i was just wondering what exactly are the differences between the m14, the m21, and the m25, and what's currently in use- i know the 21 is simply a m14 national match with a scope attached, but the real proof is in the shooting- just how much better are they than the selected isreali m14s that were surplussed to us a few years back-
M-14 in Afghanistan
- Thread starter homer76
- Start date
To clarify some points to avoid confusion. A rifle that becomes official weapon system is type coded by the US Gov. It is given a number like M14 or M21. You can look it up and it outlines exactly the specs of the rifle. It is a process that makes it an official system and order item. The M14 is a battle rifle and the designation makes it look optically like the traditional M14 we understand. As noted by Kevin, an accurized version was type coded as the M21. It was later modernized as the M25 but did not enter service.
It is important to understand as well that the M14s currently be used overseas by the US Army are being serviced and maintained in an adhoc and haphazard manner. Spare parts are from cannibalized rifles. Expertise to maintain and service the rifles are centred around the Army Marksmanship Unit and mature unit members. If an effort was made to type code an upgraded M14 based system, establish training for shooters and support personnel, establishing spare parts pools costs money....lots of it. So a cost arguement is mute since at the end of the day....there will be lots of money spent on either system. And given the differences in the systems...likely additional training to train up support personnel while cost savings are made by the system being similar to the M16 series. The argument that the M14 is free....is only a small cost in the grand, big army scheme.
So at the end of the day. Despite desires, interest and emotion...the US Army wrote a requirement, an M14 system was entered along with AR10 type rifles by a number of manufactures. The KAC entrant performed the best of all the systems and was top dog. It will be impossible to argue who did better at what in the competition as the information is protected. All we know is the KAC came out on top.
It is important to understand as well that the M14s currently be used overseas by the US Army are being serviced and maintained in an adhoc and haphazard manner. Spare parts are from cannibalized rifles. Expertise to maintain and service the rifles are centred around the Army Marksmanship Unit and mature unit members. If an effort was made to type code an upgraded M14 based system, establish training for shooters and support personnel, establishing spare parts pools costs money....lots of it. So a cost arguement is mute since at the end of the day....there will be lots of money spent on either system. And given the differences in the systems...likely additional training to train up support personnel while cost savings are made by the system being similar to the M16 series. The argument that the M14 is free....is only a small cost in the grand, big army scheme.
So at the end of the day. Despite desires, interest and emotion...the US Army wrote a requirement, an M14 system was entered along with AR10 type rifles by a number of manufactures. The KAC entrant performed the best of all the systems and was top dog. It will be impossible to argue who did better at what in the competition as the information is protected. All we know is the KAC came out on top.
The best way to answer the question is to look up the mil specs particularly the shooting performance requirements for each of the type codes. It is rather detailed....flex your google fu and let us know...
H20,
Your not participating in the discussion in a meaniful way. Some of the guys who respect your knowledge of the M14 are asking your OPINION on why you think the M14 is superior or the right choice. Please take some time and articulate your position. The best thing about this board is you have people with diverse background who can provide factual and experienced discussion on issues. I want this to be the case rather than an emotional based discussion. Lets talk the details.
Now that all being said, I have given you the contract details of the purchase of the M110 system. The US Army has most definitely purchasing the M110 to deploy overseas. There is no national acquistion of an M14 based system by the US Army. The "acquisition" you are using as an example, is the use of unit funds to upgrade M14 rifles from surplus not buy a system. They are different and you can not call them the same. Seriously your getting it mixed up on how the system works. There is no maintenance contract for the army for the M14s and the offical position is the M14 will be withdrawn from the system once the M110 is in full deployment and issue.
At the risk of repeating myself over and over again...
The M14 is paid for and new and improved replacement parts are in production.
The cost to upgrade and modernize the old M14 is very, very low.
The modernized M14 is both accurate and reliable in all weather conditions.
The modernized M14 is an excellent, low cost choice for the job of DMR in AFG and future actions.
The fact that I own and shoot a few fully upgraded and modernized
Crazy Horse M14s does help me form my opinions.
The fact that I have been shooting, experimenting and testing modernized M14s for 9 years helps me form opinions.
The fact that I do not work for KAC, SEI or any other weapons related company or entity keeps my opinions un-biased.
My ability to make a good living has nothing to do with firearms.
Is the M110 SASS competing for the DMR job?
.
I don't work for SEI or KAC but I am a professional soldier and contractor. I own M14s and AR10s.
Have you looked at the specs in the contract? Is your assessment that the low cost options you noted can be compliant for the contract? Or is there additional work needed to be compliant that is not off the shelf if you will. This changes the argument if that is the case. Have you looked at the package that is required and the overall contractual requirements or are you only looking at the rifles?
Have you looked at the specs in the contract? Is your assessment that the low cost options you noted can be compliant for the contract? Or is there additional work needed to be compliant that is not off the shelf if you will. This changes the argument if that is the case. Have you looked at the package that is required and the overall contractual requirements or are you only looking at the rifles?
Jeff it is something he can't understand that Unit Funds are not part of the actual capital funding that went to the M 110 Sass program .Individual units have discretionary spending budget this usually used to secure equipment not in US Army /Marine/ Navy/ Air Force / Coast Guard inventory IE the upgrades to the M14 and spare parts are where some of that money goes it also is used from purchase of better boots than those issued as well as Mollee gear /Pouches , the list is long and varied I hope you see the big picture, The M14 officially left the service as the main battle rifle back in the Sixties to be replaced by the M16 .The M14 was given to NG to replace the M1 Garand
The remaining M14 were given to Israel those M14 that were in the National Guard inventory the majority were destroyed during the Clinton Era those that remained unscathed were put into storage of which there are few if any left in storage have been drawn and used in the GWOT. The M21 /M25 are in inventory by some specialized units there actual number is extremely low and the M21/M25 ceased being in actual US Army inventories when the US Army adopted the M24 SWS
The remaining M14 were given to Israel those M14 that were in the National Guard inventory the majority were destroyed during the Clinton Era those that remained unscathed were put into storage of which there are few if any left in storage have been drawn and used in the GWOT. The M21 /M25 are in inventory by some specialized units there actual number is extremely low and the M21/M25 ceased being in actual US Army inventories when the US Army adopted the M24 SWS
Keep in mind that outside USSOCOM, that units are required to use issued weapons that have been army safety certified, so you just cannot run out with the IMPACT card and buy the shiny toy you want to take somewhere bad with you. As well unit funds and RFI funds cannot be used to purchase weapon systems.
Savage,
I think the problem here is the M110 argument is performance based on the criteria laid out by the users, the US Army. In this case, the M14 was not selected and the KAC variant was successful. So you can make an argument that the M110 is better than the M14 upgrade.
H20 is making the argument on a cost/value proposition. IE, the rifle is already in the system so the incremental costs will be cheaper. Unfortunately if cost was the only criteria, this would be a strong argument however, I would suggest there is more to it than cost. In the big picture, the purchase of tooling, course development for training etc, would eclipse the savings and it will likely be the same cost. I am an M14 lover but I don't think the M14 can meet the criteria based in the contract without some work. That being said, if you stick with a cost argument and negate the user requirements using an inuitive argument of relative performance, then it is rather hard to have a discussion.
What we do know:
1. M14 system was entered in the SASS competition
2. KAC M110 variant won the contract and was compliant to the contract Statement of Work.
3. We don't know if the M14 variant made the minimum compliant line or how it placed.
4. We know the M110 is the the army's choice for sniper and DMR.
5. We know the M14 is in the system as a battle rifle.
6. Units have been spending unit funds to upgrade and sustain the M14 variants
7. There is no US Army maintenance program or sustainment/lifecycle management for the M14.
8. The US Army has not specified not coded an M14 based system since the M25 effort.
9. The US Army will be replacing M14s with M110 for overseas deployment as the priority for issuing.
10. KAC is producing 200 systems a month currently.
So people can draw their own conclusions on the future of the M14 in the US Army. What this says to me is that the sun is setting on the rifle in the US Army. Emotionally desiring the sustainment of the M14 is not what the US Army wants nor what it is doing. So is there an argument that the US Army is wrong and the M14 aficionados believe the M14 based system can do it better and cheaper. I think if you brought the M14 upgraded system to a national level including all the costs...not just the rifle, I think you will find there is little difference in overall costs. It is not just simply the cost of the rifle.
I think the problem here is the M110 argument is performance based on the criteria laid out by the users, the US Army. In this case, the M14 was not selected and the KAC variant was successful. So you can make an argument that the M110 is better than the M14 upgrade.
H20 is making the argument on a cost/value proposition. IE, the rifle is already in the system so the incremental costs will be cheaper. Unfortunately if cost was the only criteria, this would be a strong argument however, I would suggest there is more to it than cost. In the big picture, the purchase of tooling, course development for training etc, would eclipse the savings and it will likely be the same cost. I am an M14 lover but I don't think the M14 can meet the criteria based in the contract without some work. That being said, if you stick with a cost argument and negate the user requirements using an inuitive argument of relative performance, then it is rather hard to have a discussion.
What we do know:
1. M14 system was entered in the SASS competition
2. KAC M110 variant won the contract and was compliant to the contract Statement of Work.
3. We don't know if the M14 variant made the minimum compliant line or how it placed.
4. We know the M110 is the the army's choice for sniper and DMR.
5. We know the M14 is in the system as a battle rifle.
6. Units have been spending unit funds to upgrade and sustain the M14 variants
7. There is no US Army maintenance program or sustainment/lifecycle management for the M14.
8. The US Army has not specified not coded an M14 based system since the M25 effort.
9. The US Army will be replacing M14s with M110 for overseas deployment as the priority for issuing.
10. KAC is producing 200 systems a month currently.
So people can draw their own conclusions on the future of the M14 in the US Army. What this says to me is that the sun is setting on the rifle in the US Army. Emotionally desiring the sustainment of the M14 is not what the US Army wants nor what it is doing. So is there an argument that the US Army is wrong and the M14 aficionados believe the M14 based system can do it better and cheaper. I think if you brought the M14 upgraded system to a national level including all the costs...not just the rifle, I think you will find there is little difference in overall costs. It is not just simply the cost of the rifle.
Last edited:
Yeah, I 'm a school turd for now now with B Coy. You interested in comming out to the range for some staff shoots let me know, I'm running one comming up in about 2 weeks. Usallally shoot in the afternoons all afternoon at range 5. Refresher and PWT 4 C7/C8 and might have time for some 9mm.
probably fire 300-600 rds each afternoon, depends how we feel.
Last edited:
That is one of the reasons...believe it or not.
So..... this thread has evolved from the US Marines using existing M14s (accurized & scoped) in a DMR role into one that largely pits them against the M110, and the suitability/sustainability of the continued use of the M14s (with whatever add ons) in that DMR role ...is this right?
Have the Marines adopted the M110, or are they expecting to follow suit?
If they have adopted the M110, what is the timeline for replacement of the DMR rifles already in place?
While I love accurized M14s as much as the next fellow, I think the fact they have hung on until now is more a testiment to the stuborn nature of their faithful followers than their suitability in the role they fill.
If the AMU, Marines and others didn't stick it out with it for so long in the competitive environment, I think they would have had the AR-10 platform in some guise for far longer, and wouldn't be playing catch up as they currently are.
Have the Marines adopted the M110, or are they expecting to follow suit?
If they have adopted the M110, what is the timeline for replacement of the DMR rifles already in place?
While I love accurized M14s as much as the next fellow, I think the fact they have hung on until now is more a testiment to the stuborn nature of their faithful followers than their suitability in the role they fill.
If the AMU, Marines and others didn't stick it out with it for so long in the competitive environment, I think they would have had the AR-10 platform in some guise for far longer, and wouldn't be playing catch up as they currently are.
The USMC bought 253 Mk11ModII rifles from US, and are evaluating buying more. FYI the Mk11 ModII is identical to the XM110 configuration of ours - the differences being the change to the buttstock locking latch, and the front sight on the URX.
Jeff My comment was directed at H2O in hopes that he sees that the M14 is in the last Horrah in the US Military service
My comments were too...
I respect your opinion and I disagree with your assertion that there would be little difference in the overall cost between the two.
I think you will find that the modernized M14 system is thousands less per unit. Something like 2.5 modernized M14s for the price of one M110...
It looks like the M14 is enjoying the longest lasting last hurrah in US military history.
Last edited:
Lets agree to disagree. The contract requirements for parts and bits bring them up even. The differencial is the rifle. I can't see how you make the difference that big. It simply is not that large a differencial. $1K maybe....but $6 or $7K? I don't know how you can do all the stuff the contract wants, provide the rifle and make a profit. Now that is just the contract costs around the rifle. What about spares and tools? Training for weapons maintenance folks? The M110 is a modification to their standard course due to the similiarities with the M16. Same with our folks in Canada. So that is another cost in the big picture...
In terms of costs....you realize your government's spending bill is allocating $50 million to the preservation of the marsh mouse habitat in San Diego? I don't think cost is going to be an issue with the weapon system purchase. Capablity is more to the issue...so I have to disagree on the strength of the argument based on the cost issue.
Last edited:
