Armory Sponsor
Posted: 9/22/2007 10:33:20 AM EDT
|
I need a review of upgrades that are soon to be installed. All positive comments or suggestions are welcome These will be done by Smith Enterprises. 1. M14 Scope Mount 2. 7.62 18" Chrome Lined Barrel 3. Tritium Bar Combat Sight 4. New Bolt Stop 5. 4.5lb. Trigger Job These are pictures of the weapon as it exist today.    |
1.As long as its a good one yes,Im assuming Smith Ent. 2.no need, You already have a 18", Chrome isnt that big a deal IMHO 3.Assuming you mean the one that comes on the socom? if so its too wide for 200+ meter use. 4.Yes the bolt release is a useful addition. 5.Should be awful close to that now. Here's what I did with my Scout...  |
|
Does that forward scope mount attach only to the fiberglass handguard, or do those screws go all the way down into the underlying stock? Consider getting rid of that muzzle brake. You are in NV not CA. Replace it with a GI flash hider, that is, unless you plan to bring it into CA. Consider getting the stock glass bedded, unitizing the gas system, etc. All the accuracy tune up items on the list. I'm not suggesting lugging the recceiver, though. |
Underdog75, Thanks for input. That is one excellent looking weapon. Where did you get the raised cheek piece and do you think it can be installed on my existing stock......I really like my existing stock. In truth, it may be a little hard to justify some of those upgrades. For me this is a one time investment and I would like to "trick" this thing out. It's something I would like to pass on to my son who is an Army Officer and possibly to one of the grand kids (if I ever get any) who shows a "high interest" in these things. Let's face it, you can spend a lot of money on weapons. I was looking to install what I considered a reasonable upgrade package. Nevadasun This is a picture of the glass I intend to put on that weapon. 
|
For starters 1. dump the scout mount and have the SEI mount installed ~ or ~ get a KAC RAS or Ultimak type hand guard rail. 2. the Scout barrel is excellent get the M80HT from SEI and shoot it ~ I know it's listed on their web site, but I do not think chrome lined barrel P/N 2027 is available. 3. I suggest the GLFS-H-18 and a DC Vortex 4. the SEI extended bolt stop is very nice 5. the SEI trigger job is awesome Consider the RRM for your synthetic stock and unitize the gas system. My Scout Squad started out just like yours. Here it is today ~ This is a complete list of the upgrades.  |
Typically speaking there's no reason to "glass bed" a synthetic stock. I don't really think you can "lug" a receiver without having a receiver with an extra lug, and the scout scope mount in the configuration pictured wraps around and attaches to the barrel. You seem to have alot of opinions with little information. A nicer trigger will always help. Smith Enterprises does excellent work and is highly regarded obviously. If it was me, I would shoot it a whole lot and then upgrade when you need new things. But that's just me. If you have the money and want to do it, what the heck. You may consider getting a USGI bolt conversion while he's doing the barrel. But I don't know if he sells them to people or if you have to supply one. |
|
The two most inexpensive things you can do that contribute to accuracy the most is a trigger job and a pencil type recoil guide. The pencil type recoil guide makes the op rod travel smoother and more precise during the firing cycle. The trigger pull is self explanatory. The next two items, not necessarily in any specific order, is the unitized gas system and a rear match aperture. Then bedding the stock. Bedding the stock tightens the action in the wood but the most important part of bedding an M14 variant is to place 12 to 14 lbs pressure on the gas cylinder from the butt stock, acting to damper barrel vibrations when fired. A cheap way to tighten the stock to metal fit is to simply shim under the rear of the receiver by the rear sight, between the metal and wood, so that the trigger group is more difficult to lock in. You can use plastic, etc. |
|
I have the AMTU and USMC manuals for bringing an M14 up to NM standards. Both are pretty much the same but neither shows welding up lugs to the receiver. Sorry to dispute your opinion, but welding lugs on an existing receiver is NOT part of bringing one up to match standards. The only benefit of a rear lugged receiver is that it will retain it's accuracy longer in the bedding than one without. And many NM M14s have been rebedded in as little as 1000 rounds to regain top notch accuracy. |
|
Rear lugs and glass bedding are old school modifications. Tension bedding provided by the SAGE and TROY stocks make both modifications pretty much obsolete. IMHO, the RRM on an otherwise tight fitting USGI synthetic stock gives you the biggest bang for your buck. |
What is your point here? I was the one recommending against lugging the receiver. Honestly, have you not heard of rear lugged or double-lugged receivers? I was the one recommending the receiver be bedded to the stock. Do you not feel there's a contradiction implied in your last two sentances? IMO, any rifle that has to be rebedded every 1,000 rounds is a rifle I'd get rid of - there's likely something wrong. Perhaps it's being removed from the stock too often. Perhaps it's an improper bedding job. If you were committed to the rifle, for some reason or other, you might try getting it lugged to reduce this maintenance cycle. Every 1,000 rounds is way too frequently to rebed - way! |
Um,...what's the acronym RRM stand for? |
Most guys on here heard of double lugged, but I too have never heard of "welding" another lug on a receiver to make it so. If this an accepted practice by respectable M14 / M1A builders and tweakers, I stand corrected and offer my apology. Furthermore I apologize for being antagonistic. I shouldn't have. However, seeins how you didn't know how a springy scout mount attached and this notion of welding on lugs seems to put you in a category of newbness about these types of rifles. And yes, many people may bed their fiberglass hunting rilfe stocks, but for the M14, it is pretty accepted that it is GTG as long as it fits tight to begin with. And is far better than a wood stock. It is a bit different than a bolt action with a synthetic stock. Maybe you are not a newb and have a deep knowledge of these rifles. As I said, I apologize. I have alot to learn myself. |
|
|
Just some reference info: Derrick Martin's - Accuracy Speaks: Lugged and Double Lugged Receivers. Arrington Accuracy's Lugged Receivers Clint Fowler's Price List (double lugging is at top of list) I don't have Hook Boutin info in front of me. FULTON ARMORY'S REAR LUGGED RECEIVER: 
|
The M14 is a SERVICE rifle and military matches are shot with accurized SERVICE rifles. I've never seen a rear lugged M14 SERVICE match rifle, have you? You may have seen in a civilian M14 variant, but never in a SERVICE NM rifle. Why do you think the rear lug was placed on rifles in the civilian market? To slow down the break down of the bedding that occurs from continual shooting of the rifle! What ever your opinion is, it is an opinion. Having been around match service rifles and built a few, I can promise you that some accuracy will be lost in a thousand rounds due to wear and tear on the bedding. I don't care WHO beds the rifle or HOW it's done. Simply because of the recoil forces put on the stock from the side lugs. And almost NO match shooter I know will remove a Service NM rifle from a glass bedded stock (short of a major malfunction) to preserve the glass bedding and maintain accuracy. |
Oh, but it is. Remember, the Armed Services do not own the term, "service rifle". Both the NRA and the CMP have definitions for "service rifles" that include rifles issued by the Armed Services and their civilian equivalents. Help me out here, wasn't it Quantico that first perfected lugging the receiver? The lack of durability of the M14/M1A is just one of several reason cited by virtually the entire match shooting community for moving away from them. The M-16/AR-15 is so much more accurate and so much easier to make accurate and keep accurate, there really is no comparison. That it is easier to shoot well is just icing on the cake. Don't take the above the wrong way, I like the rifle and its predecessor, the M1 Garand, too. It's also about time the services recognized the usefulness of the 308 and the limitations of the 223 round (and the 45ACP over the 9mm, too). And if you are in the military, my entire family and I want to thank you for your service in these trying times. What keeps me coming back to this thread is that I recommended AGAINST lugging the receiver, yet you persist in arguing with me as though I were a proponent FOR lugging them. What's up with that? |
I'll be dog gonned. I am the idiot. FWIW, I don't think even smith enterprises suggests glass bedding the USGI synthetic stocks they supply with their crazy horse package. But I could be wrong about that too.  But they are mainly building rifles for use in fighting and it seems your knowledge goes into the highly built service rifles. But I stand corrected obviously about the lugging thing. As I said, I still have a lot to learn and was too quick to judge or assume as you pointed out. |
|
GENTLEMAN, Let's everyone take a step back, take a deep breath and relax a moment. I see the veins popping out on every one's neck. Yea know, all I was asking for was a review of some upgrades. My questions have been answered and other valuable input has been noted. Now everyone say good night and let's all go to bed. Nevadasun |
You brought up the rear lugs on a M14, not me. You also posted pics and smiths who will rear lug M1A receivers!!!! I simply stated why they do that. It doesn't make a rifle more accurate - it just acts as a recoil lug for the metal to stock, making the bedding last longer. You really don't seem to know the ins or outs of the M14 platform i.e. the rear lugging you brought into this thread to "accurize" the rifle, then dismissing it.
The above statement you made is NOT true and misleading. There are far more M14 varaint service match rifles WITHOUT rear lugs than with them. I tried pointing that out, son. It went over your head.  |
|
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. What a disgusting thread this has turned into. The pics are posted because someone said they did not know lugging was ever done, and by implication, they would not know what it looked like or which 'smiths did it. "Over my head", and, "son", good grief! I think these comments are nothing but wrong and argumentative. At best, we are "talking past" each other. Good night, Nevadasun. Good luck with the rifle, too. It's a nice rifle as it is. I hope you are able to sift through the debris here and find some additional good ideas to help make it even better. |
This thread started going south with your smart ass "Duh!" comment. Ace. Using "Duh" in this thread smacks of arrogance and conceit. And as far as "debris", I'll always believe you had no idea of what purpose the rear lug on an M14 variant receiver serves or you wouldn't have brought it up in this thread. |
|
Whatever is looked at the M14/M1A in service rifle competition is a very limited scope and to say the M14 is lacking in durability is pure bullshit. The only thing that wears and needs a little extra care on a M14 is bedding and that's a basic for the service rifle competition setup M14's. The synthetics that are commonly used are not the same as a usgi fiberglass that was designed for a drop in tight fit of usgi receivers and gives a tight fit to most commercials too. They don't need to be bedded to provide an excellent lockup for the receiver and there are many many people using them as such right now, beside soldiers for DMR in Iraq. In service comp McMillan M1A stocks have been the standard for a long time and there designed to be bedded as are the other McMillan synthetic M14 stock's like the M3A, M2A, and MFS-14. The M14 commercial or usgi is a robust all steel rifle and far from undurable. One of it's greatest benefits if I person likes is that the action can be easy changed from stock to stock and these days they are lots of choices if you don't restrict yourself to service rifle comp rules. Mcmillan NevadaSun, if you want to upgrade the rifle you'll see improvements, but you don't really need to change the barrel out if it's brand new. That's a waste of money to me and you should get around 10,000 rounds out of it if your not disturbed about it not being chromelined. It is a Wilson barrel turned by SA and should be an excellent barrel. There are other smith's out there besides Smith E. too. I suggest you shoot it for a while to wear in the trigger a little, but getting a trigger job done, unitizing the gas system, putting a Sadlak op rod spring guide in and putting a scope mount on like Sadlak's or Smith should give you alot of what you want. Buying another usgi fiberglass to the one SA provided you is always good, but there are alot of nice stocks out there beside usgi's or MCmillan's, like the JAE-100, Sage's, Troy MCS or Vltor for different tastes and none of them need to be bedded to provide a great lockup. For a smith also look at Warbird or Ted Brown. |
Not yet, so really anyone with a Scout looking to set it up to competition standards is only doing it if they feel those standards are useful to them or buy into someone telling them it's the all out best setup out there or something to that aspect. They need to learn more about the rifle and it's options today as far as I'm concerned.To me the bedded stock choices are a waste of time if your not going to compete unless you just really like that particular stock like woods and want the best accuracy you can get. A bedded M14 will give the most exact and custom fit to the receiver, but with stocks out there like the JAE-100, Sages and so on it's a kind of a backwards choice to me. Meaning someone choosing to deal with the issues of bedding when they really don't need to to get a tight lockup helping to provide better accuracy. To me one of the most versatile M14 setups out there for hunting, 3 gun, plinking, a shtf rifle and defense or other use is a 18 inch barrel M14/M1A in a modified usgi fiberglass with optics of choice or straight irons. 
|
Yes that cheekpiece will work on your stock, My rifle started as the exact same model as yours. It can be purchased from HERE, IMHO, I think you may be getting off track with the "super accurate" rifle concept. The 18" scout is best served in the sub 400M .308 role,. agian IMHO. |
I agree. But I'm not anti Socom either, besides the fact that the gas system is not something you can mess with or replace with other units. But I've shot them before, even with the big ap and I think it is a fine SHTF/ HD/ closer range hunting rifle. |
Armory Sponsor