Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/31/2002 9:35:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2002 9:38:57 PM EDT by themao]
Has anyone got their hands on one yet? I'd like to know about it. Are all the parts brand new?

Just wanted to add that I'd really consider getting a M14/M1A if it wasn't for the cost of shooting .308 ammo over .223!

themao
Link Posted: 3/31/2002 9:45:57 PM EDT

These receivers are supposed to be outstanding. From what I have seen posted on the web, these receivers beat the crap out of the Springfield M1A's. There was a rumor that the ATF considered these to be too much like real M14 receivers and too easy to convert to full auto. Also, MK had problems selling converted to semi-auto, welded, real, M14 receivers.

MK had asked for a ruling by the BATF on whether they could sell M14 re-welds. The BATF said yes. Later the BATF changed their minds and decided to f*ck MK-Specialties.

They aren't selling anything right now. They don't answer emails or the phone.

There is more info, if you do a search, on www.battlerifles.com
Link Posted: 4/1/2002 10:11:11 AM EDT
Good grief. So you mean to tell me that they went through all this trouble of making those semi-auto M14 receivers from scratch, and now they can't sell them. Bite me hard. Boy I wish the ATF would bug out.

themao
Link Posted: 4/1/2002 11:02:26 AM EDT
MKS never had anything on paper saying that the ATF approved thier rewelded M14 recvr's . MKS continued to take peoples money and ship rewelded recvr's knowing the ATF was going to sieze them soon....
Link Posted: 4/1/2002 11:36:46 AM EDT
MK Specialties M14A1 receivers (the new manufactured ones from forgings) are supposed to be extremely good with very tight tolerances (to the point that all bolts need to be lapped in to fit). The finish looks superb. HOWEVER, I have yet to see a report from any of the professional service rifle armorers. Walt Kuleck, Fulton Armory's webmaster, ordered one on his own dime to have Clint McKee check it out. He still hasn't received it. Smith Enterprises hasn't reviewed it yet either. Ted Brown has built one, but doesn't appear to have formed a strong opinion on it.

The welded receivers that MKS used to sell have a significant legal problem. The case is in federal court and the NRA's legal fund has decided to fund the case. It's a mess and no-one really knows what happened when. MKS is not talking about it.

They formed a seperate company to build and sell the forged receivers and that company is not offering compensation to the owners of the welded receivers and seems to be filling orders not so much based on when the orders were made (some were made well over a year ago) but by some other standard altogether. A lot of welded MKS owners are ticked off that the first production did not go to them to replace their confiscated receivers (BATF rounded 'em up). They are also ticked off at MKS failure to inform them of the problem before BATF knocked on their doors.

MKS is obviously hoping it can win the case and that BATF will either have to compensate people for their confiscated receivers, or return the receivers to their owners, thus absolving MKS of any ethical requirement to provide compensation. If they lose the case however, my guess is that they will declare bankruptcy and no-one will be compensated for anything, including their new-made receivers and rifles.

It's too bad a couple of talented guys who could technically make a go of this, could not manage to get all the legal "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed before selling thier product.

As of now, Springfield Inc. is the only viable M14 type receiver manufacturer that you can really count on.
Link Posted: 4/1/2002 12:07:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By themao:
Has anyone got their hands on one yet? I'd like to know about it. Are all the parts brand new?

Just wanted to add that I'd really consider getting a M14/M1A if it wasn't for the cost of shooting .308 ammo over .223!

themao



For th past two years I have been watching for sales and have been buying 308 cheaper than I can get 5.56.
Link Posted: 4/1/2002 1:27:42 PM EDT
MDS: What kind? Surplus or new? I wouldn't shoot anything less than UMC or American Eagle out of a $1000-2000 rifle.

As for MKS, that just plain sucks. What the hell is wrong with those people? I'm just so hesitant about getting a Springfield since you pay $1-2k for a cast receiver firing .308 rounds. Also, don't they use old parts on some of the components? It's just a plain rip off, and I'd rather stick with an AR for target shooting.

themao
Link Posted: 4/1/2002 3:06:34 PM EDT
Entreprize arms has a Billet reciever that is bad as hell.
Im gonna build one from their reciver.
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 3:19:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2002 3:21:09 PM EDT by ataDude]
I used to stay up with the MKS M1A issue until the M14 setion of Guns and Knives closed down because of this stuff.

The original re-welds were being confiscated by the BATF as the site closed. MKS didn't talk about it, fix their customers up or anything other than send Mrs. MKS to the board a couple of times to defend her hubby.

The new forged ones may very well be the best on the planet but, based on what I read about delivery dates, lack of returned phone calls or emails (generally ignoring customers), you might be better off elsewhere.

I have a PolyTec M14S and love it.
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 7:34:51 PM EDT
The way I heard it, BATF was having the MKS re-weld owners sign over the receivers to them, abandoning all rights to them, in exchange for not getting prosecuted for unlawful possession of a machinegun. If that's so, BATF won't owe anybody any money even if MKS wins in court, which I doubt.
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 8:07:45 PM EDT
Damn. I had an entire message typed in and lost it. ????????

Short version. Better off with an AR10 if you want to use a scope. If you are going to get a M14/M1A reciever to build get:

Smith Enterprises reciever (won't find one he quit making them, maybe)

Armscorp

Enterprise
<­BR>Springfield Armory

Any of the above will make a good rifle with USGI parts. Concern over cast versus forged is unwarranted. Modern metalurgy and casting technology is more than suitable for an M14 reciever. A properly cast reciever will certainly outlast you and your grandkids.

I have also heard that MK recievers are being taken by the ATF. I would avoid that like the plague.

IMO, your best bet for a good M14/M1A is to figure out what you want as a final result, then start looking for one already done. It might take a while but if you buy used you can get a pretty good rifle for $1000-1500 including NM quality.

James
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 8:47:52 PM EDT
The new A.R.M.S mount makes the M14 pretty viable platform to scope.
Both the AR10 and The M14 style rifles are expensive anyhow.So im not gonna even delve to endever which is better.I like the M14 style better but that dont make it better.
I think USGI parts are so much better than what Springfield is putting out.
But that Entreprize reciever is bad as hell,im tell'en ya!All machined from twelve pound blocks of steel.
I dont really think there is anything wrong with the cast receivers from springfield"I own a Springfield",or others,they aint useing sand casts anymore so theres a good chance a new reciever does not have any bubbles or major imperfections in them like when sand castings were used.
I just dont like all the cast parts hanging off of springfields,they tend to show wear quicker than the forged USGI parts.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 4:35:00 AM EDT
I must have missed something. Rewelds are popular? Springfield receivers are not? Can anyone find a Springfield that has failed in your lifetime? I have seen one. It was welded on by someone who added the lug. It went about 20,000 rounds and cracked. Springfield replaced it at no charge even though it was altered by someone who did not understand heat treating. Has anybody seen the torcher test conducted by guns magazine about 7 years ago. The Chinese guns were not even safe enough to participate in the test. They had to pour water on the Springfield numerous times to keep the stock from burning up. Oh well, I guess I am not up to speed.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 5:08:58 AM EDT
I was thinking of having an M14 built some time this year.I was going to buy a U.S.G.I. parts kit and go with an Entreprise rec.I said WAS.I just bought a Entreprise type III FAL rec a few weeks ago.Before I bought the rec I did a search on the FAL files and read alot of mixed reviews on their FAL rec. About half have said no problems and they would buy another.The other half reported minor to major problems with the internal specs and required work to get the rifle to go together.My FAL rec required metal to be removed at the front of the rec and around the ejector block.On the outside the rec looked great,no machining marks anywhere.The lettering was crisp but shallow.
I think I will wait a while before buying the Entreprise M14 rec. It's too much $ to pay for to have to tweak it to get it to work.I hope Entreprise can improve their QC on the FAL recs. Who knows maybe they don't have this problem with M14 rec.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 7:13:51 AM EDT
tdkak,

The difference in mounting (I have both) is twofold. 1) The M14 forces the scope to be mounted too high in relation to the bore and there is no way to achieve a proper cheekweld without special stocks. I haven't tried all the cheekpieces on the market, but regardless, you have either a good cheekweld with irons or scope. Never both. Second, NONE of the scope mount systems is simple to mount. If they go off alighnment, so does your scope and you rezero again. It simply is not a good platform for a scope. The flattop AR10 is.





Additionally, if you want subMOA accuracy, you can get it with an out of the box AR10. And the freefloated barrel eliminates bedding and other gunsmithing required of the M14 to achieve this level of accuracy. Gunsmithing the M14 must be repeated every year or so to maintain competition level accuracy. No, for truly accurate scoped shooting the AR10 is far superior.

Ghostface,

I spent some time with Ron Smith of Smith Enterprises recently when he repaired my M1A. In his opinion, the best reciever on the market today is Armscorp. But the SA one is not an issue because it is cast. It is the dimensions that are an issue. Slight, and he can work them.

James
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 7:30:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dirfire:
Can anyone find a Springfield that has failed in your lifetime?



Yes. In the mid-70s at the National Matches, a cast receiver from S, Inc. literally broke in half. While not entirely common, it has happened enough of times.



Has anybody seen the torcher test conducted by guns magazine about 7 years ago. The Chinese guns were not even safe enough to participate in the test. They had to pour water on the Springfield numerous times to keep the stock from burning up. Oh well, I guess I am not up to speed.


If you're talking about the infamous hit piece sponsored by Springfield, that is old news and has since been refuted.

In the Fall of 1993, the Asst. Director of the CMSD (Civilian Marksmanship Support Detachment) asked John Kepler to bring his Polytech/USGI hybrid to a meeting attended by Col. Paul Cullinane, the DCM, Col. R. Robertson, Asst. DCM, James Rose from Anniston, and Mark Kovac, Chief Armorer, CMSD.

The rifle was examined by everyone present. It was then taken to Building 610 where Mr. Kovac disassembled the rifle and checked it against USGI M14 armorers guages. The receiver geometry was as close to USGI as you can get.

6 weeks following this meeting, a metallurgical analysis on the receiver was performed. The assay concluded that the receiver was made from an AISI 5100 series chrome steel. Surface hardness was a very USGI 56-58 RC, with a minimum depth of 0.010"

Their confidence ran high enough for them to purchase 12 receivers (4 each from Norinco, Norinco/CAI and Polytech) for possible inclusion into the program.

There is nothing wrong with Chinese M14-type receivers, dimensionally or metallurgically.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 8:00:38 AM EDT
I guess if I want a .308, I'd be better off getting a bolt action rifle. It seems to me that getting a M1A/M-14 would be more of a novelty issue than practicality. I'm not doing service rifle any time soon, so I don't need a highly modified super match rifle. I definitely don't like the fiberglass bedding part. That to me is a pain considering the technology out there today (case in point: AI's aluminum bedding system).

I guess if I really want that .308 rifle this summer, I'll probably look into a HS-Precision or a rigged up Remington 700 PSS. I'll put a nice optic on it to from US Optics or Nightforce.

themao
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 11:38:37 AM EDT
DSA also makes some nice FAL's for $1200 or so.

I can also find .308 cheaper than .223 and are stocking up on it currently.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 12:22:57 AM EDT
JimmybCool,i agree a picatinny system on an ar10/15 is superior to most anything out there,however i like the M14 style rifles better,and i think the ARMS mount is the best mount made for the M14.
A buddy of mine has a ARMS mounted Entreprize recievered rifle and its a bad dude,i like it alot.
your right the average out of the box AR10 is more accurate too.But as far as ruggedness and pure reliability the M14 has it beat.
I mean you wanna know the truth i dont think you can go wrong with a AR10/M14/FAL.Its just whatever someone likes.
We can debate this till we drop but it comes down to what someone likes and if they are willing to live with a weapons types limitations.
Personally i dont want to bed stocks over and over again my M1A standard shoots pretty decent and acceptable to me.i really didnt want a SNIPER either thats why i bought the standard it does what i want.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 1:20:52 AM EDT
When I looked at them at the Vegas Shot Show I wondered about the extra part to keep the Op Rod from popping out. I haven't shot one though.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 4:43:17 AM EDT
I am not trying to insult anyone who has a Chinese rifle. I know some people who have had them heat treated and modified. I do not just give my opinion from what I have read. I have thousands of rounds through M-14 type rifles. I have had 3 Chinese guns. One Norinco and 2 Polytechs. All of them had problems. From bad headspace to weak springs. All of them would double tap from time to time. I have also had a lot of Chinese SKS and AK types. They don't make very good springs. I have not had or seen a bad Springfield. I have owned and fired about a dozen of them. They have almost a no questions asked warranty no matter how old they are. I am sorry, but in my opinion, cast or not, they are the best product out there for the money.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 7:05:26 AM EDT
tdkak,

I think we just agree! if you want a bench/sniper gun for a scope and one hole at 100 yards get the AR10.

If you want something to shoot iron sights and knock about with get the M14.

You CAN scope the M14. It just isn't as easy nor as natural with a poor cheekweld.

I am considering scoping the M1A again in future. Maybe I'll remount the Aimpoint on it using a different mounting system (ARMS???).

I like them both. Just a question of use.

James
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 11:27:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dirfire:
I am not trying to insult anyone who has a Chinese rifle.



No insult felt nor taken.



I know some people who have had them heat treated and modified.


Yes, Smith Enterprise sells this option for the M14/S receivers. They're in the business of making money and this is a money maker.

CMSD happened to have verified hardness of the M14/S receivers to USGI specs.



I do not just give my opinion from what I have read. I have thousands of rounds through M-14 type rifles. I have had 3 Chinese guns. One Norinco and 2 Polytechs. All of them had problems. From bad headspace to weak springs.


Chinese M14 type rifles are unsafe to fire.
Excessively soft bolts *will* set back and *will* cause the headspace to increase.

However, we aren't talking about the rifles. We're talking about the receiver ONLY. Chinese M14/S type receivers have been reported as dimensionally and metallurgically closer to USGI than any other commercially available M14 type receiver, including S, Inc.



I have not had or seen a bad Springfield. I have owned and fired about a dozen of them. They have almost a no questions asked warranty no matter how old they are. I am sorry, but in my opinion, cast or not, they are the best product out there for the money.


You should see some of the new production rifles with their repro parts. It's a good thing S, Inc. has a warranty.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 1:02:35 PM EDT
I agree with the bolts being the real issue. My problems were not really receiver issues. My experience with Springfield products were all pre-ban guns, so the current crop could be of lower quality. But I also think the cast receiver by Springfield is pretty good.
Top Top