I saw that. The range is only 25 though, best we could do.
Let's see that shooter
- Thread starter HOLLiS
- Start date
I saw that. The range is only 25 though, best we could do.
My .308 target rifle.
Take the tour! Note the expertly crafted left handed grip. 
Quite nice. I've always thought it was interesting just how different a target rifle looks to a regular rifle- even when they're both wood stocks and bolt actions.
Shoots pretty accurately. Very heavy but that's to be expected I suppose.
I think I've read about this happening with the Springfield M1As from time to time too. From what I've read the Chinese receiver is better than the original M14s. I forget the reason I think it might have been a better quality steel. The finish and wood used are inferior though.
I've only put about 150 rounds through it so far. The cop who had it before me put around 400 through.
I hadn't shot x39 before I got the SKS. I finished the first magazine with a big grin on my face. One feature I find endearing is that with the M305 it will eject the rounds into a nice rough circle. With the SKS they go left, they go right, they go into fuck knows where
Just adds to the entertainment factor I suppose.
Being a lefty the peep sight had to be modified and the sight is reversed. Windage poses no problem as I can see the settings on the horizontal bar. With elevation, I have to preset the distance before I shoot and adjust up & down as required. I can't see the adjustments as they're on the "down range" side of the vertical bar. The only other toy I use is a 3x diopter for most distances. I use a 5x for 800 metres. I do like the gaffer tape on the barrel, it gives the rifle a certain raffish quality.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
I find that very hard to believe...
http://www.fulton-armory.com/m14-receiver-semi-automatic-fulton-armory.aspx
http://www.fulton-armory.com/m14-receiver-semi-automatic-fulton-armory.aspx
Cast vs forged vs billet: What’s the difference?
- Machining from billet/bar stock requires no expensive up front capital costs for molds or dies and is normally selected for very small runs. Low up front costs, but very high per part machining costs. Highest receiver cost to end user.
- Machining from a forging requires expensive die sets, which, as the military did, can forge the steel to a semi finished shape which reduces machining time. Normally selected for very high quantities.High up front costs, but moderate per part machining costs. Moderately expensive receiver cost.
- Machining from a precision casting process requires very expensive molds that can cast steel to a nearly finished shape and is normally selected for moderate quantities. Very high up front costs, but lower per part machining costs. Least expensive receiver cost.
A poorly machined billet receiver gives you a very expensive bad receiver.
A poorly machined forged receiver gives you a moderately expensive bad receiver.
A poorly machined cast receiver gives you the least expensive bad receiver.
It’s all about the material, geometry & heat teat, not the process selected.
As to strength: Why did Fulton Armory select machining from a casting as our method?
About 10 years ago a customer sent in a Federal Ordnance M14 that had “blown up” for us to perform a tech inspection. Shooter was okay. Federal Ordnance, now defunct, produced thousands of a very poor quality receivers (poor geometry, but good material & good heat treat), that was machined from a casting and had digested one of those infamous CBC 75 .308 cartridges that produces “in excess of 140,000 copper units” of chamber pressure (nominal is 50,000). This CBC 75 ammo blew up, and continues to blow up, any and every rifle that see’s that 140,000 CUP. Here’s the interesting part: The receiver held. There was a partial crack in the receiver below the right locking lug of the receiver, but it did not detach or fail. The locking lugs of the receiver were untouched, the locking lugs of the TRW bolt had been impressed into the receiver’s lugs by something like 10,000ths of an inch; huge depressions in both the right & left bolt lugs. The bolt held. The barrel was in perfect shape. So, what “blew up”? The case failed, released the gasses into the mag well, peeled the bottom of the bolt away, inflated the magazine and blew the stock apart. A poorly machined cast receiver, even with poor geometry, but with proper heat treat & proper material, is vastly stronger than the rest of the system.
About 20 years ago we inspected an original USGI forged M14 receiver that had blown apart into 4 pieces on the firing line at The National Matches, Camp Perry, OH. Shooter was knocked out, but fine otherwise. So, why did the USGI M14 blow apart in 4 pieces? Bad receiver? No (good geometry, good material, good heat treat). Bad ammo? No (issue LC). Bad assembly techniques? No (well built rifle). Bad bolt? No. What then? The barrel failed due to bad lot of steel. The heavy match barrel had split from the chamber mouth down to the heavy oversize op rod guide. When the barrel split open wide at the receiver ring it introduced lateral forces to the receiver ring, and split it apart like an axe splitting firewood. M14 receiver rings are not designed to take chamber pressures nor lateral forces, no matter how they are made.
These, and many other failures over the decades demonstrated to us, in a very hands on way, the same thing Col. Hatcher found in his destructive testing of the M1 Garand receiver: That J.C. Garand’s receiver design is so remarkably strong that inevitably some other part of the rifle system will fail long before the receiver, providing it has good geometry, good material and good heat treat. Cast, forged or billet.
So, to keep the receiver costs affordable for all of our customers, we chose to cast & machine, while spending a whole lot of time and care in assuring the quality of the machined geometries, correct 8620 alloy steel, and proper heat treat for case & core. The finest M14 receiver available, at any price.
-------------------------------
Also...
http://www.lrbarms.com/m14receiversactions.html
http://www.lrbarms.com/aboutlrb.html
Six-Two
Unverified
Not to get OT from Pardus' information, but I figured I'd toss some pics of some new buddies in the mix.
From the stories, it doesn't seem to matter much which method is chosen. I know nothing about firearm receivers or M14 geometry so I could be way off, but 1. says that the receiver withheld chamber pressures while 2. also withheld chamber pressures but failed with the introduction of lateral forces from barrel failure that were not present in story 1. Now, those lateral forces would create stress concentrations on the surface of the material where shear stress would be the greatest due to the amount of torsion on the material and most likely to fail in the form of crack propagation along grain lines due to the high hardness of the surface of the material. The amount of fatigue stress put on the receivers is also unstated in the story. So, its pretty much an apples to oranges comparison unless you test the receivers in equal conditions.
Ok, disregard. I'm an idiot. I looked back over it, and I misread the point of the post. I guess that's why I'm injineering, and not English major. I swear, I never get a chance to put my major to good use.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
Engineering is a far more useful skill set to have IMO.
Not to get OT from Pardus' information, but I figured I'd toss some pics of some new buddies in the mix.
Nice build.
So, what are the "Specs" on your "Buddies?"
Six-Two
Unverified
Thanks @Centermass. #1 is a 10.5" from Hardened Arms wearing a fairly heavy Chicom rail that came with the upper. Lower is a JMT with a standard parts kit. Nothing fancy at all. But it's pretty fun for a ~$600 gun, and it feels SUPER handy.
#2 is a 16" PSA Upper, carbine gas system (obviously), another JMT lower/standards parts kit, B5 stock, B5 grip. I LOVE that stock; I have a few extra Rogers Super Stocs and CTRs lying around but I think I'll probably trade for the B5 on the next one. There's also an NiB bolt carrier group in there and a medium BCM Gunfighter charging handle. Optic is a Bushnell that came with the upper on a special from PSA.
As soon as I get more Armorer's tools, I'll probably swap the M4 handguard for a MOE SL on the carbine. The shorty will likely get a new rail, too, but now that I've learned more about the platform, I think I'd rather jump up to an 11.5" or 12" barrel for increased dwell time rather than put more money into the 10.5". That said, I don't know how I'd sell the 10.5" without taking a bath on it since I painted it (fairly well, in my humble opinion, but still).
#3, the AK, is a pretty special rifle built from a 7.62 Romanian AKM parts kit, new mfg American barrel (non-CL, for marginal accuracy increase), a Russian SRVV jet brake pinned and welded to bring the cut down barrel up to legal length, and a Krebs Keymod rail custom milled to accommodate the front sight, which was pressed further down the barrel so we could get the brake as close to 16" as possible. It's got a pignose adapter drilled and tapped for the M4 stock, a lathed buffer tube so it would sit flush and not leave threads hanging off the end, a Rogers Super Stoc (which shoulders really well on the AK), and a TAPCO SAW Grip. It took ages just to get the parts together, but it's an awesome rifle. I've gotta figure out an optic I really like for it, but the front-mounted optics have never really been my thing. So it'll probably just get a couple handstops/index points and a flashlight, and then a TWS Dogleg rear rail with a 3x or a Red Dot. The keymod rail is about the same weight as a stock handguard. This guy feels about twice as heavy as my ARs, but it balances well.
Hope that wasn't too wordy; way too much coffee this AM.
Kettenhund
Member
My first AR build in nearly 20 years. The lower is a PSA and so are the internals. Hardware is mostly Magpul, the exception being the B5 enhanced SOCOM butt stock. I had a Magpul MOE and it was nice but the B5 offers a much better cheek weld for me. The upper is an Adams Arms 16 inch mid block tactical evo upper. I did not build that. It came in box straight from Adams. It's my first piston AR, so we'll see. I'd like to swap out the flash hider with something as bit better. Suggestions?? Oh, the Magpul sights are nice but I'm squirreling away OT money for an ACOG.
hund
hund
I have YHM flash hiders and am very happy with them.
Great post, thanks.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
No worries. I've asked my mate back home to send me pics of the M1A receiver that blew up. I'll post them when I get them. Should be interesting.
That 1911 is beautiful. This entire thread makes me want to spend myself into a deep hole full of gunpowder, lead, and finely manufactured firearms.
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 3,707
Honestly, the A2 isn't a horrible flash hider/suppressor and it's inexpensive. The YHM Phantom does a very nice job (I have it on mine) but Smith Enterprise's Vortex is probably still most often viewed as the "best" flash hider. The YHM may be slightly more versatile in balancing flash hider and with a little muzzle braking along with the option for of threading a silencer. Anyway, the Phantom and Vortex are the two I'd consider for upgrades, probably can't go wrong with either (personal preference).
A few test videos, fwiw:
Last edited:
Six-Two
Unverified
I agree; stock A2 ain't bad. YHM is a nice option as well, but for max flash hiding, the AAC Blackout Flash Hider, available in non-mount and mount options, is an amazing offering. You can find them significantly cheaper than AAC's actual prices with some regularity as well, so they're a nice buy.
Good comparison of the A2, Smith, and Blackout:
If you don't feel like watching the vid, the Blackout wins by a nose. But both the Smith and the Blackout have that trademark "ping" of the forked flash hiders. YHM doesn't at a nicer price. YMMV.
Similar threads
