Norinco or SA

M&Pgunner said:
I should put my "Left Foot Of Doom" up your a#@ for a post like that man. I am new to this whole area of firearms and people like you who think you know everything really make newbies like me mad. I have been looking over the threads and I realize that the Norinco is a good rifle but it seems to me that everybody does alot of modification. I wanted to know was the best right out of the box!!!!

Thanks for your view, but I think I know who the brand snob is!!!!
Click to expand...


Take a breath before you pass out. Feel free to show me where I've said I know everything, or even anything. If you want to get all whiny like some little girl over my post so be it. But the dancing banana should have indicated that the post was meant to be helpful.

And brand snobs usually stay above the $1000 price when deciding on their toys. And they usually take great pleasure in showing off their expensive toys and bragging about its inherent better than yours-ness. That usually lasts until they go up to the line and cant hit ####all with their uber-weapon and guys with the norc 1911's, llamas, BHPs show them up.

But if you want to get all butthurt then feel free to cry put me on ignore or complain to a mod about it.

ps:
heres the actual thread you should read on page 2, started by girlsgunsandfastbikes:
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105556
 
Last edited:
tree mugger said:
Both the norc's I've owned have shot 1.5" at 100m, right out of the box.

Airborn_69 can attest to it, he has shot both and now owns one of them.

He has also seen how the wood refinishes. He went back to a stock I refinished in MinWax, over a USGI fibreglass.
Click to expand...

I love Norc M14's so much that I had to buy a 2nd one & a third one...Was a hardcore SA booster but made a conclusion that for the value they hold, it is not worth the $$$.

So with all that remaining $$$, I'll get a nice optic piece & mount for it, thus keeping the other one for Iron sight service rifle matches, in which it performed flawlessly.
 
LeftFootOfDoom said:
Take a breath before you pass out. Feel free to show me where I've said I know everything, or even anything. If you want to get all whiny like some little girl over my post so be it. But the dancing banana should have indicated that the post was meant to be helpful.

And brand snobs usually stay above the $1000 price when deciding on their toys. And they usually take great pleasure in showing off their expensive toys and bragging about its inherent better than yours-ness. That usually lasts until they go up to the line and cant hit s**tall with their uber-weapon and guys with the norc 1911's, llamas, BHPs show them up.

But if you want to get all butthurt then feel free to cry put me on ignore or complain to a mod about it.

ps:
heres the actual thread you should read on page 2, started by girlsgunsandfastbikes:
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105556
Click to expand...

Once again alot of words but nothing intelligent. I don't need to cry or go tell a mod about your post. You missed the entire point of my orininal post. I never said the SA was a better rifle than the Norc I just wanted to get some more information. You say all these things about how Norcs are better guns and thats fine, I appreicate the info, but you seem unable to to get past the point and think that I am only considering a SA. This is not the case, I want a quailty rifle that I do not need to spend alot of time upgrading or working on. I don't have time in life to spent putting different stocks on or changing operating rods to USGI. You seem to think that you know for a fact that the SA is inferior, maybe you know from first hand experience some thing that I don't. It just makes me wonder when all the posts I see about Norc are about how much they are modified. I don't want to sit here and argue about who said what, but the way you word your posts makes it seem like you are looking for a fight so you can prove how good Norinco's are. Seems like you meet the criteria for a brand snob as you have listed it(You've probably spent more than a $1000 on all the mods you've made to your Norc, but thats just a guess)

P.S. :dancingbanana:
 
Last edited:
A person in Canada would have to be brain dead to waste all that money on a SA. First off, the Norcs shoot great out of the box, you get a better reciever then the SA, and if you later decide to upgrade you have money in your pocket. Don't let all the people upgrading their Norcs fool you, most of the mods are not needed if you just plan on shooting it with iron sights. The only thing you may want to switch out is the bolt, and the stock (both not actually needed). Honestly, the M14 is extreamly easy to work on, so even if you are new to them (as I am) you won't have any problems.
 
M&Pgunner said:
Once again alot of words but nothing intelligent. I don't need to cry or go tell a mod about your post. You missed the entire point of my orininal post. I never said the SA was a better rifle than the Norc I just wanted to get some more information. You say all these things about how Norcs are better guns and thats fine, I appreicate the info, but you seem unable to to get past the point and think that I am only considering a SA. This is not the case, I want a quailty rifle that I do not need to spend alot of time upgrading or working on. I don't have time in life to spent putting different stocks on or changing operating rods to USGI. You seem to think that you know for a fact that the SA is inferior, maybe you know from first hand experience some thing that I don't. It just makes me wonder when all the posts I see about Norc are about how much they are modified. I don't want to sit here and argue about who said what, but the way you word your posts makes it seem like you are looking for a fight so you can prove how good Norinco's are. Seems like you meet the criteria for a brand snob as you have listed it(You've probably spent more than a $1000 on all the mods you've made to your Norc, but thats just a guess)

P.S. :dancingbanana:
Click to expand...

Part of the problem with trying to compare the two is that the Springfield really costs like it should be in a different universe than the Norc, the fact is it isn't. One of the reasons so many people put a laundry list of mods into the norc is that even spending $1000.00 on GI parts will still leave you money for a case of 7.62 in your pocket. The finish on the Norc is in no way equal to the Springfield - if you want a rifle with a fine quality finish and beautiful wood stock out of the box the Norc is not the rifle. On the range you probably won't notice a difference.
 
Yeah, its all good. I learned what I needed to know. I thought that people poured money into their Norcs because they had problems. Now I know they are a good rifle from the start. I like the fact that their is opportunity to modify but it is not necessary. Thanks everybody:)
 
Yeah, I see how my posts could be interpreted as snobbish. No prob, not looking to start any internet fights. Just trying to help out, if you want to call me a snob for promoting the norc's thats fine, I even agree with you.

As for Springfields, they're great rifles but imo not that great to justify the huge price difference. In my various gun clubs I've run into many guys that go out and buy the most expensive toys, because they're the best. Its crazy how they trash norcs. Myself, I am happy with owning toys that are "good enough". I've got 2 norc m14's, one is in a 25$ Freds synth stock with marstar oprod spring guide, rooster bolt catch, arms 18 mount & VX II scope. The other is in the original wood sprayed with truck bed liner and replaced marstar oprod spring guide. Both shoot equally well, and outside of the scope & mount have very little money into upgrades. Others have put huge sums into upgrading their rifles, from the tactical stocks to replacing barrels, gas systems etc. I'm not a competition shooter, so I see no need to do those upgrades. You can leave it stock or uprgrade everything but the receiver its up to you.

It should be fairly obvious from the sheer volume of threads, not to mention stickies on the norc m14, that the vast majority of people here will hands down recommend the norc over the springfield. Unlike the US sites like warrifles. .
 
its funny nobody has mentioned about the guns that come with the bbls not indexed correctly, and all that.
the norinco rifles are a great deal, dont get me wrong, but they have lots of probs to.
i have both, and the springfield is my fave. way more $$$ true, but still my fav.
 
M&P, I'm one of those guys who happens to like $2,000.00 rifles, I also like $325.00 rifles, $600.00 rifles and $3,200.00 rifles. I also own a bunch of them! As you can see, I'm also from the "Hat". I also own a Springfield Armoury M1A w/ a NM barrel, (unfortunately I sold my TRW M14 years ago). Its pretty well been mostly a safe queen since I bought it, but if you would like to try it out at the range in town here just PM me and we can arrange something. If you shoot serious competition, you generally want the best you can get. Some people just buy the Norinco "M14", because of its falic symbol nature. Its a macho thing, their rifles will never see serious competition but will kill a lot of beer cans. By the way, I also have a $159.99 Norinco SKS carbine, cost is actually irelevant when you want a quality firearm and have a requirement to fill. After all its your money, spend it the way you want to.
 
Last edited:
You're damn right! There are many folks who start to shoot their new rifle like a semi-auto handgun. A non indexed barrel will start to walk after a few shots and such gun will never get good MOA.

Beater said:
its funny nobody has mentioned about the guns that come with the bbls not indexed correctly, and all that.
the norinco rifles are a great deal, dont get me wrong, but they have lots of probs to.
i have both, and the springfield is my fave. way more $$$ true, but still my fav.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom