Smith Enterprise, Inc. has given me permission to make this report available to the public. You can download it from the M14 Research page on FaceBook. If you're not on FaceBook, send me an e-mail request to leeace99@hotmail.com FYI, Ron Smith says 1050 steel is okay for a barrel since the carbon content is where it should be.
Laboratory Analysis of Chinese M14 Barrel
- Thread starter Different
- Start date
It cost some nice coin to have a lab do this. This test was done on my request along with having two commercial receivers, an Armscorp and a Federal Ordnance, examined. That work cost SEI just shy of US$2000.00. The company has already gone above and beyond any other entity in assisting my research. I don't feel comfortable asking for more. Also, US laws and regulations prohibit importation of such a part. Perhaps someone in Canada would be willing to donate a post-2000 Chinese M14 barrel for testing at a local metals testing lab?
If so, it was not tested in the United States. All Chinese firearms and ammunition were banned from importation into the United States by the Secretary of the Treasury in 1998. That's on top of the Department of State ban from 1994.
Travis Bickle
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Upper Lower Middle Alberta
My own highly technical personal scientific experiments consisted of me shooting the gun and finding it works like it should lol
This leads me to also believe that the barrels are good
This leads me to also believe that the barrels are good
Last edited:
BattleRife
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- of No Fixed Address
Interesting report, thanks for posting it.
The conclusion that "1050 steel is okay for a barrel since the carbon content is where it should be" is a little disingenuous. "Okay" for what? In WWII, German barrels were mostly made from 1020 steel, including for the MG42. Yes, they worked. But people on the internet have anxiety attacks over the fact that some AR-15 barrels are 4150MOD whereas the MIL-spec is a special Cr-Mo-V alloy, when both are way higher grades than the steel that worked for the MG42. So how do we interpret this? The fact is that the US M14 was specified to use the same Cr-Mo-V alloy, and a barrel made from 1050 is unquestionably inferior in some respects to that steel. Are they respects that matter with semi-auto rifles and 5-round mags? Maybe not, but again I think it's disingenious for Smith to simply conclude it's okay.
Anybody know the plating thickness requirement for the M14? 0.001" seems thin to me.
I think that Marstar and other importer's of the norinco/polytech m14s rifle have had improvements made on each series of guns over the years. These improvements are not included into all of the tests that are done in America. We have the new "models", they do not. I have a few of the original guns that Lever Arms imported, not the AL series one's. When you compare the new guns to those one's, you can see improvements in quality. Those guns have had a lot of shells put through them over the years in northern BC weather, and they still work. They are still your basic stock guns with a few additions. They new guns appear to have better finish and parts finish.
They are not chrome lined barrels like the military m14's, receiver and parts are not comparable to us military m14's either. But , the gun works and most people will never put the round count through a chinese m14s that the us military has put through their 1964 vintage guns. We are getting what we pay for, a gun that works.
We could all "chip in" a 800 round case each and get marstar to put 16000 rounds through a stock gun and see what happens!!! Like what remington did with the nylon 66 when it was introduced to the public. That is a real test for quality.
They are not chrome lined barrels like the military m14's, receiver and parts are not comparable to us military m14's either. But , the gun works and most people will never put the round count through a chinese m14s that the us military has put through their 1964 vintage guns. We are getting what we pay for, a gun that works.
We could all "chip in" a 800 round case each and get marstar to put 16000 rounds through a stock gun and see what happens!!! Like what remington did with the nylon 66 when it was introduced to the public. That is a real test for quality.
The chromium plating on the USGI M14 barrel was applied 0.0015 " thick at the breech end of the rifling, with the plating thickness intentionally tapered very slightly to a thickness of 0.001 " at the muzzle. USGI M14 barrels were made from both chromium-molybdenum-vanadium steel (early H&R and Winchester barrels) and 4150 steel (all the rest of the USGI M14 rack grade barrels) per the government requirements.
Your point is well taken regarding the anxiousness of those who pay for their firearms. That's why SEI made the point that the carbon content is comparable to USGI M14 barrels. Without going into a discourse on rifle barrel metallurgy, the intent was to alleviate that anxiety. SEI would no doubt agree that 4140 or 4150 alloy steel are preferred over carbon steel for a rifle barrel. That's the way we roll in North America.
Chinese M14 barrels have had thousands of rounds fired through them so they have been shown to be serviceable. I know of one Chinese M14 barrel on a 1991 imported Norinco M14 Sporter that had 15,000 rounds shot through it without issue. Is 1050 steel a less expensive material than alloy steel? You bet. 1050 steel lacks the trace concentrations of chromium and molybdenum contained in 4150 steel. But as you noted, carbon steel can work for a rifle barrel.
