Differences between M305 and M1A besides cast/forged receiver?
- Thread starter givemeliberty
- Start date
In the US, M1A are sometime upgraded with USGI parts, when not built with them from the factory. However most keep them stock to stay elligible for the lifetime warranty. Springfield service is quick and effective.
Actually my M1A (that I bought used) is gone for free service to Geneseo, IL.
That's a level of service that is too rare nowadays and SAI offers the best warranty in the M14 business.
Seafury, I'd like to see pictures of your US rifle. I use imgur . com to upload a pic from my computer. Then on the left there's a hotlink for message boards that you just copy and paste here while typing (choose medium size pic).
Lol buds, the only asian parts on those rifles are the receivers, which SAI can't match in dimensional accuracy to the original yet alone drop forging them how they're supposed to be made.
That said if you have a nice older Springer with all GI parts to post, please do so because THOSE are nice rifles.
However a late 90's and up rifle with taiwanese made SAI parts on it (that's right folks) aint gonna do it.
My rifle is made with Norinco Receiver,op-rod, trigger group and bolt. The barrel is a Krieger Heavy Match barrel,SEI Coast Guard Muzzle brake, USGI gas system and NM Spring guide and Spring. It all sits in a fully loaded JAE-100 G2 stock. I paid less assembling this rifle then I would have if I had bought a second hand SAI.
The only thing I would replace is the trigger group with a USGI NM group, if I could find one.
The only thing I would replace is the trigger group with a USGI NM group, if I could find one.
SAI trio
[/IMG][
I hope that has it
Top- 2004 SAI standard in USGI glass stock with SEI mount and cheek pad, Leupold M4 rings and M4 3.5-10 X 40 LRT M3 as used on Smith's Crazy Horse SDM rifle. SAI NM spring guide. Owner applied trigger work as demonstrated by Hungry (thanks much) this rifle did not require a shim.
Center- 2002 SAI standard in birch. Gas cylinder shim and trigger work. Both of the standards have USGI trigger groups and oprods. Both have forged bolts. I added SAI NM flash suppresors to both standards. Thanks SPCAMNO for the lugged NM suppresors.
Bottom- 1986 SAI Super Match in McMillan glass stock. USGI bolt, op rod, trigger. NM aperture and front sight. Hart barrel.
All three rifles have generous bolt roller clearance when bolt is in full battery. None of these rifles fails to fire when the trigger is squeezed. Sight serrations are crisp. Bolts, extractors, triggers are hard. I like rifle stocks not Mechano sets. Putting a $1000 stock on a $450 rifle makes as much sense to me as putting mag wheels on a Hyundai Pony. When equipped with a short magazine these rifles are not that intimidating looking for the none believers out there. I won't comment on accuracy as my ability to shoot says jack about the rifles ability to group. There are a lot of fish stories on this site when it comes to performance. I'm sure they'll hold their own against the competition.
I hope that has it
Top- 2004 SAI standard in USGI glass stock with SEI mount and cheek pad, Leupold M4 rings and M4 3.5-10 X 40 LRT M3 as used on Smith's Crazy Horse SDM rifle. SAI NM spring guide. Owner applied trigger work as demonstrated by Hungry (thanks much) this rifle did not require a shim.
Center- 2002 SAI standard in birch. Gas cylinder shim and trigger work. Both of the standards have USGI trigger groups and oprods. Both have forged bolts. I added SAI NM flash suppresors to both standards. Thanks SPCAMNO for the lugged NM suppresors.
Bottom- 1986 SAI Super Match in McMillan glass stock. USGI bolt, op rod, trigger. NM aperture and front sight. Hart barrel.
All three rifles have generous bolt roller clearance when bolt is in full battery. None of these rifles fails to fire when the trigger is squeezed. Sight serrations are crisp. Bolts, extractors, triggers are hard. I like rifle stocks not Mechano sets. Putting a $1000 stock on a $450 rifle makes as much sense to me as putting mag wheels on a Hyundai Pony. When equipped with a short magazine these rifles are not that intimidating looking for the none believers out there. I won't comment on accuracy as my ability to shoot says jack about the rifles ability to group. There are a lot of fish stories on this site when it comes to performance. I'm sure they'll hold their own against the competition.
Last edited:
Thanks guys
I think the SA rifles are good pieces of equipment. Certainly there have been a few issues. I have no doubt that a properly assembled Norinco rifle is a good shooter. If you pay a guy who knows his stuff to blueprint your rifle taking the time to select and fit the components how can you not have something good? It's hard to argue the price of admission.
Yes I'm a bit biassed.
I think the SA rifles are good pieces of equipment. Certainly there have been a few issues. I have no doubt that a properly assembled Norinco rifle is a good shooter. If you pay a guy who knows his stuff to blueprint your rifle taking the time to select and fit the components how can you not have something good? It's hard to argue the price of admission.
Yes I'm a bit biassed.
givemeliberty
Regular
Does anyone know if there is anything different about the shape/size of the barrel on the Norincos?
It seems that when I look at a Norinco M14 the foregrip area of the rifle looks thicker than on SAI or USGI M14s. This might be completely due to the Norinco stocks, but I am not sure so I am posting the question. Thanks.
It seems that when I look at a Norinco M14 the foregrip area of the rifle looks thicker than on SAI or USGI M14s. This might be completely due to the Norinco stocks, but I am not sure so I am posting the question. Thanks.
It looks bad for sure. I have an SAI muzzle break also and was thinking of putting it on my M21 clone. Do you think it helped much?
It helped more on the old lighter wood stock. In conjunction with the heavier JAE stock it probably has slightly less benefit as a percentage improvement but staying on target and follow up shots are more easily achieved with the stock and the brake.
I have owned S.A. M1As, a USGI Springfield Armory M-14, a USGI TRW M-14, and several custom built Norincos...........
Since I can't have the real deal USGI M-14s anymore, and unless I win the lottery an LRB receiver is a pipe dream, I prefer the Norinco M305s over the Commercial S.A. M1A.
For the price of the M1A, I can buy a Norc, strip it to the receiver and rebuild it with USGI parts and a match barrel for the same price or less........
The Norc receivers are on par with TRW USGI receivers as far dimension specs go.........and for most in the know, TRW are the sought after USGI parts.....
Since I can't have the real deal USGI M-14s anymore, and unless I win the lottery an LRB receiver is a pipe dream, I prefer the Norinco M305s over the Commercial S.A. M1A.
For the price of the M1A, I can buy a Norc, strip it to the receiver and rebuild it with USGI parts and a match barrel for the same price or less........
The Norc receivers are on par with TRW USGI receivers as far dimension specs go.........and for most in the know, TRW are the sought after USGI parts.....
I just have to chime in here.
As some of you may know, it all started when I decided to replace the Norky bolt (on my M305) with a 7.62 firearms bolt. From what I read and physically measured (from the copies of the original blueprints), the 7.62 was USGI spec dimensionally. Well to make a story short, I blew the rollers off the new bolt....twice.
After the first time, I thought the bolt was a little tighter, better yet, more resistance was needed to move the op-rod and new bolt to the rear of it's cycle in the receiver (without op rod spring, but with trigger group in rifle), using a very simple system of weights to move the rod, then the Norky bolt.
Hmmmm...that got me thinking. the only reason for that is that something was different. Careful measurement of the new bolt revealed that it was slightly dimensionally larger. I carefully used a little lapping compound and eased some of the resistance. This had the effect of "polishing up the trigger hammer and the underside of the bolt. The receiver was pretty good dimensionally.
I blew the second roller. Hmmmm...something still not right. Plan B...get USGI oprod, spring ad new rollers. I am getting good at replacing those!
Had to do a little fitting work, but installed oprod and does very well with the tilt test. The original question about the M305 vs the M1A? I don't know about the M1A, but I do know for a fact that the bolt and oprod on my m305 were dimensionally VERY different than the USGI equivalent parts. THe oprod was really telling. I think I know what happened to my roller.
The roller us USGI spec, the oprod was not. The new bolt would not glide into battery once the top of the bolt touched the receiver. The oprod was cut such that it actually cradled the roller to almost "hold" it in place. In a few posts back, I noted that shiny "peened" spot on the oprod. This would have resulted in the energy of the spring being borne on the roller once the bolt came to rest against the receiver.
The new oprod also had a very miner hold. as well, I do have tighter tolerances. I very, very carefully ground down a little part of the "hump" to allow the roller to easily rotate down into battery without stopping suddenly. The energy of the spring now is exerted onto the roller indirectly to redirect it so it moves the bolt into battery. The Norky oprod was grossly cut differently, but with a dimensionally inferior (different) M305 bolt, it functioned fine.
I have it lubed up and ready to shoot tomorrow. Lets hope I do not need to replace any more rollers.
Claven and M14 Doctor - thank you so much for you ideas, experience and input.
As some of you may know, it all started when I decided to replace the Norky bolt (on my M305) with a 7.62 firearms bolt. From what I read and physically measured (from the copies of the original blueprints), the 7.62 was USGI spec dimensionally. Well to make a story short, I blew the rollers off the new bolt....twice.
After the first time, I thought the bolt was a little tighter, better yet, more resistance was needed to move the op-rod and new bolt to the rear of it's cycle in the receiver (without op rod spring, but with trigger group in rifle), using a very simple system of weights to move the rod, then the Norky bolt.
Hmmmm...that got me thinking. the only reason for that is that something was different. Careful measurement of the new bolt revealed that it was slightly dimensionally larger. I carefully used a little lapping compound and eased some of the resistance. This had the effect of "polishing up the trigger hammer and the underside of the bolt. The receiver was pretty good dimensionally.
I blew the second roller. Hmmmm...something still not right. Plan B...get USGI oprod, spring ad new rollers. I am getting good at replacing those!
Had to do a little fitting work, but installed oprod and does very well with the tilt test. The original question about the M305 vs the M1A? I don't know about the M1A, but I do know for a fact that the bolt and oprod on my m305 were dimensionally VERY different than the USGI equivalent parts. THe oprod was really telling. I think I know what happened to my roller.
The roller us USGI spec, the oprod was not. The new bolt would not glide into battery once the top of the bolt touched the receiver. The oprod was cut such that it actually cradled the roller to almost "hold" it in place. In a few posts back, I noted that shiny "peened" spot on the oprod. This would have resulted in the energy of the spring being borne on the roller once the bolt came to rest against the receiver.
The new oprod also had a very miner hold. as well, I do have tighter tolerances. I very, very carefully ground down a little part of the "hump" to allow the roller to easily rotate down into battery without stopping suddenly. The energy of the spring now is exerted onto the roller indirectly to redirect it so it moves the bolt into battery. The Norky oprod was grossly cut differently, but with a dimensionally inferior (different) M305 bolt, it functioned fine.
I have it lubed up and ready to shoot tomorrow. Lets hope I do not need to replace any more rollers.
Claven and M14 Doctor - thank you so much for you ideas, experience and input.
RememberTheSomme
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Claven 2 has it right.
It takes a bit of effort and time to track down all the USGI parts but it can still be done for just over $2200 built. The norc/poly receiver is excellent and as close as it gets to a USGI spec receiver and that's a fact. Those who doubt this can call Ron Smith in Arizona and ask.
This was the rifle I had built in 2009 (with alot of help from M14 doc
GI on Poly receiver.
Best shooting M14 I ever owned, It did 3" at 300m with M118 LC
(and yes, I've owned several M1A's)
The look of this Rifle and more importantly the capability of this rifle,.. I like. Pretty much condenses all the M-14 pros and cons, do's and don't that are traded back and forth here into something tangible.
J996 I hope this is not the m-14 you will be using in that classic milsurp target shoot sponsored by Ardent, what about the poor guys shooting bone stock No4s!
