Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/11/2004 10:47:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2004 1:39:01 PM EDT by dangerousdan]
I see a lot of ho-hum reviews regarding their rifles and I am interested in getting an M1A (I hope that is the right terminology for the civilian model of the M14.)
So what's the deal?
Parts issues?
Are USGI parts that much better than the stuff that Springfield uses?
Receivers?
Do they break or bend? Are they out of spec?
Barrels. Any issues?
Accuracy? (sp?)
Are they accurate?

I know these are newbie questions but, I'm trying to figure out which way to go on one of these rifles.

Thanks for your input. I know there will be many questions to follow.
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 1:41:02 PM EDT
[Ben Stein voice on] Anyone? Anyone? [Ben Stein voice off]
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 1:56:12 PM EDT
I've been looking into an M1A myself.

In the past, there apears to have been some Q.C. issues, bolts cracking mostly from what I recall.

There is also a lot of posting over USGI vs. TRW vs. Springfield parts which I'm still trying to decipher.

The one thing I can tell you for sure, from the guys I've talked to that have had problem guns, Springfield stands behind them 110%!!

I know, it sucks that they would have to, but they do. Also, it seems the problem guns were made some time ago. I haven't read any accounts of NIB guns dead lining on guys.

Hope that helps.
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 2:01:32 PM EDT
I just purchased a 3 year old M1A and I've had great luck so far. I should have gotten one a long time ago.


Enjoy....
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 3:35:47 PM EDT
No problems here
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 4:38:24 PM EDT
I haven't had any issues with my '98, but from what I understand, SA built some rifles recently with cast reproduction parts, and some sloppy machining, causing issues, not so much parts breakage as malfunctions.
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 4:52:14 PM EDT
Although I have converted to USGI for major parts (bolt, op rod, and trigger group) I had NO problems with the SA parts after about 250-300 rds.
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 5:05:52 PM EDT
I've had a Super Match for about 7 years and have about 4-5K rds thru it and it still shoots 1MOA with Port or Hirtenberg surplus ammo. It's a great rifle that works awesome. There's always somebody who has something that they think "sucks". get one and have fun and don't worry...
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 5:10:56 PM EDT
I bought a loaded model August 2003.
No trouble so far.
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 5:51:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2004 5:54:22 PM EDT by mlm1219]
The main problem that most people are having are the cast parts in the bolt mainly the extractor. It would eject it self out the gun at bad times. Once replace with a real USGI extractor the problem dissapears. Others report problems with the reciever not being able to accept any aftermarket scope mounts other that the Springfield Inc mount which is not exactly the best one. Others report the trigger group not locking up the reciever and stock very tightly. This can lead to bad accuracy. Mine has been a great accurate rifle. Having said that the safety did not work out the box. It had to be sent back twice before they fixed. I was suprised in this day and age of lawsuits that they did not make ssure it worked from the factory. I ahve since replaced all major parts (Trigger Group, Op Rod, & Bolt) the barrel was already a TRW chrome lined. The problem with the new barrels is that they are not chrome lined. The recievers beside that some report trouble with scope mounts are very wellmade and I have not heard of any of them that have failed even though they are cast. There are even some that are full auto (pre 86) that are going strong even though they are cast. If you can afford it and can wait I would seek out one of the new LRB all forged M14 type rifles. They just started making complete rifles and they are pricey but there recievers are the closest you can get to a real GI M14. Look at their website LRB and decide for your self.
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 7:02:46 PM EDT
I have been shooing one for a couple years now and have not noticed any 'problems' with the rifle. I think most of the internet 'knowledge' about these rifles comes from people who have never even owned one.....ECS
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 7:24:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mlm1219:
If you can afford it and can wait I would seek out one of the new LRB all forged M14 type rifles. They just started making complete rifles and they are pricey but there recievers are the closest you can get to a real GI M14. Look at their website LRB and decide for your self.



Now hold on a second, heah! I've been told and have heard over and over again that the Polytech receiver was the closest thing to a real GI M14 around!
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 7:37:32 PM EDT
As mentioned above, I didn't understand wha tLRB was doing and why it was so special until i asked them what's the deal with Sprigfield, as i wanted a socom scout. Then they enlightened me, as mentioned above, that SA receivers and many parts are CAST while LRB is FORGING theirs. That says it all to me. Wouldja buy a cast AR? HELL NO... so why play around with cast receivers on a more powerful piece?

Anyhow, I know very little bout M14's, but I CAN vouch for LRB. They are my FFL/transfer guys and they are decent, honest, hardworking, knowledgable people who are also really really nice. They answer emails faster than ANYONE with no real web operation should and they really are willing to spend time explaining dumb shot like forged vs cast to idiots like me.

I personally have ordered a compelte LRB 1913 M14 build and will gloat incessantly in about 4 months when I get it.
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 8:38:40 PM EDT
I have a SAI with USGI barrel only. Have about 1200 rounds through it and have had the bolt roller break and replaced by SAI. Shoots really accurately and has never FTF or FTE besides the roller problem. I really like mine and would not hesitate to get another.
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 8:51:18 PM EDT
One important point to mention, is that there have been no USGI parts made in the US since the .mil sold all of the M14 tooling to Taiwan in the late 1960's.

Even the .mil is having parts problems now, as there are NONE in inventory. I heard that some individual had bought a container of parts at Gov't auction. With the M14's being returned to duty more and more, the US Army tracked down their parts and bought them back, at damn near retail pricing!!!

Hopefully, there will be more quality parts available for the system, as it has proven itself a valuable battle rifle.
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 9:13:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By llanero:
Now hold on a second, heah! I've been told and have heard over and over again that the Polytech receiver was the closest thing to a real GI M14 around!



The chinese used forged receivers, while SA, Armscor and etc. used cast. I think Smith Enterprise used forged too, but in limited numbers. LRB forges theirs.

As for the cast vs. forged argument for M1A/M14 receivers, I have never seen a story, thread or otherwise about a SA CAST receiver failing.
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 9:21:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dangerousdan:
I see a lot of ho-hum reviews regarding their rifles..



I think that's the beauty and harm of the internet...One or two disaster stories spread like wildfire, sometimes so much that we hear the same failure stories over a long span of time. We don't hear from the thousands of satisfied customers until threads like this come up. Me, for example, i've owned two: a scout, and 2 standards. The Scout had a problem out of the box--the extractor spring was too short. Once that was swapped, the rifle was flawless. The two standards were a mix of USGI parts, and were both flawless a well.

Another factor: SA's production is probably greater than ever before, along with their choices of different M1As. WIth LOTS more guns hitting the market, there are bound to be more subpar guns that make it past QC. I have no data as to whether the actual percentage of returned guns has increased, but with increased production, it stands to reason that so would the sheer number of QC problems.

.


Barrels. Any issues?
Accuracy? (sp?)
Are they accurate?




I'd bet that even the 'low' grade M1A standards can outshoot 75% or more of their owners...me included
Link Posted: 12/13/2004 9:50:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nationwide:
One important point to mention, is that there have been no USGI parts made in the US since the .mil sold all of the M14 tooling to Taiwan in the late 1960's.



That depends on the part. Parts were certainly made in the 70's and some parts were manufactured as late as the 1980's. Visit www.m-14forums.com to get better information. Also, download a copy of Different's manuscript, which is about to be published in book form: www.imageseek.com/m1a/, entitled M14 Rifle History and Development.
Link Posted: 12/14/2004 6:27:56 AM EDT
LRB will be making their own forged parts (op rods, bolts, trigger groups...) in the near future. They will be made to the USGI spec.
Link Posted: 12/14/2004 6:47:31 AM EDT
yes....

/begin speculation/

With the shortage of USGI parts and LRB starting to be recognized as possibly the finest M14's ever, (EVER) once they starting forging major system components, it's not a stretch to say that .mil is gonna come knockin.... They've refurbished some old ones and created squad designated marksmen (that texas story) and they have a PHAT sage stock and I think that once LRB makes a COMPELTELY forged M14 with all parts save barrel homegrown and forged, with their 1913 receiver as the base, it's ognna be impossible to get them cause .mil is gonna be gettin them all.

/end speclation/

BUT this is a custom shop, e.g. LOTS of one man one receiver work.... so who knows.
Link Posted: 12/14/2004 7:17:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dangerousdan:
Barrels. Any issues?
Accuracy? (sp?)
Are they accurate?



No barrel issues (Mine is HR USGI)
The rifle is more accurate than I can shoot.
Link Posted: 12/14/2004 9:59:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mlm1219:
The problem with the new barrels is that they are not chrome lined.



A barrel that is not chrome lined is NOT a problem. National Match barrels are not chrome lined. A chrome lined barrel is less accurate than a non-chromed barrel because a chromed barrel has been bored slightly larger to allow for the chrome to be added and thus bring the bore dimension back into spec. The accuracy difference between a chromed and non-chromed barrel is hard to detect by anyone other than a skilled shooter, but the guys who compete on the top levels will shoot a non-chromed barrel whose bore dimension has been precisely cut.
Link Posted: 12/14/2004 1:35:03 PM EDT
I have never had a problem with mine and I think i have had it for a year maybe.
Link Posted: 12/14/2004 6:25:44 PM EDT
Had my springfield for about four years now. After about 4K rounds, not one failure of any kind. With good ammo it will shoot about 2 1/2 inches at 100. Couldn't be happier with it.
Link Posted: 12/14/2004 6:30:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/15/2004 3:35:49 AM EDT
I have a plain jane M1A with about 1200 rounds of mixed ammo through it and since I've aquired decent mags for it, it's functioned flawlessly. SA may have problems but I'm happy with mine. I've had mine about a year now.
Link Posted: 12/15/2004 1:47:55 PM EDT
and a little by the way re:LRB, military orders and interest confirmed......... FBI and the ARMY both want samples of complete rifles and if there's enough interest commercially, LRB will be forging most of it's own parts...
Link Posted: 12/15/2004 4:32:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
and a little by the way re:LRB, military orders and interest confirmed......... FBI and the ARMY both want samples of complete rifles and if there's enough interest commercially, LRB will be forging most of it's own parts...




This means the money is on the way
Link Posted: 12/21/2004 7:13:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2004 7:16:26 PM EDT by Bigger_Hammer]
Wow Gang,

I feel bad to relate my personal experience with one of my springfield M1As.

I bought a rack grade synthetic stocked plain jane (non-N.M.) M-1A in 94 (just before the A.W.B.)

I don't know if Springfield was worried that they would be next and trying to rush to meet need, but my receiver was out of spec.

This came to light when I started shooting High Power matches in Service Rifle, and started to tune my M-1A.

I lucked out in getting a TRW bbl and trigger group, but had a springfield made operating rod (this was in the day when Springfield was touting their M-14 G.I. parts) I was a little disappointed, but a buddy of mine offered me a new in the shipping tube TRW op rod! After considering his question "do you want it?" for all of .0032 nanoseconds, I said SURE and went to swap out my cast aftermarket Springfield Armory Op Rod.

Well as Ol' Gomer would say "surprise, Surprise, SURPRISE!!!" A new G.I. Op Rod wouldn't fit!! - W.T.F.????!!!!!

More exploring and measuring determined that the op rod guide channel was cast TOO NARROW (VERY Significantly too narrow!!) to which Springfields "solution" was to grab a throwaway cheapo cast op rod, grind the op rod bottom guide post narrower, then just slap it on and send it out the door!!

NO WAY TO RUN ANY BUSINESS !

When we contacted Springfield about it, they made noise that "we don't guarantee our hand assembled guns to work with "aftermarket parts"" Again my response was W.T.F.?? This is a new U.S.G.I. sealed original part! And just to make sure we took a try fitting several other op rods from W.R.A. and H.R. and not ONE of the properly (correctly) sized Op Rods would fit! The "Hand Fitting" they did was to grind the op rod guide lug narrow to fit a non standard - non G.I. Spec receiver and to hell with ever being able to use a proper in spec sized part. (Picture poor ol' Eli Whitney rolling over and over in his box!!- Interchangeable parts my #$%^!!)

Anyway, that was my "experience" with Springfield and their M-1As.

BIGGER_HAMMER
Link Posted: 12/21/2004 11:38:04 PM EDT
I got a Standard M1A last year. First, the bolt would lock back on every round. Then, every other round was a FTE. Finally, the trigger group would pop out on every shot. I finally said to hell with it and sold it. Got a nice new no-ban Bushy M4 and never looked back.
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 1:22:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2004 1:25:54 PM EDT by neolithic-hunter]
if you want an m1a typr of rifle that is a good shooter buy from fulton armory. my perless will shoot rings around my brothers white feather. the best he's been able to get is just over an inch group at 100 yrds with a scope. mine will consistantly shoot inside an inch at 200 yrds with irons. nuf said.
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 2:38:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2004 3:11:44 PM EDT by BuLLet]

Originally Posted By neolithic-hunter:
if you want an m1a typr of rifle that is a good shooter buy from fulton armory. my perless will shoot rings around my brothers white feather. the best he's been able to get is just over an inch group at 100 yrds with a scope. mine will consistantly shoot inside an inch at 200 yrds with irons. nuf said.



Wow, that's damn good shooting.. I can't even see the target that far away... How the hell are you getting 1 inch groups at 200 yards with irons no less?

I wanted to add the fact that I have 7 Springfiled M1A's bought from 89 to 2004. The 4 oldest are all GI Surplus guns and the rest Springfield's cast parts. I've had a single issue with them, one of the newer ones popped an extractor. I replaced it with a GI surplus extractor and it's running like a clock once again. This rifle probably has between 2000 and 3000 rounds through it. When I called them on the issue they wanted me to send the 'defective' part back to get a replacement. I told them it flew out of the rifle and obviously I couldn't. They wanted the bolt back instead and would fix it. I just got a replacement part and fixed it myself.

Other then that I couldn't be happier with all of them.
Link Posted: 12/22/2004 3:22:26 PM EDT

Wow, that's damn good shooting.. I can't even see the target that far away... How the hell are you getting 1 inch groups at 200 yards with irons no less?


He's smokin' better shit than you are...

Shovelin' it pretty good, too...

Link Posted: 12/23/2004 10:08:32 AM EDT
SA National Match for me, no problems at all with around 2k thru it...I currently have an Arms #18 and Super Sniper 20x mounted, with a former Marine (not me)pulling the trigger, it shot a 1/2 inch group @100yds off the bench with Federal Match 168's...I don't know how good that group is compared to you guy's, but I was impressed...
Link Posted: 12/28/2004 8:25:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mlm1219:
The recievers beside that some report trouble with scope mounts are very wellmade and I have not heard of any of them that have failed even though they are cast.




Originally Posted By chiz45:
As for the cast vs. forged argument for M1A/M14 receivers, I have never seen a story, thread or otherwise about a SA CAST receiver failing.



It happens, not many are catastrophic though. Here is an old post from Jouster.com:


"No Major Failures" and other fairytales!
Posted By: Big John <bigjohnohio@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Friday, 26 April 2002, at 6:15 a.m.

In Response To: Re: SA Cast receivers are fine,,, (Milo)

>There have been no major failures of Springfield Inc. cast receivers.

Incorrect! I've had one that did so in my hot little hands! The receiver failed catastrophically, with the receiver ring cracking in 3 places, releasing the barrel. The rifle was a lugged match rifle that fired nothing but 168 match loads for it's entire, short life. There was an OBVIOUS casting defect (a slag inclusion) in the receiver ring! (The guy was two shooting points down, and is a friend....contact me by e-mail and I'll give you names and dates).

I saw another at our range that was a "catastrophic failure" in progress. Right out of the box, the owner noticed something he thought looked a little fishy, and brought it over to me. The receiver had a GROSS casting defect (the receiver was cast without a left-side locking lug!).

I won't even get into the numerous assembly problems I've seen with SA "Loaded" rifles.

John



Some picture here of a Springfield Inc receiver that failed catastrophically:

www.thegunzone.com/m1akb.html


Originally Posted By Bigger_Hammer:
Well as Ol' Gomer would say "surprise, Surprise, SURPRISE!!!" A new G.I. Op Rod wouldn't fit!! - W.T.F.????!!!!!

More exploring and measuring determined that the op rod guide channel was cast TOO NARROW (VERY Significantly too narrow!!) to which Springfields "solution" was to grab a throwaway cheapo cast op rod, grind the op rod bottom guide post narrower, then just slap it on and send it out the door!!



Look alike M14 type receivers are expected to be out of spec so that parts have to be hand fitted, that is just the way it is, or has been. Not really a strike against Springfield Inc, in that they are all like that.

Word now is that the LRB receiver is actually in spec (I would want to see some serious examination before declaring them in spec, including hardness testing):

www.jouster.com/cgi-bin/garand/garand.pl?noframes;read=4783
Link Posted: 12/28/2004 8:32:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2004 8:39:45 AM EDT by Lumpy196]
Link Posted: 12/28/2004 8:46:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2004 8:48:37 AM EDT by Ekie]

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By Ekiem.
Some picture here of a Springfield Inc receiver that failed catastrophically:

www.thegunzone.com/m1akb.html






Uhhh...


"Four major cracks propagated through the barrel threads. The cracks were located approximately at the top, bottom, left and right quadrants. The two cracks located at the top and bottom propagated back through the barrel threads resulting in the final rupture, blowing the receiver apart. No evidence was found of any defects in the receiver assembly that would have been the cause or would have contributed to the failure." - from Clint McKee of Fulton Armory's analysis of the failure.



Sure, "no defects", but it would have been preferred that the receiver held together, rather then blowing into junks, don't you think? If the receiver would have been a proper forging it would have been possible for it to have held.
Link Posted: 12/28/2004 8:49:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/28/2004 8:55:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
So we start with a misrepressentation and end with an assumption.



Not sure I follow you here. Are you stating that the receiver in question did not fail, and that a forged receiver ring will not contain a barrel failure? If so, then first off you are incorrect, in that receiver did fail, and catastrophically. Secondly a forged receiver can contain such a barrel failure. Would you like a picture of a better outcome involving a barrel failure with a forged receiver?
Link Posted: 12/28/2004 9:18:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2004 9:19:37 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]
"The general appearance of the barrel and receiver is that the rifle has been "used and abused¹." To put it another way, it has seen extensive service. Clearly, it is not new. Had it been new, a manufacturing/design defect would have been suggested. However, as old and used as the rifle appears, those type defects would have shown up long ago. A low magnification image of the chamber and throat area was made. There are a number of cracks in the barrel running longitudinally. These cracks are not new. There are sufficient corrosion products and debris in them to indicate that they have been there for a long time."

Why the need to misrepresent?

­
Link Posted: 12/28/2004 9:31:07 AM EDT
Let me try this with another visual. Here is a case of a catashrophic barrel failure:



In this instance the receiver is a forging. Compare to the cast example previously mentioned.
Link Posted: 12/28/2004 9:34:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Why the need to misrepresent?



Misrepresenting what? Or did you not notice that the cast receiver blew into chunks (some smaller then others)?
Link Posted: 12/28/2004 9:37:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dangerousdan:
I see a lot of ho-hum reviews regarding their rifles and I am interested in getting an M1A (I hope that is the right terminology for the civilian model of the M14.)
So what's the deal?
Parts issues?
Are USGI parts that much better than the stuff that Springfield uses?
Receivers?
Do they break or bend? Are they out of spec?
Barrels. Any issues?
Accuracy? (sp?)
Are they accurate?

I know these are newbie questions but, I'm trying to figure out which way to go on one of these rifles.

Thanks for your input. I know there will be many questions to follow.



Springfield apparently did a good job as an 'assembler' of surplused GI M14 parts.

The 'problem' is they have trouble making their own M14 parts.

Link Posted: 12/28/2004 9:40:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2004 9:49:50 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By Ekie:

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Why the need to misrepresent?



Misrepresenting what? Or did you not notice that the cast receiver blew into chunks (some smaller then others)?

Where does it say it was a cast receiver?

Where does Clint's analysis even FAULT the receiver?

It doesn't.
It doesn't.

Yet you sure do seem to be pushing that line.

The rifle's serial#: 030550 date of manufacture: @12/1984

Link Posted: 12/28/2004 10:28:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Where does it say it was a cast receiver?

Where does Clint's analysis even FAULT the receiver?

It doesn't.
It doesn't.

Yet you sure do seem to be pushing that line.

The rifle's serial#: 030550 date of manufacture: @12/1984




It has been established that a cast Springfield Inc receiver will not contain a catastrophic barrel failure, but will in fact itself fail. Don't really matter if Clint mentions that M1A #030550 manufactured on 12/84 had a cast receiver, or if Clint faults the receiver for failing or not, the situation is still the same.
Link Posted: 12/28/2004 11:35:11 AM EDT
I bought an M1A in Nov. of 2004. By Dec. 1st, it was on its way back to Springfield for several issues - failure to extract/eject, failure to feed every other round, and a crooked bolt. I received the rifle back on 12/24, took it to the range on 12/27, and today on 12/28 it is back to Springfield since it still refuses to feed every other round. A former marine armorer took a look at it last night for about two minutes and said that either the bolt, the receiver, or possibly both was out of tolerance. Argh.

Oh, and here's a bit of trivia - there were 893 RMA numbers between the one I was issued on December 1st and the one I was issued today. Doesn't mean anything really, I suppose, but I was surprised nonetheless.

If anyone is looking for an M1A, my opinion at this point is that they should look elsewhere...
Link Posted: 12/28/2004 1:38:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2004 1:46:22 PM EDT by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By Ekie:

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Where does it say it was a cast receiver?

Where does Clint's analysis even FAULT the receiver?

It doesn't.
It doesn't.

Yet you sure do seem to be pushing that line.

The rifle's serial#: 030550 date of manufacture: @12/1984




It has been established that a cast Springfield Inc receiver will not contain a catastrophic barrel failure, but will in fact itself fail. Don't really matter if Clint mentions that M1A #030550 manufactured on 12/84 had a cast receiver, or if Clint faults the receiver for failing or not, the situation is still the same.


So you specifically cite this as an example of one of Springfield's cast receivers failing....

...and now you are distancing yourself from that claim, speaking in broad generalities and how it "don't really matter" if THIS one is, or did, or not.

And you wonder what we meant about misrepresentation?

You give this example of a receiver having a "catastrophic failure", due to the failure of its cast receiver.

But as it turns out, the receiver is not even cast, nor is it at fault in the "catastrophic failure".

Suspect.
Link Posted: 12/28/2004 1:58:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2004 2:31:58 PM EDT by Ekie]

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
So you specifically cite this as an example of one of Springfield's cast receivers failing....



Yes, that is one example of a cast Springfield Inc receiver blowen into pieces. What is commonly referred to a catastrophic failure, or a Kaboom.


Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
...and now you are distancing yourself from that claim, speaking in broad generalities and how it "don't really matter" if THIS one is, or did, or not.



The broad generalities are aspects you brought up (things Clint did not say), my point was that it was a example of a cast Springfield receiver and it failed. Still my point.


Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
And you wonder what we meant about misrepresentation?



Misrepresentation huh? You mean like this:


Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
You give this example of a receiver having a "catastrophic failure", due to the failure of its cast receiver.

But as it turns out, the receiver is not even cast, nor is it at fault in the "catastrophic failure".

Suspect.



Trying to pass a cast Springfield Inc receiver as not being cast is a misrepresentation, or I "suspect" just a misinformed statement.
Link Posted: 12/28/2004 5:22:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2004 5:36:19 PM EDT by Cincinnatus]
Clint stated clearly that the receiver was not at fault.
Quite clearly.

Where in that article does it even state whether the receiver is cast, or forged?
It doesn't, does it?



Guess why.

Because THAT "Kaboom" has nothing to do with cast vs. forged.

"No evidence was found of any defects in the receiver assembly that would have been the cause or would have contributed to the failure"

It is the fault of an abused weapon, specifically, the BARREL.
Had the receiver been at fault, he would have said so.
You are of course claiming that IF the receiver was forged (is it? Is it not?) that the "Kaboom" would have been less catastrophic.
What proof of that is there?
CLEARLY the weapon had other problems.

Or did you conduct your own investigation?
Link Posted: 12/28/2004 5:39:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By neolithic-hunter:
if you want an m1a typr of rifle that is a good shooter buy from fulton armory. my perless will shoot rings around my brothers white feather. the best he's been able to get is just over an inch group at 100 yrds with a scope. mine will consistantly shoot inside an inch at 200 yrds with irons. nuf said.

Link Posted: 12/28/2004 6:15:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

You are of course claiming that IF the receiver was forged (is it? Is it not?) that the "Kaboom" would have been less catastrophic.



All Springfield Armory M1A receivers are cast.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top