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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 08-14-2018, 03:47 PM
Renisin Renisin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 284
Default

I followed the thread started on M14 forum about Art banks newly received GunWorks of Lower Alabama receiver, the OP was like a snake spewing it venom. The sole purpose of which was to destroy the high reputation of these fine receivers. He was not successful, as I had many PMs stating that they too were aware of his shenanigans.

I am here to make sure he doesn't try the same thing here. Many times he was told that he had a fine receiver by people who really know what they are talking about.

He even referred to a few mythical armors whom he received pms from stating how to remedy the problems he was having with his receiver, he said they wanted to remain in the shadows so he could not name them. His whole story sounds fishy!

I believe he has lost all credibility and is grasping at straws.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-14-2018, 04:44 PM
nf1e nf1e is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,198
Default

To the OP. Ted, I think it is time for you to comment on this matter.
Renisin you are getting a bit carried away with what you would have liked my thread to have meant and your personal attacks on me. Wait for Ted's response.
I hope you enjoy eating crow.
__________________
Semper Fi
Art
Sgt USMC 66 -72
RVN 67-68
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-14-2018, 05:07 PM
Roadkingtrax Roadkingtrax is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,535
Default

Not a good time to act coy, and a little late to play victim of your own words. What else can be inferred except an attempt to go after a now closed M14 receiver company and attempt to draw praise on another who is facing a possible legal dispute. I still recall the time when LRB was the golden child in your antics.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-24-2018, 01:27 PM
Ted Brown Ted Brown is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Jacksonville, OR
Posts: 483
Default

My best response to this can be found on the M14 forum under my section in the Gun Professionals threads. It was quoted early in this thread. I'm not concerned that Art found an issue with a receiver (he built it anyway). Commercial receivers all have one issue or another. Except for safety issues, the seriousness of most of these issues is in the mind of the builder. I have found some doosies. As to quality vs price, I think LRB is still the gold standard. There are reasons why some receivers cost less and I won't go into that here. That doesn't mean lower cost results in a bad receiver. It's more about production processes and marketing. We are fortunate that no one is making a really bad receiver right now.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-24-2018, 02:06 PM
nf1e nf1e is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Brown View Post
My best response to this can be found on the M14 forum under my section in the Gun Professionals threads. It was quoted early in this thread. I'm not concerned that Art found an issue with a receiver (he built it anyway). Commercial receivers all have one issue or another. Except for safety issues, the seriousness of most of these issues is in the mind of the builder. I have found some doosies. As to quality vs price, I think LRB is still the gold standard. There are reasons why some receivers cost less and I won't go into that here. That doesn't mean lower cost results in a bad receiver. It's more about production processes and marketing. We are fortunate that no one is making a really bad receiver right now.
Thanks Ted.
It is going to work out just fine, with very few little adjustments necessary.
Rifle is completed and operation by hand is very nice.
She is in que for testing this weekend with a couple of others.
Rgr on LRB still being the gold standard, they set the pace.
__________________
Semper Fi
Art
Sgt USMC 66 -72
RVN 67-68
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-26-2018, 11:38 AM
M14 M14 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: south mississippi
Posts: 813
Default

In my opinion, it is odd for anyone to spend $950 for a well made, American made receiver, then adorn it with cheapest Chinese parts with unknown metals, unknown heat treating, unknown mystery everything. I was going to say retarded, was my opinion, but I have too much respect for people that really suffer from disabilities. For a seemingly normal person to do it, it is really odd. I could only presume from such actions, that those same type people would scream foul if the rifle blew up shooting steel cased chicom ammo in it, and want to blame the receiver manufacturer.

Those same type people that would say the left wall and left helix machining in these receivers is wrong, that have never seen it done exactly per the blueprint before on a commercial receiver, so how would they know? Maybe they don't own an M1 Garand and are too ignorant to compare it to one of them. The Garands are worn down in that area from extended use in battle, but the machining and blueprint is virtually the same.

Maybe these same people think that John C. Garand didn't know what he was doing? Really? I don't think so. The other commercial makers of these receivers that decided in their infinite wisdom to take the easy way out, and cut all of the meat out of the way in that area, or didn't have the skills or knowledge to machine them properly per the blueprint specifications, all missed one critical point. This is one of the weakest spots on the receiver!

This, and the narrow metal above the bolt stop window and between the wall thickness of the safety lug relief area. Every Fed Ord I saw cracked, was in these two places. Armscorp, SAI, all of them, in the same spots. The only other weak spot is the area between the op rod spring guide cut-out and the bottom of the barrel ring. I saw many g.i. ones cracked there. But they were done during de-milling from the immense pressure exerted by the shearing machines.

You don't go changing all the engineering that went into the original design, just because you want to make it easy and take the cheap way out. All the receivers I have witnessed that develop cracks from the scope mount hole in the receiver, propagate from the top left of the hole and travel in a 45 degree angle back toward the front of the receiver and barrel ring. If you hog all the metal thickness out to get your bolt to rotate without hitting, you are making a terrible mistake and weakening the receiver there.

I don't care how other makers do theirs, I just want everyone to know, that the GLA receivers are exactly correct, and much, much stronger than one that has been cut improperly in this area and all hogged out because it was easier, cheaper, and quicker.

As for the poster on that thread #68, he had me on the phone when he was inspecting his choices of receivers at GLA. His second trip I believe. He was well aware of everything he needed to make a decision, but he was a novice and was too afraid to try and do it himself. He was not an armorer with any experience.

There was nothing wrong with any of the receivers he had to choose between. The barrels are supposed to be tight, if you want an accurate shooter. An inexperienced person runs in to a little tight spot and freaks out. Not knowing whether it was his barrels that were previously over torqued and had the pitch stretched off on the threads, or whether it was new and machined incorrectly at the barrel maker, gives them no right to claim the GLA receivers were defective in any way. Not proven. It was just an inexperienced opinion.
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 01:05 AM.