CaptHank
Member
I was drafted, November 22, 1965. Had the M-14, thru Basic and AIT. Went to Germany, 4th Armored Div., M-14 to the end of my tour. It was one heavy rifle, but then again, I was young and strong during that time.
M1A vs. M14
- Thread starter josiewales
- Start date
- Status
Even though the commercial Springfield Armory has no connection to the government factory, BATFE took the position that a gun marked "SPRINGFIELD ARMORY M14" is a machinegun. So the commercial Springfield Armory changed the model of their semi-auto rifle to "M1A". Other makers can use the term "M14" if they didn't make selective fire M14's. For convenience, I will use the term "M1A" for all semi-auto M14 type rifles, regardless of marking or manufacturer.
M1A receivers are different from the M14 so they cannot be converted to full auto using M14 parts. Springfield Armory, Inc., did make some selective fire M14's early on for sale to LE, but AFAIK now produces only semi-autos. The main difference in the receivers is that the M1A uses the M1 rifle system of interface between the receiver and the op rod, not the M14 style, and does not have the selector switch tang on the bottom of the receiver.
The cast vs forged issue is an old one, and no matter what might be true in theory, in practice modern cast receivers are as strong and durable as forged ones. There is a tendency to associate the word "cast" with the cheap cast iron used in old guns; modern cast steel is a very different material. Plus, there is enough margin of extra strength built into the M1/M14 design that any strength difference is not significant.
Jim
M1A receivers are different from the M14 so they cannot be converted to full auto using M14 parts. Springfield Armory, Inc., did make some selective fire M14's early on for sale to LE, but AFAIK now produces only semi-autos. The main difference in the receivers is that the M1A uses the M1 rifle system of interface between the receiver and the op rod, not the M14 style, and does not have the selector switch tang on the bottom of the receiver.
The cast vs forged issue is an old one, and no matter what might be true in theory, in practice modern cast receivers are as strong and durable as forged ones. There is a tendency to associate the word "cast" with the cheap cast iron used in old guns; modern cast steel is a very different material. Plus, there is enough margin of extra strength built into the M1/M14 design that any strength difference is not significant.
Jim
GMHAYESUSN
Member
We had a Winchester M-14 w/auto capabilities at my last command. Hands down the coolest weapon I have ever fired! 35K for one...wow!
Hopkins
Member
Forged receiver semi auto M14's are available from LRB of Long Island.
Flatbush Harry
Member
deleted
FH
FH
Last edited:
boricua9mm
Member
Cast M1A receivers are not known for cracking and shattering in an epic display of catastrophic failure. Some of the smaller parts (hammers, extractors, etc.) made for Springfield in China and other countries do have such a reputation, however. To be honest though, the parts made for Springfield by Wayne Machine in Taiwan are pretty darn good. In the past few years, SAI has had some more dubious suppliers enter the scene.
USGI parts are drying up; that's just the facts of life. There is a finite pool of parts, and as the years go by, that pool dwindles. Price point plays a big parts in how companies like Springfield, and even LRB, are able to bring a gun to market. Want a forged receiver gun with the best parts possible? LRB may be your best option; be sure to bring $2500 to $3k to the negotiating table. Don't be fooled though, even LRB is having to make their own reproduction parts.
If nothing else, a good USGI trigger group and extractor is a good thing for an M1A to have. SAI just is NOT known for having gas locks blow apart, op rods splitting and going into orbit, or bolts turning into frag grenades.
After years of owning and shooting my own M1A, as well as those belonging to friends and family, I think that Springfield is capable of making a great gun. Do they always deliver great gun? Obviously, not 100% of the time to 100% of the people. Is the M14/M1A the best 7.62 NATO rifle available today? Personally, I don't think so, but that's another discussion topic entirely.
USGI parts are drying up; that's just the facts of life. There is a finite pool of parts, and as the years go by, that pool dwindles. Price point plays a big parts in how companies like Springfield, and even LRB, are able to bring a gun to market. Want a forged receiver gun with the best parts possible? LRB may be your best option; be sure to bring $2500 to $3k to the negotiating table. Don't be fooled though, even LRB is having to make their own reproduction parts.
If nothing else, a good USGI trigger group and extractor is a good thing for an M1A to have. SAI just is NOT known for having gas locks blow apart, op rods splitting and going into orbit, or bolts turning into frag grenades.
After years of owning and shooting my own M1A, as well as those belonging to friends and family, I think that Springfield is capable of making a great gun. Do they always deliver great gun? Obviously, not 100% of the time to 100% of the people. Is the M14/M1A the best 7.62 NATO rifle available today? Personally, I don't think so, but that's another discussion topic entirely.
Last edited:
C.F. Plinker
Member
I understand that the M14 and M1A receivers are different so that the M1A has only semi-automatic capability. Do the National Match M14s use a receiver similar to the M1A so that they (the National Match version) do not have the capability of full automatic operation.
Speedo66
Member
I also went through basic in 1967 with an M-14, but the happy switch was removed. Heavy? You betcha', but I have no intention of running around all day with one ever again. LOL
Love to find a deal on a nice used M-1A.
Love to find a deal on a nice used M-1A.
HorseSoldier
Member
Whereas some forged M14 receivers did fail catastrophically when the rifle was first fielded due to poor manufacturing QC. Making sure your parts are made to standard is just as important as how you make them.
jim in Anchorage
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2009
- Messages
- 2,849
Is it true that some of the Chinese M14 [receivers] copies are made of such soft metal that you must check the headspace every time you put a few rounds tru them?
Forging might be nice to get more strength from a finished part, but it's selected as a method in production because you can make more of them cheaper with the dies stamping hot metal than you could pouring them into molds that are then discarded.
It's about the expense of production where the big decisions are made - cost per unit. In the M14 series, there is no barrel extension, the barrel is fixed to the receiver, and the bolt locks into the receiver, too. Only that portion of the receiver between the barrel attachment and the bolt lugs is stressed - not the back end where the sights are mounted or the magazine locks in. With that in mind, then consider the AR15 - which uses a barrel extension screwed onto the barrel which locks the bolt in place. The forged upper and lower - nada - they just hold all the parts together. It's merely a matter of production costs for making over 8 million rifles that forging supports. Not the gun whatsoever.
Because of that the design is used with polymer lowers and carbon tube uppers. It could all be stamped out of aluminum sheet if someone wanted. The barrel extension is just a machined part from a chunk of roll formed bar - no forged, either.
While most engine connecting rods are forged to shape, consider there are 4-6-8 of them vs one crankshaft, which is commonly cast and twisted. Only when certain horsepower outputs are needed do cranks get forged - in quantity. Others simply machine them out of one big chunk of steel, which was rolled to shape, not forged. Cutting off all the excess that isn't a crank means the inherent "strenght" of forging isn't used - economy of the machining process for the number of cranks chosen was.
Too much is made of one particular process vs another, the engineer can figure out where to put more material to compensate. What gets decided, first, is the method to use which yields the least expensive part costs.
After the sale is when the chest thumping starts, and it really shows a lack of understanding in production costs and techniques.
It's about the expense of production where the big decisions are made - cost per unit. In the M14 series, there is no barrel extension, the barrel is fixed to the receiver, and the bolt locks into the receiver, too. Only that portion of the receiver between the barrel attachment and the bolt lugs is stressed - not the back end where the sights are mounted or the magazine locks in. With that in mind, then consider the AR15 - which uses a barrel extension screwed onto the barrel which locks the bolt in place. The forged upper and lower - nada - they just hold all the parts together. It's merely a matter of production costs for making over 8 million rifles that forging supports. Not the gun whatsoever.
Because of that the design is used with polymer lowers and carbon tube uppers. It could all be stamped out of aluminum sheet if someone wanted. The barrel extension is just a machined part from a chunk of roll formed bar - no forged, either.
While most engine connecting rods are forged to shape, consider there are 4-6-8 of them vs one crankshaft, which is commonly cast and twisted. Only when certain horsepower outputs are needed do cranks get forged - in quantity. Others simply machine them out of one big chunk of steel, which was rolled to shape, not forged. Cutting off all the excess that isn't a crank means the inherent "strenght" of forging isn't used - economy of the machining process for the number of cranks chosen was.
Too much is made of one particular process vs another, the engineer can figure out where to put more material to compensate. What gets decided, first, is the method to use which yields the least expensive part costs.
After the sale is when the chest thumping starts, and it really shows a lack of understanding in production costs and techniques.
Last edited:
Destructo6
Member
If that were the case, then Springfield Armory, Inc would be forging, since they are in the business of production.
Cast vs Forging condensed and from an impartial party:
http://www.sfsa.org/sfsa/pubs/cvf/ecs.php
Depends on who did the National Match preparation and who is going to be using it. If the Federal government performed the preparation and the NM rifle is to be used by a Federal Agency (AMU), they would use what they have and that would be full auto. They would most likely have the full auto feature partially or completely disabled and ownership would remain with the Federal Government.
There were a few, a VERY few, M14 National Match rifles sold through the DCM before Uncle Stupid stepped in and deemed them as still full auto rifles even though the selector locks were welded to the receivers, the connector rods ground and M1 Garand hammers installed.
- Status
