Springfield M1A ?

kinggeorge168 said:
Will, I am sure both rifles will go BANG...but for me...buying a HIGH QUALITY firearm...like the M1A is like buying anything else, I will rather spend $$$ on buying one Rolex watch then on buying 10 Time X ...and both tells time.
cheers
Click to expand...

Poor analogy because the Timex will keep better time.
 
OKAY.....I will rather spend $$$ on buying one BMW M3 roadster then on buying 6 Pontiac sunfire...OR buying one Sako TRG rather then on 5 Remington sps.....OR...BUYING ONE HIGH QUALITY SPRINGFIELD MIA LOADED SUPER MATCH,STAINLESS THEN BUYING 10 NORINCO M14, and I have nothing against Norinco M14. I just prefer quality/craftsmanship first.
cheers
 
Pietro Beretta said:
A Springfield Armory M1A Loaded Walnut puts the Norinco M-14S to SHAME!!!...PERIOD.

It only boiles down to one question....$2,945.00 v.s. $500.00
Click to expand...

For the $2500 difference, you could have skies-the-limit customization on your M14S. No thanks Springfield.
 
I have a M1a supermatch with the jae gen 2 stock and the smith scope mount with a leupold m3 3.5 to something scope. Put it this way, for a gun that can shoot sub moa and often times sub 1/2 moa with handloads would I ever trade that for a Norinco? nope. I have shot a norc lots and if you are going for "fun" then yep great gun, no complaints. If you are going for "accuracy" reliability and fun stick with the springfield. Course I've been having problems with my mags not feeding well of late so maybe I know jack shiznit. :)
 
Oh great another "mines better than yours" thread...

...Well I have an "accurized" Norinco, an unmodified Norinco(well I did put it in a fiberglass stock), a "Shorty" Norinco and a standard M1A.

They all shoot well - I can put the open sight shots on a 6" pie plate from 100-150 yards and scoped they all hit the orange clay pigeons at 200-250. So they all work as well as I can make them work - i.e. they do their part.

It's not MOA shooting but I don't care, it's good enough - all of the rifles are probably capable of more in better hands and I haven't shot past 275 because I don't have the place to do it, so beyond that I have no idea.

My 2¢ is that if you have the money to buy an M1A you are better off buying 2 or 3 Norincos, and a case or two of ammo instead.
 
M1A receiver castings come from Alpha Casting in Quebec. The 1911s are made with some parts from Imbel in Brazil.

I have upgraded my Norinco with the following items:
-USGI walnut stock
-Shim gas system
-M1 Garand rear sight
-National match op rod guide
-Index barrel

The only "needs" on the list were the stock and rear sight. My rifle can shoot inside 2 MOA with handloads it likes. For my use, the accuracy is perfectly satisfactory and I have never had a failure to feed.

Even if you want to play the accuracy game, you can still build a better rifle starting with a Norinco for the same cost as a standard M1A.

I guess you could compare an M1A to a Rolex in the sense that you are paying for the brand name to some extent, even compared to other mechanical watches. Other mechanical watches can be had, which are comparable in accuracy and fit and finish for less.
 
Now I just gotta ask. How accurate can a good gun smith (for example... Alberta Tactical Rifle) make a Norc for the $2100 price difference between a norc and a SA? And which would shoot better?
 
Starscream...

It's hard to say because both platforms can be made to shoot very well considering you have the identical parts swapped in or out. I've owned them all, but with 2 kids in college my only M14 is a Norc with lots of USGI parts in it for teaching purposes.

I just compete with the AR carbine and then deer hunt with the Norc M14. It's all good. I will have to say, tweaking an M1A is sure nice because the parts behave like some USGI M14 parts and everything comes apart predictably (can you say, "Norinco M14 Flash Suppressor?")

Now in favour of the Norc M14, they work and once you tweak them, they work well. ALSO, the newer shooters and people on a budget can get in on the game, that's really what I espouse (big words, eh?) :D about the Kommunist M14.

I'm reluctant to go out there and tell people (I hate being prescriptive) to buy an M1A for $ 2000ish, I've been poor or under a tight budget for too many years so that whenever I have some spare cash, I'm sensitive to other people's situations. At least I feel good about telling people not to buy ONE, instead, buy TWO of them! I'm still under a budget these days, and the economy sucks so I'm not gonna start preaching about how you #### might fall off if you don't buy a Sproingfield M1A (I've owned 4 of them).

So Starscream, it all depends on how much you wanna sink into this platform to make it a super tight grouper. If all you wanted was a tight grouper as your sole criteria then find some varmint .308's on the EE forum (I mean all you accuracy buffs ;) ) If you sank a few thousand on the Norc M14 frame with USGI parts, there's not guarantee that you will recover all of you money or the majority of it, then again, my magic wand is defective :rolleyes:

I hope this helps you.....
 
Somehow, time has created an urban myth about the qualities and abilities of the M14 Rifle.

The standard upon initial production was the confirmation grouping. The US military required a 5 shot grouping at 100 yards to be between 5" to 6". Yup, not sub minute of angle, but up to 6" at 100m.

Now comes the issue of build quality. Somehow, the M14 reached mythical proportions in quality, fit and finish in popular misconceptions, which go against historical documents of the time. Investigations by both the US military armoury system, the government and firearms magazines of the period demonstrate substandard production by almost all weapons manufacturer's (Springfield, H and R, and Winchester. Exception: TRW).

H and R had difficulties with metal quality leading to both bolts and receivers failing. Winchester had such difficulty upon initial production that receivers were sourced from Springfield and bolts from H and R to meet quotas.

A study between 1961 to 1962 from the Development and Proof Services at Aberdeen Proving Ground upon 21 randomly selected rifles (acceptable standard) showed:

Over sized head-space, over sized bores, loose flash suppressors, loose barrel bands (95%), loose gas cylinders (90%), op rods rubbing stock (50%), off centre op rods and pistons (75%), out of diameter bores, out of spec chrome bore applications, rough chambers, etc.

The M14 was discovered to have both compromised and adversely affected accuracy in two critical areas: the flash suppressor and the gas system.

Furthermore, each rifle may either meet or fail the standards based upon which lot of ammunition was used for testing purposes.

In the end, production of the M14 lasted only 5 years, and was terminated for two reasons:

1. The design.
2. Poor quality control during manufacture.

The Norinco and Springfield Armory M1A are but a copy of the original M14 design. Springfield has experienced many issues over the years. Current production has made use of many non-military parts, which are no longer available. Early Norinco production had head space-bolt and quality issues. That seems to have abated. Norinco's receiver quality meets steel quality and are as dimensionally true as TRW receivers.

Both rifles would need improvements to obtain sub moa groups. Both rifles currently meet or exceed the original US Military's criteria for accuracy.
 
rchmontreal said:
Somehow, time has created an urban myth about the qualities and abilities of the M14 Rifle.

The standard upon initial production was the confirmation grouping. The US military required a 5 shot grouping at 100 yards to be between 5" to 6". Yup, not sub minute of angle, but up to 6" at 100m.
Click to expand...

The accuracy requirements remember thouse were tested with military ball ammo. Which at the time had a 3MOA requirement from "test" barrels that were match grade.

Both the ammunition and the rifles preformed better then worst case requirements. ;)

rchmontreal said:
In the end, production of the M14 lasted only 5 years, and was terminated for two reasons:
Click to expand...

Politics killed the M14 not the rifle itself. Note how the US Special Forces never gave up the rifle. They continued and still have it at hand in various flavors, from the M25 improved (over the M21) sniper rifles to M14's armed with optics other then rifle scopes to the plain M14 being seen in the hands of Navy SEALs. All in the while the rest of the military locked them up, put them into storage for Clinton to turn around and put a great many of the ones in storage through Capt. Crunch.

rchmontreal said:
Norinco's receiver quality meets steel quality and are as dimensionally true as TRW receivers.
Click to expand...

Read the forums, you'll find the opposite of these statements. I'll give you a hint, the Norinco rifles do not use 8620 but 5100 series steel for the receivers and they use 4135 for the bolts. ;)

Dimitri
 
Last edited:
What product improvements were made to these rifles after their procurement termination, is moot. My point of reference is solely the 5 years of military production and the original spec M14 as used by the US Armed forces. The creation of a "silk purse from a sows ear" is irrelevant to the initial production quality and acceptance requirements. A small quantity of rifles used by US Special Forces is not a nation's standard battle rifle. PS: Special forces also used early Armalite AR-15's, Stoner weapons systems, UZI's, Czech SMG's, Swedish K's, and a host of other firearms that were not standard issue. Irrelevant to the issue.

Sorry, not politics, but the US arsenal system destroyed the rifle, which took almost 15 years to design and a few years to destroy. Remember, weapons design came from within, not without, at the time. Internal and external investigations into this firearm identified serious shortcomings.

Anyone who uses either the Springfield M1A or Norinco M14 will have years of satisfactory performance within the limitation of the rifle as issued.
 
rchmontreal said:
What product improvements were made to these rifles after their procurement termination, is moot. My point of reference is solely the 5 years of military production and the original spec M14 as used by the US Armed forces.
Click to expand...

The Specifications such as required for accuracy were created that way because that was the standard accuracy requirements for just about any nation and their main battle rifles at the time.

The M14 died when it did because of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, period. He forced it onto the Military after the US Air Force went to adopt it as a replacement for the M1 Carbine rifles they were using for base security. He with these rifles just like everything else the US Military used at the time wanted ONE item that all the forces used.

Remember the F-111 Fighter? Same idea of his.

Both Stock Norinco's and Standard M1A's from SAI shoot acceptable groups for a military rifle which are much better then the 6" groups your quoting which the military specified as maximum. ;)

Dimitri
 
Already got a ruger 10/22 that's being tweaked for pure accuracy and a fairly old Rem 700 BDL that can shoot 1.3" goups at 100 yards all day long (that was by another shooter, the stock's way too long for me to be shoot comfortably with). I suspect those groups will drop significantly once I stop using hunting ammo made in Yugoslavia and start using hand loads.

And let's say... we give the smith these specifications:

*Kreiger medium barrel profile; 20" barrel with a recessed target crown and chambered for 308 with gas system, receiver and bolt fitted to the barrel. Flash hider is replaced by a vortex more to protect the crown.

*Stock spring guide relpaced by a sadlak match grade spring guide and a brownells M1A spring kit.

*Trigger parts all polished to near mirror finish, disconnect squared. Weight set to approximately 4 lbs with as little over travel and take up as safety and reliability can permit.

*USGI stock completely refinished appropriate fill outs completed. Whole system is bedded, smith has choice on his own preference for bedding techniques.

*Iron sights removed and replaced by optics. For the sake of argument, smith enterprises mount, badger ordinance rings and a nightforce scope of some kind, (we'll exclude the price of the scope and rings in this particular case since they can be moved from rifle to rifle as necessary).

Ammo: Lapua 308 brass, 168 gr Sierra Match or Game kings, 42 gr of IMR4895, CCI primers



Would 2 MOA be possible doing that whilst coming under the budget of $2000?


Hungry said:
Starscream...

It's hard to say because both platforms can be made to shoot very well considering you have the identical parts swapped in or out. I've owned them all, but with 2 kids in college my only M14 is a Norc with lots of USGI parts in it for teaching purposes.

I just compete with the AR carbine and then deer hunt with the Norc M14. It's all good. I will have to say, tweaking an M1A is sure nice because the parts behave like some USGI M14 parts and everything comes apart predictably (can you say, "Norinco M14 Flash Suppressor?")

Now in favour of the Norc M14, they work and once you tweak them, they work well. ALSO, the newer shooters and people on a budget can get in on the game, that's really what I espouse (big words, eh?) :D about the Kommunist M14.

I'm reluctant to go out there and tell people (I hate being prescriptive) to buy an M1A for $ 2000ish, I've been poor or under a tight budget for too many years so that whenever I have some spare cash, I'm sensitive to other people's situations. At least I feel good about telling people not to buy ONE, instead, buy TWO of them! I'm still under a budget these days, and the economy sucks so I'm not gonna start preaching about how you #### might fall off if you don't buy a Sproingfield M1A (I've owned 4 of them).

So Starscream, it all depends on how much you wanna sink into this platform to make it a super tight grouper. If all you wanted was a tight grouper as your sole criteria then find some varmint .308's on the EE forum (I mean all you accuracy buffs ;) ) If you sank a few thousand on the Norc M14 frame with USGI parts, there's not guarantee that you will recover all of you money or the majority of it, then again, my magic wand is defective :rolleyes:

I hope this helps you.....
Click to expand...
 
2 MOA is usually achievable with the Norinco barrel and without fully bedding the stock. skim bedding the stock to remove any gap between it and the "horseshoe" at the back of the receiver may be worthwhile, though. With a decent stock and minor tweaks, you should be good to go. Other than that, you just need to find a load it likes.

Bedding the stock will wring the most accuracy out of the platform, but the bedding deteriorates each time you remove the rifle from its stock. If 2 MOA is good enough accuracy, I wouldn't bother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom