Experts in the Field
FacebookTwitter
YouTubeRSS Feed
The M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle

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.

By Maj. John Plaster, U.S. Army (Ret.)

  • Comment
  • Send to Friend
  • Share This

2/24/2011

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.

  • Comment
  • Send to Friend
  • Share This

Comments

  • Eli

    3/23/2012 6:31:01 PM

    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

  • Hotwheels

    1/27/2012 2:39:56 AM

    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.

  • The Owl

    1/9/2012 11:35:16 AM

    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

    10/24/2011 1:19:56 PM

    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.

  • angryman

    9/14/2011 1:11:49 PM

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

  • tacticoolninja

    8/24/2011 5:30:33 AM

    @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

    6/11/2011 11:58:29 PM

    YOU CAN'T BEAT THE M-14 DESIGN.67-72 SPENT IN VN&LAOS WATCHING M-16s BEING THROWN AWAY AND AK-47s BEING PICKED UP. I BELIEVE THE M-16 WAS A POLITICAL MOVE BY OUR GOVT TO GIVE THE LOCALS SOMETHING THEY COULD HANDLE. MEANWHILE OUR TROOPS WERE USING GARBAGE AND DYING AS A RESULT OF IT. THE M-14 ALWAYS CAME THROUGH AND ALWAYS WILL. IT EVEN WORKS WELL IN THE SANDBOX.

  • milkman

    5/2/2011 11:48:42 PM

    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

    4/28/2011 5:07:51 AM

    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

    4/22/2011 11:08:46 AM

    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

    4/10/2011 1:21:44 PM

    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.

  • Taylorcraftbc65

    3/9/2011 7:15:28 AM

    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

    3/9/2011 6:43:30 AM

    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

    3/8/2011 1:57:36 PM

    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

    3/8/2011 8:24:09 AM

    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?