Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > M1A/M14
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-24-2012, 10:44 AM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by melloman View Post
I have a question: If cast is "equal" to forged, then why do all of the bolts appear to be forged - even Fulton sells a forged bolt - are any bolts actually cast? As it seems that there are no cast bolts out there that indeed forged is superior to cast in at least some applications.
Early SAI commercial bolts were cast, I believe. A drop forged receiver is more durable than a cast receiver, due to the grain following the shape of the surface. However, a properly cast receiver is fine.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-24-2012, 11:04 AM
ramit ramit is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fogtripper View Post
[citations needed]
I am curious as to what is considered an "armorer" these days.

What I have found is that owners of LRBs are by and large pretty darned happy with their decisions. Also that there seems to be a small handful of non LRB owners who like to take shots at LRB at every opportunity. Also potshots at those who choose LRB. ie; the ridiculous and insulting "coolaid drinker" lines. THAT is the crap that snowballs and gets threads locked.


I have yet to hear of an instance where there was poor support from LRB, much less issues with "quality" beyond a small few who either have issue with the warranty period or lack the experience to build anything more fitting-intensive than an AR15.
I'm citing / summarizing what I've read on threads here, threads on other m14 boards, and from those I spoke to and saw on their shelves.

And my direct experience when attempting to call to purchase. I was ready to go.

And yes, I know of one friend, as you state about others, he's happy with his LRB... as I stated above.. one of the reasons I was all ready to jump in feet first , (almost drank the coolaid). I find the "coolaid" a funny metaphor. I'm far from the first to use it.
Hence I recommended.... take a month to read, research, and ask.

I'm sure there are many other happy LRB customers... otherwise they still wouldn't be in business. One of them, I think is on his 3rd, lives in my area, and is on this board, he's happy with them.. and their support.

I'm sure you've read the same m14 threads on here I did, so you've seen the same factual accounts of problems and issues. And when asked via PM, others went further to explain deeper. Just have to ask those who posted for yourself. 7.62 was included on the same threads.

Armorers, gents I know, with store fronts, earning their living by building, repairing, garands/m14 for 25 + years of more (depending on the gent). Some compete, others don't.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-24-2012, 12:25 PM
nf1e nf1e is online now
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,008
Default

After having used a real M14 in combat in Viet Nam I can tell you the hammer forged receivers feel as close as you can get to the original. When you are partnered with a weapon 24 hrs a day and have it locked and loaded most of the time. You develope a trust and familiarity that is impossible to explain to the youngsters and wanabees that frequent these forums. LRB has accomplished the production of a commercial receiver that has captured the feeling of the real deal. Every rifle that I build for my own collection is made in memory of fellow Marines that died after having their real rifle taken from them and then being killed testing the piece of crap M16. Every rifle gets a Semper Fi and a Hand Salute. I feel I would be letting my friends down if I were to use less that the best for them. Lou and LRB have a pride in their product that you will find nowhere else. I am happy with the fact that they have a personal interest and stand by what they make. The mass produced cast receivers may be just fine for the folks that want them. I love my American LRBs , produced by real craftsmen. The only folks I am aware of that have had troubles with LRB products, have created the problem by their own lack of understanding of rifle building.
Art Banks
Sgt USMC 1966 - 1972 Republic of VietNam 1967 - 1968
NRA Life Member
VFW Life Member
Am Leg Life Member
M14 RA Member
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-24-2012, 12:38 PM
hammonje hammonje is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Union, KY
Posts: 4,527
Default

It's was pretty clear that your attachment was emotionally driven and not purely rational. Many LRB owners share these types of passionate responses that are devoid of any rationale. Lou...yeah he's a hell of a guy and even other rifle business folks talk kindly of him as a person. Do I want to send him another $450 b/c he's a nice guy. No. If you like forged so much why not go with a 7.62MM forged receiver??? No b/c the quality is horrific and the heat treat made them brittle and useless. That being said, any one of the competent makers can produce a viable product....LRB, Fulton, SAI or SEI. Basically, it comes down to price and the name on the heel. All will produce something absolutely, 100% functional. I just can't support the thinking that one is inherently better than another, while one is separated in pricing from 50-100% beyond the others. Is it really that much better b/c it's forged???? I think it's not. You obviously think it is.

So when folks are asking for facts about which one is better, then facts is what we should provide. Not emotions. I mean how can one feel a cast vs forged part???? You can feel the metal grain structure.

We all are very appreciative of your service in Vietnam Art. For sure. I wouldn't want to be in the jungle fighting VC or NVA. You made it possible that many of us didn't have to.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-24-2012, 01:51 PM
ramit ramit is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nf1e View Post
After having used a real M14 in combat in Viet Nam I can tell you the hammer forged receivers feel as close as you can get to the original. When you are partnered with a weapon 24 hrs a day and have it locked and loaded most of the time. You develope a trust and familiarity that is impossible to explain to the youngsters and wanabees that frequent these forums. LRB has accomplished the production of a commercial receiver that has captured the feeling of the real deal. Every rifle that I build for my own collection is made in memory of fellow Marines that died after having their real rifle taken from them and then being killed testing the piece of crap M16. Every rifle gets a Semper Fi and a Hand Salute. I feel I would be letting my friends down if I were to use less that the best for them. Lou and LRB have a pride in their product that you will find nowhere else. I am happy with the fact that they have a personal interest and stand by what they make. The mass produced cast receivers may be just fine for the folks that want them. I love my American LRBs , produced by real craftsmen. The only folks I am aware of that have had troubles with LRB products, have created the problem by their own lack of understanding of rifle building.
Art Banks
Sgt USMC 1966 - 1972 Republic of VietNam 1967 - 1968
NRA Life Member
VFW Life Member
Am Leg Life Member
M14 RA Member


Quote:
Originally Posted by hammonje View Post
It's was pretty clear that your attachment was emotionally driven and not purely rational. Many LRB owners share these types of passionate responses that are devoid of any rationale. Lou...yeah he's a hell of a guy and even other rifle business folks talk kindly of him as a person. Do I want to send him another $450 b/c he's a nice guy. No. If you like forged so much why not go with a 7.62MM forged receiver??? No b/c the quality is horrific and the heat treat made them brittle and useless. That being said, any one of the competent makers can produce a viable product....LRB, Fulton, SAI or SEI. Basically, it comes down to price and the name on the heel. All will produce something absolutely, 100% functional. I just can't support the thinking that one is inherently better than another, while one is separated in pricing from 50-100% beyond the others. Is it really that much better b/c it's forged???? I think it's not. You obviously think it is.

So when folks are asking for facts about which one is better, then facts is what we should provide. Not emotions. I mean how can one feel a cast vs forged part???? You can feel the metal grain structure.

We all are very appreciative of your service in Vietnam Art. For sure. I wouldn't want to be in the jungle fighting VC or NVA. You made it possible that many of us didn't have to.
Art, thank you for your service sir.
EDIT: And I can very much respect an emotional attachment / alliance / or decision base on emotional reasons.


Can't disagree with you hammonje.


I'm not a wannabee, and I'm no expert, just a consumer looking for value for my dollar for a particular item I wish to purchase, and looking to learn from others experience and learning curve.

Art's homage reminds me of my friend , served and carried his m14 in Vietnam.
He, as Art, has huge pride in his LRB built M14. His glowing reviews of it being the best... as I said, I went with money in hand.

And for one, for equal time in the area of complaining about a company, I was gonna stay far away from Fulton, cause I've had more than my fair share of issues with website orders with them (common to what others complained about.. order 100 bux worth of stuff, most out of stock but they don't tell you and ship the 2 items worth 20 bux with 15bux shipping. Cracked stocks, took awhile for refunds or exchanges, had to hound them.). And it wasn't till after prodding from the gents I know, and more time reading, I finally went with Fulton.
Totally different experience than what I had with them with their online ordering.

I've heard lots of good things about Smiths during the journey.
Even 7.62 , I heard good things (early one with the some of the first CMP kits he built up for folks). And later , not so good things, but reasons explained and hopefully a better future for them.

So as said above, to the OP, shop around, read, ask, wade thru it all, and in the end, you gotta weight it all yourself and figure out where the value is for you.

Last edited by ramit; 09-24-2012 at 01:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-24-2012, 02:18 PM
sonof15af5bw sonof15af5bw is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 286
Default

I'm curious ...

Can anyone cite specific, empirical data (and this would probably mean listing multiple sources as I cannot find any single consolidated source for such data) detailing the failure of M14/M1A receivers BY RECEIVER MANUFACTURING TYPE?

In other words, is there data that supports claims that forged is better than cast or cast is better than forged with respect to, and this is intended to be SPECIFIC, "probability of catastrophic failure of the receiver itself"?

What I mean by catastrophic failure is ... where the receiver is blown apart, destroyed, exploded, disintegrated, etc. And before you say that cannot happen, there is a thread on the M14 TFL Forum, named "Out of Battery Slam Fire Today" (started by erickg on 09/08/12) that clearly shows the heal of the receiver having been blow off.

http://m14forum.com/m14/120119-out-battery-slam-fire-today-8.html

Here's some "context" for my question ...

Fulton Armory has on their receiver web page(s) an explanation that supports their choice to employ a "cast" manufacturing method. In this explanation they cite some failures that they investigated as being the supporting evidence they used to formulate their choice of receiver manufacturing (i.e. cast milled).

They cite one (1) instance of a "catastrophic failure" of a rifle involving a cast receiver where the rifle exploded but the receiver did not fail (i.e. blow apart), and they cite one (1) instance of a catastrophic failure" of a rifle involving a forged receiver where the rifle exploded AND the receiver was blown apart into four (4) pieces.

They then explain how they believe that it does not matter what TYPE of manufacturing of the receiver is employed when it comes to certain types of (reasons for) failures because they are all as strong as they need to be and if something really excessive is going to take place (like a bad barrel or a barrel obstruction, or bad ammo (CBC 75 with 140k CU) etc.) the OTHER part(s) of the rifle will fail BEFORE the receiver fails, so this makes the receiver manufacturing method MOOT.

I also looked for similar "information" about the "strength" or "resilience" of "receiver manufacturing method" on both the LRB and SEI web sites. I could find NOTHING on either of those websites where those companies cited, as Fulton Armory clearly does, ANYTHING about their choice of receiver manufacturing type with respect to that type of manufacturing and strength or resilience, etc. LRB clearly cites that they choose forged manufacturing because it is the closest to how the original M14 was developed and they want to keep that tradition. This says nothing about forged vs. cast strength, resilience, reliability, etc. I could find nothing on the SEI web site that talked about this aspect at all.

(And before you FLAME me as being WRONG about LRB or SEI and the reasons they chose forged, etc., please note that I am not attempting to do, nor am claiming that I have done, a complete and exhaustive survey of the entire freekin web regarding such information about each company's choice for how they will manufacture their M14 receivers. I'm only citing what I found on their web pages to point out how one manufacturer seems it is necessary to explain their choice in terms of receiver strength and others do not.)

So ok, I get this line of thinking cited by Fulton Armory, but ...

Look at what happened to the receiver in the M14 TFL Forum "Out of Battery Slam Fire Today" thread. The freekin heal below OFF! So, my question still stands, is there any empirical data out there, consolidated or not, that lists receiver failures by receiver manufacturing method? Why would this data (and then, "information" once it is compiled and analyzed) be of interest or value? Well, it seems to me it would put to rest these wars that seem to rage on about one manufacturing method being ultimately and categorically SUPERIOR to the other, etc.

I hope at least some of you are getting where I'm trying to go with this ... I am NOT attempting to say that FA receivers are better than LRB and SEI or vice versa, or ANYTHING along those lines. I am merely wanting to find, and if not found, compile and then publish, a TRUE picture of REAL incidents with M14 receivers, and then draw what real and honest conclusions CAN BE found from that data and information. And it might be that EVEN WITH all possible data found, tabulated, and analyzed NO CLEAR INFORMATION regarding the superiority of one manufacturing method vs. another COULD BE DEFINITIVELY ASCERTAINED; but it would be worth finding out one way or the other.

The blown off heal on the cited thread is an example of something that DID affect the receiver itself, so the receiver is NOT always the strongest part of the weapon and can indeed specifically, intrinsically, FAIL. So since there ARE things/situations that CAN/DO cause the receiver itself to fail, it then seems germane that noting what those things are (e.g. out of battery detonation, etc.) and HOW those things affect the receiver would be GOOD INFORMATION TO KNOW.

I cannot tell (even though I attempted to find) in the "Out of Battery Slam Fire Today" thread what type of receiver had it's heal blown off. Was it a SAI M1A cast receiver?

If so, then we have already the start of a list of such instances (for example):

1. 09/08/12 - Failure Type: Receiver Failure, Mfg Type: CAST, Weapon MFG: SAI, etc.
2. ???

Now, one final caveat, which might make my entire post MOOT (and I have absolutely NO issue with that) ...

Given that there ARE known things that "WILL blow up your rifle" if you fail to heed warnings about doing them, then who cares about receiver manufacturing method? I mean if you're going to walk out in front of a speeding bus, then you die. End of story.

Yet, if real data would show that for those things that DO cause receiver failure a specific given receiver manufacturing method, when executed 100% correctly, is ALWAYS superior because it consitently results in a minimal probability of failure, then by all means, we all should learn and know this.

And yet also note that there is one possibility that is I think the 100% reciprocal view of what Fulton Armory was attempting to convey ... and that is, that if all data were compiled and analyzed and showed that NO receiver manufacturing method is superior to another when it comes to certain or all things that cause explicit receiver failure, then again this might make receiver manufacturing method MOOT.

This is a complex issue and any empirical data that is out there is probably also complex and would be hard to decipher. And the results of analysis might not prove ANYTHING. But I think it would be quite fun to do this investigation. Maybe someone already has.

15th
__________________
Only the land of the BRAVE will save the home of the FREE.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-24-2012, 02:28 PM
ramit ramit is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonof15af5bw View Post
I'm curious ...

Can anyone cite specific, empirical data (and this would probably mean listing multiple sources as I cannot find any single consolidated source for such data) detailing the failure of M14/M1A receivers BY RECEIVER MANUFACTURING TYPE?

In other words, is there data that supports claims that forged is better than cast or cast is better than forged with respect to, and this is intended to be SPECIFIC, "probability of catastrophic failure of the receiver itself"?

What I mean by catastrophic failure is ... where the receiver is blown apart, destroyed, exploded, disintegrated, etc. And before you say that cannot happen, there is a thread on the M14 TFL Forum, named "Out of Battery Slam Fire Today" (started by erickg on 09/08/12) that clearly shows the heal of the receiver having been blow off.

http://m14forum.com/m14/120119-out-battery-slam-fire-today-8.html

Here's some "context" for my question ...

Fulton Armory has on their receiver web page(s) an explanation that supports their choice to employ a "cast" manufacturing method. In this explanation they cite some failures that they investigated as being the supporting evidence they used to formulate their choice of receiver manufacturing (i.e. cast milled).

They cite one (1) instance of a "catastrophic failure" of a rifle involving a cast receiver where the rifle exploded but the receiver did not fail (i.e. blow apart), and they cite one (1) instance of a catastrophic failure" of a rifle involving a forged receiver where the rifle exploded AND the receiver was blown apart into four (4) pieces.

They then explain how they believe that it does not matter what TYPE of manufacturing of the receiver is employed when it comes to certain types of (reasons for) failures because they are all as strong as they need to be and if something really excessive is going to take place (like a bad barrel or a barrel obstruction, or bad ammo (CBC 75 with 140k CU) etc.) the OTHER part(s) of the rifle will fail BEFORE the receiver fails, so this makes the receiver manufacturing method MOOT.

I also looked for similar "information" about the "strength" or "resilience" of "receiver manufacturing method" on both the LRB and SEI web sites. I could find NOTHING on either of those websites where those companies cited, as Fulton Armory clearly does, ANYTHING about their choice of receiver manufacturing type with respect to that type of manufacturing and strength or resilience, etc. LRB clearly cites that they choose forged manufacturing because it is the closest to how the original M14 was developed and they want to keep that tradition. This says nothing about forged vs. cast strength, resilience, reliability, etc. I could find nothing on the SEI web site that talked about this aspect at all.

(And before you FLAME me as being WRONG about LRB or SEI and the reasons they chose forged, etc., please note that I am not attempting to do, nor am claiming that I have done, a complete and exhaustive survey of the entire freekin web regarding such information about each company's choice for how they will manufacture their M14 receivers. I'm only citing what I found on their web pages to point out how one manufacturer seems it is necessary to explain their choice in terms of receiver strength and others do not.)

So ok, I get this line of thinking cited by Fulton Armory, but ...

Look at what happened to the receiver in the M14 TFL Forum "Out of Battery Slam Fire Today" thread. The freekin heal below OFF! So, my question still stands, is there any empirical data out there, consolidated or not, that lists receiver failures by receiver manufacturing method? Why would this data (and then, "information" once it is compiled and analyzed) be of interest or value? Well, it seems to me it would put to rest these wars that seem to rage on about one manufacturing method being ultimately and categorically SUPERIOR to the other, etc.

I hope at least some of you are getting where I'm trying to go with this ... I am NOT attempting to say that FA receivers are better than LRB and SEI or vice versa, or ANYTHING along those lines. I am merely wanting to find, and if not found, compile and then publish, a TRUE picture of REAL incidents with M14 receivers, and then draw what real and honest conclusions CAN BE found from that data and information. And it might be that EVEN WITH all possible data found, tabulated, and analyzed NO CLEAR INFORMATION regarding the superiority of one manufacturing method vs. another COULD BE DEFINITIVELY ASCERTAINED; but it would be worth finding out one way or the other.

The blown off heal on the cited thread is an example of something that DID affect the receiver itself, so the receiver is NOT always the strongest part of the weapon and can indeed specifically, intrinsically, FAIL. So since there ARE things/situations that CAN/DO cause the receiver itself to fail, it then seems germane that noting what those things are (e.g. out of battery detonation, etc.) and HOW those things affect the receiver would be GOOD INFORMATION TO KNOW.

I cannot tell (even though I attempted to find) in the "Out of Battery Slam Fire Today" thread what type of receiver had it's heal blown off. Was it a SAI M1A cast receiver?

If so, then we have already the start of a list of such instances (for example):

1. 09/08/12 - Failure Type: Receiver Failure, Mfg Type: CAST, Weapon MFG: SAI, etc.
2. ???

Now, one final caveat, which might make my entire post MOOT (and I have absolutely NO issue with that) ...

Given that there ARE known things that "WILL blow up your rifle" if you fail to heed warnings about doing them, then who cares about receiver manufacturing method? I mean if you're going to walk out in front of a speeding bus, then you die. End of story.

Yet, if real data would show that for those things that DO cause receiver failure a specific given receiver manufacturing method, when executed 100% correctly, is ALWAYS superior because it consitently results in a minimal probability of failure, then by all means, we all should learn and know this.

And yet also note that there is one possibility that is I think the 100% reciprocal view of what Fulton Armory was attempting to convey ... and that is, that if all data were compiled and analyzed and showed that NO receiver manufacturing method is superior to another when it comes to certain or all things that cause explicit receiver failure, then again this might make receiver manufacturing method MOOT.

This is a complex issue and any empirical data that is out there is probably also complex and would be hard to decipher. And the results of analysis might not prove ANYTHING. But I think it would be quite fun to do this investigation. Maybe someone already has.

15th

What I ran into during my search, and asking members off line to the threads that became locked, were about what their problems were.

It was never about which one blew up or wore out..
And the posts of competitors on other m14 forums seem to attest to that.. all makes being re-barreled.
but more so issues of being "in spec" to mil drawings for the receiver, so mil parts drop in as if it were a mil receiver.

Seems there have been odds and end problems, that come and go within a maker, and after the receiver is hardened, it's real tough for someone in their home shop to correct issues or remove a ridge that shouldn't be there.
As Art stated, it's usually seen during the build. But unlike Art mentioned, the issues cited to me, were "out of spec" issues. USGI bolts wouldn't work, or there's a ridge on a bridge that shouldn't be there and so on.

If the maker had used the receiver during one of their own builds, they would have found it and corrected it, but the home builder is stuck figuring out what's what... and as Art does mentioned, said builder not knowing the platform is stuck looking for help and service.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-24-2012, 02:45 PM
nf1e nf1e is online now
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,008
Default

I think the receiver you are talking about was a SAI cast if I remember correctly. I am trying to keep my emotions out of it HE HE. The fellow admitted to using home rolled ammo and that he was chambering the rounds individually without going thru his mag. He stated that he thought the round was 90% chambered when it went off. No manufacturer has build a receiver or rifle for that matter that can make up for improper maintenance or ammo, or both.
Again hammerhead, your personal stuff is so academic. Even my sons whom are older than you by a few years, by the way, have enjoyed this thread. The comments are that as you mature and understand that the world is not all about a 38 year old, you might just give another the benefit of the doubt when it comes to opinions. You sound so much like a member of a teachers union. You should read a few more books, if you think that can make up for your lack of personal experience. I will continue to share information that I posess with those that are interested. I bet you persue this until you get the thread shut down as in the past. I do feel emotionally sorry for you sonny. You might want to add the grain of salt as you did with your uneducated statement about Bob the other day. I think I know where you learned the attack the messenger routine. I t got our current doo doo head in office.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-24-2012, 02:46 PM
hammonje hammonje is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Union, KY
Posts: 4,527
Default

It is a moot point. The method is about cost and number being produced. I just skipped the entire internet route. I went to one of my colleagues at Georgia Tech, a material sciences engineer. Worked for many years at Alcoa and several more at GM. Now he is older and does teaching and research.

I asked him about receiver manufacture. I think what was most informative was he never mentioned much about the methods, cast vs forged. Only the type of steel and subsequent heat treatments along with quality control. He also explained to me the benefits of each method and upfront costs. Forging upfront costs are greater, about $100k for the dies. This method is used for mass production of parts as it is closer to the finished product after forging. Heat treatment needs to be perfect as the metal grain is under great stress from the forging. This must be relieved some. Cast is intermediate. Advantages are upfront costs are lower and uniform crystaline metal structure is produced. Negative is possible presence of inclusion bodies and QC needs to be high to catch these if made. Stated modern methods make this quite unique to find bodies. Machining should catch them anyway though. No part of the receiver is that thick. Billet version used by SEI is most machining time. No forging or casting, just an extruded steel piece that is cut into billets and machined to final form. Very machining heavy as all facets much be milled. Good method as no upfront costs besides CNC programming. Why SEI uses it as they make them in tiny batches. Advantage is grain is one direction, in line with recoil forces...ie front to back of receiver. Forged grain is in line with the hammer fall.

That's how I understand it from my discussions with professionals.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-24-2012, 02:50 PM
txarsoncop txarsoncop is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: TEXAS baby!
Posts: 261
Default What?

Who in the heck invited rational thought to this discussion?!?!

Well thought out post 15th!
__________________
bill

SA M1 Garand X2, Shuff's SA M1 Mini-G, Inland M1 'hand stamp' Carbine, NPM M1 Carbine, Remington 03-A3, Ithaca 1911A1

CMP/forum member since April 2005. For the love of all that is holy, if we do business do me a solid and leave feedback. I'll do the same for you.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 PM.