Rifles > Semi-Auto

The M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle

The changing nature of the war in Afghanistan led to the re-issue of the 7.62x51 mm NATO M14 rifle.


Not long after U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan, al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies came to realize that America’s 5.56x45 mm NATO infantry rifles lost most of their lethality beyond 500 meters. Demonstrating their adaptability, the insurgents exploited Afghanistan’s sprawling valleys and distant mountainsides to seek engagements beyond the M16’s and M4’s effective ranges.

This is borne out by U.S. Army data, which reveals that more than half of the war’s small arms engagements are now beyond 500 meters, with the enemy employing heavier weapons and then withdrawing before air support or artillery fire can arrive.

One solution, military planners could see, was employing a more capable cartridge already in the system: the 7.62x51 mm NATO. Today’s standard U.S. sniper cartridge, the 175-grain, M118 Long Range load, delivers four times the foot-pounds of energy as the standard 62-grain, 5.56 mm round at extended ranges. In other words, at 600 meters the 7.62 mm round packs about as much energy—1,000 ft.-lbs.—as the 5.56 mm round at 100 meters.

Although M14 rifles were pulled from depot storage, fitted with scopes, shipped to Afghanistan and issued to Army and Marine designated riflemen, the guns proved less than ideal for today’s warfare. First, their fixed stocks could not be adjusted to fit the length-of-pull needed for today’s body armor. And second, the 40-year-old rifles could not accommodate modern accessories such as lasers, night vision scopes and lights, which require MIL STD 1913 Picatinny rails. Fortunately, a solution had already been developed by the U.S. Navy’s Surface Warfare Center at Crane, Ind.

The SEAL CQB Rifle
One year before the 2001 terrorist attacks, U.S. Navy SEALs had gone to Crane to request an updated version of the 42-year-old M14. Great believers in the M14’s reliability and the 7.62x51 mm NATO cartridge’s lethality, they wanted a shortened version with a pistol grip and adjustable-length buttstock for close-quarters use.

The design task fell to David Armstrong, an accomplished small arms engineer who previously had developed the well-received SOPMOD (Special Operations Peculiar Modification System) for the M4 carbine. A mechanical engineer, machinist and recreational shooter, Armstrong began by searching for an off-the-shelf collapsible buttstock.

After trying several, he chose a Sage Int’l collapsible, pistol-grip stock made for the Remington Model 870 shotgun. The telescoping design offered five lengths of pull, in 1-inch increments, that worked well with body armor. Armstrong connected the Sage buttstock to the forward section of a modified M14 fiberglass stock. He also replaced the rifle’s standard 22-inch barrel with an 18-inch unit, reducing its overall length by nearly 10 inches, to 35 inches.

The fiberglass stock, however, did not satisfy him. “The [M14] design has always been tough to beat for reliability, but required laborsome bedding and tuning for best accuracy,” he explained. Earlier sniper versions of the M14, especially the M21 Sniper System, which used a resin-impregnated stock with epoxy bedding, proved so temperamental that snipers were instructed not to remove the action from the stock while cleaning it.

Armstrong took the bold step of designing his own chassis stock, machined from aircraft-grade aluminum. Not only would this be more rigid than fiberglass, but it would include an aluminum bedding block and an assortment of Picatinny rails for optical and illumination accessories. The result was a true “drop-in” stock, requiring no bedding or special fitting. “This stock floats the gas system through a replacement operating rod guide screwed to the rigid stock fore-end and a simple spacer replacing the front band,” he said. He also modified the Sage buttstock’s cheek rest to give it 2 inches of vertical adjustment in 1/4-inch increments.

In addition to installing quad Picatinny rails around the fore-end, he attached a short-rail scope mount that replaced the M14’s stripper clip guide. The final additions were a more effective flash suppressor, three ambidextrous 1 1/4-inch sling slot locations, and a Harris Engineering S-LM Series S bipod. Patented to the U.S. Navy with Armstrong as its inventor, the chassis stock is now produced under license by Sage Int’l in Oscoda, Mich.

“Simply adding the chassis stock system cut the group size of a basic M14 in half without the need for glass-bedding,” he reports. Firing five-shot groups with M118 ammunition at 600 yards, Naval technicians at Crane recorded 2 to 2.5 minute-of-angle (m.o.a.) extreme spreads—meaning 12 to 18-inch groups. Standard M80 ball ammunition shot nearly as well.

When the U.S. Army and Marine Corps later sought modernized M14s, Armstrong merely switched the Navy’s Mk. 14 Mod 0 rifle’s short barrel for a full-length 22-inch version to create the Army’s Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR) and the Marine’s M39 Enhanced Marksman’s Rifle (EMR). These versions measure 38.5 inches overall, with the stocks collapsed, and 45 inches when fully extended.

Although 3 pounds heavier than the standard M14, the EBR and EMR compare favorably to America’s current 7.62 mm sniping platforms, such as the Army’s M24 and M110, and the Marine Corps’ M40A3. The Army is issuing two EBRs per infantry squad, while the Marines have placed the EMR at platoon-level.

The Army EBR is fitted with a Leupold 3.5–10X scope, and the USMC’s EMR optic is the Schmidt & Bender M8541 Scout Sniper Day Scope, the same scope used by Marine snipers. Thus equipped, these designated riflemen have the ability to engage enemy personnel to 800 meters.

Each service is now building its own rifles, with Navy Mk. 14 Model 0’s being produced at the Crane facility, while Army rifles are assembled at Rock Island Arsenal, Ill., and the USMC version at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va.

Some 5,000 EBRs have been produced at Rock Island Arsenal, with funding for another 1,200. A further 2,000 Sage stocks have reportedly been sold directly to military units and individuals for conversion of M14s. Still more rifles issued to Marines and SEALs suggest that perhaps 10,000 of these modernized M14s are now in service.

Firing The EBR
Thanks to Fulton Armory of Savage, Md., I was able to test fire a platform nearly identical to the EBR. Available to civilian shooters, this semi-automatic-only rifle incorporates Fulton’s own M14 Receiver, installed on the same Sage Int’l chassis stock that David Armstrong designed.

Examining the rifle in my shop, I found that its military two-stage trigger broke cleanly at 3 pounds, 7.5 ounces—about perfect for me. For test-firing, I mounted a Bushnell Elite 6500 4.5–30X Tactical Scope, which was a simple task with the rifle’s Picatinny rails.

Ergonomics had concerned me because of the stock’s square edges. Nonetheless, I found its balance and heft surprisingly good with the center-of-balance at the magazine well. Having trained on the M14 in the 1960s, I already appreciated the reliability of its gas piston and operating rod system, and the action’s resistance to sand and carbon buildup. Of course, I experienced no stoppages or malfunctions of any kind.

Weighing 14 pounds with a scope, a bipod and a loaded 20-round magazine, this weight plus the straight-line stock resulted in a mild recoil “push,” making it very comfortable to fire. This also assisted target reacquisition for follow-up shots.

1   2    NEXT >>

Share |



Enter your comments below, they will appear within 24 hours

Your Name

Your Email

Your Comment

95 Responses to The M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle

H2O MAN wrote:
July 30, 2014

With the lone exception of the Springfield M1903 rifle, the M14 rifle remains the longest serving rifle used by units of the U.S. Armed forces.

BMF wrote:
January 01, 2014

I'm not a gun expert and never claimed to be. However, I know some people that are. My neighbors brother is attached to a SEAL team whose job is to maintain their weapons. My cousin is retired drill sergeant 20 years in the Army. I also work with a retired 20 year sniper with the Green Berets. I will never forget the looks on their faces when I showed them my National Match M1A. All 3 said that the M14 by far is one of the greatest, most reliable and deadly accurate weapons ever made. My neighbors brother said he is constantly maintaining M14s today. What else is there to say...

Matt wrote:
September 12, 2013

82nd wrote: September 23, 2011 'Allot of second-guessing by the arm-chair commandos. However, the SEALs can, and do, get whatever equipment they want, including super secret and expensive stealth helicopters. So, their decision to modify and use the M-14, rather than something new or different, speaks volumes.' The SEALs do not get any helicopters much less 'secret stealth helicopters'; SEALs ride in the Navy's helicopters piloted by Navy pilots. Each SEAL team has a variety of weapons in it's armory, including the M4, AK47, SR-25 and M14 rifles. SEALs do not 'get whatever equipment they want' when it comes to firearms, with DEV Group possibly being an exception. However, modifications to weapons already in the armory seem to be fairly easy to get approved. I witnessed the acquisition of 10' barreled receivers for use with the existing M4's to faze out the use of MP5's; this probably did not require much hassle. Replacing the M4's and M14's and the spare parts department with SCAR's and SCAR parts and training the guys to use them and the armorer's to work on them (who had until that point trained and worked almost exclusively on the M4 platform) would be a monumentally expensive and time-consuming task full of red tape to cut through, especially with most of the rest of the military keeping their M4's. That being said, adding modern stocks to the M14's isn't a major issue, and although the M14 may not be the absolute best .308 platform anymore, it does work well and most of the guys are fond of it's looks, reliability and battery of arms.

H2O MAN wrote:
August 24, 2013

It looks like the M14 EBR will soldier on for many more years ...

Brian wrote:
June 25, 2013

I love the M14, it is the best rifle ever made. I enjoyed reading this article about as much as i enjoy the m14forum.com

John wrote:
June 14, 2013

I I've been in the Army since 1991. I have been back and forth from Iraq to Afghanistan since 2002. Soldiers and Marines have killed a lot of people with our M4's and M16's. Not sure where all this false 'information' about the 5.56 is coming from. It's obviously not based on fact as it applies today.

John wrote:
May 19, 2013

I was trained on the M-14 & M-16 , and others - in late 1969 I served with NATO and we were issued a small carbine - had a 30 round banana clip - do you know this weapon and specifics ? thanks

Joe Bob wrote:
March 27, 2013

I got excited about getting oneof these till I che ked the price and accuracy gurantee. My Remy R25 will shoot sub moa with match ammo for 1/3 the price.

Nelson Guajardo Sonora tx. wrote:
March 15, 2013

I carried an M-14 in Vietnam in 68-69 never did jam on me I loved it.It went thru sand ,mud and I knew that I had the power if I needed it.Its a beautiful thing.

Jim wrote:
March 06, 2013

What a perfect end to the story of the M-14 - its a great rifle with a tough start and a very commendable final ending.

webe59 wrote:
January 18, 2013

The best i have ever had. I am it shoots out of the box great.

Chuckster wrote:
January 10, 2013

One of my shooting buddies passed into the great beyond where there are no liberals. I purchased his Match M1A1 from is widow. Two thousand rounds through it and it still does more than I can hold at 74 Years of age. Molon Labe!!!

VibeGuy wrote:
January 01, 2013

Just purchased an all new SuperMatch M1A, Leupold Mark 4 4.5 a4x50 mm Scope and OTAL-A Offset Tactical Aiming Laser. Chose this rifle and options over the other rifles because of M1A's reputation the others look/feel like they'd break if I picked them up.

Pete wrote:
December 31, 2012

@Kevin, here is the link: http://www.fulton-armory.com/fultonarmoryusriflecal762mmm14-1-1-1-1-1-2.aspx

H wrote:
December 21, 2012

My favorite weapon to carry in Afghanistan. A pain in the butt to clean in dusty environments but very reliable even when it was dirty.

Kevin wrote:
December 02, 2012

Can anyone link me to where i can purchase this weapon?

Jerome Kelly wrote:
September 26, 2012

I trained with a great confidence rifle, the M-14. At Ft.Dix my rifle company set the timber on fire. When they took my good friend and gave me a piece of plastic my confidence fell to about half. It is a man's rifle and with the added weight I would take it over any small caliber. It is a no brainer. Pit it against a rifle company of M16 equipped soldiers and we all know who will walk away the victor. I can take an M14 and bust that little piece of plastic out of your arms as I would have accurate rage advantage even open sighted. For those who whine about weight it can be modified with a modern stock. It will put the enemy on the run.

CavScout62 wrote:
August 03, 2012

I own an M1A and it's a great rifle. I also own an Armalite AR-10 SPR. They both shoot the same round, the differance being that the AR-10 shoots SUB MOA groups right out of the box and is just as reliable as my M1A. When my Brother will be carrying the M1A and I the AR-10. As for the "PoodleShooter"M-16/M4, great little rifle for varmint shooting.

TET wrote:
July 17, 2012

I hit Nam with a M14 an little fear. It never let me down and I was a very good shot. With a country boy training at home I could gust about hit anything I shot at. I was lease than happy about the M16 they gave me. Thats just the country boy that wants a real gun.

Kevin wrote:
May 23, 2012

I've been shooting the M14 EBR since late 2004 and currently own a few of them. The EBR chassis is a big improvement over bedded wood & synthetic M14 stocks. If the weight concerns you and you want something similar only lighter you should check out the new Blackfeather RS from M14.ca

cole wrote:
May 19, 2012

as a old marine who started with the 14 , a bond was formed it became part of you. ill never forget being handed my first m 16 what a let down. watching them being returned with barrels mushroomed from getting a little dirt inside. no rifle is good if you can not rely on it to fire when needed.

Kevin wrote:
March 31, 2012

The M14 EBR is made even better by adding the V2 EBR trigger shoe. The all steel V2 EBR trigger shoe is made with the correct angle required to direct the trigger pull more to the back than up. Why? Because the M14 trigger is designed to be pulled in more of an upward direction. The original trigger is not designed to work well with the angle of a pistol grip. The V2 EBR trigger shoe is wider and longer than a stock M-14 trigger. It is very comfortable and the tip of the trigger can no longer stab your finger tip.

Eli wrote:
March 23, 2012

Trained with an M-14 in '67 at Ft Dix, NJ. Like the M1's they are also beautiful to look at. Works of art as well as being deadly and accurate. My unit was sent into the mountains of Africa (east coast) but they only allowed us to have the M-1 carbine. Being in the MP's we also carried the M1911 pistol. But the discussion here is about the M-1a. They say the better built ones are made by LRB of Floral Park NY. Its a few bucks more than FA and SA but a better quality to near built military specs

Ken wrote:
March 17, 2012

Steve, Both Norinco and Polytech (both Chinese companies) offered Chinese built M14s in the past. Quality varied between individual rifles but the general consensus is they are decent, but not good, with the Polytechs generally being better than the Norincos.

Steve wrote:
March 03, 2012

My sons father inlaw has a M-14 and on the receiver it say's China. Did they ever make the M-14 with parts from China

Hotwheels wrote:
January 27, 2012

I have shot a lot of guns when I was growing up and got in to other hobbies. But Recently I got the gun bug again and the first gun I ordered was an m1 a. I don't care how old it is you can't beat perfection. That is just my opinion.

Jared wrote:
January 21, 2012

Isn't the carbine a .308 x 37? Thats why we need the M14 frame .308 x 51. More pop!!

The Owl wrote:
January 09, 2012

Too many of these comments equate to something like; A 1/2 in wrench is the best wrench there is, No, your a moron, 3/4" wrench has more power for bigger bolts. Truth is It depends on your application. It's tough to drag a howitzer through a building clearing rooms and it's stupid to use a pea shooter to knock down your enemy that's a 1000 meters away. Same as with other systems, use the right tool for the job at hand.

papadee wrote:
October 24, 2011

I'm a disabled Marine who would love to find one, a m14 that is. I've loved that rifle since I first handled one in boot camp in 66.

Jamezb wrote:
October 09, 2011

Remember the Newer..Superior...AR10, is only a tiny bit younger than the "old, outdated M14. Both rifles are around 50 years old. Just because a design is old, doesn't mean it's service life is over. Witness the continued success of the Ma Deuce and the B52! How old is the USMC combat knife? 70? When you reach the top, there is no point in attempting to climb higher.

82nd wrote:
September 23, 2011

Allot of second-guessing by the arm-chair commandos. However, the SEALs can, and do, get whatever equipment they want, including super secret and expensive stealth helicopters. So, their decision to modify and use the M-14, rather than something new or different, speaks volumes.

angryman wrote:
September 14, 2011

@tacticoolninja Get out of the armchair and away from the mall moron, you know nothing

tacticoolninja wrote:
August 24, 2011

@pilotc7a It's hilarious listening to some dirtbag POG pilot trash the M16 and praise the AK. An AK in the hands of an enemy shooter is an assuring thing because if he knows how to aim and shoot at you, you know for sure he's going to miss you.

pilotc7a wrote:
June 11, 2011


Robert Taylor wrote:
May 04, 2011

I have a M-14 just like I had in the Army in 63-66. Where can I buy a stock like; EBR EmRin you article?

milkman wrote:
May 02, 2011

I tell you what. I would put my M1 Garand and M1A1/M14 against the m4 any day.These rifle were built to last and be effective.It does cost to up grade the stock of the M1A1/M14 but well worth. it.The M4 is great for close combat but still take long range over short short.Remember everyone should be a rifleman first and then fill all other spots.

SFC Paulie wrote:
April 28, 2011

As on in a unit that's name ends in Group,the M-14 EBR kicks butt. I've trusted my likfe numerous times to my old "Thunder Lizard". Never misfired or failed to go bang. The M-14 is THE battle rifle not that worthless M-4!

Gordon Smith wrote:
April 22, 2011

I was issued an serviceable M14 many years ago and later turned it in for Matty Mattel's black rifle that could not fire 20 rnds in rock'n roll mode. Junk! 40 years later the M-16 HBAR is a good competitive weapon, and about the longest service US Primary Battle Rifle. But the current combat role is better suited for the M-4. Times do change the Weapon and Marksmanship is still a priority.

Coalburner wrote:
April 10, 2011

To 0341 FDC as noted in the article the Navy SEALS are believers in the M14. I don't think we need to take the argument any further than that.

grendel361 wrote:
March 18, 2011

I believe the arguement is moot with the fielding of the FN SCAR. Lighter, smoother, more accurate that ANY m-14 variant could ever hope to be. Only time and body count will tell

Taylorcraftbc65 wrote:
March 09, 2011

I carried the M-14 when I was in the Army, and was there when they took them from us, and gave us the jamming, plastic piece of JUNK from MATTEL. I was a member of the I Corps Group National Match Rifle Team, where we used M-21's minus the optics. You could not GIVEme that worthless, plastic stocked piece of Mattel trash that shot itty bitty bullets, that if you horizontal butt stroked someone, you would clean off the recoil buffer. I say give ALL our troops a REAL battle rifle, the M-14 or M-21

Patrick wrote:
March 09, 2011

While a vast improvement, the Sage EBR chassis has been eclipsed (for my daily carry) by the bullpup from "Shortrifles" (Shortrifles.com) It's still a heavy beast, but it's what I trust my life with, and other than the cost of ammo, I regret nothing.

Just Call Me Joe wrote:
March 08, 2011

These are just fabulous battle rifles - the BAR and Garand combined. If I had the choice of this and an M-16, when the chips were down, I know which one I'd want.

gray fox 114 wrote:
March 08, 2011

Hey 0341FDC: Exactly what is out there that is so much better? The 308/30-06 and the guns/actions that handle them were battle born and bred. Yeah they're old, but it seems like every time we go somewhere new we have to go back in time for a solution. I'm just curious as to what someone of your expertise and knowledge would use or have used??? Were u in the military and the sand box?

Pete wrote:
March 08, 2011

Would rather see an increased quantity of hi altitude bombs on those Afghan mountains. why let our guys go hunting at this point? However, was springfield's socom not even in the mix? Maybe it was a case of use up the m14's bc we have them already... @800 yards & expecting hits on bad guys, u better be squared away w/ the 308. Plus, how long do you expect those barrels to retain their Nat'l Match quality?? better yet to just go bigger as long as u are carrying a really heavy gun, add more m2's and 300 win mag's.

0341 FDC wrote:
March 07, 2011

Everytime I turn around, someone is digging up that old warhorse. The M14 was from the 50's, and the design dates back to the M1, which had its origins in the 1920's. There are more modern, reliable designs out there. Instead of trying to save a buck and give our guys the best, we dig up these hacked on, rebuilt, reworked, relics.

WoosleyDR wrote:
March 05, 2011

Sweet shooting gun!

Ohio Shootist wrote:
March 01, 2011

It is refreshing to see the military comming to the realization that both heavy and light rifles are necessary on to-days battlefields. The US is one of the few countries that can provide this type of flexibility to it's soldiers. Todays American soldiers appreciate the long range capability of the M-14 rifle, still useful despite the fact I carried one from 1965 thru 1969. Idiots in the government were destroying these rifles untill the NRA helped put an end to the distruction. This is saving American lives on the battlefields of the present conflicts.

MarineSRT wrote:
March 01, 2011

@Wiggy, Obama may try and change things, but actual combat situations will always override politicians wants and or logic. Combat is a man's arena. Only because of technology do we see females do things they can't do naturally without technology. And yes that was discriminatory and was meant to be so. Not all discrimination is bad, we all do it every day on some level with something.

MarineSRT wrote:
March 01, 2011

I see the questions of why go with an older design. But the error is assuming that because something is older means it is outdated. Yes the AR-10 could be a viable option in gas-piston. But in reality the M1A has already proven itself in more theaters than than the AR platform has been around. Does that mean we don't use the AR? Of course not, but the M1A works like a horse and does not foul or break down, much like an AK-47. The EBR is not just a restocked M1A, it is an evolution of a great design made even better. Since AR-10's are not in service they would need years of testing and submissions from contractors for evaluation. The SEALS who requested the EBR new this and the expedient option was to upgrade the M1A to their needs. The guns WORK! They work so well that the Marines, Army and Coast Guard also use the format. It's cost effective and as I said expedient.

HwyPilot wrote:
March 01, 2011

It's typical that US armed forces would shell out piles of cash to resurrect an old weapon (just try to find parts for it in the field). I'll be that aluminum stock feels outstanding on your cheek during a cold desert morning! If my armorer ever tried to hand me a piece of junk like this I'd do what I did back in the mid-90's, sign out an M60 and a starlight scope and head to the zeroing range. Our troops deserve better equipment than the M16/M4, and we've known that since they went into service in the Vietnam "conflict" - "police action" or whatever they're calling it these days.

Rick Matlock wrote:
March 01, 2011

I grew up with the M16/AR15 including basic training but recently sold my AR15. I had already traded to a DPMS LR308. I like the general AR design so I have the best of both worlds. I traded an M1A to get my DPMS.

Mr. Stop'emCold wrote:
March 01, 2011

I'm glad they (finally) brought this weapon back into service. Only thing is, instead of sending a bunch of rounds downrange, they'll need to learn accuracy and effective ranging. I don't think it will be a problem in the long haul, but it's an issue that will need addressed for sure.

Steadyeddy wrote:
February 28, 2011

I don't understand what is wrong with not using a DPMS LAR-308, AR-10, both based on the proven design, comes in at 8.1 lbs. and a simple job to convert to burst or auto, why try to design a whole new rifle?

B Curtiss wrote:
February 28, 2011

Ok it's a given...our fighters need something more than a .22...but consider the smoothness and modern features of an AR10 .308, or other gas operated auto like an FNAR. I had a .308 M14 for a while and it felt and ran like a 1950's hay baler. We need a 308, but a modern one, not a 50 year old one with a fancy stock. thanks for listening. bdc

trapshooter wrote:
February 28, 2011

I got my first m14 when I was 12yrs old. I have just updated mine to ebr configuration and I love it even more. It took me awhile to do it because I didnt want to get away from the classic look.Wow what a difference. It is not cheap to do but well worth it.

John Harvey wrote:
February 28, 2011

In my humble opinion, the M14 was one of the best rifles ever issued for military service. The EBR takes it to the next level.

Cooleemee Edd wrote:
February 28, 2011

I had an M14 in Vietnam and swore by it. I have an M1A now and don't swear anymore, but it is still a fine weapon. Good Going, Army! You've made a good choice and I'm still in good company!!

j wads wrote:
February 28, 2011

to RR wake up & smell the coffer, try m1a not m1

lst Sgt Mike wrote:
February 28, 2011

Hey, RR, would love to be humpinthe boonies with you, but at 68 they won't let me do it any more.

MightyFoFaad wrote:
February 28, 2011

Gee ... someone finally realized that shooting at men over 10 yards away with a .22 cal gun ... isn't very effective. Imagine that!

Scotty wrote:
February 28, 2011

The M-14 is the pratical choice for a longer range combat rifle, while the M-16(M-4)is the practical choice for urban CQB. The M-4 is still an fine support rifle in a long range firefight with the M203 grenade launcher a big plus.

Louie-Louie wrote:
February 28, 2011

We had both in the Corps.The M14 was a real feel rifle and the M16 we called it the Matell Mickey Mouse Model...

RR wrote:
February 28, 2011

Please - will you people stop with the "M1" worshiping? With an 8 round capacity and its weight without scope, aiming lights, etc. only a fool would consider issuing it out to our forces. Feel free to come down and trade places - I'll be glad to give you 35 lbs of IOTV, ACH, 280 rds., M9 and ammo, med kit, water, assault pack, etc. and then expect you to hump radio batteries, three days of food, a box of SAW ammo, etc. at 10,000 FT altitude - by all means, let me double the weight of your weapon as well.

February 28, 2011


Garry Owen wrote:
February 28, 2011

Long range battles were once thought to be a thing of the past. Thank goodness the M-14 was kept in inventory.

Vinny L wrote:
February 28, 2011

Well, It's about time. I still would like to buy one of those old service rifles. I trained in boot camp with it (1972) and never seen it again. We slept with it, drilled with it, marched, snapin time and qualified. Then they handed me this plastic thing and said go shoot. Huh?

bravo6 wrote:
February 28, 2011

Hated the weight, loved the impact (effect)......

Thamuz wrote:
February 28, 2011

The M14 was re-issued to fill a void the FN SCAR 17 / Mk17 will now fill.

ANDY wrote:
February 28, 2011


Wiggy wrote:
February 28, 2011

Larry - Unfortunately, a great number of our troops are women and I know very few females that can carry a 14 pound battle rifle, let alone the dozens of extra pounds of ammo, etc. that the M-14 requires. Like it or not, women are becoming a larger component of our non-combat forces and will soon (thanks to President O.)be serving as combat troops as well. I love the M14/M1-A, but it is not realistic to think our current and future average soldier can handle a large battle rifle. The M14 will live on, but it will be in the hands of designated marksman and snipers, who are and will remain to be (for a long time anyway) men.

John Czerniak wrote:
February 28, 2011

how much different is the enhanced battle rifle m-14 from the socom m-14?

Chuck L wrote:
February 28, 2011

If you really want to reach out and touch someone, an M1 Garand works pretty good. We still have a few of those left too.

Fred wrote:
February 28, 2011

As usual, it has taken the establishment way too long to realize that the M-14 is very practical for the area of operation.

Larry Johnson wrote:
February 28, 2011

Only a fool would voluntarily go into combat with a .22 rifle. Now get rid of them and equip our forces with competent firearms, including a .45 1911.

Mark wrote:
February 28, 2011

I was waiting for this realization. I am surprised it took so long. So many people jumped on the 5.56 bandwagon. Some of us were unimpressed from the beginning. As a light rifle in a collection -- fine; but as a go to gun, no way.

pki1955 wrote:
February 28, 2011

Why is the M14 being utilized when there a plenty of AR .308 Cal. available? Why is not the Army, Marine exploring the 6.8 SPC round in the AR platform?

Jeff wrote:
February 28, 2011

They used the M14 and had the Sage stock made for it because the US already had many M14s already in the inventory. It would have been a huge cost and adaptation period to have a new weapon accepted.

fred norrick wrote:
February 28, 2011

FNH SCAR HEAVY .308 This is the ticket, why waste the R&D?

Jim wrote:
February 28, 2011

Using this calber makes a lot more sense then "inventing" another one that is rumored to be halfway between the .223 and the .308.. After all - how many millions of .308 caliber rounds are there in existance, and there is also a plethora of excellent .308 rifles..

Jay wrote:
February 28, 2011

Too bad Bill Clinton had thousands of them destroyed to keep us all safe.

Steve wrote:
February 28, 2011

Why doesn't the US use the LMT 7.62mm they supply to the British? http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw091229_1_n.shtml

Nolan Reed Lee wrote:
February 27, 2011

If you want to reach out and touch some one, the 5.56 [223 remington] will do it, but if you want to stop some one in thier tracks 7.62 [308] will get the job done every time.

KENNETH wrote:
February 27, 2011


Woody wrote:
February 27, 2011

The M-14 is a much more capable rifle, yes it is heavier but the lethality would make the extra weight a moot point...IMO..

5thcommjarhead wrote:
February 27, 2011

Whenever I left the compound in RVN I had in the jeep an M-14, a Remington 870 on my lap, and a 1911A1 on my hip. I had absolute faith in all three weapons as far as reliability and lethality were concerned. Our warriors should have the same faith.

matthew wrote:
February 27, 2011

there are lots of good 762x51 rifles out there. the H and K G3. FN Fal and the BM 59 basicaly a garand/M14 and the Galil. the G3 would be my pick.It is allready set up to mount a bipod and you can mount optics to i via a claw mounting system and they already have a 18.5 inch barrel.

Frontporch observer wrote:
February 27, 2011

Love the M14. Best I have ever shot. Little heavy but a great rifle.

Kyle wrote:
February 27, 2011

Why isn't the military implementing the use of the Knight's Armament M110 SASS? I know the M14 are around 4lbs lighter, and more portable (and that may be why it's in use), but the M110 does feature a more comfortable and standard AR design (just longer), and keeps the 2 to 2.5 m.o.a just like the M14EBR. So why not the M110? [in short] That's my opinion, both are great weapon systems for semi-auto, urban combat sniping and continue to provide excellence in the field.

Phil wrote:
February 27, 2011

That's what I trained on when entering the Army in '68. It was a sweetheart to shoot! Put the "Mattie Mattel" to shame...!!

uzidoit wrote:
February 27, 2011

i see a sage EBR in my future, glad w finally got something under 30 lbs to engage the bad guys at 800 meters effectively

Glenn wrote:
February 27, 2011

amen to that brother. I don't get the military sometimes. they know what works. I would rather have the heavier weapon with the better stopping power over light weight and convience. I would like to see the military issue bigger caliber assault rifles as standard issue to our soldiers, airmen, seamen and marines. the men and women of our great military will find a way to deal with the extra weight. we've done it in the past and we can do it in the future. In this case bigger IS better

Terry wrote:
February 27, 2011

Why not just procure AR-10s or equivalent? They can be had shooting one MOA or less.

bdsoper wrote:
February 27, 2011

Finally.... Thank GOD

Carl wrote:
February 24, 2011

I carried the M14 for years and I'd suffer the "old" design and extra weight anytime to have a .308 round.