We all know that the adopted scripture as to the origins of the Chinese made M14 states that it came about from recovered USGI examples taken back to China and reverse engineered to supply a communist rebellion in the Phillipines. People that know a lot more than I do about M14's are pretty adamant that this is the case. I can't offer an alternate theory but some things don't make sense. Before you roll your eyes and say 'here we go again', hear me out.
After getting a set of M14 drawings to check the specs on my Norc receiver I came to the realization that reverse engineering these would have been a lot of work. Not impossible, but definitely not economical for the Chinese in the 1960's. I am a machinist and have been for 15 years. I have had to reverse engineer parts for customers in the past. Parts that were significantly less complex than an M14 receiver. If I was an Chinese engineer tasked with the job, I would be asking "why don't we copy the easier-to-manufacture M16a1 or how about we just arm the rebellion with with the SKS or AK47 variants that we are already producing??" The M14 receiver is not easy to machine and not easy to measure without knowing the datums provided by the drawing. Having to guess at datums and tolerances would be extremely frustrating. The new Springfield Armory couldn't even get the dimensions right WITH the drawings. The fact that the Chinese would be able to replicate something that is 97% compatible with the USGI counterpart and do it in secret is amazing. And with only the tools available to them in the 1960's. I've worked with machinists who left China and they told me about how they used spring comparators for almost everything. Micrometers were a western luxury. And that was in the 80's. Look at the compatibility between metric, imperial and ishapore FAL's. And the countries manufacturing those were actually on speaking terms.
Then you have to ask why they would bother with certain expensive to manufacture aspects of the M14. For example, the rear sight. Communists don't give two turtle s**ts about sights. You get a leaf, and if you care about windage, you find a hammer and a punch. The rear sight assembly on an M14 is as difficult to machine, if not more-so, than an entire bolt and bolt carrier on an SKS. For another example, the rear buttplate. Why would they bother with the heavy, useless, expensive folding buttplate when they could just stamp out a single piece steel butt plate and be done with it. How about the bayonet lug on the flash hider? As far as I know the Chinese never even made bayonets for the M14 so why would they incorporate yet another unnecessary feature? How about the contoured heel that could have been left square? Why would they replicate every detail of the USGI cleaning kit and the sling? Any extra manufacturing step adds to the final cost.
As I said, I don't have any alternate theories. While it may well be accurate, I just think the reverse engineering theory has a few holes. Considering the where it was destined to go and the purpose behind it, why didn't they pick something cheaper?
After getting a set of M14 drawings to check the specs on my Norc receiver I came to the realization that reverse engineering these would have been a lot of work. Not impossible, but definitely not economical for the Chinese in the 1960's. I am a machinist and have been for 15 years. I have had to reverse engineer parts for customers in the past. Parts that were significantly less complex than an M14 receiver. If I was an Chinese engineer tasked with the job, I would be asking "why don't we copy the easier-to-manufacture M16a1 or how about we just arm the rebellion with with the SKS or AK47 variants that we are already producing??" The M14 receiver is not easy to machine and not easy to measure without knowing the datums provided by the drawing. Having to guess at datums and tolerances would be extremely frustrating. The new Springfield Armory couldn't even get the dimensions right WITH the drawings. The fact that the Chinese would be able to replicate something that is 97% compatible with the USGI counterpart and do it in secret is amazing. And with only the tools available to them in the 1960's. I've worked with machinists who left China and they told me about how they used spring comparators for almost everything. Micrometers were a western luxury. And that was in the 80's. Look at the compatibility between metric, imperial and ishapore FAL's. And the countries manufacturing those were actually on speaking terms.
Then you have to ask why they would bother with certain expensive to manufacture aspects of the M14. For example, the rear sight. Communists don't give two turtle s**ts about sights. You get a leaf, and if you care about windage, you find a hammer and a punch. The rear sight assembly on an M14 is as difficult to machine, if not more-so, than an entire bolt and bolt carrier on an SKS. For another example, the rear buttplate. Why would they bother with the heavy, useless, expensive folding buttplate when they could just stamp out a single piece steel butt plate and be done with it. How about the bayonet lug on the flash hider? As far as I know the Chinese never even made bayonets for the M14 so why would they incorporate yet another unnecessary feature? How about the contoured heel that could have been left square? Why would they replicate every detail of the USGI cleaning kit and the sling? Any extra manufacturing step adds to the final cost.
As I said, I don't have any alternate theories. While it may well be accurate, I just think the reverse engineering theory has a few holes. Considering the where it was destined to go and the purpose behind it, why didn't they pick something cheaper?
Get a sample, take some measurements, proper tooling and you're in business. Soviets copied the B 29. Saw an article once, Chinese dual purpose factory, bicycles and AKs, very primitive by our standards actually.
