Different
That doen't even deserve a response. How many trolls are professional mechanical engineers with experience in weapons metallurgy? Are you one?
I thought not.
From Lee Enerson's book:
Interesting experience ref 762mmfirearms order
- Thread starter Claven2
- Start date
That doen't even deserve a response. How many trolls are professional mechanical engineers with experience in weapons metallurgy? Are you one?
I thought not.
From Lee Enerson's book:
MIL-STD-2154 is the standard for inspection of wrought materials. MIL-STD-2175 is the standard for inspection of castings. Some related military specifications may be MIL-S-22141 Steel Investment Castings and MIL-S-46172 Steel Forgings. As you know, there are many military specifications for steels. 8630 steel has its own, MIL-S-6050.
My personal opinion, it's a supply chain problem for the most part and only related to the spare parts and magazines. Check-Mate Industries has been cranking out M14 magazines since 1985 under several government contracts. Since 2005, they have been running at least one production line solely dedicated to USGI M14 magazines. But the soldiers say it's difficult to get magazines in the field. There have been many contracts for M14 parts since 2004 (I have copies of the contracts). I understand Sage International has been working diligently to meet demand for its M14 EBR stock and related individual parts. Anniston Army Depot has over 90,000 USGI M14 rifles in Condition A status. The M14 EBR-RI is supplied upon request to units before they deploy to the sand box. The M14 EBR-RI rifles are free to the units but they have to be turned in when they come back stateside. TACOM-RIA has built over 5,000 M14 EBR-RI rifles using existing USGI M14 rifles from Anniston Army Depot.
That makes LOT of sense, even though it's a bit absurd to think they can't manage to get the rifles issued if there's demand.
MIL-S-11595 is the specification used for the M14 barrel. For steel bars and blanks over 1 3/4 " diameter to be used for barrels of small arms weapons, MIL-S-46047 was the specification.
No but I don't pretend to be 1 either by quoting book's.
Please stop hijacking thread's.
If you want to talk about the make up of real USGI metal parts please start a new thread. Also no one but the people that created these rifle's in China and even then it is questionable that they even know the excate make up.
Furthermore 7.62 makes spare parts and has not yet produced a receiver for testing to the D.O.D. although it is there plan to in the very near future.
Also Different welcome to the board and thanks for your insight on this matter.
I think you are referring to Federal Specification QQ-S-624 which is referenced in the M1 Garand rifle receiver drawing. I have a copy of QQ-S-624C. I don't see that document mentioned on the M14 receiver drawing.
and for those just joining us........ Different = Mr. Lee Emerson ...... , author of the ever growing History and development of the M14 , both written and internet, knowledge database 
and in the circles I run in ..... the absolute authority as far as knowledge of this rifle, it's history, it's use, and ALL things in between
It is always a pleasure and an eye opener, to have Lee join our discussions here on CGN whenever FACTS are needed
and in the circles I run in ..... the absolute authority as far as knowledge of this rifle, it's history, it's use, and ALL things in between It is always a pleasure and an eye opener, to have Lee join our discussions here on CGN whenever FACTS are needed
Get a life. This is MY THREAD. I started it. One cannot hijack one's own thread.
And if you want to discuss what any of us do offline, please feel free to PM me and I'll send you my contact info so we can discuss. I don't pretend to be something I am not.
PS: I don;t claim 762mmfirearms has done ANYTHING. They claimed over the phone to me last week that they had submitted complete rifles to the US DOD. They could be lying - I'm not in a position to know one way or another.
Last edited:
I know, I wrote it.
OH! I didn't know that's who you were
Obviously, you know more about the M14 and what you're talking about than I ever will, so I shall defer to your knowledge @ Different:
WRT the QQ specification, take a look at this drawing package, first drawing, right after the title page, in the upper left corner of the drawing under "notes". It looks like OO, but give reproduction quality, it could be QQ:
http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerdog/generalstorage/m14tecnicalfolder/post-14-01138-M_14_Receiver_Ordnance_Prints.pdf
By the way, speaking of what got this thread started, my gas system still hasn't arrived in the mail. I called on Friday and they couldn;t find any record of ever having shipped me one, though they did bill my Mastercard about a month ago.
They're sending me a "replacement". Though truth be told, I think that because Canadians aren't allowed to use the online order form, they billed my CC right after I phoned my order and then promptly forgot to even package and ship the damned thing.
They're sending me a "replacement". Though truth be told, I think that because Canadians aren't allowed to use the online order form, they billed my CC right after I phoned my order and then promptly forgot to even package and ship the damned thing.
The linked drawing is not the USGI M14 receiver drawing. Notice that it lacks the legend, list of revisions, signatures, etc. All of the USGI M14 parts drawings I have were obtained from the U. S. government repository in charge of them, Picatinny Arsenal.
Here is what the USGI M14 receiver drawing F7790189 Revision V says for Note 3:
Material: Steel, Spec ASTM A304, A322, A331: 8620H except resulpherized (sulphur .035 to .050 %) gun quality
From USGI drawing F7790189 Revision V we learn that Note 3 was last modified with Revision G on December 23, 1960. So, if QQ-S-624 was referenced as the specification for the M14 receiver material, it was only done so until December 1960 at the latest.
I wasn't going to post and just let it play out...
Claven2:
It seems pretty apparent that you are quite new to M14s given the threads you've started and your postings. No long ago, you posted about finding out that Garand hammers and trigger sears fit in M14 trigger assemblies. This is pretty common knowledge amongst the M14 fanatics/enthusiasts.
You are keen and that is great but I would suggest toning down the know-it-all, 'I'll make you suck eggs' style approach because there are lots of people on the internet(and here on CGN) who have a lot of trigger time and tuning time on the M14s.
I was just waiting to see what would happen when you found out that Different is in fact Lee, ie one of the said gurus of the M14 history.
I don't know what background you have understanding the various military procurement programs but whatever experience you have in dealing with the US military, take it with a grain of salt in broader understanding of how the military machine works.
Claven2:
It seems pretty apparent that you are quite new to M14s given the threads you've started and your postings. No long ago, you posted about finding out that Garand hammers and trigger sears fit in M14 trigger assemblies. This is pretty common knowledge amongst the M14 fanatics/enthusiasts.
You are keen and that is great but I would suggest toning down the know-it-all, 'I'll make you suck eggs' style approach because there are lots of people on the internet(and here on CGN) who have a lot of trigger time and tuning time on the M14s.
I was just waiting to see what would happen when you found out that Different is in fact Lee, ie one of the said gurus of the M14 history.
I don't know what background you have understanding the various military procurement programs but whatever experience you have in dealing with the US military, take it with a grain of salt in broader understanding of how the military machine works.
7,62mm receiver
I think some people were waiting for reviews on their receivers?
Art Lupino just posted one on M14TFL, followed by a few others. In short, good receiver, in-spec, better than many original M14. Finish is on the rough side, many tooling marks.
I think some people were waiting for reviews on their receivers?
Art Lupino just posted one on M14TFL, followed by a few others. In short, good receiver, in-spec, better than many original M14. Finish is on the rough side, many tooling marks.
I think you assume I'm a newbie at this. Not sure if the search function goes that far back, but I've been at this well longer than you've been a member here
I've also built up several M14 barrelled receivers from Chicom guns using USGI parts. Am I the world's expert on these? Nope. Satain wins, his d!ck is bigger than mine, though I assure you mine hasn't fallen off yet - LOL.I think you assume I'm a newbie at this. Not sure if the search function goes that far back, but I've been at this well longer than you've been a member here
I don't know Satain nor whatever quarrels you two have. You may not be a newbie to M14s at all, and if my suggestion that you were offends you, my bad, I apologise.
However, in the promotion of minimising my-####-is-longer-than-yours threads, it would probably be best not to sound like a know-it-all(on both sides).
If I sound like a "know it all", it's certainly not intentional - I love to read and learn and from time to time post what I hope new shooters will possibly find useful.
Interestingly enough, I have read Lee's book - it's fun that I've bumped into him online and learned a thing or two I thought I already knew.
I had no problem with Satain until he called me a troll IN MY OWN THREAD.
I'm certainly willing to set that aside though if he will. As big as the internet is, the gun community is a small place and I'd rather get along with folks.
Interestingly enough, I have read Lee's book - it's fun that I've bumped into him online and learned a thing or two I thought I already knew.
I had no problem with Satain until he called me a troll IN MY OWN THREAD.
I'm certainly willing to set that aside though if he will. As big as the internet is, the gun community is a small place and I'd rather get along with folks.
