M14 Fed. Ordinance Receiver
- Thread starter jgass
- Start date
jgass - You have a number of options.
- You could install your parts on a Chinese receiver.
- You could see if Questar could get you an M1A receiver, and install your parts on it. This would give you a superior rack grade M1A. SA Inc. used GI parts until the supply was exhausted, and they were forced to go to outsourced aftermarket parts.
- You could sell your GI parts set very easily and put the money toward a new rifle, either an M1A or a M305. I doubt that this is the best option.
As far as cast parts goes, there is no reason that cast parts cannot be perfectly acceptable. Ruger is proof of that. It may be easier to design parts to be produced by casting than to reverse engineer the production of parts by casting that were originally designed and engineered to be produced by conventional machining techniques. There is no reason that a cast M-14 type receiver should not be of comparable quality to a cast Mini-14 receiver.
Another excellent source for M-14 (and M-1) information is Jerry Kuhnhausen's book.
- You could install your parts on a Chinese receiver.
- You could see if Questar could get you an M1A receiver, and install your parts on it. This would give you a superior rack grade M1A. SA Inc. used GI parts until the supply was exhausted, and they were forced to go to outsourced aftermarket parts.
- You could sell your GI parts set very easily and put the money toward a new rifle, either an M1A or a M305. I doubt that this is the best option.
As far as cast parts goes, there is no reason that cast parts cannot be perfectly acceptable. Ruger is proof of that. It may be easier to design parts to be produced by casting than to reverse engineer the production of parts by casting that were originally designed and engineered to be produced by conventional machining techniques. There is no reason that a cast M-14 type receiver should not be of comparable quality to a cast Mini-14 receiver.
Another excellent source for M-14 (and M-1) information is Jerry Kuhnhausen's book.
Then maybe you should have just read the Threads about the M14, as practically this entire Forum is dedicated to the M14 which many of the people around here have and this is a 'Well' of knowledge don't just ask one question regarding your M14 ask many and also READ the other threads as they usually have the answers to all of or almost all of the questions regarding the M14. BTW there's already a thread dedicated to the topic of soft receivers. Anyway welcome to the Board
Springfield armorys reputation went all to he** when they switched to commercial parts from USGI parts. Their recievers are refered to as out of spec. by people, and it is in reference to how scope mounts made for real M-14's don't fit properly. Cast vs Fordged is not really a big deal if both are made properly.
Apparently the stock of m-305 recievers are almost all used up. No one seems to know what leftover parts there will be, if any. I imagine Marstar or Traddex might have them eventually. In a year or so Springfield M1A's will be all there is out there.
Apparently the stock of m-305 recievers are almost all used up. No one seems to know what leftover parts there will be, if any. I imagine Marstar or Traddex might have them eventually. In a year or so Springfield M1A's will be all there is out there.
As far as I know, the receivers used in the M305s being imported into Canada are ones made several years ago for assembly into rifles for the US market. Don't know if any have been made since. It is entirely possible that the end is near. I doubt that there would be the incentive for the the M305 to go back into regular series production without access to the US market. If the rifles were to be put back into regular production, I very much doubt that the Cdn. retail would be $399.
It is entirely possible that it will not be long before the M1A is the only game in town, the price of existing M305s will skyrocket, and folks will be fondly remembering the good old days of $399 M305s.
As far as the use of castings goes, it is entirely possible to make strong, accurate parts using the process. A cast blank requires a lot less machining to finish than a forging. Much less material needs to be removed. Some surfaces and contours may require no additional work. The catch is to design the piece taking into consideration factors like shrinkage, warping, etc. If, for example, there are dimensional problems in an area such as the scope mount interface mentionned, the solution could be to provide for precision machined finishing, to guarantee maintaining exact control of key areas. My personal experience is limited to the production by precision casting of some 13-odd parts for one particular design. Things can be done using casting that would be impractical using other technologies, but there can certainly be problems. I am still using springs that were cast some 35 years ago.
Incidentally, it is my understanding that the M1A receiver castings are done in Montreal.
I suspected that it was Alphacasting. There aren't too many precision foundries in Canada, and pouring alloy steel requires more sophisticated facilities than plain mild steel. A centrefire rifle's receiver is certainly a highly stressed component, and there isn't much margin for error.
Our castings were done in 1015 and 6150 steel, perhaps 1500 pieces in total. We had our castings done in Toronto. At that time there were two foundries in the GTA doing ferrous work by investment casting. I was never present for a pour, but watched all other stages of the process from diemaking on.
Our castings were done in 1015 and 6150 steel, perhaps 1500 pieces in total. We had our castings done in Toronto. At that time there were two foundries in the GTA doing ferrous work by investment casting. I was never present for a pour, but watched all other stages of the process from diemaking on.
Last edited:
