SAGE M14 EBR, M1A, Mk14, MOD 0, MOD 1, MOD 2, M39 EMR, M4, SOCOM II, TACOM-RI, M14ALCS, PMRI, EBR,

U.S. Special Operations Command Parachute Team

2012-02-22T13:48:00Z

USSOCOM

The Para-Commandos perform precision free fall parachute demonstrations across the United States, informing the public about the Special Operations Command, it's mission, and the great work being performed by the Special Operations Command's Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen deployed to over 100 countries around the world.

The team normally jumps from an altitude of 12,500 feet above the ground, free falling approximately 2 miles and reaching speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour wearing smoke canisters on their feet to make them visible to the public below. During their free fall, the members of the team maneuver their bodies like an aircraft to form formations in the sky. When the jumpers approach an altitude of 4,000 feet, they break their formation and glide in different directions, opening their parachutes approximately 2,500 feet above the ground. Once open, the members steer their parachutes and land one behind the other with precision accuracy in the landing area.

The Para-Commandos are all active duty military or Department of Defense civilians assigned to the Special Operations Command. Most are combat veterans and have a Special Operations background. Many served with the US Army Special Forces, commonly known as the elite Green Berets. Others served with US Army Rangers, the world's premier light infantry fighting force. The US Air Force is well represented with specialized combat controllers, para-rescue men and combat air crewmen. The US Navy is represented with US Navy SEALs and Special Warfare Combat Crewmen, and the US Marine Corps is represented by Special Operations Marines.

These men and women all have a full time jobs at the Special Operations Command Headquarters, located at MacDill Air Force Base in beautiful Tampa Florida. They volunteer to serve as Para-Commandos as an additional duty, spending their weekends honing their skills and performing for the US public.

The Para-Commandos have performed at numerous military and civilian air shows, college and professional sporting events, and various patriotic, civic and school celebrations throughout the United States, and hope to have the opportunity to perform for you!

By ocrrhbow

Dredsen's Taking the plunge: EBR

2012-02-21T13:52:00Z

2/16/2012

Sage Navy SEAL Grey EBR Stock

Well folks, Clyde's Armory has confirmed shipment: My Sage EBR chassis in Navy Seal grey will arrive Tuesday.

I am not looking forward to removing the OP rod guide, hopefully it comes off with a few whacks of the hammer.

My sage shall imbibe a SAI scout squad. I am going to film the whole process and post my experience once its all complete.

Good times,

Dred

2/20/2012

Well my EBR stock is at the local fed ex facility should have it put together tomorrow night, video coming later in the week!

I just finished prepping for installation. Everything on this weapon was easy to disassemble . I like this system because the disassembly is straight forward no high tech "tricks" to remove parts that you could never guess by looking at the part.

Fortunately for me i was able to remove the op rod guide by tapping around the edge a bit, then with about 15 or so whacks with my big hammer. At first you think it won't budge but sure enough its moving slowly.

I'll edit all my video down to a a guide that will hopefully encourage non-gunsmith types like myself to give this EBR chassis a go.

Barreled action ready to be dropped into the Sage chassis.

Sage EBR Snap Shot#91

2012-02-20T13:59:00Z

Finally got the rifle finished. (EBR)

2012-02-17T13:41:00Z

Build details:
-Springfield M-1A SN#1264XX
-Sage Intl. Enhanced Battle Rifle Chassis, Mod 0 with 5 screw cover.
-Criterion 18.5 inch chorme lined, GI contour barrel.
-Sadlak NM spring guide.
-Smith Enterprise DC Vortex flash hider
-Smith Enterprise USN GLFS and tritium front sight.
-Smith Enterprise enhanced bolt stop.
-Harris Bipod with swivel.
-Larue LT608 rail.
-Trijicon ACOG TA31G.
-Eagle Industries EBR sling.
All other parts are original SA from the starter rifle.

I've been slowly piecing together this rifle since I got back from Iraq in 2009, and now it is more or less complete. I may add a better piston and gas cylinder, as well as a dummy selector. I went for the USN Mk. 14 Mod 0 look, I wanted something that look and worked like the real deal that is on deployment with special operations units overseas. Hopefully a range report will be out next week.
By Lurker

JAE G2 vs. Sage Mod 1 Build Review

2012-02-16T13:27:00Z

I've finally put enough rounds through the Sage setup to feel comfortable to do a little side by side comparing of the two. Lisa, stop cringing. Now, this is based on my wants and needs as well as physical build so your situation may be different. The direction I wanted to go with the rifle changed about a year ago so it's been a long road getting it there.

First and foremost, JAE has some stellar customer service, delivery times might be spotty but what new production item isn't? My G2 took a year to get to me, and I bet I didn't whine nearly as much as some of the people waiting now...

Sage's customer service, well, let's just say if you're in CA, don't plan to get any. I couldn't even get some damn screws from them, how petty is that? So in that respect I still have a bit of a sour taste.

Ergonomics of both are great, but the JAE does have a slight edge with the trigger since the hand is still in a similar position as a USGI stock. The pistol grip on the Sage landed my finger right on the tip of the trigger, not the most comfortable position. The only way I could address this with the Sage was to get a custom trigger shoe made.

Modularity, the JAE has rail options galore, but they are options, where as the Sage comes with them whether you want them or not. The Sage's side and bottom rails can be removed if desired, but you're stuck with the top rail, something the JAE doesn't offer, but how many people really need it? Well, I might later if I decided to get a forward mount NV setup.

Weight, this depends on the setup, if you go with a fairly stripped down JAE, it's not bad, but the more goodies you put on, the heavier it gets. The Sage Mod 1 is about 4.2 pounds by itself, but that includes all the rails. However if you go with the Mod 0 you're going to tack on about 2+ more pounds due to the different rear end.

Adjustability, Something I've always ran into with stocks is my length of pull (LOP) changes from prone to standing/sitting. With the Mod 1 a quick squeeze of the CTR lever and pull or push it back a notch and the LOP is perfect for me in either position. My girlfriend also likes it since she's not as big as me and can shorten it to fit her perfect. The JAE, unless you like messing around with the spacers and allen wrenches, it is what it is, just like with my McMillan M3A before it. JAE does offer a thumb wheel cheek riser, pretty cool item, I got it. What I found though was that I'm a set and forget kind of guy. With the thumb wheel, even with the new QR setup, you have to remove the saddle then turn the riser down to get on the irons. It's tool-less, but not the fastest. I managed to get a hold of a 1.25" riser for my CTR that pops on and off in a second or two. With it on I'm right behind my scope, with it off I'm right behind the irons, for me a perfect setup.

Storage, my Sage Mod 1 has an Vltor storage compartment receiver extension on it. It's water tight and pretty easy to access by removing the CTR (tool-less). Personally I don't use it, but it's there. I also installed a MIAD grip which has internal storage, this I do use. I have a 3mm allen wrench inside for removing my scope to go to iron sights. I couldn't find any QR rings I liked in a size that would work so I went this route. The JAE didn't have any storage that I could find, however it never bothered me either, obviously since I'm not using the Sage's storage either.

Comfort, the JAE has the edge on this, nice molded rubber grip with their polymer skin is nice to wrap your hands around. Sure I can get an Ergo Grips rubber grip but I'm still grabbing aluminum on the front end. The only saviour I have is the tan Mod 1 doesn't attract much heat in the sun, but it does get chilly in the cold.

Cleaning, this is where I hear a lot of people piss and moan about the Sage, "You can't break it down easily to clean it after every fifth round." Okay... I'm guilty of breaking down my McMillan M3A after each range trip and cleaning it, gasp now all you "never breakdown a bedded rifle" naysayers, three words; steel bedding block. What I learned from this is the rifle takes a bit to settle back in, so for about 20 or so rounds I'm not seeing the accuracy I was before breaking it down. With the JAE, never broke it down, just cleaned the bore and greased what I could when needed. The Sage gets the same thing so this isn't an issue for me. Now if you have to clean it all the time, don't even bother getting either stock, you'll get annoyed removing and installing the JAE's lug slides eventually and you'll definitely get annoyed breaking down the Sage. I prefer to think of it as a bedded match rifle, only break it down when you absolutely have to.

Now the knitty gritty, accuracy... yeah, no difference between the two, they both out shot me. Even surplus ammo shot great out of both. Worst group was 1.5" and it was all me, maybe a little bit of the wind. 600 yard shots in the wind with surplus ammo, if you dial it in, it'll hit it every time.

Being in CA I've had to make a sacrifice to have the Sage, but I can live with the sacrifice and it's something that can be undone in a few minutes. I'm sure GunRider will be along shortly for a tongue lashing for changing to the Sage, different wants and needs brother. I still have a lot of love for the JAE and would get another for a long range precision setup in a heart beat.

So what's all this boil down to? I dunno, buy what blows your skirt up. I've tried USGI synthetic, McMillan M3A, JAE G2 and now a Sage Mod 1. Personally I like the Sage the most as it suits what I want from it better.

Now for the SureFire MB762-213F... This is a direct connect muzzle brake that's sound suppressor capable. It comes with a shim set to index it just right and rockset to keep it there. Recommended torque is 20 to 30 ft-lbs (depending on indexing). This brake is GREAT! The only one that beats it in recoil reduction is my huge JP recoil eliminator. The brake has three ports with one upward port to reduce muzzle rise and they do a good job of taming it. The rifle would come back on target after every shot, and follow up shots as well as double taps were no problem. 250 rounds wearing a t-shirt and my shoulder couldn't tell. Even my girlfriend who was shooting a rifle for the first time said the recoil didn't affect her. Now, I can't say that for the guys to the sides of the rifle... I could see a three foot blast going out each side and blowing their hair around as well as causing them to flinch a bit, okay one just all out jumped. Because of this I'd take long breaks between strings to give them a chance to recover.

Now I know someone out there is going, "stupid CA laws requiring a brake." Just so you know, because of how my rifle is configured I can have a flash suppressor on it if I want. I chose not to since I just prefer to have a brake as it makes the rifle more comfortable to shoot (shoot, not sit next to).

Another thing that got changed is the scope. I had a US Optics SN-3 1.8-10X44, nice scope, but big and heavy. I decided to sell it and move to a US Optics SN-3 1.8-10X37. Doesn't sound like much of a change huh? Well, the optics package lost .75 pound changing the scope and rings, 2.55 pounds to 1.8 pounds. The rings only went down .05 pound so the rest was the scope, pretty big difference. Also the new scope seems more clear and refined compared to the previous one. I know US Optics made some revisions and it seems to have paid off. This was all mounted on an LRB/Sadlak 20MOA rail I had modified to drop some weight from it. I figured better to have than to want and it made setting up the elevation zero stop much easier.

Other than that, no real changes to the barreled action, I did add one of Hawk's dummy kits which does seem to just finish it off. It also holds the op rod snug when locked forward and takes the play out of it, not sure if that helps any, but I like it.

In a few months I'm going to do the unthinkable and pull my medium weight Krieger barrel off and install a standard weight SEI barrel which will be melonite treated after chambering it.

Well, that's all there is to it, a lot of patience and I'm almost at the final goal. Should be 100% done by my birthday in June if all works out.

Here are the specs for the build:

LRB M25 receiver
LRB/Sadlak 20MOA extended rail with lightening modifications
USGI SA bolt
USGI SA op rod (melonited)
USGI SA trigger group tuned by SEI (melonited)
USGI SA gas cylinder with M25 vent mod (melonited)
USGI piston (melonited)
USGI NM rear sight with 595 hood
USGI connector lock and solid pin
Tubb chrome silicone op rod and hammer springs
SureFire muzzle brake MB762-213F
Krieger medium weight, 18.5", stainless steel, 1:10 twist barrel
Changing to an SEI standard weight, 18.5" chrome moly, 1:10 twist barrel (melonited)
SEI GLFS dovetail for 18" barrels
SEI socom gas plug
SEI extended bolt stop
XS USN hooded front sight
Sadlak NM hollow spring guide
Sadlak tactical magazine latch
Sage EBR Mod 1 Gen 2 chassis
Vltor receiver extension with internal storage compartment
Magpul CTR stock
Magpul enhanced .70" butt pad
Magpul 1.25" riser
Magpul MIAD grip
Magpul XTM rail covers
Tango Down ACB-4 bipod
Eagle Industries Mk14 EBR sling
US Optics SN-3 1.8-10X37
ARC M3 Gen 2 34mm medium rings
Echo Grunt's stainless steel roll pins
Hawk's AMBI dummy kit with button lock installed
Eagle Industries HSRC LE 44 case
Eagle Industries HSC with muzzle protector
Eagle Industries SR-25 mag pouches
Condor T&T pouch
Pelican 1720 case

USO scope specs:

Model: SN-3
Parallax Control: ERGO Upgrade
Power: 1.8-10x
Objective: 37mm
Objective Cover: U.S.O. Flip-up
Sunshade: 37mm 2"
Honeycomb: Anti-Reflective Device (ARD)
Tube: 34mm
Color-Cerakote: Cerakote - Solid Color - Magpul FDE H-267
Eyepiece: Lo Profile - Rapid Focus
Eyepiece: Internal Level
Eyepiece Cover: U.S.O. Flip-up
Reticle Option: Mil-Scale GAP
Reticle Lighting Type: Digital Push Button (Red)
Knob - Elevation: EREK 1/10 MIL
Knob - Windage: US#1 1/10 MIL LEFT HAND SIDE
Knob - Windage: US#1 M40 Style 1/10 MIL LEFT HAND SIDE
Rifle S/N engraving on tube: M25-10026

By NoExpert (M14Forum.com)

Snipers Rule

2012-02-15T13:43:00Z

In the last decade, American soldiers and marines have greatly increased their use of snipers. This can be seen from the fact that the American sniper with the most kills ever, former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, had 160 confirmed kills (and 95 unconfirmed). Most of these were achieved during four tours in Iraq. The previous record holder, with 109 confirmed kills, was Vietnam era soldier Adelbert Waldron.

Chris Kyle set his record in part because of the more aggressive use of snipers in the last decade. In that time, because of Iraq and Afghanistan, infantry tactics have changed considerably. This has largely gone unnoticed back home, unless you happen to know an old soldier or marine that remembers the old style of shooting. Put simply, the emphasis is on a lot fewer bullets fired and much more accurate shooting. Elite forces, like the Special Forces and SEALs, have always operated this way. But that's because they had the skill, and opportunity to train frequently, to make it work. The army and marines have found that their troops can fight the same way with the help of some new weapons, equipment, and tactics, plus lots of combat experience and specialized training. This includes the use of new shooting simulators, which allows troops to fire a lot of virtual bullets in a realistic setting, without all the hassle and expense of going to a firing range.

One thing that helped, and that was developing for two decades, was the greater use of snipers. Currently, about ten percent of American infantry are trained and equipped as snipers. Commanders have found that filling the battlefield with two man (spotter and shooter) sniper teams not only provides more intelligence, but also a lot of precision firepower.

Snipers are better at finding the enemy, and killing them with a minimum of noise and fuss. New rifle sights (both day and night types) have made all infantry capable of accurate, single shot, fire. With the emphasis on keeping civilian casualties down, and the tendency of the enemy to use civilians as human shields, lots of snipers, or infantrymen who can take an accurate shot at typical battle ranges (under 100 meters), are the best way to win without killing a lot of civilians.

New sniper equipment has made a big difference. During the last decade the U.S. Army has issued several new sniper rifles. The M110 SASS (Semi-Automatic Sniper System) was delivered to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan four years ago.

This weapon is not a big technological breakthrough. It is based on the older AR-10 rifle. The U.S. Navy had already been buying a similar weapon, the SR25 since the early 1990s. The SR25 was also known as the Mk11 Sniper Rifle System (SRS). These new semi-automatic sniper rifles are 7.62mm weapons based on the M-16 design elements. The basis for the M-16 was the AR-15, and a 7.62mm version of that weapon was called the AR-10. About half the parts in the SR25 are interchangeable with those in the M-16.

The Stoner sniper rifle achieved its high accuracy partly by using a 20 inch heavy floating barrel. The "floating" means that the barrel is attached only to the main body of the rifle to reduce resonance (which throws off accuracy). The M110 weighs 7.9 kg (17.3 pounds) in combat, and about 32 kg (70 pounds) with all components of the system. The M110 can use a ten or twenty round magazine. The 1.03 meter (40.5 inch) long rifle can have a 15 cm (six inch) tube attached to the barrel, which reduces the noise and flash made when the rifle fires, and largely eliminates nearby dust rising into the air, which often gives away the sniper's position. In the last few years, snipers have had the use of more powerful rounds (like the .338 Lapua Magnum and the .300 Magnum) and ever more useful accessories. Several sniper rifle models were modified to handle the longer range rounds.

Previously, many snipers have had success using tuned up M-14s (from the 1960s) as sniper rifles. While semi-automatic and rugged, the M14 wasn't designed to be a sniper rifle. The AR-10 was a better model for a semi-automatic sniper rifle, since it is inherently more reliable and accurate. As far back as World War II it was known that there were many situations where a semi-automatic sniper rifle would come in handy. But it's taken over half a century to solve the reliability and accuracy problems.

The M110 has largely replaced the bolt-action M24, and provided commanders with much more effective snipers. That increase in numbers (of snipers) and their effectiveness, has changed the look (less random fire from U.S. troops) and feel (the U.S. troops appear more in control) of the battlefield. It's also easier to spot the enemy. He's usually the guy firing on automatic. The fellows firing one shot at a time are the Americans, and they are usually the last ones standing.
Strategy Page, January 9, 2012:

M14 Sage EBR in a Commercial Ad

2012-02-14T13:42:00Z

By ARMYSHOPCZ

SAGE EBR SNAP SHOT#90

2012-02-13T13:37:00Z

The M14 Barrel

2012-02-10T13:47:00Z

Probably the one most important part required for good accuracy is the barrel. M14 barrels are not made by many companies. They all make blanks, but only a few actually are producing ready to install M14 barrels. Krieger, Barnett, Wilson, and Criterion are the only ones I am aware of right now.

The M14 barrel is not all that easy to make. Every machining step is timed off of the gas port which is supposed to be drilled in one of the grooves. Of course, the groove is on the inside of the bore making the location difficult to pin point. Some don’t think this step is necessary, but serious barrel makers do. All dimensions are located in relation to the gas port. All thread timing and the splines for the gas cylinder and flash suppressor are machined in relation to the gas port. This is probably why most barrel makers don’t want to deal with making M14 barrels.

AR15 barrels are much simpler! Those that do make M14 barrels however, can barely keep up with the demand. Krieger did a major plant expansion to help keep up.

Back in the early 1980’s I was introduced to the excellent barrels made by Gene Barnett. Our National Guard Shooting Team was invited to try out a half dozen of Barnett’s heavy match barrels on our NM M14’s. These came through the “system” and I think all of the State NG teams were issued some of these barrels. Gene also made barrels for the USMC and USAF. We were able to acquire some of them prior to this through Champion’s Choice, Inc. and I had installed a few on my customers rifles. What a difference a heavy barrel makes! The wimpy standard NM barrels we were used too simply would not shoot against the heavy Barnett barrels. I’m sure that is why the Guard decided to try them. Civilian shooters were making life difficult for the military teams. The only problem we had was getting ammunition that would shoot well in the heavy barrels. Our Barnett barrels were 1:12” twist six groove rifling. I found the twist didn’t matter all that much, but the number of grooves did! We were issued Lake City M118 ammunition. I mention this because the civilians, who were cleaning our clocks, were shooting hand loads. Barnett’s six groove barrels love Sierra Match King Bullets! Sierra doesn’t make M118 bullets… A typical Guard M14 would shoot 1 ½ inch groups with M118 out of a six groove barrel. The same gun would shoot under an inch with Sierra 168 grain Match King bullets! Well under! It has something to do with the thickness of the bullet jacket and the depth of the rifling grooves. Sierra bullets had thinner jackets. That’s when we discovered “Mexican Match” ammunition. We just pulled the bullets from our M118 and installed the 168 gr. SMK. About this time, the military started issuing XM852 Special Match which cured all our problems. Barnett still makes these great barrels and they can be had in four groove as well. The four groove seems to shoot about anything.

In the mid 1980’s I discovered Krieger Barrels. They were advertised in the Shot Gun News as being Match Grade and Quality, stainless steel with short chambers. I never heard of Krieger, but I wanted to try just about anything new and I ordered one for my new M14 match rifle. About the same time I purchased a couple of Smith Enterprise’ receivers to try. This turned out to be a great combination. The McMillan stock helped too! Krieger offered SS or chrome molly in 10, 11, and 12 twist, four groove rifling. This is much the same as they offer today. These barrels would shoot ½ inch! Yea for gas guns!

There was also Obermier, Snyder, Schillen, and others, but they did not produce a finished M14 barrel like Barnett and Krieger.

I want to make one thing clear. There are many excellent barrel makers around the country. They all shoot good, but most require custom machining so I am not including them here.

Recently, Wilson Barrels and Criterion Barrels have been available. Wilson has been around for quite awhile and they have an excellent reputation for match grade AR15 barrels. Most AR manufactures use Wilson Barrels. The junior rifle team I help coach has set some 35 National Team and Individual Records, many of them with Wilson Barrels. Right now they are making standard M14 barrels in chrome lined or plain. They are also making some match grade barrels and will soon have medium weight NM barrels on the market.

Criterion is making a similar selection of barrels for the M14. I have installed a couple of the Criterion medium weight SS match barrels on rifles for LRB Arms and I found they shoot very well. The rifling looked smooth as glass too.

Over the years, I have come to prefer 1:10” twist 4 groove barrels for my match rifles. This combination seems to shoot anything well and will shoot the good old M118 Match ammo too!

I found that GI National Match barrels can be good, but they are hard to find in new condition and usually do not shoot as well as commercial match barrels. The medium weight NM barrels produced in 1982-83 were the best of the GI barrels and I think Saco-Lowell probably was the best producer. The standard weight NM barrels are too thin, hence not stiff enough. I see Krieger is now making a standard weight match barrel. It should be an improvement over the GI NM barrel, but it’s still not heavy enough to stand up to the fat barrels. Krieger’s DMR barrel is pretty good and ½ pound lighter than the heavy barrel. The only thing I don’t care for in the DMR barrel is the 1:12” twist (not that it is much of a handicap).

While I’m on the subject of barrels, how many of you have put your eyeball in the breach end and really looked at the throat. A throat gage can tell you the relative amount of erosion, but many times your eye is a much better indicator of the real condition of the throat. I’ve seen dozens and dozens of GI barrels that have chrome plating flaking off in the barrel throat. They often gage two or three, which is normally OK, but the actual condition says it should be replaced. This is very common in GI chrome lined barrels. Almost all GI barrels being sold are used and many are well used. Always look!

I had a Krieger on one of my rifles that measured 3.5 TE. I thought that was probably good to go until I was looking in the chamber with a chamber inspection mirror. There were craters the size of pot holes in the New Jersey Turnpike in the start of the grooves! I thought “this can’t be good”… That was when I changed the barrel. It had 6850 rounds through it. Always look. Only 3.5 TE….

Bluesteelnwood asked about the differences on how the Army and Navy built rifles. It is interesting so I am repeating the thread here.

It goes back to the days of the M1NM rifle. One of the differences was the Navy/Marine Corps would epoxy the hand guards to the barrel. This worked OK, but one had to destroy the hand guards to remove them or make a barrel change. Army style was to glue and screw the upper hand guard to the lower band with the liner removed and ream the front ferrule so it didn't touch the barrel. The lower hand guard was shortened so it would not touch the receiver and epoxy to the lower band. The only problem with this is the operator would have to use some caution when handling the rifle by the upper hand guard so it wouldn't break loose. The Navy also would often free float the barrel by cutting away part of the ferrule and lower band. Sometimes this works OK and sometimes not. The Army would always bed a rifle with pressure on the ferrule/lower band to stabilize the barrel. This system almost always works well.

There are several differences in the way the Army and Navy build M14 rifles.
They both unitize the gas cylinder and barrel band. The Navy welds and the Army screws them together. Both systems work, but I have seen the welds break during competitions and the accuracy goes down the tubes. I have seen a couple of Army gas cylinder shoot the screw loose, but it is easy to tighten them on the spot. Problem solved. When properly epoxy and staked, the screws almost never shoot loose. One thing the Marines did with many (not all) M14 team rifles was welding lugs on the receiver. This really worked well and they did both rear lug and double lug guns. The Army MTU claims they didn't do lugs, but I know they did on some of their guns. The Marines would free float the barrels when bedding and the Army would pressure bed them. The only problem with lug guns is sometimes the weld would break on the lugs.

This results in a big drop in accuracy! Commercial receivers with lugs installed by the factory rarely if ever fail because the receivers are heat treated after the lugs are welded on. I should also note that free floating didn't always work. Both services would rebuild a rifle till it would shoot within standards however. One thing I liked about Marine M14's is that many of their team rifles were equipped with McMillan stocks. The Army always seemed to stick with wood. There are some other minor differences, but these are some of the main ones I know of. Both services built outstanding NM rifles. I was trained to do it the Army way.
By Ted Brown (Shooters Den)

7 Years in the Making

2012-02-09T13:49:00Z

I think that my USN MK14 Mod 0 type SEI is finally complete.

Ron Smith first built this rifle late in 2004 and I received it early 2005.

By H20 MAN