Interesting experience ref 762mmfirearms order
- Thread starter Claven2
- Start date
MIL-R-45012, the M14 Rifle military specification, does not contain this information. Neither does any document in the M14 Technical Data Package. AFAIK, the method of forming the M14 receiver is never specified. Its dimensions, material, heat treatment requirements, surface finish, and quality assurance inspection points are clearly defined. What is the reference document you refer to, please?
This is a false statement. This has never occurred. Smith Enterprise, Inc. has only manufactured M14 receivers for the U. S. commercial market.
No entity has ever made a military specification M14 receiver except for these four: U. S. government Springfield Armory, Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge, Harrington & Richardson Arms Co., and Olin-Mathieson Chemical Co.
Over the last four decades, there have been several private firms that have manufactured serviceable copies of USGI M14 receivers.
The M14SE Crazy Horse rifles were built for the U. S. Army 2nd Infantry Division by Smith Enterprise, Inc. by contract signed between those two parties. I've read the actual contract. This was back in 2004.
Shortly afterwards, SEI converted two 1960s vintage Chinese (Poly Technologies did not exist until 1984) M14 rifles into Mk14 SEI configuration for the U. S. Army 10th Special Forces Group. These two rifles were not purchased by the U. S. Army.
You're probably right, though I have been told by employees at both 762mm and LRB that they have forged receivers in for testing with the US Gov. If they get a government contract to make M14 receivers, either of these companies will have to make them to true milspec. Not sure if they would supply service grade or NM semi-only guns. Who knows?
See post # 51 by J996 in this discussion thread.
Thanks for the clarification - It had been a good while since I read that. Why wouldthe SF not have supplied GI receivers, I wonder?
Already did - keep reading through the threads.
Smith Enterprise, Inc. contracted with a metals testing lab to determine the elemental composition of 1980s manufactured Chinese M14 receivers. A mass spectrum analyzer was used.
AFAIK, the People's Republic of China has not adopted the AISI classification for steels. State Arsenal 356 (Kunming, Yunnan, China) did copy the elemental composition of AISI 8620 steel for manufacture of M14 receivers due to: 1) customer specified requirements from Poly Technologies Corporation with input from Keng's Firearm Specialty and Smith Enterprise, Inc. and 2) presumably, its own experience from manufacturing M14 rifles in the 1960s.
No US weapon that I am aware of has the base material specification included in the machining specification. The same is true of all US milspec parts I know of.
For example, in the US Navy, there are a series of MIL-STD docs for phosphor-bronze and NAB cast valves assemblies that I work with regularly. None of the specs for the valves them selves specify forged or cast for the assemblies. That information is outlined in a separate omnibus MIL-STD for seawater-wetted valve materials. It used to specify cast but has recently been updated to allow forgings to be used as well. They specify things like pass/reject criteria, NDT requirements, and whether weld repairs are allowable on the castings prior to machining, and if so, which surfaces can be repaired.
There is a similar standard for steel weapon receiver manufacture but I don't have the number to hand. It would take some digging to find.
The base spec for forgings is MIL-STD-2154, but there is a weapons version I'm having a spot of difficulty finding online...
Yeah, mass pectrometry of gas chromatography would be the methods of choice for a true forensic ID. Suprised they shelled out the $ - MS testing isn't usually cheap.
China definitely did not adopt AISI back in the 90's - they may have by now, not sure.
At this point in time, my statement is correct. If 7.62mm Firearms and/or LRB of Long Island have submitted sample M14 receivers for T&E by U. S. military agencies, good for them! Neither firm has manufactured a select fire receiver. The USGI M14 receiver drawing specifies select fire features. Any contract can be written to do away with any previous requirement, i.e., first article testing, etc. There are tens of thousands of USGI M14 rifles in Condition A status sitting in storage at Anniston Army Depot. I'd be happy for either firm to get a contract with Uncle Sugar for new manufacture M14 receivers but I just don't see why it would need to be done from the Army's standpoint.
I don't know the answer. My guess, it was the unit commander's perogative to modernize a couple rifles in its inventory using unit funds.
This does occur. Examples, the drawings for the M14 flash suppressor and for the M14 front sight each specify different material requirements for "wrought material" and for "precision castings."
I read this online, though I can't find the website any longer. That being said, the internet is HARDLY the best source available
Interesting that they still have lots left. I've read a number of times that the military was having difficulty supporting enough M14's in the field. That being said, maybe it's spares and not complete rifles that are the problem?
Yes, but those are non-critical components. You won't find that for a receiver, barrel, or bolt AFAIK.
I know on the milspecs I work with, small things like talley plates, rivets, non-critical fasteners, etc. they will sometiems list what's aceptable, but the major parts and assemblies usually reference a completely different standard.
