M14S/M305 Poly Tech or Norinco?
- Thread starter enfielder
- Start date
You MUST buy two of each. Then get four more (two of each) and make them into shorties. Then you have to get another four and make them into sniper copies. After that you can decide which one you like better and sell the others on the EE.... or you could give them too me 
As for which is better, in my opinion I see no difference. We've been doing a fair bit of shooting of both models (iron sites) and they seem to both be quite nice rifles. As a side note I prefer the USGI wood stock to the USGI fiberglass and the Polytech synthetic.
As for which is better, in my opinion I see no difference. We've been doing a fair bit of shooting of both models (iron sites) and they seem to both be quite nice rifles. As a side note I prefer the USGI wood stock to the USGI fiberglass and the Polytech synthetic.
I won't call myself an M14 Guru (I really ought to start shooting mine, though the lack of surplus 7.62 doesn't help). I do however have both rifles to compare.
If some dealers still have the Norc M14, I presume that they'll be more than $399 like they were selling for direct from Marstar. The $529 Polytechs come with a well designed synthetic stock, compared to the soft wood of the Norcs that most people replace. So if the Norc costs much over $450, just the stock issue alone will make the Polytech a better deal.
For those of us who want to use the iron sights, it sounds as though getting irons that hold zero are less of a hit or miss proposition (pun intended) with the Polytechs, but the indexing of both Norcs and Poly's continues to be an issue for those wanting to use the sights. I think I'll still have to defer to people who've held more than one Polytech to confirm whether the sights are consistently better than the Norcs, though that's what I've been hearing and reading thusfar.
Cheers,
Frank
If some dealers still have the Norc M14, I presume that they'll be more than $399 like they were selling for direct from Marstar. The $529 Polytechs come with a well designed synthetic stock, compared to the soft wood of the Norcs that most people replace. So if the Norc costs much over $450, just the stock issue alone will make the Polytech a better deal.
For those of us who want to use the iron sights, it sounds as though getting irons that hold zero are less of a hit or miss proposition (pun intended) with the Polytechs, but the indexing of both Norcs and Poly's continues to be an issue for those wanting to use the sights. I think I'll still have to defer to people who've held more than one Polytech to confirm whether the sights are consistently better than the Norcs, though that's what I've been hearing and reading thusfar.
Cheers,
Frank
Thanks for the fast replies.
I should clarify; that I was looking to compare the New 2009 model Norinco with synthetic stock and the New Poly Tech version with synthetic stock.
I too, am an iron sight shooter and barrel indexing would be an issue.
Most curious if one over the other has better (I realize we are talking Chicom manufacturing) indexing, headspace, fit and finish etc..
I should clarify; that I was looking to compare the New 2009 model Norinco with synthetic stock and the New Poly Tech version with synthetic stock.
I too, am an iron sight shooter and barrel indexing would be an issue.
Most curious if one over the other has better (I realize we are talking Chicom manufacturing) indexing, headspace, fit and finish etc..
My poly came with everything tight and good to go... the only thing is that the rear sight #### itself after about 400 rounds. now if i look through it to hard it goes loose lol
Never owned a Norc but probably see no big diffrence. I do love the synth stock but had it bedded for that extra minute of moose gain.
Never owned a Norc but probably see no big diffrence. I do love the synth stock but had it bedded for that extra minute of moose gain.
Enfielder,
I'm glad to be of help. I wasn't even aware of the Norinco Synthetic Stock imports....are these the ones with the scary bayonet lug I've heard about?
I'll have to shoot mine more before I can honestly compare and give you further advice, though I'll continue following the thread with interest.
Frank
I've had 27 of the new poly's on my shop bench since september, not counting the 3 that arrived today. I have also personally worked on over 200 of norinco rifles brought in over the past 5 years.
Below are my findings
Finish: appears nicer on the poly's but the norc's grey parkerizing is much more resistant to surface wear.
Flash hiders are crap all around and more often than not the front sight platform is not machined true. I have not handled the new bayolugged version.
Barrel index: 1 in 27 poly's needed reindex. Thru 2006/07 I'd say 1 in 10 norcs needed reindex.
Headspace: poly's are averaging 2 to 4 thou over 7.62 go whereas the average norc guaged 6 to 9 thou over
Oprod fit: sloppy and nothin's changed.
Trigger: modest improvement in most poly's being smoother and a little lighter.
Stocks: the plastic poly's are a vast improvement over the chuwood rinco stocks and prolly a reason why the rifle is now over 500 retail.
Rear sights: Still junk, sight base centerlines way off, hit and miss hardness/metal quality for the pinion and the lock collar in the windage knobs are still not machined with proper inside dimension.
So, you be the judge, personally I see no advantage from one to the other, except A) headspace B) plastic stock and C) they are now fetching +500 retail
Below are my findings
Finish: appears nicer on the poly's but the norc's grey parkerizing is much more resistant to surface wear.
Flash hiders are crap all around and more often than not the front sight platform is not machined true. I have not handled the new bayolugged version.
Barrel index: 1 in 27 poly's needed reindex. Thru 2006/07 I'd say 1 in 10 norcs needed reindex.
Headspace: poly's are averaging 2 to 4 thou over 7.62 go whereas the average norc guaged 6 to 9 thou over
Oprod fit: sloppy and nothin's changed.
Trigger: modest improvement in most poly's being smoother and a little lighter.
Stocks: the plastic poly's are a vast improvement over the chuwood rinco stocks and prolly a reason why the rifle is now over 500 retail.
Rear sights: Still junk, sight base centerlines way off, hit and miss hardness/metal quality for the pinion and the lock collar in the windage knobs are still not machined with proper inside dimension.
So, you be the judge, personally I see no advantage from one to the other, except A) headspace B) plastic stock and C) they are now fetching +500 retail
- Location
- Skkokumchuck BC
I just bought my first M14 / 305 a poly. It has been fun so far and shoots good enought for now. I have a project in mind for it.
