Are the Norinco M14 bolts too soft?

Since we're discussing outdated and irrelevant info I figured I'd throw in some comments from Smith Ent, the only modern day manufacturer who's upgrading the US govnmt M14's.

It would appear that he's removed the comments when he restructered his site, but when it comes to Norcs he says that they are good to go. Easily as good as US GI. I do believe that he talked about some early Polytech bolts being soft, but after re-heat treating they were good to go. He did have some Norinco bolts and I believe he said that the hardness was fine on those. Like I said, this is from memory, so if anyone has further info than by all means chime in. IIRC Smith is the only large US shop that would do custom work on Norcs.
 
I'm with you on what Smith Ent has to say about the current Norinco bolts and receivers. That's why I felt great when I bought my first (2002) Norinco M14 from Milarm in Edmonchuk for $ 699. The receiver alone is worth $ 700. The parts that happened to come along on the receiver is gravy.

Don't buy ONE, buy TWO of them. :evil:

Cheers,
Barney
 
When checking headspace, it is important to understand the wear patterns on the bolt lugs. Ideally, there should be EVEN wear on the lugs, with MAXIMUM bearing on BOTH lugs.

Most of the NEW Norinco clones I've checked recently had about .012 - .014" headspace over .308 Win GO. So you can see the THEORETICAL SAAMI safety margins are being exceeded by quite a bit. But in the real world, I've seen M-14 rifles with MASSIVE headspace that functioned safely and flawlessly AS LONG AS YOU USED ONLY 7.62 NATO AMMO. The brass in 7.62 NATO is THICKER and HARDER than commercial .308 brass.

Many of the OLD Chinese M-305 rifles have the left bolt lug cut improperly. If they show signs of being hand ground by a Dremel like implement, chances are you are shooting with only ONE locking lug engaging properly. This is more important than a few thou headspace, but even these bolts don't cause safety problems UNLESS they are also very soft. Then the left lug peens back, and the bolt face gets cocked, and excess headspace can get real scary [ like .025" ] in a hurry.

By my sampling, I estimate about 1 out of three of the OLD Chinese M-14 clones had bolts that were WAY too soft, PLUS, the left bolt lug was ground at far too ACUTE an angle for proper fit. With these rifles, swapping in a GI bolt was absolutely necessary. NOTE … not all the OLD Norcs have this problem. The last M-14S I picked up at a gunshow had been in a basement for twenty years. It was ancient, but almost unfired. Checking the bolt fit showed almost perfect mating of the lugs to the receiver, and headspace was .308 GO plus .002", which is PERFECT!! No reason to swap out that bolt.

From a practical shooter and gunsmith perspective, the main difference between the old Chinese M-14 rifles, and the newer ones, is that the NEW batch of M-305s will usually take a drop in US GI M-14 bolt without having to swap in a US GI barrel as well. Most of the OLD type Norincos AND Polytechs had barrels that protruded further into the receiver, and these WOULD NOT TAKE A DROP IN GI BOLT.
On my match rifles or my "keepers", I usually swap in a USGI bolt AND a GI barrel. USGI bolts go for about $ 300 these days and a $300 upgrade to a $399 rifle may not make much sense ... until you consider that with that new bolt, and a few other bits, you will end up in a rifle that is totally reliable and as good a shooter as a Sringfield M1A that costs close to $ 2000.

I also prefer to swap in a USGI or aftermarket barrel for my keepers, mainly because the Chinese barrels have MUCH softer steel. Not a big deal for accuracy, cause both GI and import barrels are CHROME lined. However, the softer barrel threads and softer barrel shoulder cause the “DRAW” of the barrel to be erratic. This is why the Chinese receivers have that silly little screw on the barrel/receiver ... to lock the barrel in securely. Notwithstanding that lock screw, to date I've seen three Chinese M-14 clones that had the original barrels come loose.

There is a very slight angle to the barrel shoulder [about negative 1 degree ] so the OUTSIDE of the barrel shoulder contacts the receiver before the inside. This is known as a "crush fit" or draw. The edge of the barrel shoulder WILL disrupt every time you tighten up a barrel. This is especially noticeable on USED barrels, twisted on a few times. Rotating the barrel will not affect headspace much ... 1/4" draw/rotation would be roughly .001".

To keep all this talk of headspace and soft bolts in perspective, there are no proven cases of Chinese M-14 KABOOMS due to excessive headspace. And, in my personal experience, I know of one case where the barrel was so loose the user had to hand tighten it back into place after every ten shots or so. He kept on shooting it as is, without any explosions, until I talked him into a rebarrel. The headspace in that situation could only be guessed at, but it would be monstrous. That this M-14 clone did not explode, is a testimony to the built in safety features of the design.

PS: these opinions are NOT SPECULATION ... BTDT
I've owned/modified/built over three dozen GENUINE M-14 rifles, 5 Sproingfields [ including Super Match, Match, and hand built custom target ] and [ God bless them every one [ about another two dozen Chinese M-14 rifles, including many that were all GI parts on a Chinese receiver.
[;{)
LAZ 1
 
Most of the NEW Norinco clones I've checked recently had about .012 - .014" headspace over .308 Win GO. So you can see the THEORETICAL SAAMI safety margins are being exceeded by quite a bit. But in the real world, I've seen M-14 rifles with MASSIVE headspace that functioned safely and flawlessly AS LONG AS YOU USED ONLY 7.62 NATO AMMO. The brass in 7.62 NATO is THICKER and HARDER than commercial .308 brass.

Since these are actually chambered in 7.62 I don't find it very surprising. I'm sure that if you checked headspace on actual M14's you'd find the same thing.
 
BROBEE:
I would doubt if the parts are "newly" manufactured".
I assume you have reached this conclusion from a personal visit to the factory to observe the assembly of our rifles ??

"swallowed a SAAMI 1.638 FIELD REJECT headspace gauge."
You were using military or civilain gauges ? I assume the latter as you mention SAAMI spec ?


Regards John
 
PROUTFOO:
Your CJA marked receiver....
When we purchased all parts many receivers were so marked.... They were NOT complete rifles....
Rifles are still being assembled for us using some original parts some newly made components.. Please verify your facts.
John
 
johnone said:
PROUTFOO:
Your CJA marked receiver....
When we purchased all parts many receivers were so marked.... They were NOT complete rifles....
Rifles are still being assembled for us using some original parts some newly made components.. Please verify your facts.
John

johnone, I am checking my "facts" by posting here....and they are not facts, they are assumptions and questions. I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brobee
What's also worth noting is that, from what I have been told, all the parts for the rifles we're buying today were manufactured by norinco ~10-15 years ago and intended for the US market.




I just picked up a M305 in brand-new condition, still in cosmo and plastic wrap from a fellow member. It was import marked CJA somethingsomething, which according to my reading would be imported into the US up until 1994.

The seller told me that he got this rifle brand new from (?)Smith Enterprises(?) a few weeks before and I have no reason to doubt his word. The finish on the rifle and parts indicates to me it has never been fired.

Therefore in all likelyhood this rifle would fit the description you propose.

I am a laymen when it comes to headspace adjustment - when the headspace is too great, what is the solution other than a new bolt?

I am not stating anything, I am posting here to learn more.

Glad you were able to straighten me out :) not all forums have that luxury.
 
Leg,
I've personally owned about three dozen GENUINE M-14 rifles. Headspace varied considerably on these rifles, but few of them were as large as .012 - .014" headspace over .308 Win GO ... probably closer to 7.62 NATO GO [ .005 - .006" ] .

However, ??supposedly?? these M-14s were all rebuilt/refinshed by the Israelis [ yes/no?? ] so they should have been within arsenal specs. As a matter of fact, from checking the bolt lug wear and a few other indicators, some of my M-14s looked unfired, or close to it. And even with these, there was no correlation between headspace and how new they looked. GI parts did vary considerably, especially the bolts.
[;{)
LAZ 1
 
7.62 headspace specs

The SAAMI "go" for the .308 Win is 1.630.If your chamber measures +.014 greater,or 1.644,you are still within spec for the 7.62 field reject gauge which was/is 1.6455.As was mentioned,this is entirely acceptable if you use MILSPEC brass.My preference on a 7.62 chamber is to hold it so it won't close on the .308 SAAMI "field" gauge which is set to 1.638.I prefer this tighter tolerance in order to minimize case life when reloading.Bottom line IMHO:
-do not fire .308 Win commercial brass in a 7.62 chamber which closes on the SAAMI 1.638 "field" gauge for the .308.Only use MILSPEC brass in this case.
-do not fire anything in a 7.62 chamber which closes on the military 1.6455 field reject gauge.This situation must be remedied by either installing a longer bolt which qualifies on the gauge or by installing a new barrel.
 
Hi John...

Although I would love to, I have not personally visited the factory to witness the manufacture of parts and then subsequent assembly for the rifles you import. There seem to be many different stories with respect to the lineage of both the parts and the assembled rifles, and I'd love to hear from the horses' mouth the real story! I've also heard many different stories with respect to how many importers there are for these rifles....for example; when I purchased my latest project rifle from a local shop here in Calgary I inquired as to how it was they were able to get rifles when you (Marstar), the importer as I then understood things, were still waiting on your latest shipment? I was surprised when I was told that they did not deal with you and had a different importation source for these rifles. I've been told this by other dealers as well, although they are all somewhat hushy-hushy when then asked about who their importer is. I don't really care about who imports my rifle or where I get it from, but given the varying severity of issues surrounding Norinco M14/M1A clones of differing vintage, it would be nice to know a bit more about them all. Can you give us a rundown as to the source and vintage of the parts that go into our M14s/305s? Which parts are newly manufactured? Which parts are older, and how old are they? Are you guys definately the only source of these rifles in Canada? If not, do you have any knowledge you can share with respect to the lineage of other people's current imports?

Regarding the question of how these rifles are headspaced, my observation is simply that every one I own easily swallows a gauge set to measure 1.638 which is the field reject for SAMMI spec .308. I recognize that there is a different standard for 7.62x51 NATO, however have been unable to ascertain with certainty what this spec is. Some folk describe it as 1.6400. Some as 1.6455. Some even as high as 1.6550. So even if I had a "military gauge" which spec would it confirm to? Are there then gauges for the other 7.62 NATO spec? All I know for sure is that there are no commercially available 7.62 NATO headspace gauges and I suspect that's because everyone has a different take as to what what the spec should be. Regardless, all I really want to know is what is the headspace of my M305 in it's unaltered condition and whether or not that headspace is going to grow because of bolt hardness issues. As good info is hard to find, I have en-route a set of custom ground gauges starting at 1.640 and working up to 1.646 in 1 thou increments that I'll use them to make my own observations (and come to my own conclusions); for those interested I'll be happy to post these observations once the gauges arrive.

Thanks for any info you're prepared to share....but more importantly thanks for bringing in these rifles in the first place! I love mine dearly....

EDITED TO ADD:

John: Serial number of my most recent purchase, that according to the dealer "was not imported by Marstar", is 008568. Would you be willing to indicate (via PM if that makes you more comfortable) whether or not you imported this specific gun? It would be nice to know for future deals that someone is less than honest. Some other serial numbers of M14/305s I've purchased across multiple different dealers:

002096
001199
004739
002194
007926

Thanks again....

Brobee
 
Last edited:
Couple of years ago a CGN member did some hardess tests of a few Norcinco and USGI bolts while he was at technical school.

While the USGI bolts were a wee bit harder on the Rockwell scale, ALL bolts passed USGI Specs for hardness.

I have the numbers somewhere and wil ltry to dig them up.

SKBY.
 
Brobee, I thought Marstar said they bought all the existing recievers? I just assumed Marstar was distributing the m-305's that all kinds of dealers seem to have now.

Maybe these rifles are from Lever Arms?
 
AFAIK, Lever was the only other IMPORTER (though there were many retailers).

Also, just cuz the receivers are leftover production for the US market, doesn't mean the rest of the rifles are. In fact, John has stated the old receivers are being assembled today with a mix of "new old stock" parts and new parts. I have no idea of the bolt bodies are new or old, but they are generally in spec with respect to hardness.
 
Just a few thoughts, and a brief history about M-14 rifles, and their clones ....

AFAIK,
I bought the last available [ to Canadian retail customers ] NEW Chinese M-14 receivers. I got three from Century Arms and two from Milarm, somewhere about 1999. Century used to sell M-14 "kits" here in Canada, with all Chinese parts. If I recall correctly, they cost me about $ 80 Can each. Four of these were probably new ... or at the least refinished to new ... as they had no missing blue inside the threads, and absolutely no wear I could find. The fifth [ POLYtech ] looked to be an as new takeoff, but it was also the best for dimensions, so I was just as happy with that one as any of the others.

The receivers were three Norcs, and two Polytechs. The Polys had the more desirable dark park finish, with no external markings at all, , serial number below the reciver, hidden by the stock. After checking all dimensions, the POLYs specced out as slightly better. Heat treatment was Guestimated as too soft for one, right on for three, and too hard for one. When I say "too soft" I mean slightly less than ideal, and when I say "too Hard", I mean that one broke in half while fitting a barrel.
OOPS
[;{(


The remaining receivers got all GI parts [ back then they were cheap and I had several US GI parts kits left over from my days as a professional gunsmith ]. The "soft" receiver was made into my personal SHTF 19" carbine, with a folding stock. It was fitted up to a GI barrel, at.308 GO, with a NEW TRW bolt, and FULLY lapped in lugs. I had that one for over 10 years, fired thousands of round through it, and never had a problem. It would shoot into 1 1/2" with Nato ball. The other three became two more shorties, and one FULL HOUSE target, all in fiberglass GI stocks. The broken receiver was sold to a buddy who welded it back up, and [ HOPEFULLY ] re-heat treated the abortion before he built his own.

At the time I was heavy into M-14 type rifles, and had several GENUINE US GIs as well as three Sproingfield M1-As. The M1-As included a Super Match SS in a Macmillan stock, a Match in walnut, and a junker with a shot out barrel [ if you are going to shoot corrosive ammo, you really should clean the barrel every decade or so ]. The junker also got the full target treatment, with a Barnett medium heavy barrel, a GI stock, and every tweak known at the time. But before that, it became a shorty using the original barrel [ there was still SOME ] rifling in there ... not much rifling, not pretty, but after I shortened the NON -chrome lined SA barrel to 19" and recrowned , that sucker still shot 7.62 NATO ball well under 2". When I did the full house treatment, the SA dropped group size to about 1 1/8" with its favorite load.

After all that effort, hours of work, and the best parts $$$ could buy, I dropped a few fractions of an inch in group size.

Whoopee ding.

To put this inperspective, I also had $250 Rem 788 which was glass bedded, given a trigger job, which would shoot into 3/8" .... at 200 yds.

The SA Target I had hand built was actually a teensy bit more accurate than both my SA Super Match and my SA Match, which cost WAY more. I wanted to prove I could build an M-14 as good as Sproingfield's best, and I had a LOT of grief lapping in the op rod, and fitting the barrel, because Sproingfield receivers do NOT hold to US GI specs any where as close as the Chinese do. The target rifle I built using a GI barrel, and a Polytech receiver actually shot almost as well [ about 1/8" difference ] as my best efforts on the Springfield, and both my hand built rifles shot about as well as my factory "match" grade Sproingfields.

Which is why I ALWAYS say the Chinese are the best bang for the M-14 buck ... if you are willing to tinker.

when Y2K came along, with a whimper and not a bang, I realised I had way too many M-14 rifles, and not enough other things.
So I sold most of my 14s, kept the one Chinese SHTF rifle, and invested in "other things".

So far, this seems like a great choice.
But ...
now John has that crazy looking aluminum stock for sale.
And maybe, just maybe, I might forget my previous holy vow never to own another M-14.
Maybe.
[;{)
LAZ 1
 
Humm.... According to the owner, DARK industries airfreighted some M305's directly from China.

Claven2 said:
AFAIK, Lever was the only other IMPORTER (though there were many retailers).

Also, just cuz the receivers are leftover production for the US market, doesn't mean the rest of the rifles are. In fact, John has stated the old receivers are being assembled today with a mix of "new old stock" parts and new parts. I have no idea of the bolt bodies are new or old, but they are generally in spec with respect to hardness.
 
President William Jefferson Clinton imposed a ban on firearms and ammunition from the People’s Republic of China on May 26, 1994. His decision was one part of several actions taken to renew Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading status with China. The Presidential decision to renew MFN trading status followed a year long Department of State review of China’s treatment of political dissidents, prisoners, emigrants, and religious worshipers. President Clinton imposed the import ban on firearms and ammunition from the People’s Republic of China based on authority granted in the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (22 U. S. Code section 2778). Consequently, the BATF would not approve any further ATF Forms 6 to import Chinese M14 rifles. - M14 Rifle History and Development Third Edition 07/01/07 draft by Lee Emerson copyright 2007.

Reference: U. S. Department of State Dispatch. Bureau of Public Affairs: Volume 5 Number 22 May 30, 1994.
 
Johnone....

I'm still hoping that you guys can either confirm or deny that MARSTAR is the sole importer of these rifles.

The last one I inspected in it's "new - as received from the factory drenched in cosmoline" condition had (until I replaced the bolt with one made by TRW) headpace longer (ie: stripped bolt closed on) than my longest gauge: 1.646. This is longer than the NATO FIELD REJECT. If you guys are the only importer, I would suggest you have QC issues. If you are not the only importer; well you can't be expected to take responsible for something over which you have no influence but you also shouldn't be making blanket statements surrounding how these rifles (which would be outside your sphere of influence) are put together.

None of this is intended to be an attack; I just love these rifles (and tinkering with them in my shop) and am trying to understand some of my own observations in the context of many contradicting stories with respect to both origin and safety as it relates to chamber headspace.
 
Norinco Bolts

Hey guys, here are some numbers from a thread at Army.ca regarding the hardness of the bolts (and a reference to this site!) :

Hello Bitter PPCLI Cpl,

I'll jump in on this one.

There are two types of M-14 clones floating around. There's the ones that Century brought in around 1990ish, which are truly crap, then there's the new ones being brought in now by Marstar.

I have one of the Marstar rifles, and it's a damn fine shooter.

With Good quality match grade ammo, it prints groups at around 1.25" at 100meters. With surplus ammo, it puts in around 2-2.5" groups at the same range.

Reliability is very good, durabilty is good. Mine has fired more than 700 rounds, and does not ripple off bursts.

The newly made Norincos available from Marstar have a Forged receiver, like the original M-14's did. It's been tested/compared against the receiver geometry of the original M-14, and is closer than the geometry of some Springfield Armoury receivers. The hardness tests that I've viewed results of show Rockwell hardnesses as follows:

Rifle 1
Average: 47.7 HRC
Min: 47 HRC
Max: 48 HRC


Rifle 2
Average: 46.2 HRC
Min: 45 HRC
Max: 47 HRC


Rifle 3
Average: 47.2 HRC
Min: 46 HRC
Max: 48.5 HRC

These are within specs for the M-14.

An acquaintance of mine (Barney) has been testing headspace on these rifles, and as an average of over 50 rifles tested, the Norinco rifles have a headspace of between .010 and .013 over size, which is perfectly safe/fine. When a USGI bolt is dropped into the Norinco Receiver, it brings the headspace down to .002 on average, and TRW Bolts come down to .000, dead on for headspacing.

Out of the box, you really can't beat the M-305 for price, and such. A great deal.

If you want to read more on it, visit http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/ and have a look in the "Main Battle Rifle" Section.

NavyShooter


I hope this helps. Everything I've managed to find on the internet suggests to me that this "bolts too soft" thing was from about fifteen years ago, when even Norico lovers admit their M14's were pretty crappy.
 
Back
Top Bottom