Commercial M14 type receivers composition.

[nf1e]

Sort of a chuckle for anyone interested. I have been seeing all sorts of " opinions " on the composition of different commercial M14 receivers and thought perhaps a little discussion here, with some in the know, might be appropriate. Of most interest, to me, has been the comparison of forged, billet and cast. Now, I understand forged whether hammer or pressed should be the most durable of the three with cast and billet being the same thing. Cast in a mold or continuously cast as billet, would seem to the least durable. I think an open discussion might be of interest to those, including myself, that would like to know more about the subject. First thoughts would be input from other than googleboys. Lets hear what the knowledgeable have to say and take it from there. Photo to start things off is a press forged Bula receiver and gas cylinder along with the finished product XM21 receiver. Whatta Hobby!


5521755218

[Allen]

I've got one of those--don't know if it is cast or forged. I've had it a long time and don't remember how I acquired it. Probably off of ebay years ago. W/o the proper milling machines I suppose a talented person could "whittle" away everything that don't look like M1A receiver sitting by the fireplace on cold winter nights. Shouldn't take more than a couple of decades to complete. Not for me.

Beside of having a couple of rifles I have a finished M-21 type rear lugged receiver made by Armscor I think. I also have a few crushed receiver pieces by that same company. The crushed pieces appear to have been crushed because of flaws perhaps because the pieces are new and though the outsides appear nice and smooth the insides appear a little porous but I really don't know. Being commercial they would have been destroyed by the manufacturer or someone other than the government (captain crunch).

[nf1e]

I have built multiples of each and never considered one recipe better than another , just different. Quite interested in the actual material being whittled into the finished product. Every darn time these questions have been asked over the years there seems to be a circling of the wagons and a defensive posture prevails. Never thought it had to be one or the other, just curious to learn from the metal guys that know what they are talking about. Of late , I keep hearing that billet is better than cast even though they are basically the same thing. May never find out, but sure is interesting to see replies to questions never asked. Whatta Hobby!

[barretcreek]

My understanding is different processes use different alloys for optimum results. One of the 1911 forums had a thread on 'whose is forged, cast, extruded and so what?'.
Ruger probably has the most background on the subject even if they don't do M1 M1a receivers; not sure how much the Mini design deviates from them in terms of stress points. Ruger started Pine Tree Castings which may be bigger than the parent company.

[lyman]

not from Google


I have a mid 80's SA ,, which should be cast, that I built, under tutorlege, then converted to NFA pre the hughes amendment,
then rebuilt using my Fathers notes from his time at Rock Island (when it was .gov) in the late 60's into a Match Gun with the happy switch
all GI parts including the heavy Match barrel,

shoots about 3/4 inch with M118,
has an ART scope as well,

relatively easy to shoot FA, once you learn how to hold it,
but since it has that match barrel, I don't flip the switch to A ,


have another mid 90's SA that I have never shot,


sold a xxxxton of them over the years with out any issues
including a few Devine Tx guns

Armscor built a good receiver and they were basically the substitute standard for years on the NM circuit, when SA;s were hard to get


I have bought and sold some from the Lower Alabama guys, but none from others,

I know Fulton has a good name, but have not seen one in the wild
have seen a few Bula and LRB over the years,

I do have a few in shop inventory, one a Devine receiver, built into a match gun (gauges well, no idea of round count) and he others are relatively modern
I think we have 2 or 3 in my brothers shop inventory,


I do know SA had issues with geometry on the scope mount, and that they also sold blems at Camp Perry for years,
I do know Armscor sold plenty of complete guns, and receivers, as well as GI parts for years,
tho I have not seen the current owner for a couple years (She used to have tables at the big gunshow in VA near DC, but has not been there for a bit)


I do know that an M1A/M14 can be made to be very very accurate, but that will cost a bit of $$$


double lug etc came on board about the time the AR became a bit competitive in Service Rifle/National Match, and inside of 10 yrs , or less, the AR dominated

I hear people say that (pick a brand) is X's better than Springfield, but I do not know that many people that compete or shoot alot to say they can substantiaten that comment,
I do know a few folks that went distinguished on the M14, some with commercial SA M1A's and some with GI SA's (not the commercial guns) that were configured as NM guns,

at one time most State orginations (read that as the State Team) could request NM M14's with selector locks welded, from DCM and get them, and they shot well,

but the SA USGI were forged, the SA commercial were cast,
Armscor supposedly forged

all shot well

[Allen]

Just to add: Though the Springfield Inc (commercial) are cast they offer a lifetime warranty I've heard.

[nf1e]

Just my opinion, if a receiver is machined properly and is lucky enough to make it through heat treat with little warpage it may work no matter what the composition of the material used. I think it's nice to bring up topics of possible interest to folks occasionally. Every mfg has had good and bad over the years so my preference it to focus on the good from each. At 76 with my stockpiled parts supply dwindling I am slowing down considerably in my builds and enjoying what there is.

[Allen]

Just my opinion, if a receiver is machined properly and is lucky enough to make it through heat treat with little warpage it may work no matter what the composition of the material used. I think it's nice to bring up topics of possible interest to folks occasionally. Every mfg has had good and bad over the years so my preference it to focus on the good from each. At 76 with my stockpiled parts supply dwindling I am slowing down considerably in my builds and enjoying what there is.

76 is your age or the number of M1A's you have? You will have lot of time to spread out amongst the few you have.

Not to change the subject away from the M1A but I have a Bushmaster BA-50 (50 BMG) that has an aluminum receiver like the AR15. I have a unfinished aluminum frame for a 1911. A company called "Plum Crazy" was selling plastic complete lowers for the AR15. Everything except for the pins and springs were plastic. I don't hear anything about them anymore or the plastic receivers--maybe the people shooting them are all dead? Some old guns and a few modern guns have/had brass frames.

[lyman]

76 is your age or the number of M1A's you have? You will have lot of time to spread out amongst the few you have.

Not to change the subject away from the M1A but I have a Bushmaster BA-50 (50 BMG) that has an aluminum receiver like the AR15. I have a unfinished aluminum frame for a 1911. A company called "Plum Crazy" was selling plastic complete lowers for the AR15. Everything except for the pins and springs were plastic. I don't hear anything about them anymore or the plastic receivers--maybe the people shooting them are all dead? Some old guns and a few modern guns have/had brass frames.

ATI , US Arms and and a few ohters did plastic or poly AR lowers as well, most do not get good reviews,
and remember Armalite made a plastic receiver version of the AR180 (AR180B)

I have a US Arms lower, bought a dozen or so , complete, for $50, and sold most of them for 100-129 when folks were going crazy for lowers,

they also had plastic internals, that worked fine for a standard upper, but the 22 upper I put on mine would not work, the plastic hammer was too wide,
so I replaced the internals with standard parts and it works fine

[barretcreek]

I have a barreled FedOrd receiver; heard they're decent paperweights.

Remember Am Rifleman ran an article about TRW making M-14s. From the forging to inspection.

[Allen]

I have a barreled FedOrd receiver; heard they're decent paperweights.

I've got a FedOrd carbine receiver; made for smaller stacks of paper.