M14 3rd gen. or ARMS #18 ?

eltorro

eltorro

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
138   0   0
Location
Out West
What would be the sturdiest?
Any negatives o them?

Springfield - M1A 3rd Generation Mount or
A.R.M.S - #18 M14/M21 Foundation?

I'd like to have an opinion about them, as I like to have the best, and the diff. in price is about 50 US.
 
I will not say one is better then the other because they both work. They just approach the problem is different directions.

SA is a high mount requiring low rings. You can see under the mount so open sights can be used pretty much immediately. The view is pretty obscured so the target better be pretty big. The entire unit can be removed easily and can return to zero when reinstalled. The higher base poses no issue with case ejection or if you need to access the action. The cost is lower.

ARMS18 can have issues with windage (maybe solved at the factory???). It's location can cause ejection issues (again can be resolved). Must use quick det rings if you want to use the open sights (don't like see through rings for view and strength). Requires very high rings to allow scope clearance. Rings must be quick det and strong enough to sustain use (heavy). More expensive.

Both units with rings weigh pretty close to the same. Both require some elevated check rest if using a scope with a 40mm or larger objective and/or with a large eye piece (just depends on how much cheek weld you need/want).

Jerry
 
Thanks a lot guys, please tell me if there are any better ones - in the decent price range.
I don't have a problem buying from the States, so a good tip for a source is greatly appreciated.
 
If you can get a Springfield 3rd Gen mount for around $100.00 to $150.00 and install it properly(follow the instruction sheet and use the hammer!!!;) ) with blue Loc-Tite, then you should have no problems.

IMHO, the S.A. style 3rd Gen mounts aren't worth the money they want for them.Unless you use Loc-Tite and hammer, the nount will work loose.

Plus these mounts are aluminum.

The top mounts for the M-14 platform are the follow:

-ARMS #18
-Smith Enterprises
-Sadlak

These are all steel construction and NOT aluminim like the S.A. mount.Except Sadlak makes a Titanium version.These are all 3 point mounts.

The easiest two to get are the Smith & ARMS mount.

I have had both the ARMS #18 & the Smith mount.Both are excellent mounts, but I prefer the Smith mount.

The Smith mount sits higher so there is more open space above the action area so cases clear the mount better and it is easier to clear a stoppage if needed.

The Smith mount is also longer giving you more room to mount optics.

The ARMS #18 mount sits lower, and lets the rifle have a cleaner, low profile look.

But some people have had issues with cases hitting the bottom edge of the mount and falling back into the action causing a stoppage.The case usually gets caught up between the op rod as it travels forward, and the front of the reciever.

This can be fixed by tuning your extractor spring.

The ARMS mount is also shorter in length.
Also, removing the bolt for cleaning can be a pain with the low profile ARMS #18 mount.

The Smith Enterprises mount:
dsc067981gt.jpg

dsc067958uv.jpg


The ARMS #18 mount:
dsc019873gp.jpg

dsc019840oz.jpg

dsc020131wf.jpg


Both the Smith & ARMS #18 mounts are rock solid and return pretty much to "zero" when removed.

The Smith mount is a little more $$$$$ then the ARMS mount. (ARMS #18 approx. $260.00 Cdn, and the Smith mount is approx. $350.00).

Both have also seen extensive Military use.Although the Smith mount is the more common one to see in action.

You can't go wrong with either mount, it just comes down to preference.

SKBY.
 
nice camo job, Skullboy.
Sadlak also makes an aluminum one.
Is aluminum not recommended at all?
The price on Sadlack....arghhh.
steel -225
alum 139
titanium 360

Smith - 275
Springfield - 129
Arms - 159

all in US.

hmm, one can easily get a scope mount more expensive than the rifle itself.
But as long as it will hold, it's worth it.

Thanks a lot SKB.
please take a look at this too:

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40095
 
eltorro said:
nice camo job, Skullboy.
Sadlak also makes an aluminum one.
Is aluminum not recommended at all?
The price on Sadlack....arghhh.
steel -225
alum 139
titanium 360

Smith - 275
Springfield - 129
Arms - 159

all in US.

hmm, one can easily get a scope mount more expensive than the rifle itself.
But as long as it will hold, it's worth it.

Thanks a lot SKB.
please take a look at this too:

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40095
Click to expand...

I personally would stay away from aluminum M-14 mounts.

Yes, the decent mounts cost as much or more then the Norinco M305, but IMO, this rifle should be going for much more.Even at $600.00 to $800.00, the Norc is a good deal.A similar forged reciever (a bare reciever only) from LRB Arms in Long Island N.Y. goes for around $680.00 U.S.

I saw your post, but I don't sell unfinished stocks due to the agreement I have with my supplier.Sorry.

SKBY.
 
SKBY, Please PM me with a quote on finished products.
Even if one of the options is to send you my BA.

Cruising now to get to a good source of steel mounts.
 
Skullboy, which rings are those pictured with the ARMS mount?
I assume they are the #22 rings. I also assume the scope is a bushnell 3200 mildot? What hight are the rings, med, or high?
Thanks,
AG.
 
For comparisons, here are some pics of my Gen 3 clone mounted on an M305. Scope is an Elite 4000 2.5X10X42 (?) or an Isreali Nimrod 6X40. As you can see the overall height above the action is similar but you can use the open sights with the Gen 3 mount.

As to Alum not being strong enough, that just depends on the alloy. Yes, if was made from tin cans, I would be concerned. However, aircraft landing gear and racing car wheel hubs are made from aluminum alloys so it can be more then strong enough.

By the way, the part that replaces the stripper charger is steel and was a very tight fit. Of course a bolt could be threaded so that it functions the same as the other mounts.

Remember that cast iron can be comparably very weak. I doubt the tact mounts are forged. Are they machined from quality bar stock or cast or forged?

Even with some abuse expected, the clone mount that I was using is grossly overbuilt. I really doubt that any optics would survive any damage that would break that mount. The weakest link in any optics system is still the glass. Overbuilding every other component will not change this weakest link.

Big reason why tactical equals really heavy firearm. We build planes to fly, NOT to crash. Although they should survive a bumpy landing every now and then.

Jerry





 
Do not use aluminum mounts on precision rifles -- period. Aluminum flexes and steel does not. The A.R.M.S. No. 18, Sadlak Industries, Brookfield Precision, and Smith Enterprises are the mounts to consider. Tactical rings are a must. I use the A.R.M.S. No. 21 throw lever base with my Leatherwood ART 2 and No. 22 throw levers with my Tasco 10x42M Super Sniper. Depending upon the scope and ring combination used, most setups will require the use of a strap-on or some kind of adjustable cheek piece to avoid having to "goose-neck" to pickup the scope. This results in the loss of cheek or stock weld and leads to mistakes in aiming.

One of the problems with getting the mounts set up correctly in relation to the rings is that commercial receivers for ALL the M14-type rifles are NOT to spec with their U.S. military equivalent. How far they are out-of-spec depends on who made the receiver and when it was made. Usually the problem is that the inverted T-lug that positions the front part of the mount is not deep enough or there is some minor dimensional stack-up that prevents the mount from seating squarely on the receiver. Once the problem is recognized for what it is, it is easily fixed. However, one can never assume that whoever machined the scope mounting area on the receiver of the rifle did it correctly or to specification. The other problem areas are the contour of the upper receiver ring and the position of the charger clip guide slot. However, most of the problems are associated with the T-lug area.

Master Gunner
 
I got a Smith mount and some TPS rings to go with it.

Thank you for the advices. I'll definately post some pics and range reports when all will be finished
 
A few of you guys out there know me...if i was to buy based on my life depending on it....I personaly would go with an Arms #18......but only the old style......open top.....and I won't start telling you why......search the board or the net.

I only have one old #18 and the rest of my mounts are Brookfield style mounts made by Smith Ent......look you guys .......the Norc is a screaming deal.....if you get a keeper (a great shooter.....good barrel) then spend the $ on the mounts and the proper glass........and shut up about the $$$$$$$ of the f'ing mounts.
(ok I'm in Maui......slightly impaired on cheap beer and many of my friends here would die to buy a $340 US M14, so put things in perspective)

I did use a SA gen 3 for years without a problem.......but it was hammered and glued to the reciever.

so there's my .02 worth............from the sun and surf.........later girls.


GG&FB
 
For me, it came down to price. I simply could not afford an ARMS mount. I went with the 3rd Gen. It was only $75.

I am DAMN happy I have thta mount. I admit I hammer mine on. I also used a very strong adhesive to hold teh screws in place too. (I don't plan on removing it anytime soon).

I have used this mount for a few years now, at the range and hunting. I can't find anything wrong with this mount. I think it works great. I get consistent groups (with the right loads), and friends have commented on the precisiin as well.

Now if I could afford and ARMS mount, I would get one. But since I'm usually broke, I am happy with my 3rd Gen. At least I was able to enjoy a scope on my Norc sooner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom