Are the Norinco M14 bolts too soft?
- Thread starter Dave.S
- Start date
Anyone who is serious about this..... really should p.m. me ..... i have an oppointment with the CFO this week.
I AM going to go through the motions to at least be "qualified" to consider this. The financial side of this is NOT the issue, it is the logistics and time frame.... and approval from canada's powers that be to render to parts for retail sale in the first place.
I have gotten all the details from John..... let's leave the poor guy alone hehehe, I am happy to share info with interested parties.
a group venture would be welcome.... but this is a serious deal and will no doubt take some time and logistics to pull off. Landed cost after all is said and done is gonna run much higher than 275.00 per rifle..... I can tell you that.
I am not interested in a deal involving more than 500 rifles....... to much $$$ at risk in my opinion
I AM going to go through the motions to at least be "qualified" to consider this. The financial side of this is NOT the issue, it is the logistics and time frame.... and approval from canada's powers that be to render to parts for retail sale in the first place.
I have gotten all the details from John..... let's leave the poor guy alone hehehe, I am happy to share info with interested parties.
a group venture would be welcome.... but this is a serious deal and will no doubt take some time and logistics to pull off. Landed cost after all is said and done is gonna run much higher than 275.00 per rifle..... I can tell you that.
I am not interested in a deal involving more than 500 rifles....... to much $$$ at risk in my opinion
Honestly, I don't think you will see the prices drop much, if at all...................people will start hoarding parts and the M14 Enthusiasts in the U.S. will undoubtably want some of those parts as well Also the supply of original USGI parts is dwindling. rapidily..........................
SKBY.
I just reread this entire thread, and the now locked thread about M-14 headspace.
Somehow or other I missed the part where John told us the headspace specifications for Marstar imported M-14 rifles. But then, with liability lawyers and class action suits being launched [ and succeeding ] because someone scalded themselves with coffee that was “too hot”, I don’t think John is ever going to tell us this magic number.
These rifles are marked, quite clearly, as M14 .308 right on the receivers, so one could reasonably expect that, when new, they should hold to commonly accepted SAAMI safety standards for .308 Winchester chambers. However, myself and several others, have pointed out that when we measure headspace in many [ read that as MOST ] of these brand new rifles, we get measurements that are WAY above SAAMI recommended standards for .308 Win.
Perhaps, as John has implied, we are all incompetents using the wrong tools .... but maybe not.
That being said,
perhaps the SAAMI specification we are using for measuring these chambers is questionable.
Back in high school, in science class, I learned that a theory is only useful if it is supported by physical facts, as provided by repeatable experimentation. I propose that SAMMI’s theoretical standard for safe chamber dimensions in .308 Winchester, is quite simply not supported by the real world experience of thousands of these M-14 type rifles, with much greater than SAAMI standard headspace, shooting probably millions of rounds of .308 Winchester ammo, without many [or even any? ] PROVEN kabooms.
What we have here is a theoretical standard, that is quite simply, not supported by the physical evidence.
SO,
Maybe it is time to rewrite the standards?
Or, at the very least, stop worrying about them to the point of obsession.
This thread reminds me of other great obsessions … like “what is the best BEAR protection firearm. Come on now … in the REAL world, on average, in Canada, about 7 people a year get et by bars. By a strange coincidence, this is almost exactly the same number as those who die by getting hit by lightning.
Do you stay up late all night terrified about getting hit by lightning?
If we can come up with seven verifiable stories of Chinese M-14 rifles blowing up with factory built commercial .308 ammunition, then I’d say we have something to be worried about.
Do we have seven takers?
Until and unless we do, how about we give this topic a rest?
PS: MY personal Chinese M-14 rifle has a Chinese bolt in it. Headspace with this particular combination is at .002” over .308 GO, which I define as perfect for a general purpose/field rifle, to be used with both .308 MATCH ammo, and with 7.62 NATO ball.
More important than any theoretical headspace measurement, this bolt has very good bearing on both the right and left lugs.
PPS: for all you M-14 shooters worried about your #### falling off, I DO have a US GI bolt for sale in the EE.
Notice that I kept the Chinese bolt, and am selling the GI bolt …. the Chinese bolt fits perfectly, and the GI bolt, in my receiver, would require about .003" lapping. So I am keeping the Chinese bolt.
And my #### is still there, last time I looked.
[;{)
LAZ
Somehow or other I missed the part where John told us the headspace specifications for Marstar imported M-14 rifles. But then, with liability lawyers and class action suits being launched [ and succeeding ] because someone scalded themselves with coffee that was “too hot”, I don’t think John is ever going to tell us this magic number.
These rifles are marked, quite clearly, as M14 .308 right on the receivers, so one could reasonably expect that, when new, they should hold to commonly accepted SAAMI safety standards for .308 Winchester chambers. However, myself and several others, have pointed out that when we measure headspace in many [ read that as MOST ] of these brand new rifles, we get measurements that are WAY above SAAMI recommended standards for .308 Win.
Perhaps, as John has implied, we are all incompetents using the wrong tools .... but maybe not.
That being said,
perhaps the SAAMI specification we are using for measuring these chambers is questionable.
Back in high school, in science class, I learned that a theory is only useful if it is supported by physical facts, as provided by repeatable experimentation. I propose that SAMMI’s theoretical standard for safe chamber dimensions in .308 Winchester, is quite simply not supported by the real world experience of thousands of these M-14 type rifles, with much greater than SAAMI standard headspace, shooting probably millions of rounds of .308 Winchester ammo, without many [or even any? ] PROVEN kabooms.
What we have here is a theoretical standard, that is quite simply, not supported by the physical evidence.
SO,
Maybe it is time to rewrite the standards?
Or, at the very least, stop worrying about them to the point of obsession.
This thread reminds me of other great obsessions … like “what is the best BEAR protection firearm. Come on now … in the REAL world, on average, in Canada, about 7 people a year get et by bars. By a strange coincidence, this is almost exactly the same number as those who die by getting hit by lightning.
Do you stay up late all night terrified about getting hit by lightning?
If we can come up with seven verifiable stories of Chinese M-14 rifles blowing up with factory built commercial .308 ammunition, then I’d say we have something to be worried about.
Do we have seven takers?
Until and unless we do, how about we give this topic a rest?
PS: MY personal Chinese M-14 rifle has a Chinese bolt in it. Headspace with this particular combination is at .002” over .308 GO, which I define as perfect for a general purpose/field rifle, to be used with both .308 MATCH ammo, and with 7.62 NATO ball.
More important than any theoretical headspace measurement, this bolt has very good bearing on both the right and left lugs.
PPS: for all you M-14 shooters worried about your #### falling off, I DO have a US GI bolt for sale in the EE.
Notice that I kept the Chinese bolt, and am selling the GI bolt …. the Chinese bolt fits perfectly, and the GI bolt, in my receiver, would require about .003" lapping. So I am keeping the Chinese bolt.
And my #### is still there, last time I looked.
[;{)
LAZ
Bob Greenleaf, who is responsible for the post-Brewer rework of the 110 Savage action, used a 110 Savage in .30-06 to experiment with increasing headspace. The barrel nut system makes it very easy to set the headspace however you want. Using FACTORY ammunition, he kept increasing headspace until the rifle would no longer fire. EVERY cartridge case fireformed without incident, even when the headspace was vastly in excess of any standard.
Now this experiment was conducted under controlled conditions, with fresh FACTORY ammunition. Introduce handloading (particularly cases fired in rifles with excess headspace) or lower quality ammunition, and things could change dramatically.
SAAMI standards may vary on the side of caution. But is it not better to err on the side of caution, rather than relaxing standards, to allow for erratic, even sloppy control of tolerances? If SAAMI or CIP standards for both rifles and ammunition were relaxed, a minimum spec. rifle and maximum spec. cartridge might not be functional. And a max. spec. rifle and min. spec. cartridge could get interesting.
If a rifle is factory marked ".308 Winchester", it should conform to industry standards.
When a brand new rifle arrives covered with preservative, inside and out, it is obvious that its headspace - and probably everything else - was not checked after the rifle left the factory.
A customer satisfaction warranty is just - that the customer will be satisfied. It makes no warranty about the fitness for use, or quality of the product. Just that you can return the product if you don't like it.
Now this experiment was conducted under controlled conditions, with fresh FACTORY ammunition. Introduce handloading (particularly cases fired in rifles with excess headspace) or lower quality ammunition, and things could change dramatically.
SAAMI standards may vary on the side of caution. But is it not better to err on the side of caution, rather than relaxing standards, to allow for erratic, even sloppy control of tolerances? If SAAMI or CIP standards for both rifles and ammunition were relaxed, a minimum spec. rifle and maximum spec. cartridge might not be functional. And a max. spec. rifle and min. spec. cartridge could get interesting.
If a rifle is factory marked ".308 Winchester", it should conform to industry standards.
When a brand new rifle arrives covered with preservative, inside and out, it is obvious that its headspace - and probably everything else - was not checked after the rifle left the factory.
A customer satisfaction warranty is just - that the customer will be satisfied. It makes no warranty about the fitness for use, or quality of the product. Just that you can return the product if you don't like it.
Tiraq I did a similar test ,but not on purpose. I have a switch barrel made up on a mid 70's Savage 112e single shot. I threaded and chambered a Shilen #7 contour barrel for it in .308 Winchester. At the range I screwed the barrel into the reciever but forgot to hand tighten it.
First I did the then popular barrel break in tecknique, 1 shot clean, 2 shots clean, ... 5 shots clean, 5 shots clean. I then tried shooting some serious groups, every 3 or 4 shots the group would ship a couple of inches one way or another. After about 20 rds of this I got up to check things out.
After checking the scope mount I found the problem, the barrel was a little loose, like 1 turn loose. I believe the Savage barrel is 16 or 18 tpi off of the top of my head, so the rifle at the end of the test had at least .050 excess headspace! All cases fireformed fine and the groups of 3 and 4 shots were pretty good!
The long headspace on the M-305's doesn't bother me at all, they are fine and a SUPER deal. I think I need to buy a couple more.
Johnone, I hope you buy the Enfields in that warehouse, and they are all Longbranches, #4T's, and LSA'S.
First I did the then popular barrel break in tecknique, 1 shot clean, 2 shots clean, ... 5 shots clean, 5 shots clean. I then tried shooting some serious groups, every 3 or 4 shots the group would ship a couple of inches one way or another. After about 20 rds of this I got up to check things out.
After checking the scope mount I found the problem, the barrel was a little loose, like 1 turn loose. I believe the Savage barrel is 16 or 18 tpi off of the top of my head, so the rifle at the end of the test had at least .050 excess headspace! All cases fireformed fine and the groups of 3 and 4 shots were pretty good!
The long headspace on the M-305's doesn't bother me at all, they are fine and a SUPER deal. I think I need to buy a couple more.
Johnone, I hope you buy the Enfields in that warehouse, and they are all Longbranches, #4T's, and LSA'S.
I suspect that excess headspace is not the bogieman that it is made out to be, as long as quality factory ammunition is involved. Doesn't mean that it is a desirable or necessarily acceptable situation, but how many reported unfortunate incidents have been reported where loose headspace was the only contributing factor?
As far as the M305s are concerned, I suspect that the only time there could be a problem would be if cases fired in a particularly generously chambered specimen were fl sized back down all the way. That could result in case separations.
I agree that it is not an issue that should discourage purchase of these rifles.
As far as the M305s are concerned, I suspect that the only time there could be a problem would be if cases fired in a particularly generously chambered specimen were fl sized back down all the way. That could result in case separations.
I agree that it is not an issue that should discourage purchase of these rifles.
These Chinese clones are a classic case of getting what you pay for.They are bargain basement priced,so is it a realistic expectation to have them hit the quality line of a more expensive product-a classic case of wanting to drink champagne on a beer budget?
Laz is correct that a rifle which is made and sold in a certain caliber should conform to SAMMI specifications re chamber and headspace,but Chinese industry marches to the standards of cheapness and mass marketing-marginal quality,but good enough to get by.The shelves of Walmart,C Tire,and Princess Auto are full of it because we consumers want it that way,so why would it be any different for firearms?
It seems that anyone wanting to do any serious shooting with one of these pieces must,as a minimum, invest in a USGI replacement stock,gas system,rear sight,and bolt-an aggregate cost of at least $500 on top of the initial outlay-and then you still have a good possibility of excessive headspace to deal with. Precision shooting means precision ammunition which means handloads.And handloads mean FL resizing which means you need a chamber on the short side for the sake of safety and brass life.Having enjoyed owning and shooting a "real" M14,I briefly considered one of these clones,but rejected the idea in favor of a Garand in 7.62.No more money when all is said and done,tight headspace,no soft bolts,a forged receiver,excellent sights,and all components made to a known quality standard.But if I just wanted to have the feel of an M14 and blast away at dirt clods with 2-3 MOA throwaway ammo,then one of these would be an option.
Laz is correct that a rifle which is made and sold in a certain caliber should conform to SAMMI specifications re chamber and headspace,but Chinese industry marches to the standards of cheapness and mass marketing-marginal quality,but good enough to get by.The shelves of Walmart,C Tire,and Princess Auto are full of it because we consumers want it that way,so why would it be any different for firearms?
It seems that anyone wanting to do any serious shooting with one of these pieces must,as a minimum, invest in a USGI replacement stock,gas system,rear sight,and bolt-an aggregate cost of at least $500 on top of the initial outlay-and then you still have a good possibility of excessive headspace to deal with. Precision shooting means precision ammunition which means handloads.And handloads mean FL resizing which means you need a chamber on the short side for the sake of safety and brass life.Having enjoyed owning and shooting a "real" M14,I briefly considered one of these clones,but rejected the idea in favor of a Garand in 7.62.No more money when all is said and done,tight headspace,no soft bolts,a forged receiver,excellent sights,and all components made to a known quality standard.But if I just wanted to have the feel of an M14 and blast away at dirt clods with 2-3 MOA throwaway ammo,then one of these would be an option.
FYI, the Chinese M14 reciever was the ONLY forged M14 reciever until LRB came out with theirs................The Chinese Reciever is dimensionally correct when compared to a TRW reciever (the Holy Grail for most.....
).........The Chinese reciever alone is worth the $400.00!!!!........... Springfield Armory Inc. use cast recievers and have had dimensional issues over the years............The soft bolt issue was something from the early 1990s and is not really relevant nowadays.................Even Springfield Armory Inc. had a bolt recall for "soft bolts".With a patience, a little tuning, and the replacement of some of the smaller parts, you can build yourself an accurate rifle.............
If you Compare a Springfield M1A and the Norinco M14, I have found that they both have comparable accuracy..............So you can spend $1800.00+ on a M1A, or $399.00 on a Norinco, sink $500 to $600 into the Norc and come out with a better rifle and still have yourself $1000.00...................
...............The Springfields have a nicer finish, but it is performance that counts............I have owned M1As, Real USGI M14s, and several Norcs which I have built into tight shooters.................For dollar value, I can build a better M14 cheaper, then buying a base model Springfield M1A..........
The Norinco M14 is the deal of the century!!!!
SKBY.
what skullboy said hehehe
my latest build took a test drive at the range the other day. With factory .308 federal powershock 150 gr this rifle is printing 1 1/4 inch 3 shot groups and did so through 60 rounds of ammunition.
norc reciever , SA national match medium contour barrel chopped to 18 3/4
all other parts usgi. this build cost me half of what an M1A SA superloaded would cost and I have a rifle that is easily on par with the SA.
my buddies fresh out of the cosmo m14s at the bench beside me.... printing a hair over 3 inches consistantly with same ammo i used, has not been tuned yet. gas assembly a tad loose and oprod guided is all over the place. I betcha she's a 2 inch at a hundred rifle once we have tightened her up.
if a guy isn't convinced that the m14s is a great buy....... move along..... the rifle's not for you
my latest build took a test drive at the range the other day. With factory .308 federal powershock 150 gr this rifle is printing 1 1/4 inch 3 shot groups and did so through 60 rounds of ammunition.
norc reciever , SA national match medium contour barrel chopped to 18 3/4
all other parts usgi. this build cost me half of what an M1A SA superloaded would cost and I have a rifle that is easily on par with the SA.
my buddies fresh out of the cosmo m14s at the bench beside me.... printing a hair over 3 inches consistantly with same ammo i used, has not been tuned yet. gas assembly a tad loose and oprod guided is all over the place. I betcha she's a 2 inch at a hundred rifle once we have tightened her up.
if a guy isn't convinced that the m14s is a great buy....... move along..... the rifle's not for you
The headspace argument is the best example of "herd syndrome".
"Herd syndrome" normally started with somebody made a seriously claim or warning (without scientific evidence). The people who made the claim then became "expert" and the rest majority, who is scared by them, started spread words in a lighting speed.
The major reason why the words spread so fast is that most people don't have the knowledge in certain area so they have to relay on "expert".
The best example IMHO is the "Y2K" bug.
The M14 headspace thing started when US websites made such warning saying M305 headspace has to be gauged or basicly the gun will blow at your face. The 308 headspace gauge sales tripled since then.
Even worse, the 7.62 vs. 308 story was brought in. Now the whole issue has reached a whole new level of madness.
As a trained engineer, I would like to point out:
1, If there is such a problem, how come we have so many happy M305 shooters? Does the problem even exist? I need some example of blow up M305 (yes, not SAKO)!
2, Did any body even gauge other milsurplus? I don't think rifles made in 1850 will meet those headspace "standards". And the millions of wartime rifle will not pass the gauges either.
3, The only reason you need to control the tolerance is to make sure TWO parts fits each other. What is the other side? Shell, which is stamped. How accurate is the stamping process? About 10 times worse than milling....
M14 is a 1950 military gun. It is overdesigned to be used in WWII environment. Its massive bolt and giant receiver are the signature of that era. If anyone want to gauge every corner of it, go ahead and good luck.
Regards,
Michael
"Herd syndrome" normally started with somebody made a seriously claim or warning (without scientific evidence). The people who made the claim then became "expert" and the rest majority, who is scared by them, started spread words in a lighting speed.
The major reason why the words spread so fast is that most people don't have the knowledge in certain area so they have to relay on "expert".
The best example IMHO is the "Y2K" bug.
The M14 headspace thing started when US websites made such warning saying M305 headspace has to be gauged or basicly the gun will blow at your face. The 308 headspace gauge sales tripled since then.
Even worse, the 7.62 vs. 308 story was brought in. Now the whole issue has reached a whole new level of madness.
As a trained engineer, I would like to point out:
1, If there is such a problem, how come we have so many happy M305 shooters? Does the problem even exist? I need some example of blow up M305 (yes, not SAKO)!
2, Did any body even gauge other milsurplus? I don't think rifles made in 1850 will meet those headspace "standards". And the millions of wartime rifle will not pass the gauges either.
3, The only reason you need to control the tolerance is to make sure TWO parts fits each other. What is the other side? Shell, which is stamped. How accurate is the stamping process? About 10 times worse than milling....
M14 is a 1950 military gun. It is overdesigned to be used in WWII environment. Its massive bolt and giant receiver are the signature of that era. If anyone want to gauge every corner of it, go ahead and good luck.
Regards,
Michael
Having a chamber on "the short side" is one of the factors that can lead to Kabooms in 7.62 Garands and M-14's. Soft bolts, Skullboy sorted that out above. I have no problem full length resizing for the 3 m-305's that I load for, but I don't set the shoulders back to .308 specs either. Long headspace does not really have an effect on accuracy. Try some Federal or Blackhills Match .308 168's in an m-305, it shoots very well.
The sights on the m-305 ain't great, but a lot of m-305's are fitted with optical sights, which is not so easy on a Garand. I have a Garand myself in 308, I set the headspace to almost let the bolt close on a .308 Field gauge.
For shooting with iron sights, I prefer the Garand, the 8 shot enbloc's are great compared to 5 shot magazines. I had several real M-14's when they were non- restricted, at one time I had one of each manufacturer. Back then you couldn't give me a Garand, back then the m-14's were cheaper, had almost tripple the firepower, and milsurp ammo was much cheaper in 7.62 than 30-06.
The sights on the m-305 ain't great, but a lot of m-305's are fitted with optical sights, which is not so easy on a Garand. I have a Garand myself in 308, I set the headspace to almost let the bolt close on a .308 Field gauge.
For shooting with iron sights, I prefer the Garand, the 8 shot enbloc's are great compared to 5 shot magazines. I had several real M-14's when they were non- restricted, at one time I had one of each manufacturer. Back then you couldn't give me a Garand, back then the m-14's were cheaper, had almost tripple the firepower, and milsurp ammo was much cheaper in 7.62 than 30-06.
headspace and all the other questions guys are asking these days are ALL covered in the STICKIES. Skullboy, morpheus, hungry , Laz and several others have put generous free time into writing up the FAQ's and need to know info so we could all become informed and not have to repeatedly ask the same ol questions. Not to rant.... it just gets tiresome.
Hungry's words of "don't buy one m14s/m305...... buy two" sums it all up....... so what are you waiting for?
my take oin the m14s , parts, conversions, headspace concerns ect ect.
1) if you want a fun, cheap, blaster..... buy one and have fun... tighten up what you can using the VAST amount of do it yerself FREE info and support here on cgn...... add a decent scope mount and maybe new rea sights and get on with life.
2) If you want the rifle for hunting..... same as above.... but maybe invest in a barrel chop and scope it or eotech with handguard rail .... changing out iron sights becomes optional, only other parts i'd think about changing would be the trigger assembly
3) If you plan to compete in tac or service rifle or you have the itch to build a tight accurate rifle from a excellent quality norc receiver...... where consistant POI is demanded..... it would be my preference to change to a full usgi build with an aftermarket DMR/medium type barrel, match headspace, tight tuned parts.........
this is all just my own opinion......
Hungry's words of "don't buy one m14s/m305...... buy two" sums it all up....... so what are you waiting for?
my take oin the m14s , parts, conversions, headspace concerns ect ect.
1) if you want a fun, cheap, blaster..... buy one and have fun... tighten up what you can using the VAST amount of do it yerself FREE info and support here on cgn...... add a decent scope mount and maybe new rea sights and get on with life.
2) If you want the rifle for hunting..... same as above.... but maybe invest in a barrel chop and scope it or eotech with handguard rail .... changing out iron sights becomes optional, only other parts i'd think about changing would be the trigger assembly
3) If you plan to compete in tac or service rifle or you have the itch to build a tight accurate rifle from a excellent quality norc receiver...... where consistant POI is demanded..... it would be my preference to change to a full usgi build with an aftermarket DMR/medium type barrel, match headspace, tight tuned parts.........
this is all just my own opinion......
Interesting comment about setting the shoulders differently...so do you set them a little longer to "fill up" more of the headspace?
Are these stock norincos with chinese bolts and all? I have been trying to find guys who reload for stock norincos to see what they're doing and how long their brass is lasting,
Very interesting indeed!
Without trying to gore a few more oxen,I cannot accept that quality control acceptance/rejection standards on these Chinese products would equal or surpass those for the military M14 or M1 rifles.The military had mature industrial capacity which produced millions of these rifles and virtually unlimited resources to ensure quality control throughout the production and assembly processes.FWIW I don't think the Springfield Inc commercial clones are value for money.Both the Norinco and Springfield products are obviously good enough,but against what standards?
Anyone who wants to exercise complete safety precautions when reloading for the M1/M14 should consult the Kuhnhausen Shop Manual in detail as it provides the absolute best guidance on the topic.WRT controlling headspace in reloads,the best technique is to size your fired brass to a point where it chambers w/o resistance in the chamber it is to be used in.This involves progressively adjusting the die and trial chambering the resized cases to a point where they permit the stripped bolt to close on the case w/o resistance,then turn the die down another 1/4 turn and lock it.In addition to checking on the length of the case,this trial chambering also verifies that the radial dimension of the case will permit proper chambering.These precautions are on top of using quality brass,appropriate propellants and primers,seating primers below flush and trimming to spec.Both the M1 and M14 are hard on brass and it is best to discard cases after 4 reload/firing cycles.
For my 7.62 chambers I like to keep headspace in the range of 1.632/1.633 minimum and 1.635/1.636 max.As a bonus,this allows both .308 Win and 7.62NATO rounds to be used.This is with an eye to reloading as excessive FL resizing leads to premature case fatigue and head separations.I would caution against setting headspace below minimum with the idea of achieving a "crush fit" in the chamber.This is all fine in a bolt gun where the bolt cams will ensure closure on the case,but is a non-starter for an autoloader which relies on the force of the op rod spring to lock the bolt into battery before firing.It would be prudent to know exactly what the headspace is on the Chinese rifles before attempting to fire reloaded ammo in them.If it is as long as some report,then firing reloads is a clear invitation to case separations .Obviously firing factory ammo and discarding the brass seems to work w/o incident.
Again,this begs the original question of what headspace standards,if any,the Norinco product conforms to.
Anyone who wants to exercise complete safety precautions when reloading for the M1/M14 should consult the Kuhnhausen Shop Manual in detail as it provides the absolute best guidance on the topic.WRT controlling headspace in reloads,the best technique is to size your fired brass to a point where it chambers w/o resistance in the chamber it is to be used in.This involves progressively adjusting the die and trial chambering the resized cases to a point where they permit the stripped bolt to close on the case w/o resistance,then turn the die down another 1/4 turn and lock it.In addition to checking on the length of the case,this trial chambering also verifies that the radial dimension of the case will permit proper chambering.These precautions are on top of using quality brass,appropriate propellants and primers,seating primers below flush and trimming to spec.Both the M1 and M14 are hard on brass and it is best to discard cases after 4 reload/firing cycles.
For my 7.62 chambers I like to keep headspace in the range of 1.632/1.633 minimum and 1.635/1.636 max.As a bonus,this allows both .308 Win and 7.62NATO rounds to be used.This is with an eye to reloading as excessive FL resizing leads to premature case fatigue and head separations.I would caution against setting headspace below minimum with the idea of achieving a "crush fit" in the chamber.This is all fine in a bolt gun where the bolt cams will ensure closure on the case,but is a non-starter for an autoloader which relies on the force of the op rod spring to lock the bolt into battery before firing.It would be prudent to know exactly what the headspace is on the Chinese rifles before attempting to fire reloaded ammo in them.If it is as long as some report,then firing reloads is a clear invitation to case separations .Obviously firing factory ammo and discarding the brass seems to work w/o incident.
Again,this begs the original question of what headspace standards,if any,the Norinco product conforms to.
would be cool to have chamber cast specimens from across the country from different import dates and start a table and see if there is a "chamber size standard" by comparing the casting measurements..... and also with that dimension include factory bolt/barrel headspace measurement from same chamber.
I think only then can we truly set a "standard" to begin using as a reloading guide specifically for norc rifles....... this make sense? or am i talking outta my @ss
I myself have only seen ONE norinco m14s..... a early 90's import, that headspaced right outta the box at 1.6345
I think only then can we truly set a "standard" to begin using as a reloading guide specifically for norc rifles....... this make sense? or am i talking outta my @ss
I myself have only seen ONE norinco m14s..... a early 90's import, that headspaced right outta the box at 1.6345
Last edited:
BattleRife
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- of No Fixed Address
You are obviously not up on your M14 history.
In the summer of 1961, the U.S. Ordnance Weapons Command requested that a committee be formed to look into problems with very high rejection rates of M14 rifles due to inaccuracy and targetting problems. Representatives from Springfield Armory, Frankford Arsenal and Aberdeen Proving Grounds, among others, were on the committee. They contracted with one of the best known and creditable civilian arms engineers to trial samples from all three then-current manufacturers of the M14 (TRW was not yet in production).
Larry Moore took seven rifles from each of Springfield, Winchester and H&R and tested and examined them. He concluded that not one of the 21 guns met MIL-SPEC. He found errors in machining, sloppy fitting and a general failure to meet specifications on ALL of those rifles.
The final report from the "Ad-Hoc" committee on the M14 was that the accuracy capability of the M14 was severely limited by poor design and by the shoddy manufacturing practices of the companies that made it.
While officially the M14 has "only" the second shortest official lifespan of any U.S. primary arm (seven years: 1957-1964), if you study the history, the gun only entered mass production in late 1960, and the official announcement of no-more-M14-contracts came in January 1963, meaning there was only about 2-1/2 years when the rifle was anything close to standard 'A'. Most troops had never even seen one by the time the program was cancelled. Only 1,380,000 were produced.
The "quality control acceptance/rejection standards" and "mature industrial capacity" applied to the M14 program yielded the greatest materiel f@*k-up of the 20th Century American military. The U.S. M14 program was a disaster in all respects, and I seriously doubt the Chinese have (or could have) done significantly worse.
