Navy XM25 questions!! - Page 2 - M14 Forum

M14 Forum


Navy XM25 questions!!

This is a discussion on Navy XM25 questions!! within the The M14 forums, part of the M14 M1A Forum category; Originally Posted by Majikani Sorry but Badger rings weren't available before 1993 or later. Thanks! I'll use the badger rings for my silenced XM25 and ...


Go Back   M14 Forum > M14 M1A Forum > The M14

23Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old May 13th, 2017, 05:32 AM   #16
Lifer
 
XM25Ren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 3,859

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by Majikani View Post
Sorry but Badger rings weren't available before 1993 or later.
Thanks! I'll use the badger rings for my silenced XM25 and save the Ultras for the XM25, problem solved.

You are a wealth of knowledge, and I'm just too old to remember. Thank god for spell check.

Ren

XM25Ren is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 13th, 2017, 06:05 AM   #17
Grunt
 
Random Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: No. VA
Posts: 113
Navy XM25/M25 info

Quote:
And these could be called XM25, however that is an army designation and once Crane started building rifles based on these I don't think the designation XM25 / M25 is correct. IMO and according to my info...
Well, I tried researching Navy NSNs: The original M25 sniper rifles made by the US Navy appear to be listed under National Stock Number (NSN) 1005-01-106-8975. Pictures of this NSN circa 1991 show a complete ‘Navy M14 sniper rifle kit’ with the black McMillan M1A stock, B&L Tactical scope, BPT scope mount, and various accessories inside an aluminum hard case that was apparently specific to the Navy’s M14 ‘sniper rifle kit.’ Here's the official picture of (NSN) 1005-01-106-8975, and this Navy-built rifle was indeed referred to at least informally as the 'M25' during Operation Desert Storm:



However, based on my research, around 1996, the Navy created a new designation re their M14-based sniper rifle when the platform evolved into NSN: 1005-LL-L99-5690, which was designated as an ‘M14 SSR’ (Sniper Security Rifle). Official pictures associated with this second NSN sometimes refer to it as the 'M25' in the item description, and they show the newer McMillan M3A stock design that has an adjustable cheek piece for better ergonomics for M14s mounted with scopes. Here's the first reference I have found to the Navy's newer NSN: 1005-LL-L99-5690, which is the June 1996 Operator's manual:



Notably, the M14 SSRs in these pictures no longer show the B&L scope or BPT scope mount, but instead show Leupold 10x Mk 4 tactical scopes along with the unique scope mounting system developed in-house by the Naval Weapons Support Center at Crane, IN. (The SSR scope rail is attached via a unique barrel collar at the front of the receiver, and the rear iron sights are removed to allow rail to be directly attached within the receiver’s rear sight ‘ears’, etc.)

Conclusion: The SSR rifle was a fundamental specification change, and thus my impression is that the Navy M25 and its official NSN only existed from roughly 1990 until 1996, when the "M14 SSR" pops up as the official replacement of the M25...(but perhaps some others with historical experience at Crane during the mid-1990s can chime in about this topic?)

NAVY XM25 TOPIC: Regarding the mysterious Navy XM25. Here's a little factoid on Lee Emerson's latest book, M14 Rifle History and Development, Fifth Edition, Vol 1 (2016), page 186:

Quote:
Two U.S. Navy M14SSR rifles were built by Naval Surface Warfare Center (Crane, IN) with the XM25 steel stock liner as an experiment. However, the stock liner was time consuming to produce so it was not kept as part of the M25 rifle specification. Most M25 rifles were built from rack grade M14s.
Assuming Emerson's research is correct, a Navy XM25 replica would represent the rarest of the rare, with only 2 made. I wish I knew what stock the Navy used for those two experiments: black or forest camo? Mitch might know what they used as I think he and Tom Kapp went to Crane to teach them circa 1990ish on how to make these rifles. My guess is the two Navy XM25s were likely made by Kapp/Matieko during that training trip to Crane, but that's just a guess based on what I had read about this topic. (Personally I'd go with a black stock as we know for sure that black was used by the Navy in that era).

RING TOPIC: As for rings the 'flat-top' Leupold Ultra's would be most correct based on era, I was able to find 2 nice sets this spring but kept one set for my project, and Ren got the other set for one of his projects. They are out there, you need to post WTB on a few forums. Here are the correct Leupold rings.



BIPOD TOPIC: The bipod used in that era was the same as the M24 sniper rifle, the Harris 1A2-L Ultralight 9-13" smooth leg, non-swivel (as noted in the original M24 SWS spec circa 1988). This drawing by famed military artist Max Crace shows a Navy SEAL circa Feb 1991 in Desert Storm with an M25. If you look closely, the bipod details can be seen, down to the "wheel" style adjustments (see next pic for examples):



Here are three Harris bipods I have laying around. The one on the far left is the same model shown in that above picture 1991, and I would consider it to be "most correct" for an XM25 or M25 of the early 1990s era. (Again, this is the specific bipod specified in the original 1988 M24 SWS program, and hence they were in the military's supply channels during this era). Note: The original/older Harris bipods have a "wheel" adjustment for leg height and smooth legs. The later versions have a "push-button" only, as seen on the bipod on the far right - and with notched legs.



FWIW, some operators preferred the shorter "benchrest" height Harris bipods, esp on the M24 rifle, in which the sniper wants a very low prone position. As seen in the middle (with older wheel adjustments), and the later version on the far right with the buttons only and "notched" legs. However, on the M14, while the shorter version can work, but with the extended magazine handing down below the rifle, the "standard" height Harris bipod might be a better choice (esp given uneven terrain and other factors that come into play in military service). Bipod was kind-of user preference, and Navy SEALs had a bit more leeway re weapon accessories given their high level of training and unique mission requirements, etc. Anyhow, the "most" correct bipod circa 1990ish would be the Harris 1A2-L Ultralight 9-13" smooth leg, non-swivel.

...That is my recollection. I hope this info helps.


Last edited by Random Guy; May 15th, 2017 at 08:32 AM.
Random Guy is online now  
Old May 13th, 2017, 07:02 AM   #18
Lifer
 
XM25Ren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 3,859

Awards Showcase

It was my understanding, the M14s used as sniper weapons used 7 & 10 round magazines, I have been wrong before.

Ren

XM25Ren is offline  
 
Old May 13th, 2017, 11:02 AM   #19
Scout Sniper
 
Majikani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: South Florida, or offshore GOM
Posts: 789

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by XM25Ren View Post
It was my understanding, the M14s used as sniper weapons used 7 & 10 round magazines, I have been wrong before.

Ren
Cut down 7 round mags were used with the XM21 rifles in Nam but I haven't heard of them being used since. Not that they weren't but I haven't heard of it. The shorter mags make sense so the shooter can get lower in prone and a sniper doesn't need a lot of rounds, but I am not aware of USGI use of ten round mags...

Thanks from XM25Ren
Majikani is online now  
Old May 14th, 2017, 05:33 AM   #20
Lifer
 
tokiwartooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Northport, NY
Posts: 2,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Guy View Post
Well, I tried researching Navy NSNs: The original M25 sniper rifles made by the US Navy appear to be listed under National Stock Number (NSN) 1005-01-106-8975. Pictures of this NSN circa 1991 show a complete ‘Navy M14 sniper rifle kit’ with the black McMillan M1A stock, B&L Tactical scope, BPT scope mount, and various accessories inside an aluminum hard case that was apparently specific to the Navy’s M14 ‘sniper rifle kit.’ Here's the official picture of (NSN) 1005-01-106-8975, and this Navy-built rifle was indeed referred to at least informally as the 'M25' during Operation Desert Storm:



However, based on my research, around 1996, the Navy created a new designation re their M14-based sniper rifle when the platform evolved into NSN: 1005-LL-L99-5690, which was designated as an ‘M14 SSR’ (Sniper Security Rifle). Official pictures associated with this second NSN sometimes refer to it as the 'M25' in the item description, and they show the newer McMillan M3A stock design that has an adjustable cheek piece for better ergonomics for M14s mounted with scopes. Here's the first reference I have found to the Navy's newer NSN: 1005-LL-L99-5690, which is the June 1996 Operator's manual:



Notably, the M14 SSRs in these pictures no longer show the B&L scope or BPT scope mount, but instead show Leupold 10x Mk 4 tactical scopes along with the unique scope mounting system developed in-house by the Naval Weapons Support Center at Crane, IN. (The SSR scope rail is attached via a unique barrel collar at the front of the receiver, and the rear iron sights are removed to allow rail to be directly attached within the receiver’s rear sight ‘ears’, etc.)

Conclusion: The SSR rifle was a fundamental specification change, and thus my impression is that the Navy M25 and its official NSN only existed from roughly 1990 until 1996, when the "M14 SSR" pops up as the official replacement of the M25...(but perhaps some others with historical experience at Crane during the mid-1990s can chime in about this topic?)

NAVY XM25 TOPIC: Regarding the mysterious Navy XM25. Here's a little factoid on Lee Emerson's latest book, M14 Rifle History and Development, Fifth Edition, Vol 1 (2016), page 186:



Assuming Emerson's research is correct, a Navy XM25 replica would represent the rarest of the rare, with only 2 made. I wish I knew what stock the Navy used for those two experiments: black or forest camo? Mitch might know what they used as I think he and Tom Kapp went to Crane to teach them circa 1990ish on how to make these rifles, and my guess is the two Navy XM25s were likely made by Kapp/Matieko during that trip to Crane, but that's just a guess based on what I had read about this topic. (Personally I'd go with a black stock as we know for sure that black was used by the Navy in that era).

RING TOPIC: As for rings the 'flat-top' Leupold Ultra's would be most correct based on era, I was able to find 2 nice sets this spring but kept one set for my project, and Ren got the other set for one of his projects. They are out there, you need to post WTB on a few forums. Here are the correct Leupold rings.



BIPOD TOPIC: The bipod used in that era was the same as the M24 sniper rifle, the Harris 1A2-L Ultralight 9-13" smooth leg, non-swivel (as noted in the original M24 SWS spec circa 1988). This drawing by famed military artist Max Crace shows a Navy SEAL circa Feb 1991 in Desert Storm with an M25. If you look closely, the bipod details can be seen, down to the "wheel" style adjustments (see next pic for examples):



Here are three Harris bipods I have laying around. The one on the far left is the same model shown in that above picture 1991, and I would consider it to be "most correct" for an XM25 or M25 of the early 1990s era. (Again, this is the specific bipod specified in the original 1988 M24 SWS program, and hence they were in the military's supply channels during this era). Note: The original/older Harris bipods have a "wheel" adjustment for leg height and smooth legs. The later versions have a "push-button" only, as seen on the bipod on the far right - and with notched legs.



FWIW, some operators preferred the shorter "benchrest" height Harris bipods, esp on the M24 rifle, in which the sniper wants a very low prone position. As seen in the middle (with older wheel adjustments), and the later version on the far right with the buttons only and "notched" legs. However, on the M14, while the shorter version can work, but with the extended magazine handing down below the rifle, the "standard" height Harris bipod might be a better choice (esp given uneven terrain and other factors that come into play in military service). Bipod was kind-of user preference, and Navy SEALs had a bit more leeway re weapon accessories given their high level of training and unique mission requirements, etc. Anyhow, the "most" correct bipod circa 1990ish would be the Harris 1A2-L Ultralight 9-13" smooth leg, non-swivel.

...That is my recollection. I hope this info helps.
Is it just the artists rendering, or was there no selector cut outs on those stocks?

tokiwartooth is offline  
Old May 14th, 2017, 05:47 AM   #21
Lifer
 
XM25Ren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 3,859

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by tokiwartooth View Post
Is it just the artists rendering, or was there no selector cut outs on those stocks?
I don't believe the rendering is accurate.

Ren

XM25Ren is offline  
Old May 14th, 2017, 05:54 AM   #22
Lifer
 
XM25Ren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 3,859

Awards Showcase

These are the major non standard components required to build one as original.

McMillan stock, BPT stock liner, BPT mount, BPT spring guide, BPT piston, BPT bipod/swivel stock insert, Barnett medium weight four groove 1-10" carbon steel barrel, Harris LS bipod and a BPT unitized and modified gas cylinder assembly (not nm acceptable). L&S M3 10X Ultra scope with mil dots and ultra rings for the army.
The fs is modified to NM specs, including trigger pull. Head space complies with match standards.
The liner eliminated the need for a rear lug.

Other notations;
The rear sight assembly uses a nm base and windage knob, it does NOT use a NM aperture.
Standard bedding compound is Bisonite steel. Pull down in bedding is almost twice as much as a NM.
All parts are manganese phosphate plated, gas cylinder assembly is treated with sodium dichromate ( low temp process).

XM25Ren is offline  
Old May 14th, 2017, 05:55 AM   #23
Lifer
 
tokiwartooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Northport, NY
Posts: 2,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by XM25Ren View Post
I don't believe the rendering is accurate.

Ren
Yeah, I guess I was basing it on Random Guys mention of the black "M1A" stock, not M14.

tokiwartooth is offline  
Old May 14th, 2017, 06:47 AM   #24
Grunt
 
Random Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: No. VA
Posts: 113
The M25 stock in the drawing should have a selector switch. I suspect Mr. Crace used a photograph for his drawing, but left out the selector switch for whatever reason.

PS: Toki, McMillan refers to their stock configuration's via "M1A", "M3A," and "Adj M3A", etc. It should not be confused with SAI's use of the "M1A" designation re their commercial rifles. For military orders, McMillan simple adds a computer program "cut" to the standard M1A (or M3A) profile to add the M14 selector switch cut. Its still an "M1A" (or "M3A") stock to them, but with the selector cut...I hope that made sense.


Last edited by Random Guy; May 15th, 2017 at 08:35 AM.
Random Guy is online now  
Old May 14th, 2017, 06:51 AM   #25
Scout Sniper
 
Majikani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: South Florida, or offshore GOM
Posts: 789

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by XM25Ren View Post
These are the major non standard components required to build one... Harris LS bipod
Not so sure... "L" stands for long, as in 9" to 13", and "S" stands for swivel. As a shooter I prefer the swivel however I think they may have used fixed. As for the height, again as a shooter, personally I can't stand anything more than the low and I can't believe that when in harms way anybody would want their head up that high. With an M14 I am very comfortable using the low and I have a lot more belly than anybody in the field would have had. However these are just personal experiences. Ren, where are you getting the "LS" from?

Also, anyone who used an early Harris bipod will probably tell you that they pretty much sucked and I am sure they got changed out for newer ones with notched legs as soon as they were available. Again, just a personal observation for what it's worth which is very little...

Thanks from forceman and XM25Ren
Majikani is online now  
Old May 14th, 2017, 07:16 AM   #26
Lifer
 
XM25Ren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 3,859

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by Majikani View Post
Not so sure... "L" stands for long, as in 9" to 13", and "S" stands for swivel. As a shooter I prefer the swivel however I think they may have used fixed. As for the height, again as a shooter, personally I can't stand anything more than the low and I can't believe that when in harms way anybody would want their head up that high. With an M14 I am very comfortable using the low and I have a lot more belly than anybody in the field would have had. However these are just personal experiences. Ren, where are you getting the "LS" from?

Also, anyone who used an early Harris bipod will probably tell you that they pretty much sucked and I am sure they got changed out for newer ones with notched legs as soon as they were available. Again, just a personal observation for what it's worth which is very little...
Matt, you know I consult you are on all higher questions.

So, where am I?

Ren

Thanks from Majikani
XM25Ren is offline  
Old May 14th, 2017, 05:59 PM   #27
Grunt
 
Random Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: No. VA
Posts: 113
I should have posted this 'official' picture of the M14 SSR in my previous post, but here it is for anyone interested (my guess is this official 'stock' picture dates to the mid-1990s period when it was released per the 1996 Operator's Manual):



You can see it has the longer 9-13" Harris bipod on it, which was also used on the original M24 SWS rifles circa late 1980s and thru the 1990s. Here's the markings ("Harris 1A2") over "Ultra Light"):


However, at some point during the 200Xs, US Army snipers and I presume US Navy snipers swapped out these "old school" bipods and went with the newer, shorter Harris Benchrest height bipods with notched legs, a swivel head, along with the Pod-Loc accessory that allows the shooter to easily tighten down the swivel while in the shooting position. (My buddy who went thru US Army sniper school in 2009 was issued this later set-up on his M24 SWS at that time).

In fact, this recent rendition of a Navy M14 SSR rifle shows the Harris swivel benchrest bipod with the Pod-Loc installed (Note: This is the same bipod also used on the USMC M40A5 and commonly seen on M14 EBRs as well).



Anyhow, my point is that the taller 9-13" bipod version is in my opinion, probably more technically correct for the XM25/M25 era and early M14 SSR era (1990s), but during the recent wars in the Iraq and Afghanistan (2001 to present day), it seems the shorter version was utilized by the US military. I too prefer the shorter bipod, so I guess its a question of whether someone wants the earlier, taller "correct" version, or the newer, shorter version that is not exactly correct for the era, but works better from an ergonomic perspective. I suppose one could contact Harris and ask about the chronology/manufacturing dates of their bipods over time. Hope that made sense.

Thanks from XM25Ren, Majikani and M1Army

Last edited by Random Guy; May 15th, 2017 at 07:52 AM.
Random Guy is online now  
Old May 14th, 2017, 06:27 PM   #28
Scout Sniper
 
Majikani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: South Florida, or offshore GOM
Posts: 789

Awards Showcase

Random,
I appreciate your post and research. I'm not convinced about the long bipod either being either correct or not correct for an XM25 / M25 in the 1988-1993 time frame. The picture shows it on a rifle with an A2 stock with cheek riser. That doesn't make that stock "correct" for an 88-93 rifle and by extension doesn't make the long bipod correct for an 88-93 rifle either. It shows it as correct for a mid 1990's Navy rifle. I offer this opinion in the spirit of mutually trying to get to the bottom of it all and it is simply my opinion. You may well be correct. I'm not sure which is correct, or even if there is a "correct" answer. It may have been a mission / preference determination... Anyway, just my 2 cents worth!
You've dug up some great info, keep it coming!

Majikani is online now  
Old May 14th, 2017, 06:43 PM   #29
Grunt
 
Random Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: No. VA
Posts: 113
Quote:
I'm not convinced about the long bipod either being either correct or not correct for an XM25 / M25 in the 1988-1993 time frame.
Yes, its hard to say, and I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty confident that this circa 1992(?) picture of Tom Kapp with an XM25 is of the Harris 1A2-L Ultralight 9-13" smooth leg, non-swivel...as the US Army had these as standard issued items via the 1988 M24 SWS program, and thus Tom Kapp/US Army SF had ready access to these by the early 1990s. (I could be wrong, but it looks a little too high to be the shorter 6-9" version - note the amount of daylight/space under the magazine...and the suppressor looks to be a good 12" or more inches off the table):



...so we can at least deduct that bipod studs were on the suppressed M25s as circa 1992, right? (The 1991 picture by Max Crace is just a detailed drawing, I think of a picture, but the bipod shown comports with my understanding of what Harris offered in that era. Had Harris offered the shorter benchrest height bipod back in 1988 I think the Army would have chosen it over the taller 9-13" version given its lower profile). My 2cts.

Quote:
You've dug up some great info, keep it coming!
...and one other key photograph re the most likely "correct" bipod is a picture that is attributed to Mitch Mateiko circa 1992 of an XM25 rifle in the 1996 book, The M14 Owner's Guide and Match Conditioning Instructions, by Scott A. Duff and John M. Miller, page 11.



...most of us have seen the bottom pic which is the "classic" close-up of the B&L scope on that page, but its the top picture that shows the whole rifle with the bipod mounted that provides the key "photographic evidence" re this era. To my eyes it is the same 9-13" Harris bipod used on the US Army's M24 rifle of the same era, with the "wheel" style adjustments that were used on these old smooth leg bipods.

Anyhow, if I get a chance I'll ask Harris via email when their benchrest bipods came out, but I am under the impression it was the 200Xs...but that's just a guess based on their advertisements over time.

Thanks from Majikani and M1Army

Last edited by Random Guy; May 15th, 2017 at 10:59 AM. Reason: XM25/M25 bipod continued - pic added
Random Guy is online now  
Old May 14th, 2017, 07:00 PM   #30
Old Salt
 
forceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,623
Random,awesom info and pics as usual,do we know in fact if the first SSR riflre were rear lugged,i heard tbe were?
And I noticed the stock was grey,when did they move to the Tan Mcmillans that ive seen pics of?


Last edited by forceman; May 14th, 2017 at 09:23 PM.
forceman is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > M14 M1A Forum > The M14

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Info for Vets: VA Hospital Questions..." CCKen Veterans Affairs 2 April 9th, 2010 08:39 AM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List