M14s and M1As

[john_pifer]

Man, that James River Armory M14 with the Bula forged receiver is pretty lust-worthy!

https://youtu.be/NWjDnw0jXaY

Anybody have one?

What about other brands? I understand there's another company called LRB that also makes forged M1A/M14 receivers, but they're quite a bit pricier?

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

That's pretty sweet, this one is next on my lust list:
Sharps Bros. Deliciousness

 

[hatt]

Good to see a decent price on a forged receiver M14. I wouldn't be able to justify the extra cost over an AR10 however.

 

[bdcardinal]

I have an M1A SOCOM II. No complaints except my shoulder being mad at me.

 

[E150GT]

I wish I had a walnut stock M1A. One of the best looking rifles out there after the Garand and ’03 Springfield.

 

[WyrTwister]

I have a SA M1A with a cast receiver . Other than the bragging rights , I see no reason to pat large for a forged receiver .

Is the forged receiver stronger ? Yes . Is it going to make any difference . I do not think so .

How many SA cast receivers do you hear of that have worn out ?

If you want a walnut stock , get a USGI stock . That is what I did .

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
I have a SA M1A with a cast receiver . Other than the bragging rights , I see no reason to pat large for a forged receiver .

Is the forged receiver stronger ? Yes . Is it going to make any difference . I do not think so .

How many SA cast receivers do you hear of that have worn out ?

If you want a walnut stock , get a USGI stock . That is what I did .
If you're going to buy an old school hunk of steel and wood you want the real thing not a cheapened copy.

 

[WyrTwister]

In the USA , due to the laws , it is impractical to buy the real thing , an M-14 .

However , if you want a forged receiver , hunt up a Chi-Com Norinco or Polytexh semi auto copy of the M-14 . But do not expect all the parts to be the same as USGI parts .

A M1A is plenty good for me .

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
I have a SA M1A with a cast receiver. Other than the bragging rights, I see no reason to pat large for a forged receiver. Is the forged receiver stronger? Yes. Is it going to make any difference. I do not think so. How many SA cast receivers do you hear of that have worn out?


I agree. Way too much emphasis today is placed on forged receivers. All Springfield M1-A receivers are investment cast. As are Ruger Mini 14 receivers. Along with all other Ruger rifle receivers and revolver frames. Including the Model 77 bolt action, and the Ruger #1 Single Shot falling block. Which is considered by many to be one of the strongest actions available on the market today.

Even the Magnum Research BFR revolver has a Stainless Steel frame that is investment cast by Ruger's Pine Tree Casting Division. It can be had in .45-70, .500 S&W Magnum, .30-30 Winchester, and .450 Marlin. How many have you ever seen break, crack, or come apart? I've never seen one, with the exception of the occasional well publicized handloading error, that's based on a "kaboom" from either a gross overload, the wrong powder, or a combination of both. Any or all of which would have blown up any weapon. Forged, billet, or otherwise.

I have a total of 3 Ruger Mini 14's, and 2 Springfield M1-A's. And all 5 of them are excellent, accurate, well built weapons that have held up well for thousands of rounds.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: hatt
If you're going to buy an old school hunk of steel and wood you want the real thing not a cheapened copy.


"Cheapened"?

http://www.galleryofguns.com/genie/Default.aspx?item=SA9802&zipcode=85307

 

[hatt]

Yes. Cheapened. They didn't start casting receivers to make a better part. They were saving money.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Yes. Cheapened. They didn't start casting receivers to make a better part. They were saving money.


quoted for truth.

You don't abandon forging and machining to casting and machining without a few good reasons, and all of them are "$"

Oh, and paying more for something doesn't make it superior just for costs sake.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
They didn't start casting receivers to make a better part.


You have to remember the M-14 was introduced in 1959. It's action dates back to 1936 with the introduction of the M1 Garand. Modern low porosity, high strength, vacuum investment casting techniques employed today, were not available to produce the high quality level of parts they can and do today. Many of the investment cast parts produced back then were weak, and contained too much porosity to be used in a lot of high strength applications, like they are today. So they were forged and required a lot of expensive, time consuming machining. Because that was the only way they could be manufactured.

Today forging in many applications has become an overly expensive, unnecessary, obsolete process that simply is no longer required. A part is only required to be as strong as needed for a given application. This is true even in jet engine turbine blade applications. Of which many are investment cast. When you fly on modern commercial jet aircraft, do you worry if the parts contained in the engines are strong enough?

Modern investment casting allows intricate parts to be created with a minimal amount of machining, that are more than strong and durable enough for their given applications. Firearm actions included. That is a fact. As a supposed, "free thinking engineer", you of all people should know that. However it's quite apparent you don't. Or else you wouldn't be trying to start yet another foolish argument.

 

[hatt]

I'm sure a cast receiver is perfectly fine in an M1A. I'm peculiar about the guns I buy. Cheapened, cost cutting versions of classics don't interest me a whole lot. Especially when they are well over $1000. Sure I'll take a sweet deal.

 

[john_pifer]

Originally Posted By: billt460
When you fly on modern commercial jet aircraft, do you worry if the parts contained in the engines are strong enough?





Yes! Especially after recent events!

 

[hatt]

Quote:
When you fly on modern commercial jet aircraft, do you worry if the parts contained in the engines are strong enough?

A little.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Not so much when they have 4 engines!

 

[billt460]

There was a story many years back that circulated among gun writers about Bill Ruger, that was verified by Craig Boddington, any many others who were there to witness it. When Bill Ruger brought out his #1 Single Shot rifle back in 1967, there were many who criticized him for the investment cast receiver it contained. Like this thread, they were all carrying on and parroting about how much "better" and "stronger" it would have been if it were machined from a solid steel forging. Along with how investment castings were "cheap" and "weak" in comparison.

Bill Ruger assured them that nothing would have been gained except added manufacturing cost, had he chose to go that route. To prove it he arranged an impromptu test. He pulled a new Ruger #1 Tropical Rifle off the line in .458 Winchester Magnum. He then took a 500 Grain Hornady FMJ solid bullet, and hammered it into the rifling with a wooden dowel. Behind it he inserted a .458 Win. Mag. case filled to the top with Bullseye pistol powder. (Bullseye has the fastest burn rate of any commercial powder. And is used in very small charges for light pistol and revolver target loads).

The rifle was then secured against a tree, and a long string tied to the trigger, so it could be fired from a safe location. When it was fired the buttstock split where it mounted into the receiver. And the forend also cracked. But nothing happened to the receiver. The action itself had to be hammered open with a mallet. It was estimated such a profuse overload would have generated well over 100,000 PSI. But even that was not enough to crack, blow up, or break the investment cast falling block action.

That "test" by Bill Ruger took place several decades ago. But the myth of investment cast parts still lingers on to this day. In spite of people like Bill Ruger who built a multi million dollar firearms empire around investment casting. And who's products have come to be known as some of the strongest, and best built weapons in the industry.

Lenard Brownell who helped with the design of the Ruger #1 said when interviewed, "There was never any question about the strength of the action. I remember, in testing it, how much trouble I had trying to tear it up. In fact, I never did manage to blow one apart."

 

[hatt]

Get back to me when Ruger is casting barrels and cylinders. No doubt cast works okay for simple, large pieces of steel that aren't subject to tremendous stress.

 

[Shannow]

Bill, all your posts head back to one thing...reducing costs...your words.

I'm not pointing to a pile of failed receivers along the highway.