div></div>

Sick stalker dude, didn't you get this out of your system back on the very first page?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EBRbuilder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As we RESET the rifles that return from Theatre, we will add Pelican Cases and Eagle Drag Bags to the package. That will give us a secure way to ship the rifles to the troops and they will be able to stow the hard cases in their arms room or where ever and deploy with it in the Eagle drag bag. The Eagle drag bag has shoulder straps and is tougher than wood pecker lips and converts to a shooting mat. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: battle-scarred</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The end user(soldier) will not be forced to carry all of that gear. Just the mission essentials. The armorers and the supply guys will have responsibility for all that gear, and sign it out to the grunts just like always. </div></div>

Thank you.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Kraig, a few things in that M110 hard box
buttstock mag carrier that is mandatory these days because on FOB you need magazine with you but out of weapon at all times
NVD, which has obvious uses
Cleaning kits for field and garrison
Scope and muzzle protecter
My sling ( cant help the obvious promotion sorry)
bipod
Mags
suppresor

Not sure what your going to dump but I want all of it in theater myself </div></div>

buttstock mag carrier is not standard issue. If you're on a FOB and not a COP, you have no business carrying around a sniper rifle day to day on the FOB... if you're on a COP, mag stays in the weapon, so the need for a mag carrier just is not there. That is why your TOE provides each sniper with an M4 and M9.

NVD does not have a place inside the hard case either. </div></div>

Hey brother, never said it was issue I just saw in the case here and explained use. Spent time on FOBs and COBs and saw lots of folks with all kinds of weapons including sniper rifles coming in from field. Most M4 and SR25 Users ended up purchasing from PX Mag carrier to make FOBBITS Happy.

Agreed no need to carry everything in field.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

hahaha... fobbits... hahah. i like it.... nothing worse than coming back into the the wire after some hairy shit, and dealing with some E-7 remf that is all worked up over you not being shaved or whatever other ridiculous things a fobbit complains about. lolol fobbit.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Heh... Fobbits... I just about fell out of my chair on that one...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DocJekyll</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Maybe someone can chime in but how much is a fully loaded 20rd M14 mag? </div></div>

20 rounds of 168 gr TAP in a USGI mag = 1 lb 9.6 Oz</div></div>

Thanks H20. I was just curious.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Doc Jekyll</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Maybe someone can chime in but how much is a fully loaded 20rd M14 mag? </div></div>

I think a better question would be, what is the weight that they carry? weight of the kit includes all of the "nice to have" stuff that is just that, nice to have but not needed for mission use.

Rifle w/o mag: 16lb
4 20rd mags: 6.5lb
4 5rd mags: 2lb
supressor: 2lb
otis kit: 1lb
PVS-22/UNS: 3.4lb
PEQ15: 0.5lbs

So for the M110 as issued with standard items carried, you're looking at a load out weight of about 31.5 pounds. That is in addition to whatever else your standard load-out will be depending on role and mission, if the M110 is your main weapon or if you are required to carry an M4... variables are difficult to factor
</div></div>

Indeed it is a better question. I was thinking more of the specifics since Ive never carried an M14 combat load. I do see what you did there though... =P
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

M110, some combat gun. 10 power scope, no zero stop, 2nd focal plane. Can it get any worse? When you dial to 7 or 8 power for clarity when you put on your pvs 22 or 26 how are you going to use your hold overs? Or shoot movers? Your Mils aren't true mils when you dial down a 2nd focal plane scope. and how are you supposed to dial in the dark when you have no zero stop? Not to mention the faulty triggers. We had to have 50% of ours replaced. And that piece of crap suppressor? It's better used as a club. Who needs an illuminated reticle when you have a clip on UNS? This sysem may have been designed and put together by someone who has shot a gun, but they definatly weren't a sniper. If that is worth showing off then have at it.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DocJekyll</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Doc Jekyll</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Maybe someone can chime in but how much is a fully loaded 20rd M14 mag? </div></div>

I think a better question would be, what is the weight that they carry? weight of the kit includes all of the "nice to have" stuff that is just that, nice to have but not needed for mission use.

Rifle w/o mag: 16lb
4 20rd mags: 6.5lb
4 5rd mags: 2lb
supressor: 2lb
otis kit: 1lb
PVS-22/UNS: 3.4lb
PEQ15: 0.5lbs

So for the M110 as issued with standard items carried, you're looking at a load out weight of about 31.5 pounds. That is in addition to whatever else your standard load-out will be depending on role and mission, if the M110 is your main weapon or if you are required to carry an M4... variables are difficult to factor
</div></div>

Indeed it is a better question. I was thinking more of the specifics since Ive never carried an M14 combat load. I do see what you did there though... =P </div></div>

HA... well I wasn't intentionally pushing the M14 aside- I don't have numbers on weight of an M14 though. BUT, I think the numbers wouldn't be TOO far off between the two (depending on how issued)
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J.J. McQuade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">M110, some combat gun. 10 power scope, no zero stop, 2nd focal plane. Can it get any worse? When you dial to 7 or 8 power for clarity when you put on your pvs 22 or 26 how are you going to use your hold overs? Or shoot movers? Your Mils aren't true mils when you dial down a 2nd focal plane scope. and how are you supposed to dial in the dark when you have no zero stop? Not to mention the faulty triggers. We had to have 50% of ours replaced. And that piece of crap suppressor? It's better used as a club. Who needs an illuminated reticle when you have a clip on UNS? This sysem may have been designed and put together by someone who has shot a gun, but they definatly weren't a sniper. If that is worth showing off then have at it. </div></div>

Have you honestly never fired movers with a variable power SPF scope? I'm not saying it's the best route to go but as far as movers- you set to 7.5 and cut lead by 25%... 5x and cut lead by 50%. It's simple math that any sniper should be capable of.

No zero stops? Are you serious? M3A didn't/doesn't have zero stops- we did just fine with that. Again, I'm not saying it's ideal but you're making all of this sound like you're up a shit creek without a paddle; non-mission capable. Stop crying and count your damn adjustments. If your situation doesn't allow you to count your adjustments, you should likely be dialed to 300 or 500 and using hold-off anyway.

KAC claims their trigger issue has been resolved for two years- so I can't really comment on those issues; either you're relaying old info, or there's some misinformation on one side or the other. (both of our guns are good on triggers)

Our two M110's never had an issue with our suppressors- of course, we fire with them on and with them off- I suppose if you fire only with them on, the amount of abuse you're subjecting them to would be much more than we subject ours to.


Anyway, the army is in bed with leupold- to expect anything different would be naive. Since they JUST came out with a mil/mil FFP w/stops, you need to adjust your expectations, or supply your own scope. I agree, over-all the M2 scope is for crap; I've seen too many of the fail in VERY short time (some fresh out of the box)... but again, it's the Army. You're not getting any better unless your unit is far above and beyond average. Cross your fingers they change out the M2 for a version of the M5 once the new 24's come online... same with the M1's on the 107's. But it is the army, so would I be shocked if we had three systems with three different scopes, two mil/moa and one mil/mil? Nope.

Lastly... 10x. Yes, a bit on the low side for a gun with a MER of 1000m, I prefer 1.5x/100m... but if you can't do it with 10x, you need more range time.

and FYI- my understanding is that KAC wasn't a huge fan of the scope choice but they didn't have any say in it. I believe the 110 has room for improvement, but that one isn't their fault. The mount that requires loctite to not loosen however would be on them.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Those answers for hitting movers work on the range, when you know your target speeds and have time to plan your lead. but cutting your lead by 25% on the fly is pretty tough. Or at least it is for me. and didn't the M3 have turret caps? no way to spin those a quarter revolution climbing a wall or getting in and out of a vehicle. I don't like 300 or 500 combat zeros. Or dialing. I prefer a 100 meter zero and hold over from that. It makes sense in my simple mind, holds go up as the target gets farther. And danger close targets are point and shoot. easy to remember in a stressful situation. In my opinion horus reticles are the way to go. I own several and love them. I'm glad the army bought the 6.5-20 leupold with the H58 for their .300 win mag upgrade. Not a bad choice. It tracks well has a cap for the windage knob and locking elevation turret. The KAC suppressor is poorly made. It is tack welded in the rear and you can see flash escape there when shooting at night. There are many other fine cans out there, and they are detachable with repeatable shifts. as for the 30 or so guns we sent back for triggers, I guess it was about 2 years ago. Time flys. we havn't recieved any new ones to my knowledge. Glad the problem is fixed.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J.J. McQuade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">M110, some combat gun. 10 power scope, no zero stop, 2nd focal plane. Can it get any worse? When you dial to 7 or 8 power for clarity when you put on your pvs 22 or 26 how are you going to use your hold overs? Or shoot movers? Your Mils aren't true mils when you dial down a 2nd focal plane scope. and how are you supposed to dial in the dark when you have no zero stop? Not to mention the faulty triggers. We had to have 50% of ours replaced. And that piece of crap suppressor? It's better used as a club. Who needs an illuminated reticle when you have a clip on UNS? This sysem may have been designed and put together by someone who has shot a gun, but they definatly weren't a sniper. If that is worth showing off then have at it.</div></div>

Ever heard of a backup sight? E.G. one of those Aimpoint Microdots or something similar that can be used close in, mounted to the side on an angle or on top of the scope? Ive used them before and they are quite nice if you use them in that fashion. In fact, I just googled them a bit. Heres an image...
B-CompColl.jpg


Ahhh the advancement of technology... Isn't it a wonderful thing? They may look funny but they work well.
cool.gif
smile.gif
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DocJekyll</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J.J. McQuade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">M110, some combat gun. 10 power scope, no zero stop, 2nd focal plane. Can it get any worse? When you dial to 7 or 8 power for clarity when you put on your pvs 22 or 26 how are you going to use your hold overs? Or shoot movers? Your Mils aren't true mils when you dial down a 2nd focal plane scope. and how are you supposed to dial in the dark when you have no zero stop? Not to mention the faulty triggers. We had to have 50% of ours replaced. And that piece of crap suppressor? It's better used as a club. Who needs an illuminated reticle when you have a clip on UNS? This sysem may have been designed and put together by someone who has shot a gun, but they definatly weren't a sniper. If that is worth showing off then have at it.</div></div>

Ever heard of a backup sight? E.G. one of those Aimpoint Microdots or something similar that can be used close in, mounted to the side on an angle or on top of the scope? Ive used them before and they are quite nice if you use them in that fashion. In fact, I just googled them a bit. Heres an image...
B-CompColl.jpg


Ahhh the advancement of technology... Isn't it a wonderful thing? They may look funny but they work well.
cool.gif
smile.gif
</div></div>

?? I'm confused how that applied to the post you quoted
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I have heard of them. they do work rather well. I prefer my T1 microdot. It has its place. Works well in aeriel gunnery. Not bad for close in tgts when there is little time to aim. or even shooting out of vehicles. But for movers at distance at night......not so much. maintaining a solid cheek to stockweld using one mounted on a scope is almost an exercise in futility. And since most of those sights are only parallax free to around 50 meters, thats about what i'm going to count on them for. That is without a solid cheek to stock weld. It gets a little better with the offset mounts coming off the picatinnay rails. atleast you can keep your cheek on the stock. But canting your rifle, especially a heavy sniper rifle with a fixed stock, in body armor and helmet presents it's own set of problems. That is if you are looking for accuracy.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I like the m14/m1a but only as a range toy. There are far too many weapons out there that outperform it with atleast as good reliability and less weight.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J.J. McQuade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Those answers for hitting movers work on the range, when you know your target speeds and have time to plan your lead. but cutting your lead by 25% on the fly is pretty tough. Or at least it is for me. and didn't the M3 have turret caps? no way to spin those a quarter revolution climbing a wall or getting in and out of a vehicle. I don't like 300 or 500 combat zeros. Or dialing. I prefer a 100 meter zero and hold over from that. It makes sense in my simple mind, holds go up as the target gets farther. And danger close targets are point and shoot. easy to remember in a stressful situation. In my opinion horus reticles are the way to go. I own several and love them. I'm glad the army bought the 6.5-20 leupold with the H58 for their .300 win mag upgrade. Not a bad choice. It tracks well has a cap for the windage knob and locking elevation turret. The KAC suppressor is poorly made. It is tack welded in the rear and you can see flash escape there when shooting at night. There are many other fine cans out there, and they are detachable with repeatable shifts. as for the 30 or so guns we sent back for triggers, I guess it was about 2 years ago. Time flys. we havn't recieved any new ones to my knowledge. Glad the problem is fixed. </div></div>

All really good points! I can swing the lead reductions but does slow the shot a bit. I'm not a fan of leupold as a whole- simply because of their spotty QC lately and the feel of their scopes, I think they could have done better with NF or USO. But like I said, the army is 100% in bed with leupold so I'm not shocked, and they got the right features at least- it's a step in the right direction.

Good point on the spot welds- after you mention it, that was one of those things that briefly passed through my mind as sort of "huh, wonder why they didn't stitch/fully weld it". But I didn't give it any thought beyond that. And given spot welds, I could see that becoming an issue the more rounds you send down the tube (I consider myself a mildly informed, below amateur welder who took a couple classes over a decade ago out of interest).
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J.J. McQuade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have heard of them. they do work rather well. I prefer my T1 microdot. </div></div>

Yep.

EBRstuff004.jpg
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DocJekyll</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Doc Jekyll</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Maybe someone can chime in but how much is a fully loaded 20rd M14 mag? </div></div>

I think a better question would be, what is the weight that they carry? weight of the kit includes all of the "nice to have" stuff that is just that, nice to have but not needed for mission use.

Rifle w/o mag: 16lb
4 20rd mags: 6.5lb
4 5rd mags: 2lb
supressor: 2lb
otis kit: 1lb
PVS-22/UNS: 3.4lb
PEQ15: 0.5lbs

So for the M110 as issued with standard items carried, you're looking at a load out weight of about 31.5 pounds. That is in addition to whatever else your standard load-out will be depending on role and mission, if the M110 is your main weapon or if you are required to carry an M4... variables are difficult to factor
</div></div>

Indeed it is a better question. I was thinking more of the specifics since Ive never carried an M14 combat load. I do see what you did there though... =P </div></div>

HA... well I wasn't intentionally pushing the M14 aside- I don't have numbers on weight of an M14 though. BUT, I think the numbers wouldn't be TOO far off between the two (depending on how issued) </div></div>

For comparison:

IMG_3230.jpg


<span style="font-weight: bold">Weight:</span> 12 lbs. 15.5 oz. with empty mag

Adding the scope, rings and bi pod brings the weight up to 15 lbs. 12.8 oz. ... the suppressor adds 1.14.08 .lb.

The rifle pictured has a medium heavy barrel, SEI scope mount and a PRS2.
TACOM M14 EBR-RI rifles have standard profile barrels, a different butt stock and the SAGE cantilever optic rail.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
?? I'm confused how that applied to the post you quoted</div></div>

I was presenting another option to using the high power optic for close range. So it wasnt as much about my post as it was about Mcquade's. I did it, you know... because I care. o:)
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

This is my first post so I will jump into the deep end.
The problem I had with the M 14 was the open bolt, aside from the other issues mentioned in this thread. When raining the open bolt makes an exelent high speed water launcher directly into your eye. We didn't have kool tactical glasses in 1968.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ElCoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When raining the open bolt makes an exelent high speed water launcher directly into your eye. We didn't have kool tactical glasses in 1968. </div></div>

Welcome ElCoyote!

You should have had a breech cover in 1968... they are still available and they do work.

A.K.A.

M12 blank firing attachment and M3 breech shield.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ElCoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When raining the open bolt makes an exelent high speed water launcher directly into your eye. We didn't have kool tactical glasses in 1968. </div></div>

Welcome ElCoyote!

You should have had a breech cover in 1968... they are still available and they do work.

A.K.A.

M12 blank firing attachment and M3 breech shield. </div></div>


Looking at that device, I'd be very hesitant to install it for combat duty. I think it might be listed with the BFA for a reason. It covers a CONSIDERABLE amount of the bolt/ejection area. If it were my desire to run it, I'd have to do a hell of a lot of range shooting first to make sure it in no way interfere's with ejection
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

FYI M110 SASS is 13.36 lbs with Scope, Bipod, and Irons sights, not sure where the 16lbs is coming from.

20rd mag of M118LR is 1.62lbs
So I guess you could say 15lbs fully loaded.

Can is 1.96lbs

Keep in mind the M110 can was a derivative from our Mk11 Mod0 can.

The Leupold scope in our initial submission was a FFP scope - and it was replaced by Army desire with the 2FP.

Leupold's new scopes are a huge sight futher.

Triggers -- ALL trigger where replaced starting in Oct 08 on our dime with a new design, according to the Army, no failures of the new trigger have been observed.

We at KAC are constantly trying to better the system, however nothing moves quickly when systems are in place.

Look at the M-24 - it was a long action initially -- just now its finally getting its worth out of the long action with the M2010, years after replaced/augmented by the M110, that should have been day 1 action as soon as the M110 was brought on line.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it were my desire to run it, I'd have to do a hell of a lot of range shooting first to make sure it in no way interfere's with ejection </div></div>

I have a lot of range time with it - with & without a suppressor and I've never experienced a single problem.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KevinB-KAC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FYI M110 SASS is 13.36 lbs with Scope, Bipod, and Irons sights, not sure where the 16lbs is coming from.
</div></div>

What about the SR25 carbine version? 12ish?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KevinB-KAC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...not sure where the 16lbs is coming from.



</div></div>

FYI, the information can be found here > http://www.knightarmco.com/m110.html

Where is the rather light sounding 13.36 lbs coming from?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KevinB-KAC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FYI M110 SASS is 13.36 lbs with Scope, Bipod, and Irons sights, not sure where the 16lbs is coming from.

20rd mag of M118LR is 1.62lbs
So I guess you could say 15lbs fully loaded.

Can is 1.96lbs

Keep in mind the M110 can was a derivative from our Mk11 Mod0 can.

The Leupold scope in our initial submission was a FFP scope - and it was replaced by Army desire with the 2FP.

Leupold's new scopes are a huge sight futher.

Triggers -- ALL trigger where replaced starting in Oct 08 on our dime with a new design, according to the Army, no failures of the new trigger have been observed.

We at KAC are constantly trying to better the system, however nothing moves quickly when systems are in place.

Look at the M-24 - it was a long action initially -- just now its finally getting its worth out of the long action with the M2010, years after replaced/augmented by the M110, that should have been day 1 action as soon as the M110 was brought on line.



</div></div>

http://www.knightarmco.com/m110.html
Lacking a TM handy- I had to check your website... don't fault me for quoting KAC's inaccurate info. Sounded a tad high but who am I to argue with the specs as advertised?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Notice anything different about the black one?

MK14EBR_cranelg-1.jpg
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Notice anything different about the black one?

MK14EBR_cranelg-1.jpg
</div></div>

Heavy Barrel, and the safety is off... Shame shame H20... Shame on you.
laugh.gif
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Notice anything different about the black one?

MK14EBR_cranelg-1.jpg
</div></div>


Besides you should have left the iron sights on it..
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Our website was done by a hamster...

16" M110 Carbine is 11.4 with the heavier Leupold 1.1-8X Scope
Bare gun with irons is 9'ish

Let me weight some stuff with pictures tomorrow so no one accuses me of deflating some numbers
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Kevin, enough of this get me that quote on my M110. See you at Shot.

By the way I run the new KAC trigger on several weapons and it is working perfectly
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DocJekyll</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Notice anything different about the black one?

MK14EBR_cranelg-1.jpg
</div></div>

Heavy Barrel, and the safety is off... Shame shame H20... Shame on you.
laugh.gif
</div></div>

It is a glimpse at the much anticipated Heavy Barrel SAGE EBR stock.

The scope mount on the receiver is kind of odd.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Do you ever get bored of being a broken record... ?

Constantly pushing the same old tech as if it wasn't as outdated as it really is, sad really, and sort of trying my patience.

I am thinking you might want to take a little time off and pimp your bs some where else, as it is compelling me to do it for you since you don't seem to take a hint.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you ever get bored of being a broken record... ?

Constantly pushing the same old tech as if it wasn't as outdated as it really is, sad really, and sort of trying my patience.

I am thinking you might want to take a little time off and pimp your bs some where else, as it is compelling me to do it for you since you don't seem to take a hint. </div></div>

Seriously Lowlight? Its an EBR thread... Why all the hostility? You may be a mod but that doesn't mean you should treat guys on the forum badly for posting pictures. I thought we were done with this like 3 pages ago. Maybe a nice day at the range would relax you a little.

Its just a forum, and its just a picture. He was just bringing something to the table that we havnt seen. E.G. the new heavy weight barrel sage stock. For some of us that have the EBR system at home it may be something we would want to know about. If I posted pictures of Magpul stuff I got or was testing out and sharing the information I learned would I get the same treatment as H20MAN? I dont think that is an unfair question to ask you.

Forums are suppose to be places where we can exchange ideas and information, a sort of water cooler we can all hang around. The way your acting it reminds me of Mr. Strickland from Back to the Future...
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

See below...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ReaperDriver</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wild_Bill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Oh is that <span style="color: #FF0000">to </span>hard of a Question but you can <span style="color: #FF0000">setup </span>marketing questions for the company just like a <span style="color: #FF0000">politition </span>and have the pic on <span style="color: #FF0000">standbuy</span>.

</div></div>

Wild_Bill, your flagrant dishonesty and false accusations against me are unbecoming and uncalled for.

</div></div>

I don't know about flagrant dishonesty or false accusations..... but his spelling and grammar is terrible. </div></div>

Reaper:
That "and" makes the subject plural = the verb of existence in that phrase should also be plural. Two require "are", not "is".

Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Grammar Nazi, in the interests of maintaining thread drift.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Reaper:
That "and" makes the subject plural = the verb of existence in that phrase should also be plural. Two require "are", not "is".

Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Grammar Nazi, in the interests of maintaining thread drift.</div></div>

Run for the hills!!!! Its a Utahan Grammar Nazi!!!!!!
laugh.gif


I really dont want this thread to continue if its just going to keep going off track. I really just wanted to get some information from it and this has honestly turned into the biggest drama orgy I've ever seen on a forum.

...I need a Jack and Coke before I take aim at the rabbit outside my window with my rifle.... Duck season, wabbit season FIRE!
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DocJekyll</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you ever get bored of being a broken record... ?

Constantly pushing the same old tech as if it wasn't as outdated as it really is, sad really, and sort of trying my patience.

I am thinking you might want to take a little time off and pimp your bs some where else, as it is compelling me to do it for you since you don't seem to take a hint. </div></div>

Seriously Lowlight? Its an EBR thread... Why all the hostility? You may be a mod but that doesn't mean you should treat guys on the forum badly for posting pictures. I thought we were done with this like 3 pages ago. Maybe a nice day at the range would relax you a little.

Its just a forum, and its just a picture. He was just bringing something to the table that we havnt seen. E.G. the new heavy weight barrel sage stock. For some of us that have the EBR system at home it may be something we would want to know about. If I posted pictures of Magpul stuff I got or was testing out and sharing the information I learned would I get the same treatment as H20MAN? I dont think that is an unfair question to ask you.

Forums are suppose to be places where we can exchange ideas and information, a sort of water cooler we can all hang around. The way your acting it reminds me of Mr. Strickland from Back to the Future... </div></div>

He's not a Mod- he's the site owner.

And almost every post H20MAN has is somehow related to the M14 and in the direction of the EBR- not just in this thread.

That said, I think if lowlight wants him to decrease the percentage of his posts aimed at the EBR... and this is a privately owned forum (again, by lowlight- aka Frank G.)... he has every right.


Oh- and if 90% of your posts were on Magpul and you took every single chance possible to promote magpul... I think yes, there is a good chances you'd get a similar message. I think Frank's intent here is that a member needs to bring more to the table than constantly talking up a specific product and that's it.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think Frank's intent here is that a member needs to bring more to the table than constantly talking up a specific product and that's it. </div></div>

Yeah, quite honestly I thought H2O man was a sage stock salesman or something.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Oh- and if 90% of your posts were on Magpul and you took every single chance possible to promote magpul... I think yes, there is a good chances you'd get a similar message. I think Frank's intent here is that a member needs to bring more to the table than constantly talking up a specific product and that's it. </div></div>

Oh c'mon. There are some vendors on here who's posts are 100% pushing or talking up their product. I think of it like I do a TV.... don't like the show? Then change the channel. No one's making you read anything about an EBR. Frankly, the "new" M-14 variants don't interest me at all. Obviously there are some members who ARE interested. So someone is going to get banned because they only or mostly talk about a specific subject????? YGBSM?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DocJekyll</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you ever get bored of being a broken record... ?

Constantly pushing the same old tech as if it wasn't as outdated as it really is, sad really, and sort of trying my patience.

I am thinking you might want to take a little time off and pimp your bs some where else, as it is compelling me to do it for you since you don't seem to take a hint. </div></div>

Seriously Lowlight? Its an EBR thread... Why all the hostility? You may be a mod but that doesn't mean you should treat guys on the forum badly for posting pictures. I thought we were done with this like 3 pages ago. Maybe a nice day at the range would relax you a little.

Its just a forum, and its just a picture. He was just bringing something to the table that we havnt seen. E.G. the new heavy weight barrel sage stock. For some of us that have the EBR system at home it may be something we would want to know about. If I posted pictures of Magpul stuff I got or was testing out and sharing the information I learned would I get the same treatment as H20MAN? I dont think that is an unfair question to ask you.

Forums are suppose to be places where we can exchange ideas and information, a sort of water cooler we can all hang around. The way your acting it reminds me of Mr. Strickland from Back to the Future... </div></div>

He's not a Mod- he's the site owner.
</div></div>
Ok, then. Site owner. He could do a better job at not saying anything about a US soldier in the field with a M21/14 than calling him out as a fake. Page 11. He needs to better understand just how the Army works before he opens his mouth. Just because he owns this place doesn't mean that he can't learn a thing or two. There, I've said it.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I agree that LL seems harsh with H2O. It is clear that LL doesnt care for the M14. This is his site and all, but to disallow discussion that you dont care for isnt mature.


But


If he thinks that H2O is actually pushing/selling a product (indirectly) the he is right in thinking that H2O owes him some money. I think that people who sell wares here, pay for the priviledge. H2O's posts do seem like sales pitches, and if they are, are a dishonorable abuse of the system. If he thinks that H2O is effectively stealing from him, but cant prove it, then I understand the hostility.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ElCoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When raining the open bolt makes an exelent high speed water launcher directly into your eye. We didn't have kool tactical glasses in 1968. </div></div>

You should have had a breech cover in 1968... they are still available and they do work.</div></div>
H20,
That right there, tells me all I need to know about your field exper. with a M14 from that time period. I don't know alot about a M14 but went many places from 1965 to the 90's where 14's were issued. No one I know ever used a breach shield, with live ammo.

As far as water blow back the "ONLY" time that was an eye issue was when you had to swim in, even then there was a trick you used as the weapon came above the water line.

Now for your past statements as to blow back with a Can, I've never seen/known Uncle to issue, or anyone worth their salt to want, a unglassed M14 with a can. If you were ever issued a glassed & canned XM or later "YOU" might even get a chuckle from all that's been said as well.


The nice thing about fishing,... if you troll long enough, you can tell the difference between the 4 types of fish that bite, sport, bottom, and sharks. The sport an bottom are easy to flush out, the two types of sharks are different breeds. Those I well let you Decipher for yourself.

Truth and money are like oil an water, take that for what you paid for it.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think Frank's intent here is that a member needs to bring more to the table than constantly talking up a specific product and that's it. </div></div>

Yeah, quite honestly I thought H2O man was a sage stock salesman or something. </div></div>

I looked into becoming a distributor for SAGE a few years ago, but there is so little mark-up and so little profit to be made I quickly changed my mind.

Other than the time, money and research I have invested in my personal weapons collection... I have no financial interest in any firearm or firearm related company - I work for myself selling, installing and servicing water treatment and filtration systems, hence the name 'H2O MAN'.

It's just that simple.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ElCoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When raining the open bolt makes an exelent high speed water launcher directly into your eye. We didn't have kool tactical glasses in 1968. </div></div>

You should have had a breech cover in 1968... they are still available and they do work.</div></div>
H20,
That right there, tells me all I need to know about your field exper. with a M14 from that time period. I don't know alot about a M14 but went many places from 1965 to the 90's where 14's were issued. No one I know ever used a breach shield, with live ammo. </div></div>

I started using one right after I got my SEI/Fisher sound suppressor... It does and excellent job of deflecting blow back away from the shooters face. It works on my M14s set up for just irons sight (no optic over the bolt) as well as those with the LaRue LT608 optic rail.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pok</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree that LL seems harsh with H2O. It is clear that LL doesnt care for the M14. This is his site and all, but to disallow discussion that you dont care for isnt mature.


But


If he thinks that H2O is actually pushing/selling a product (indirectly) the he is right in thinking that H2O owes him some money. I think that people who sell wares here, pay for the priviledge. H2O's posts do seem like sales pitches, and if they are, are a dishonorable abuse of the system. If he thinks that H2O is effectively stealing from him, but cant prove it, then I understand the hostility. </div></div>

I am not pushing/selling a product (directly or indirectly) nor am I stealing anything.

I have no agenda.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

And almost every post H20MAN has is somehow related to the M14 and in the direction of the EBR- not just in this thread.</div></div>

That just happens to be were my attention is focused - M14 EBRs and Glock pistols with a little AKM for thrown in for fun.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Constantly having production images from inside the factory is a clue. You don't have to be a paid salesman to "sell & promote" a product, especially in the internet age. For all we know he gets 50% everything he buys because he promotes this system, on the internet. It's how things go viral... its why companies have Facebook pages, and Twitter pages... because it promotes the product.

If you don't like they way I run this place I invite you to log out, but look at the number of posts H2O has in just this thread and no where else, he contributes nothing else, but daily updates to this thread, I take issue with that.

"betterdorf", I never called the soldier fake, I called the image faked... Rangers don't were patches, I work with all 3 BNs specifically the sniper cells, I have also attended NTC was an instructor with them. Guess what no M14s.

"DocJekyll", I own the place as been pointed out... I am not simply a moderator... so before you post an alert about me, you should do your homework, because you're right I will ban you, and others.

This guy has been warned and warned and continues to answer himself, post after it has died off, etc... when you see several posts in a row to yourself, you have an agenda.

This has nothing to do with my opinion of the M14, but about someone shoving an agenda down the site's throat.

I suppose I can simple lock it and not warn or explain anything to anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
Industry News and Updates
Replies
0
Views
308
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
SHOT Show Day 3
Replies
1
Views
448
Sblzrd65
S
R
NIOA Acquires Barrett Firearms Announcement
Replies
77
Views
4K
Mj30wilson900
Mj30wilson900
Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 Review and comparison with NF ATACR 4-16x42, S&B US 3-20x50 and March 4.5-28x52
Replies
115
Views
6K
TheBigCountry
TheBigCountry
R
U.S. Army/Navy/USMC M14-based sniper and DMR/SDM rifles circa late-1960s to late 201Xs
Replies
287
Views
36K
ODCMP
O
Top Bottom
Back