SAGE Chopmod EBR CQB Review: Trimming weight from the Beast!
Introduction
Back in March of 2005, I posted a review of SAGE International's Enhanced Battle Rifle chassis for the M14/M1A. In preparation for that review, I spent some significant range time behind a couple of M1A's equipped with the SAGE EBR chassis and then ranted and raved about how much I loved the upgraded classic. The result was the review you can read here. Afterwards, I spent the summer and fall of 2005 lugging an EBR upgraded M1A around and logged some serious time in the field. I humped it up and down the Rockies. I lugged it around the foothills. I dragged it around the prairies. And when I was done, damn�was I tired!
Somewhere in the midst while struggling to catch my breath and gently nursing the spasms out of my upper body muscles, I was sorely tempted to re-think my position on the sage EBR. While sitting on a large rock, rifle resting at my side, I found myself reflecting on the various issues surrounding battle rifle cartridge selection.
 The Rifle I started with: an M1A wearing a SAGE EBR Chopmod and a Leupold 3.5-10 Mk IV LR/T. Total weight: just north of 16 lbs! |
Small Arms Depoyment Doctrine
Throughout the 20th century, infantry small arms development has moved in the direction of increased firepower via more rounds downrange. Fire-and-maneuver type tactics certainly lend themselves to this philosophy�relying on sustained small arms fire, used to position the enemy in such a way as they are exposed to attack via the much more potent and effective heavy weapons (such as mortars, artillery, and vehicle mounted crew served weapons such as the fearsome Browning .50 machine gun) that come with an integrated force. In this type of mixed arms environment it's the heavy weapons that do most of the killing. Sustained small arms fire requires large volumes of ammunition, and an individual soldier can certainly carry far more 5.56x45 than 7.62x51. Indeed, 800 rounds of 5.56x45 weigh approximately 22 lbs. The same number of 7.62x51 rounds weigh approximately double that at 43 lbs. Having to carry your rifle and ammunition around all day, every day, coupled with the doctrine of heavy firepower via volume certainly makes a strong argument in support of the 5.56 NATO.
Remember though that a mixed-arms force typically relies on their heavy weapons to do most of their work. Their individual rifles are but one tool in a box of many�integration of the complete toolbox being what makes them so effective. It's no secret that I greatly favor the 7.62x51mm over the 5.56x45mm when considering cartridge selection for an individual battle rifle. The key concept here is an individual battle rifle�where my favoritism owes solely to the vastly superior terminal ballistics of the 7.62x54mm cartridge. This has not changed as a result of my summer sweat.
What about the increased firepower associated with being able to send more rounds downrange? The difference is that an individual does not have access to the complete toolbox that a mixed force commander does�an individual will have to make due with a much more restricted toolbox; most likely consisting of a single weapon. As such, the terminal ballistics requirements of that weapon are much more important and greatly outweigh the increased round count benefit of a smaller caliber weapon. This thinking also applies to small teams that don't have access to fire support or other heavy weapons.
Heavyweight .308
Back to the EBR M1A: My original SAGE EBR ChopMod weighed in at approximately 11.0 lbs unloaded and without optics. This gun was built on a Norinco receiver and barrel, the barrel being cut down to 18.5 inches and threaded for a muzzle device of my own design. It's worth noting that the Norinco barrels are of slightly lesser outside diameter than a USGI barrel, and consequently are also slightly lighter. With optics (a Leupold Mk IV LRT 3.5-10 M1), a sling, and a loaded 20 round magazine, the total weight of the system ballooned to approximately 16 lbs...small wonder I was feeling chuffed after a day in the field with the gun!
So, what to do? As an individual, I'm trapped by my terminal-ballistics fixation of requiring a larger caliber semi-automatic weapon for fight stopping effectiveness, however resent the fact that the weight of my system is more than double what it would be with a smaller caliber weapon.
I did some hard thinking about the role I was asking my rifle to play and came to the conclusion that the longer range benefits of the cartridge was what were costing me the most. I was asking my weapon to be everything�.from a cqb brawler to a long range (600 meters plus) special purpose rifle and everything in-between. In doing so had come up with one that really did not do any of them well. The finished gun was too heavy to be used quickly in a CQB role, and fell somewhat short from a well-tuned long range bolt gun. It was time to choose which one was more important to me.
 After months of trying different things, here is the .308 cqb brawler I ended up choosing, a bare-bones M1A EBR CQB Chopmod. |
I landed on that of a cqb role, deciding that a bolt gun was everything a guy could want at greater range, and that it filled that role so much better than any of my attempts to sniper up an M1A that the effort was likely wasted. What I really wanted was a big bore brawler, and handling characteristics of this weapon would be important. Medium range effectiveness also ranked in my criteria of things-important, however this was to take a back seat to the weight-determined-effectiveness in a close quarters combat type role.
Role-defined Weight Gain
Before getting into the details of the weight loss program, there were three decisions I made that limited the amount of weight I could shed. Were a guy to go the die-hard M1A weight loss program, I would have reverted back to a USGI fiberglass stocked, 18.5 inch barreled weapon with a gas lock front sight and a smith enterprise vortex direct connect flash hider. Total weight of this rig (and I have one that use frequently!) is 9.4lbs.
 Bottom Gun: an 18.5 inch barreled M1A in a standard USGI fiberglass stock. Total weight: 9.7lbs. Top Gun: 18.5 inch barreled M1A in a Sage EBR CQB Chopmod wearing a standard collapsible M4 stock, a surefire E2E in a VLTOR E2E mount, and a DOCTERsight red dot sight. Total weight: 12.1lbs |
As my role defined cqb as the primary purpose, a weapon mounted flashlight was mandatory and constitutes the first second piece of mandatory mass. Trying to keep the flashlight as light as possible, I went with a surefire E2ED in a VLTOR E2 picatinny mount. Total weight cost of the flashlight and mount? 0.28lbs. Secondly, I felt that between the handling characteristics of the pistol grip, the bedding system, and the combined optics and accessory mounting options offered by the sage stock, these features combined warranted the upgrade from a USGI fiberglass stock to the SAGE EBR CQB Chopmod Chassis. Total weight penalty of the EBR chassis over a USGI fiberglass stock? Approximately 1.35lbs. The third piece of role defined weight gain over a bare bones M1A rig was optics. I felt that optics significantly increased the effectiveness of the rig in both speed and accuracy. I wound up trying several different types of optics, and will fill you in on the details a little later. But now, time for�.
A Slight Distraction
My M1A is based on a Norinco gun. While the receivers are identical to that of one with USGI heritage, the Chinese barrels are of a somewhat lesser overall diameter. I wanted to swap out the Chinese barrel for a US made one, primarily because the thread pitch of the gas lock and flash hider is different from the Chinese barrel compared to one made to USGI specs. The reason this was important to me was because I wanted to run a Smith Enterprise Dovetail Gas Lock Sight. With the gas lock threads on the Chinese barrel being non-spec�this was a no-go for me unless I swapped barrels. So for those of you who are adding up all the weights published here and come to the conclusion that the math just does not quite add up, I'm blaming it on the barrel swap. Having thrown away the old Chinese barrel, I can't say for sure how much lighter it was. Anyway�back to the weight loss program!
Weight Loss Program
Thus into the world of weight chopping I went. While a seemingly simple exercise, I'm embarrassed to report that it took approximately 4 months to complete. How is this possible you might ask? Well, I'd make a change, then run it in the field for a bit to evaluate what I liked and what I did not like, and then change something else. This was a somewhat frustrating process, as it was often difficult to evaluate what I liked the best and why. The story is long and somewhat convoluted, so much so that I was tempted to write solely about the rig I landed on in the end. I decided instead to try and capture some of the process such, thinking that this might have some value to people reading the article.
 After briefly flirting with an MR/T on top of a standard SAGE EBR Chopmod, it became evident that weight was the biggest handling challenge of the EBR. |
Long range optics came with the largest weight penalty, so they ultimately the first to go. While fine glass and what adorns all my long range precision rifles, the Leupold Mk IV 3.5-10 weighed in at 21oz, and the steel rings it was sitting in another 7.5oz. Early in the experiment, I had switched out the LR/T Mk IV for a Mark IV MR/T 1.5-5x M2. There were very little weight savings associated with the switch, however I made it because I was looking to increase my EBR's short range capability. I was hoping that the lesser magnification of the MR/T would fit the bill; however the weapon was still a behemoth at 16 lbs and anything except nimbly maneuverable at close range. Off came the leupold glass, replaced with a much lighter trijicon tripower. I chose the tripower over an aimpoint because I felt the tripower's chevron reticle offered a minor advantage at medium range as compared to the 4 moa dot of our aimpoint ML2.
I also ran this rig for a bit with an Aimpoint 3x magnifier. The magnifier worked well with the tripower; effecting some magnification for longer range type work. It could easily and quickly be removed, reverting the rig back to something more suited for close quarters combat. In the end though, I felt that taking the magnifier on and off was somewhat of a pain; when it was off the gun it was one more piece of kit a guy had to take care of and that under a stressful situation I could not imagine it coming on or off with any frequency. Into the accumulating pile of equipment marked as "tried and rejected" went the tripower and the magnifier.
 Trijicon Tripower and an Aimpoint 3x magnifier. |
 Magnifier and Tripower during a range session. |
 The Tripower all by itself. |
The next change made was replacing the SAGE EBR Chopmod with a SAGE EBR CQB Chopmod. The EBR CQB uses a regular M4 type telescoping stock instead of the steel-tube-type-collapsible Sage. I initially chose a Magpul M93B stock for its superior cheek weld. Overall weight? 12 lbs, 4 oz. I ran this rig for about a month; while it was significantly better than the 16 lb monster, I came away from the experience thinking that there was still room for improvement. Swapping the Tripower out for a TA24-2, I ran this next-iteration rig for about another month. While the TA24-2 weighed about the same as the bare-bones-Tripower, it brought to the table a 1.5x magnification and lower mounting options. The incremental magnification helped increase the maximum effective range out to the approximate 275 yard line of sight/flight path trajectory, however came at the cost of speed and a fixed eye relief.
 M1A with an EBR CQB Chopmod, an ACOG TA24-2, and a Magpul M93B telescoping stock. Total weight: 12.8 lbs. |
As a side note regarding the Trijicon TA24-2, while I would have like slightly more magnification (ie: 2 or 3 power), the TA24-2 is Trijicon's longest eye relief compact ACOG. Mounting the optic on the forward SAGE upper rail, this long eye relief was important. In fact, one issue with the magpul stock was that it could not be collapsed far enough to ensure correct eye relief. The issue was that the locking mechanism of the stock interfered with my trigger finger hand�the furthest forward the stock could go and allow non-interference with my grip was position two. Unfortunately, this put me about an inch and a half away from optimum eye relief. The scope still worked well out here, however it came at the cost of reduced field of view.
I reluctantly ditched the M93B stock, switching it out for a standard M4 style collapsible. The standard collapsible stock geometry allowed comfortably running the gun with the stock completely collapsed and while it's cheek weld was not as comfortable as the M93B, it allowed me proper eye relief on the TA24-2 as well as the added benefit of shaving off another 6oz.
I ran this rig for approximately another month. As previously mentioned, I liked the TA24-2 for hybrid characteristics of a magnified optic and a red dot sight. Sound too good to be true? Well�it is. A military version of a Docter Optic with a 3.5 MOA red dot reticle became available to me and I initially balked hard at it's steep price tag, however after mounting it on my EBR and giving it a short test drive I was a die-hard convert. The Docter Optic weighed a diminutive 2oz and sat on the SAGE rail significantly lower than anything I had tried previously. Because it sat lower, it made the standard M4 style collapsible stock more comfortable to use. While it had no magnification, swapping back and forth between my TA24-2 and the Docter it became blatantly obvious that the non-magnified red dot sight was significantly faster to acquire as compared to using the BAC feature of the compact ACOG as well as being more comfortable to use with a standard M4 style stock instead of the significantly heavier Magpul M93B. Total weight of my final EBR Chopmod? 12.0 lbs for a total savings in weight of over 4 lbs!
 EBR CQB Chopmod, a standard 6 position M4 style telescoping stock, and a Mil/LE model DOCTERsight. With this rig, hitting our www.tacticalworks.ca 8x11 falling steel plates was not a problem out to approximately 300 yards! |
Notes on the DOCTERsight
Manufactured by Docter Opics in Germany and distributed in the US by Docter Optics USA (http://www.docteropticsusa.com), what is commonly known as the Docter Optic is in fact officially named the DOCTERsight. It is available in 4 different configurations: the standard sight with either a 3.5 or 7.0 MOA dot, and their Military/LE version with either a 3.5 or 7.0 MOA dot. To my knowledge, the only difference between the regular and the military versions are that the military versions have a small sapphire window protecting the dot emitter from water/crap infiltration, and a gasket for between the sight and the mount, making the sight waterproof to 3 or 4 meters.
The sight operates on the principle of always being on. It has an ambient light sensor on the front of the hood that modulates the intensity of the dot for optimum contrast under any lighting condition. The sight ships with a small hood designed to shroud the sensor darkness when not in use; accordingly the dot is set to its lowest intensity for storage. The sight operates off a single CR 2032 battery, and life of that battery is simply amazing. My original battery on my standard DOCTERsight is more than three years old and still displays a bright dot that's easily visible under direct sunlight.
 The Military/LE version of the highly impressive DOCTERsight. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the military and standard versions are the waterproofing gasket and the sapphire emitter protection window. |
 Operator view of an EBR CQB Chopmod wearing the DOCTERsight. The DOCTERsight obscures the least amount of downrange area as compared to every other red dot sight we've seen and tried. The reticle brightness is self adjusting...I was pleasantly surprised in overcoming my initial scepticism regarding reticle washout. |
Unlike the plastic and acrylic of the similarly styled JPoint red dot sight, the DOCTERsight is all stainless steel and pure glass. These materials were important to me, as the sight sits somewhat exposed to knocks and drops on the top rail of the EBR. In the near future, I'm hoping to compile an article comparing various Red Dot Sights and will detail the Docter in more detail there.
DOCTERSIGHT Cold Weather Performance
While on the topic of battery life, cold weather performance of the battery does not seem to be an issue at all. During this fall/winter deer season, I hunted almost exclusively with the EBR CQB Chopmod outfitted with the Docter Military/LE. There were several days where the temperature was below -20 degrees celcius (-4 degrees Fahrenheit). I had the hood of the sight removed 1 hour before sunrise, and it stayed off sometimes the whole day. I made a point of checking the dot brightness against the snow in full sun; it was as bright and functional as ever. And when that mule deer buck stepped out at 125 yards, that little red dot was not hard to find at all.
 Cold-weather performance of the sight was outstanding. |
Range Report
While lacking the longer range attributes of a magnified optic, for me the Docter was surprisingly effective out to about 300 yards. I zeroed the sight for 275 yards�giving me a very usable trajectory where the initial line of sight intersection was approximately 35 yards with a mid-range apogee approximately 4.5 inches above my line of sight at approximately 150 yards. Is it as precise as a rig equipped with a dial-able bullet drop compensator? Absolutely not, however more than good enough for my battlerifle! Here at tacticalworks.ca, one of our standard targets is a falling steel plate made from 3/8 AR500 steel. The plates measure 8.5x11 inches and proved to be surprisingly easy to hit out to 300 yards. This surprised me, primarily because the size of the Docter Optic Military's dot is 3.5 MOA�at 300 yards the dot appears approximately 25% larger than the width of the plate. The reality was that at 300 yards I had no trouble hitting the plates from a sitting position. It was a simple matter of lining up the top of the dot with the top of the target, executing good breath and trigger control, and watching the plate fall as the *ping* signaling falling steel came back about a second later. As the plates got closer and closer, it was easier and easier, albeit where-a-guy-had-to-hold the dot shifted slightly due to the trajectory effected by my battle zero.
Field Report
As mentioned above, I hunted just about the complete fall/winter deer season of 2005 with my "weight loss program" ChopMod EBR CQB. I put in more than 12 full days of hunting, purposely walking long distances throughout the day rather than holing up in one spot waiting for something to walk by. My reason for hunting like this was simple�I wanted the experience of humping the "weight loss" rifle up and down the coulees and hills of Western Canada, simulating to the best of my ability what it would be like to be on "patrol" with the rifle and a pack. By the end of the season, I had cleanly taken game at ranges from 25 yards to 250 yards, and not once did I pull the trigger and not have something to field dress shortly thereafter.
 Mule Deer Doe that fell to my weightloss EBR CQB Chopmod. |
 Tasty looking Whitetail Doe and the weight loss EBR CQB Chopmod. |
 Whitetail Doe...while the weapon is missing from the picture, this was the first animal to fall to the weightloss EBR CQB Chopmod. |