M14 Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
837 Posts
General James Guest, commander 10th SFG was the major opposition to the M25 program.
He was opposed to it not because something was wrong with it but because he had signed his name to approve the procurement of the M24 for use by SF.
He even stated as much, had nothing to do with the M25 itself but everything to do with his personal status.
He stated there was no way he was going to allow the rifle he approved replacing become a front line unit again under his command, thus making him look inept.
The M21 had reached its operational limits and they were tired, BPT was addressing the posed problems and coming up with solutions not thought of before, thus creating a new rifle from the old. Changes in rifling twist, scope mounting, gas system mods and a unique bedding system incorporated with an impermeable stock were blended into a very serviceable, field maintainable SWS, all done with the operator and his survival in mind not some rear echelon pencil neck "O" grade.
All this was done by BPT with no contract and no pay for the effort. It was done by an owner who himself with military experience knew what was needed, and he wanted the kids to have the best gear available, nothing was short cutted to save a dollar.

During the initial phases, the M24 was a dog, plagued with mechanical problems caused buy Rem's cheap manufacturing processes and unrealistic HS requirements which were fine for weekend bench shooters.
Who in the world would think it OK to issue a mallet to open the bolt in a combat situation? Plus being issued a SECOND BOLT in case of failure!!!!!!
Employing the mallet would cause bolt handle separation in short order in an effort to open it after several repeats.
I was there and I saw it happen many times, I wanted to open up the chambers after figuring out the core problem.
I was not allowed to because the Rem. warranty would be void.
Fail to extract would occur in sometimes less than 20 rounds.
The cheap method of silver soldering the handle on in place of a one piece forged unit IMHO is disgusting for a combat weapon, but fine for a deer rifle that may get get five rounds a year.
Even the cheap stamped extractors are a dismal failure.

Accepting all this stuff is a testimony the the powers to be don't care one bit about the operators life only their personal pride and status.
And in Remington's case the large profits.

There was plenty of screaming about not opening up the HS to allow it to reasonably work in a hostile environment. It was bad enough that the unfired cases were being swaged into chamber configuration with the bolt handle, leaving no margin for case relaxation post ignition and obturation.
What good is any rifle that can shoot 1/2 MOA one time only?
No matter how you look at it the Remington is a cheap of overpriced piece of c**p.(have to be careful, 24 is out to get me).
Every part is either cast, stamped or off a screw machine or chucker, nothing is forged.

As a final note, during Gulf 1, there was such a rich target environment that M24 operators were exhausted from manually operating the bolt, accuracy suffered greatly from fatigued arms and hands.
Those equipped with M25's had no such problems and sent many to their awaiting and promised virgins.
From what I got as feedback was that most of those in SF SOTIC preferred the M25's they built just prior to combat over the M24. Everything on the M25 was built for it to survive and work in any combat situation, no less.
You will forgive me for wasting your time reading this dribble, I really don't know anything about anything.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,879 Posts
General James Guest, commander 10th SFG was the major opposition to the M25 program.
He was opposed to it not because something was wrong with it but because he had signed his name to approve the procurement of the M24 for use by SF.
He even stated as much, had nothing to do with the M25 itself but everything to do with his personal status.
He stated there was no way he was going to allow the rifle he approved replacing become a front line unit again under his command, thus making him look inept.
The M21 had reached its operational limits and they were tired, BPT was addressing the posed problems and coming up with solutions not thought of before, thus creating a new rifle from the old. Changes in rifling twist, scope mounting, gas system mods and a unique bedding system incorporated with an impermeable stock were blended into a very serviceable, field maintainable SWS, all done with the operator and his survival in mind not some rear echelon pencil neck "O" grade.
All this was done by BPT with no contract and no pay for the effort. It was done by an owner who himself with military experience knew what was needed, and he wanted the kids to have the best gear available, nothing was short cutted to save a dollar.

During the initial phases, the M24 was a dog, plagued with mechanical problems caused buy Rem's cheap manufacturing processes and unrealistic HS requirements which were fine for weekend bench shooters.
Who in the world would think it OK to issue a mallet to open the bolt in a combat situation? Plus being issued a SECOND BOLT in case of failure!!!!!!
Employing the mallet would cause bolt handle separation in short order in an effort to open it after several repeats.
I was there and I saw it happen many times, I wanted to open up the chambers after figuring out the core problem.
I was not allowed to because the Rem. warranty would be void.
Fail to extract would occur in sometimes less than 20 rounds.
The cheap method of silver soldering the handle on in place of a one piece forged unit IMHO is disgusting for a combat weapon, but fine for a deer rifle that may get get five rounds a year.
Even the cheap stamped extractors are a dismal failure.

Accepting all this stuff is a testimony the the powers to be don't care one bit about the operators life only their personal pride and status.
And in Remington's case the large profits.

There was plenty of screaming about not opening up the HS to allow it to reasonably work in a hostile environment. It was bad enough that the unfired cases were being swaged into chamber configuration with the bolt handle, leaving no margin for case relaxation post ignition and obturation.
What good is any rifle that can shoot 1/2 MOA one time only?
No matter how you look at it the Remington is a cheap of overpriced piece of c**p.(have to be careful, 24 is out to get me).
Every part is either cast, stamped or off a screw machine or chucker, nothing is forged.

As a final note, during Gulf 1, there was such a rich target environment that M24 operators were exhausted from manually operating the bolt, accuracy suffered greatly from fatigued arms and hands.
Those equipped with M25's had no such problems and sent many to their awaiting and promised virgins.
From what I got as feedback was that most of those in SF SOTIC preferred the M25's they built just prior to combat over the M24. Everything on the M25 was built for it to survive and work in any combat situation, no less.
You will forgive me for wasting your time reading this dribble, I really don't know anything about anything.
I'm copying this to my computer and a print out.

Thanks!

RenGI2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Thanks! This is good stuff. Great to see it make it's way to the internet, and the internet doesn't forget.

Jeff
 

·
Registered
Extensive M1 Carbine and Rifle collections with current focus on standardized Army rifled arms
Joined
·
45 Posts
The M24 had a lot of potential and eventually improved... but still is somewhat unfinished.

During procurement it was managed by a fellow in the same office I worked in. It was a pretty ornate scope of work. The strategy was to buy it in 7.62mm but eventually have it converted to .300 Win Magnum as I recall. The 7.62 was in stock and the .300 would add to procurement time.

I suggested that it be procured in .30-06. It was already available and had unused space in the cartridge case that could allow it to be zooped up almost to .300 velocities. The manager took it to the CG who liked the idea, I was told, but there wasn't sufficient match ammo available to support downselect testing.

I learned later that the '06 ammunition WAS available. In the Marine Corps.

So we bought a big, expensive rifle. in a Big expensive transit chest. Later the rifles suffered rusty trigger mechanisms in storage. Seems that the tannic acid used in producing the leather slings would permeate the atmosphere in the sealed transit case and cause the triggers to rust. Remington replaced em under warranty I think.

But the goofy transit chest was and is a disaster. Cost a tad under $1000 each and would protect the rifle from a 5 foot drop to concrete.

Later I shot in the 7th SFG (I recall) Sniper Match. In conversation I learned that those Hardigg cases weren't used. First, they are huge and space is limited in an Arms Room. I was told that the maximum height of the T25 (recall) pallet was reduced so the chests were inefficient to transport. And they were damned big and heavy. So the Operators shifted to Pelican cases for about $100.

The underlying problems include specifications being written by committee with little understanding of field conditions.

I reported my findings but in retrospect didn't do a good job of documenting and presenting the issues up the line formally.
 

·
Registered
Extensive M1 Carbine and Rifle collections with current focus on standardized Army rifled arms
Joined
·
45 Posts
The M24 had a lot of potential and eventually improved... but still is somewhat unfinished.

During procurement it was managed by a fellow in the same office I worked in. It was a pretty ornate scope of work. The strategy was to buy it in 7.62mm but eventually have it converted to .300 Win Magnum as I recall. The 7.62 was in stock and the .300 would add to procurement time.

I suggested that it be procured in .30-06. It was already available and had unused space in the cartridge case that could allow it to be zooped up almost to .300 velocities. The manager took it to the CG who liked the idea, I was told, but there wasn't sufficient .30-06 match ammo available to support downselect testing for the 13 or so bidders expected. In the end only 3 bidders participated.

I learned later that the '06 ammunition WAS available. In the Marine Corps.

So we bought a big, expensive rifle. in a Big expensive transit chest. Later the rifles suffered rusty trigger mechanisms in storage. Seems that the tannic acid used in producing the leather slings would permeate the atmosphere in the sealed transit case and cause the triggers to rust. Remington replaced em under warranty I think.

But the goofy transit chest was and is a disaster. Cost a tad under $1000 each and would protect the rifle from a 5 foot drop to concrete.

Later I shot in the 7th SFG (I recall) Sniper Match. In conversation I learned that those Hardigg cases weren't used. First, they are huge and space is limited in an Arms Room. I saw a few in one arms room and they weren't being used. I was told that the maximum height of the T25 (recall) pallet was reduced so the chests were inefficient to transport. And they were damned big and heavy. So the Operators shifted to Pelican cases for about $100.

The underlying problems include specifications being written by committee with little understanding of field conditions.

I reported my findings but in retrospect didn't do a good job of documenting and presenting the issues up the line formally. I was later directed to do a study on the 24 and prepare a "Fielded Systems Review". The biggest complaint was that the adjustable buttplate was loose. It's been so long that I don't remember other details.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top