Guns and Gear: The M14 and Other Battle Rifles

Hello again, readers. First, please accept my apologies for missing last week's regularly-scheduled post. My "day job" has been rather hectic lately.

This month's edition of SWAT Magazine includes a very interesting article entitled "The Myth of the M14 Rifle."

Being a fan of all things high-tech, the variants of the M14 that have most captured my attention are the Mk14 Mod 0 Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR) and the M39 Enhanced Marksman Rifle (EMR). I first saw an EBR in Fallujah and thought, "I have got to get me one of those." The EBR was, to me, the coolest piece of kit I had ever seen in-country, certainly cooler than the "pimp my carbine" M4s.

Every since that first sighting, a civilianized version of the EBR, like that made by Fulton Armory, has lingered on my wish list. As I said in my first column, the key question about any gear purchase is "Why do I want this?" Beyond "it's wicked cool" (in the case of the EBR), the benefits of an M14-like rifle compared to a standard M4/M16/AR-15 are obvious:

• The M14's 7.62x51mm NATO round delivers superior stopping power at all ranges compared to the M4/M16/AR-15's 5.56x45mm NATO round.
• The effective range of the 7.62 NATO round is on the order of 800 yards, compared to 500 yards at the outside for 5.56 NATO.
• While the standard M14 chassis would be a major handicap in a CQB/FISH environment, the EBR's modernized chassis would be at least passable (if not ideal) indoors.
• Unlike "exotic" rounds like 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel, 7.62 NATO ammunition is relatively plentiful.

To summarize, there is something elegant about a rifle that, with the right optic, is workable in close quarters but can also reach out to 800 yards.

The article in SWAT Magazine pointed out some key advantages. Among the most relevant to me, as a civilian defensive shooter centered on the AR-15 platform, are:

• The manual of arms for an M14-type rifle is completely different than that for the AR-15 platform. Under the pressure of a SHTF situation (or even a competitive three-gun match), the muscle memory from thousands of repetitions of shouldering the weapon, changing magazines, activating/deactivating the safety, and so forth on one platform will not transfer to the other.
• There is little or no interchangability of parts between the M14 platform and the AR-15 platform. The maintenance, troubleshooting, and repair procedures are also different. By adding another platform into the mix, your logistics requirements have just gotten more complicated (especially if you have to self-sustain for a while, as in a SHTF situation).
• According to the author of the article, the M14 platform is more maintenance-intensive and the barrel life is shorter compared to the AR-15 platform.

After considering these and other points that the author made, I started to think about "why do I really want this" and "what are the other options"? I'll admit that, for a civilian living an urban/suburban area, the basic justification for any battle rifle is mostly "because it's cool." In a SHTF situation, I'd be hard-pressed to find a sightline beyond the effective range of an AR-15 anywhere near my home or bug-out site and in a home defense scenario, the penetration of the 7.62 NATO round is probably more of a disadvantage than an advantage. Those of you living in more rural and less wooded areas (like the American Midwest and West) are in different circumstances.

Accepting that this is (at least for me) fundamentally a "because it's cool" item on the wish list, what are some more practical options that satisfy the itch for a manly battle rifle that fires a manly 7.62 NATO cartridge?

• FN SCAR-H: The SCAR-H is not yet available on the civilian market and has many of the same training and logistics issues as an M14 platform: different manual of arms (although closer to the AR-15 than the M14), little overlap in spare parts, and little overlap in maintenance/troubleshooting/repair procedures.
• FAL: My friend and fellow Grog News writer Steve recently covered the FAL in one of his posts. The modernized versions of this "Right Arm of the Free World," such as those offered by DS Arms, are especially appealing if you want some flexibility in your configuration. However, most of the issues with the M14 still apply.
• "AR-308": With the recent adoption of the Knight's SR-25 platform by the US military for the M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System, as well as the UK's recent adoption of the LMT .308 Modular Weapon System as the LM7 designated marksman rifle, the picture surrounding 7.62 NATO variants of the AR-15 platform (which I'll generically call the "AR-308") is starting to become clearer. In my mind, a key milestone for this platform was Magpul's recent introduction of the PMAG 20LR magazine for M110, SR-25, Fulton Armory Titan, and DPMS LR308 rifles (but not the Armalite AR-10 series). Compatibility of magazines across a broad range of manufacturers indicates to me that the "AR-308" platform is starting to stabilize.

Now we're talking! The "AR-308" platform has the same manual of arms as the AR-15 platform. Accessories such as grips and stocks are (generally) compatible between the AR-15 and the "AR-308," along with some (but not all) spare parts and most armorer's procedures. The cost is also a significant consideration. A nicely-configured EBR-style rifle from Fulton Armory runs about $4,100. A similarly-configured Fulton Armory Titan Universal Precision Carbine (UPC) with an 18.5-inch medium-weight National Match barrel, two-stage match trigger, Magpul UBR stock and MIAD grip, and free-float rail system can be had for about $2,800.00. Put one of the new 1-8x optics (which I'm really looking forward to writing about soon) on it and you have a very versatile battle rifle based on the familiar AR-15 platform.

Putting one of these together is going to go on my project list. But first, a bare-bones tactical shotgun so I can get back into three-gun competition and one of those fancy new optics I just mentioned...

Until next time, keep your powder dry!

By: Guardian