Used Norcs to avoid

[capp325]

The steel in the frames, slides, and receivers is excellent

To paraphrase a character from South Park: "And I base this conclusion...on absolutely nothing". Can you cite any written piece from any reputable source that supports your assertion?

BUT, the most important point that's missing from you're argument's support citations, is that those tests are concerning poly's of older vintage. They did have soft bolts frequently. The poly's stateside and the modern M14S do not share many issues. The US poly's are old prebans, today the Norc M14S's are in my opinion of higher quality, having owned both (still have M14S's).

Read the last part of my previous post.

Once again, I invite the Norinco zealots to cite anything resembling an objective and unbiased evaluation of Norinco products that supports the claim that their pistols use "excellent steel". All I've seen so far is unverified speculation.

 

[Canuck44]

capp325

Facts according to capp325:

1) The world is flat
2) The Earth is the centre of the Universe
3) In Florida there is a fountain of youth
4) Nixon told the truth
5) Mary Popins could fly

Take Care

 

[1851 Navy]

We're "zealots" now? Capp, you really do need to give it a rest.

And while you were at it, you should have posted the rest of the story (according to Fulton, anyway) on ChiCom M14 receivers:

What're the differences among forged, cast, and from-billet M-14-type receivers?

First, please note that M1A is a registered trademark of Springfield, Inc. and can be used only by them to describe their M14-type rifle.

Most M14-type receivers are investment cast; among them: Fulton Armory, Springfield, Inc., Armscorp, Smith. There's the new Entreprise Arms receiver that's supposed to be machined from a billet (a solid hunk of steel). There have been offers of forged receivers but to the best of my knowledge none ever made it to market, save one: the PolyTech/Norinco M14S.

Of course, even cast receivers are machined after coming out of the mold, as are from-billet and forged receivers.

The M1 and M14 were designed to be machined from forgings. The sections and dimensions were designed for the forging process. It's difficult to cast the thin sections of the receiver rails, for example, without distortion. That's why Ruger Mini-14 receivers look so clunky: they were designed to be cast.

My personal belief is that forged receivers are potentially strongest, followed by billet and then cast.

However, that's only part of the story. More salient than some theoretical strength limit is the qualiy of the receiver: its dimensions and geometry. That's why Fulton Armory is so "down" on Fed Ord receivers. Check the Fed Ord entry in the FAQ.

Correspondingly, that's why Fulton Armory is so "up" on our own Fulton Armory M14 and the Chinese receivers; wonderful geometry.

Note that the mention the Chinese receivers twice, and hold them in the same regard as their own beloved Fulton Armory receiver.

 

[1851 Navy]

And since you brought it up, here's yet another quote from Fulton on the chicom M14 steel:

Another side note here: Quoting from another Rec.gunner, John Kepler:

"I have a highly unofficial assay of the metal in a Norinco, done by the DCM. The metal is a 5100 series chromium steel. This is an EXCELLENT receiver metal, though traditionally, not used that much in the US due to it's harder machineability."

So Capp, as you put it last time, which is it? They're either 5100 steel or they aren't. It's either an "excellent" steel for receivers, or it "lacks toughness and ductility needed for the M14 type rifle."

 

[Claven2]

I didn't know what Fulton Armory was when I posted that link. However, what is stated on that website is a well-known, documented fact. Here's the same thing from another source:

After Smith Enterprise completed the evaluation, a second meeting of the parties involved was held. Even after this second meeting, Poly Technologies [part of Norinco] did not correct all the concerns of Smith Enterprise and Keng’s Firearms had regarding the Chinese bolt. Specifically, 1) the bolt locking lugs were too narrow 2) the carburizing and hardness remained unsatisfactory because State Arsenal 356 did not change the material to equivalent AISI 8620 steel but continued to use steel equivalent to AISI 4135. This was in spite of the fact that Keng’s Firearms offered to supply USGI M14 bolts until Poly Technologies could manufacture its own bolts according to USGI specifications. Poly Technologies refused this offer from Keng’s Firearms. The Chinese never changed the bolt material for M14 type rifles exported to the United States.

www.imageseek.com/m1a/M14RHAD060113%20web%20site.doc

P.S. I realize that the article cited above discusses Norinco M14 knock-offs, not their 1911 knock-offs. I'm only pointing this out to demonstrate that Norinco has been known to use inferior, poor quality materials in many of its products. That is why in the absence of cogent evidence, any claim that Norinco 1911s utilize much better steel than guns costing several times should be treated with a grain of salt.

I'm still chuckling that you are slagging people for using "internet rumor" to say the steel is good, yet you say it's bad based on negative internet articles from Smith Enterprises and Fulton Armory, both of whom make COMPETING PRODUCTS. Additionally, both places grudgingly acknowledge the receiver steel is great, but that the bolts were made to steel that was not specified properly. This means they allegedly used the wrong steel blend, not that the steel blend was inferior in any way.

I think you lack a basic understanding of engineering evaluations - just one man's opinion.

 

[Canuck44]

Claven2, there you go again being an engineer and all and spreading bad technical internet rumours... Just be cause you sound like you know what you are talking about and have information to confirm your point of view should no in anyway convince us that you know what you are talking about. All Norinco steel is baaaad except of course the steel in my Norks that had to be heat treated to install a dovetail front sight. Mine was the only exception and gunsmiths are just spreading false rumours about how they screw up there cutters working on Norks.

Fell of the end of the earth the other day so I guess I shuld believe capp325! Now where is my umbrella cuzz I just read Chicken Little and I know the sky will be falling today sometime...

 

[buckbrush]

Fulton and Smith both have axes to grind regarding the m-14's imported into the states. maybe some had bolt problems, but I haven't seen any here in Canada that did. I can't find the threads, but someone on here took his m-305 to work, and tested his reciever and bolt from his m-305 on a hardness tester.

If I remember right, both the reciever and bolt tested in the high 40's, I believe real m-14's are suposed to be 52-54 rc. This is a slight difference, but minor in my opinion.

My "reverance" for the chinese steel used in Norinco 1911,s is based on actually machining them, and they do eat H.S..S cutters. They are not only hard, they are tough. I have never seen a cracked Norinco 1911 frame or slide. I have seen at least 10 cracked Colt frames (4 were 10mm), and have seen LOTSof cracked slides.

I have never been able to tighten a Norinco slide more than around .001 , this is with an 6" machinist vise doing the work. Most Colt and Kimber slides I can tighten as much as I want just by holding the slide on my thigh and using a 1 lb lead hammer.

Ask Gunnar at Armco his opinion of the Norinco steel, he has a huge amount of expierience with them and most other makes. Yes he does sell norinco's , and Para's, and others, and is very honest.

This is not including the fordged versus MIM ed parts debate, Norinco 1911's parts are all fordged. No other maker can claim this, unless perhaps Springfield Armory, but I think just their slides and frames are fordged. Look in Brownells catalog, fordged parts are around twice the price as mimed parts, even from the same manufacturer. This doesn't mean mimed paarts are junk, there is very little evidence ot that, other than hammers, sears, disconectors and slide release's.

I've said it before, If you provide the kimber or colt, I will take it and one of my Norinco's ( I also have 2 Colts) place them side by side in my vise and hold them across the slides. Then I will tighten the vise as much as I can. I am sure the Norinco will be fine, and the name gun won't be, based on MY expierience working on them.

This doesn't mean that Norinco's are better than anything quality wise or cosmetically. They are better metalurgically. They are a great entrance level 1911 , or a basis for a self smithing type to do all kinds of thing cheaply and not ruin a $1000+ piece. They are a great platform for building hot rods like the .45 super, 10 mm, 9-23.

I would not recomend a Norinco to a fellow who want's a high end gun-custom- uniique piece if he has to pay a pistolsmith to do the work for him, there are guns from Kimber, Springfield Armory, ... that are very good values for all the customisation they have, and will hold their value better.

 

[Claven2]

If I remember right, both the reciever and bolt tested in the high 40's, I believe real m-14's are suposed to be 52-54 rc. This is a slight difference, but minor in my opinion.

One thing I will caution about Rockwell testing. Rockwell testing will give you a good indication of surface hardness, but doesn't tell you much about core hardness. For example, if you take a pre-WW1 Mauser and test the surface below the woodline where it's not been worn, it will undoubtedly test in the 30's. Test that same used receiver up omn the receiver ring and it will now likely test in the 20's. This is because the case hardening has been worn away a little, affecting the Rockwell testing at that point.

The M14 receiver is a good example. The Norinco might test in the 40's on the surface, but it will probably also test the same at the core due to 5100 steel being used and its normal properties after roll forging and heat treat.

4140 Steel tends to be more core-ductile and take a good surface hardness, sort of like case hardening but not as dramatic. An M14 *might* test as high as 54 on the surface, but it won't be 54 throughout in my experience.

I'm not contending a Norinco is better than USGI. I'm simply stating that the steels are different and that commensurately, the properties of that steel will be different.

Take a Colt 1911 slide and a Norinco 1911 slide. Using HSS cutters, the Colt will offer initial resistance and then cut smoothly as you enter the softer steel core. The Norinco, on the other hand will be tough as nails all the way through and WILL eat bits if you don't spot aneal or go VERY carefully with lots of cutting oil.

I think many naysayers look at the chinese products, see the poor fit and finish and immediately assume they are trash. These same people probably don't like driving Volvos which are also boxy and ugly in most cases, but engineering-wise they are a great and reliable car. It's not a ferrari, but it's not trying to be and frankly, costs ALOT less and still gets you from A to B, albeit with less style perhaps.

 

[capp325]

I'm still chuckling that you are slagging people for using "internet rumor" to say the steel is good, yet you say it's bad based on negative internet articles from Smith Enterprises and Fulton Armory, both of whom make COMPETING PRODUCTS. Additionally, both places grudgingly acknowledge the receiver steel is great, but that the bolts were made to steel that was not specified properly. This means they allegedly used the wrong steel blend, not that the steel blend was inferior in any way.

You obviously missed the part where it says that Norinco specifically asked Smith to conduct evaluation of their products. Apparently, even they believed that Smith Enterprise would provide an objective evaluation. And where did they acknowledge that the receiver steel was "great"? They said that it was roughly equivalent to the steel used by American manufacturers. Funny, I always thought that adjectives like "great" and "excellent" denote things that are significantly better than average.

I think you lack a basic understanding of engineering evaluations - just one man's opinion.

And I think that you are just making stuff and perpetuating false rumors – just my opinion.

 

[capp325]

The M14 receiver is a good example. The Norinco might test in the 40's on the surface, but it will probably also test the same at the core due to 5100 steel being used and its normal properties after roll forging and heat treat.

Once again, it appears that you are making stuff up. Where exactly does your claim regarding the use of 5100 steel come from?

Accroding to Emerson:

Chinese receivers are not made of high carbon alloy steel such as AISI 52100 or other such high chromium alloy steel. Equivalent AISI 5100 series steel is high carbon (1.0 to 1.1 %) alloy steel that is much too hard for a rifle receiver. Because it is a high carbon steel that is thorough hardened it lacks toughness and ductility needed for the M14 type rifle.

www.imageseek.com/m1a/M14RHAD060113%20web%20site.doc

 

[Ardent]

What you're doing there is quoting internet rumor yourself, 5100 steel hardens externally very well while remaining ductile at the core; this is only basic steel knowledge, which apparently your latest source lacks. Oh, and you're link doesn't work either.

 

[capp325]

It has become clear to me that the continuation of this discussion is pointless. None of you have provided even a single reference to the source of your claims. All I've heard was unverified hearsay coming from a half dozen anonymous Norinco fans who take any disparaging remark regarding their favorite Chinese brand as a personal affront. I'm done with this thread.

 

[1851 Navy]

As opposed to your "grounded in reality and fact" assertion that Norcs are made from crap? All you've brought to the discussion was a quote from Smith Ent that actually proved that the M305 receiver was made from the correct grade of steel.

They are made of an alloy that is similar to 8620, the kind of steel used in USGI M14s....

...These inspections and tests have verified that Chinese M14 receivers are made of AISI 8620 equivalent alloy steel.

Oh noes...The same steel as USGI receivers. Those. Commie. Bastards.

 

[buckbrush]

I believe I have a book called the book of the m-14, or something like that. It says the spec for american m-14's was 52 rockwell c for skin measurement, and a core hardness of 40 something. I will try and look up the page #.

 

[buckbrush]

Taken from Fulton Armorys wesite.

A postscript from Kirk Hays:
Having owned several of the Chinese M14S rifles, and having a set of M14 receiver gauges available to me, I have independently confirmed what Clint says about the receiver geometries. The Chinese receivers are dimensionally as good as TRW rifles in the collection of a friend. Period.

The finish on the Norinco receivers is rough on non-functional surfaces - they are ugly, and Polytech receivers are only slightly better.

John Kepler has inside information that the DCM was actually looking at using Chinese receivers for providing M14 rifles to Service Rifle competitors, and access to a steel analysis done on the recievers, showing it to be 5100 steel, which is a very good alloy for receivers, but a bit difficult to work.

--Kirk Hays

 

[wobbles99]

It has become clear to me that the continuation of this discussion is pointless. None of you have provided even a single reference to the source of your claims. All I've heard was unverified hearsay coming from a half dozen anonymous Norinco fans who take any disparaging remark regarding their favorite Chinese brand as a personal affront. I'm done with this thread.

When you say the no one has proved any proof you must include yourself in this statement.

I ask you to show us any proof to back up your claim of norinco steel being junk.

It's not that I can't take a disparaging remark about the firearm I chose but I cannot fathom anyone going on in multiple threads that the steel used is junk without having one shred of evidence to back this up. THEN having the gonads to try to turn it around on multiple people, one of which is an engineer who back up the claim that they are not junk.

You're right there is no point to this arguement. It's impossible to convince chicken little that the sky isn't falling.

 

[Ardent]

I'm done with this thread.

Magnificent.

The info is right in front of your eyes, including even FA's site, but people choose to see what they wish to see, you know?

 

[spi]

It has become clear to me that the continuation of this discussion is pointless. None of you have provided even a single reference to the source of your claims. All I've heard was unverified hearsay coming from a half dozen anonymous Norinco fans who take any disparaging remark regarding their favorite Chinese brand as a personal affront. I'm done with this thread.

"Unverafied hearsay"?

You are the #### that admitted that you did not know what Fulton Armory was before you cited their page as your "proof".

Let's face it, you are endlessly biased against Norinco products and know jack-#### about steel. And you judge others in terms of your own ignorance.

The problem here, sunshine, is not everyone is as clueless as you about steel. Anyone who knows #### about steel knows that 5100 series is a through hardening steel with exceptional toughness and shock resistance characteristics. 5120 is a standard automotive leaf spring grade of steel.

Your condescension is insulting to everyone. Go to the library and read some books. Educate yourself before you berate others.

 

[Deckard]

 

[Winz]

''mine is bigger and stronger than yours''

oh sorry, I thought the thread was a ##### measuring contest and I was confused to thinking I was in primary school again.