New Norinco M14s and cast receivers?

By the way, don't panic. As cast guns go, that one is not that bad looking and there is ZERO evidence that there are any issues with the cast receivers so far.

One check I would do though:

Remove the op rod and with the action out of the stock, insert the bolt.

Bring the bolt almost into battery and check when it rotates enough that the firing pin will slip past the safety bridge. Hopefully the bolt lugs are almost totally engaged before the firing pin can move forward.

On a cast receiver, firing pin timing is the thing that would give me the most potential concern from a safety perspective. But if it checks out, then likely it will be fine.
 
I checked the firing pin during my initial inspection, that’s good to go. Also good is that I’ve a USGI bolt + headspace gauges on their way to me right now.

When you say it’s cast can I ask what observations that is based on? Not to second guess you but the background would be helpful... I’ve done a LOT of image searches, that showed me receivers with very obvious machining marks as well as forged ones that looked nearly identical to mine.

I’m still fence sitting a little, probably in agreement with you but the lack of sprue marks and very different finish to other cast examples does create a bit of doubt.
 
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about when I say some forged examples look similar.

70E14946-FB10-4E48-BE42-F760C77D725C.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 70E14946-FB10-4E48-BE42-F760C77D725C.jpg
    70E14946-FB10-4E48-BE42-F760C77D725C.jpg
    75.8 KB · Views: 630
ok, well for starters, you have a mold line down the top of your receiver heel. There are no obvious machining marks on the heel or side wall near the scope mount. The bolt stop ears are clearly as-cast and not machined with nice sharp edges. The windage screw recesses look nothing like the ones on a forged and machined receiver. It's also not a 1990's era receiver, it's a 2016 receiver made after the older forgings ran out. The engraving below the woodline proves that. There is also no machined "scallop cut" above the bolt stop, your receiver legs have no fly cutter marks liek every forged receiver has. and most of the surfaces of your receiver are devoid of machining marks and have a cast "orange peel" texture.

It's cast. Either believe me or do not, but FWIW, I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to steels and manufacturing.
 
Appreciate the extra input, very informative.

FWIW - I asked for some extra background precisely because of the fact that you “know your stuff”... didn’t have anything to do with not believing you, if that was the case I would have just said so.

Irrespective of that - I guess this thread serves as confirmation that both the 308 and x39 Norincos have cast receivers now. That’ll probably benefit folks, I know that the reason I bought this gun was to get my hands on a good quality receiver at a good price.

For me.... I left feeling pretty p*ssed. Beyond the fact that it’s not what I was after there’s now the question of “is the receiver metal as a reliable as the MIM bolts?”.

That’ll nag a me for a while but, flip side of the coin, my son and I had a great time with the build. Accuracy potential seems to be there as well, printed some 1.5MOA groups during or test the other day. There’s still more work planned, once it’s all done I throw something up about the project.

Also - if anyone has some key dimensions for the “old” receivers I’d be happy to measure mine and report back on tolerances.
 
Do I owe royalties on that brother?!! ;-)

If I can offer a defence those pics were all on FB M1A / M14 pages....
 
Rosco7002 said:
Do I owe royalties on that brother?!! ;-)

If I can offer a defence those pics were all on FB M1A / M14 pages....
Click to expand...

I think 3 million should suffice lol ohhhh did I post them on pages or did someone else steal them I can charge them too HAHAHAHA
 
I expect that the foundry's contract with SAI precludes sale of castings to third parties.

There is nothing inherently wrong with high strength precision casting in alloy steel, assuming everything is done correctly. Ruger has been casting receivers and bolts for generations. I am still using springs which we had cast 45 years ago.

I suspect that the forged and machined receivers will continue to be preferred, and rifles incorporating them will hold value better.

The MIM bolts are something else entirely.
 
I went over that receiver in microscopic detail last night. To share some more info about this “new development” the interior of the receiver shows machining marks on every surface, there is no “as cast” metal surface anywhere. Looks like they used a casting process and then cut all the precision areas afterwards (safety bridge, inside of legs, mag well, op rod spring guide channel, firing pin recess, etc).

One thing I will say is that I never woulda bought this rifle had I known about this before hand. If I had a do-over, I’d go used
 
Rosco7002 said:
I went over that receiver in microscopic detail last night. To share some more info about this “new development” the interior of the receiver shows machining marks on every surface, there is no “as cast” metal surface anywhere. Looks like they used a casting process and then cut all the precision areas afterwards (safety bridge, inside of legs, mag well, op rod spring guide channel, firing pin recess, etc).

One thing I will say is that I never woulda bought this rifle had I known about this before hand. If I had a do-over, I’d go used
Click to expand...

A precision casting is the starting point for further manufacture. Any areas which are critical will be machined to finished dimensions. Contoured surfaces which have no requirement for precise finishing are left as cast. There is much less machine time required to finish a casting than a forging. There is a lot of engineering required to develop the process to produce a precision casting. If the piece is an investment casting, the wax master will vary slightly from the die in which it is injection moulded, and the steel piece cast in the cavity that remains after the wax is burned out will have slightly different dimensions from either the wax, or the wax die.
 
Rosco7002 said:
I went over that receiver in microscopic detail last night. To share some more info about this “new development” the interior of the receiver shows machining marks on every surface, there is no “as cast” metal surface anywhere. Looks like they used a casting process and then cut all the precision areas afterwards (safety bridge, inside of legs, mag well, op rod spring guide channel, firing pin recess, etc).

One thing I will say is that I never woulda bought this rifle had I known about this before hand. If I had a do-over, I’d go used
Click to expand...

Given the large number of complex curves on an M-14 receiver, it seems amazing to me that all the evidence of casting could be removed in a cost effective manner. Then again, if Norinco thought it necessary to do so for marketing purposes, anything is possible. For me, the MIM bolt is the big issue that would stop me from buying a new Norc. I can't get past the idea of rewarding anyone financially for such an abomination as that.
 
A sigh of relief from me, bought it in '14 and apparently assembled from 2004 parts bin..... Barrel even indexed properly, I'm gonna get a lottery ticket! Considering what a lug failure consequence could hold, I'm somewhat surprised with the importers / retailers stance. This platform requires enough fussing with to keep things safe, let alone with the MIM bolts thrown in the mix.

I tried to decipher the Chinese puzzle of lower receiver numbers to no avail, I guess you compare your #'s against the various registry's on M14 forums - is that correct?

View attachment 176929View attachment 176930
 
May 1994.

Some are obvious, but other receivers from 1992 and earlier are harder to decipher and the M14 forum guys need to be consulted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom