[Jersey Devil]

What manufacturers are producing Mil-Spec receivers out there for USGI M-14 buildups?
I am aware of Fulton Armory and LRB, but are there others that may be better??

Thanks,
--Brian

 

[LausDeo]

There's also 7.62mm Firearms and the Chinese Polytechs. I'm building off a 7.62mm

 

[Serpico1985]

And smith enterprises

 

[nf1e]

To answer your question, there are indeed others, but LRB is on the top of the A list. Fulton is cast . More questions about SEI than answers. 7.62 seems to be hit and miss as far as quality and dimension goes. 7.62 and LRB are hammer forged per mil-spec. The others are not. Good luck finding your receiver. I have chosen LRB for my last 7 M14 type rifles.
Semper Fi
Art

 

[jbrooks]

I'd recommend either LRB or buy a complete Polytech for the same price as an LRB receiver and customize to suit. All depends on what you want to do with your rifle.

Do a search here regarding Polytech and you will find multiple threads on that aspect.

Good luck,

JWB

 

[Jersey Devil]

There's also 7.62mm Firearms and the Chinese Polytechs. I'm building off a 7.62mm

And smith enterprises

To answer you question, there are indeed others, but LRB is on the top of the A list. Fulton is cast . More questions about SEI than answers. 7.62 seems to be hit and miss as far as quality and dimension goes. 7.62 and LRB are hammer forged per mil-spec. The others are not. Good luck finding your receiver. I have chosen LRB for my last 7 M14 type rifles.
Semper Fi
Art

I'd recommend either LRB or buy a complete Polytech for the same price as an LRB receiver and customize to suit. All depends on what you want to do with your rifle.

Do a search here regarding Polytech and you will find multiple threads on that aspect.

Good luck,

JWB

Thanks guys.....I really appreciate the advice. So, the original receivers from the four Govt contractors were hammer forged, is that right?
I read on LRB's website that they hot hammer forge their receivers. Is there an appreciable difference between their hot hammer forging and, say, Heckler and Koch's cold hammer forging? I ask because I am an H&K fanatic and have always been drawn to the German steel forging process of cold hammer forging....especially with their barrels.
Thanks again!
--Brian

 

[jake2far]

Thanks guys.....I really appreciate the advice. So, the original receivers from the four Govt contractors were hammer forged, is that right?
I read on LRB's website that they hot hammer forge their receivers. Is there an appreciable difference between their hot hammer forging and, say, Heckler and Koch's cold hammer forging? I ask because I am an H&K fanatic and have always been drawn to the German steel forging process of cold hammer forging....especially with their barrels.
Thanks again!
--Brian

The "cold" hammer forged barrel is done on a rotohammer, it swages the barrel around a mandrel which produces a finished barrel. It is quite accurate.
The "hot" forged receiver is done on a drop forge with a very large weight and several molds, the hot ingot is placed inside a mold, the weight or hammer is dropped, the weight smacks the blank and shapes it to the mold. During the War military manufacturers had a number like 7 drops to complete the forging. Hot forged does not make a complete finished part, it makes it into an outside correct shape with the inside still full of metal, the machining process removes all of the inside metal, they do a finish machine on the outside with flange removal. The barrel process is completely different than the receiver.
There has been some great debates as to the correctness of current or past civilian receivers being manufactured to USGI prints. The general consensus in my opinion; there has never been nor are there any that have been made to USGI prints. The fact the M14 was full auto and the M1A is semi required dimension changes, on the op rod ledge, it got wider, the rear of receiver got thicker, dismount notch got moved and so on. This caused the design prints to be modified, which means the manufacturer, depending on who that was, changed the dimensions to meet their needs both for the semi conversion as well as their machining requirements. No current manufacturer has the capability to replicate the machining done on the originals.
Having said all this, it really depends on what you want, some want name recognition, others feel strongly about buying "American only", others believe cast is as good as forged or vice versa. You have to decide what is important to you. All receivers made by every manufacturer has good ones, everyone also has suspect ones. Everyone here will have good cause to explain why they have what they have.
Buy one , build one, I guarantee one will not be enough.

Jim

 

[Ted Brown]

I know this is hard to swallow, but none of the companies are making a true mil spec receiver. LRB probably comes the closest. It's not legally possible to produce a true mil spec M14 receiver for obvious reasons. The important thing is that all of the miltary components fit and function properly on the receiver. LRB, Springfield, and Fulton appear to fall into this catagory while the others seem to be questionable. Early receivers like Armscorp were inconsistant while SEI were very good.

Cold hammer forging is used on things like barrels to produce an almost finished product. This isn't possible with the complex nature of the M14 receiver. Hot hammer forging is a tried and true method of forging the rough shape, eliminating some machining steps and imposeing added strength in critical areas.

 

[Devil]

What manufacturers are producing Mil-Spec receivers out there for USGI M-14 buildups?
I am aware of Fulton Armory and LRB, but are there others that may be better??

Thanks,
--Brian

The closest I have seen today is the 762mm receivers.

There has been some great debates as to the correctness of current or past civilian receivers being manufactured to USGI prints. The general consensus in my opinion; there has never been nor are there any that have been made to USGI prints. The fact the M14 was full auto and the M1A is semi required dimension changes, on the op rod ledge, it got wider, the rear of receiver got thicker, dismount notch got moved and so on. This caused the design prints to be modified, which means the manufacturer, depending on who that was, changed the dimensions to meet their needs both for the semi conversion as well as their machining requirements. No current manufacturer has the capability to replicate the machining done on the originals.
Jim

Not completely accurate in all regards. The op rod ledge on early 762mm receivers is the same as a G.I. Not so on a Fulton, LRB, or SAI. The rear of their receiver is also the same as a G.I. The only thing changed that I can find is the missing rear lug for full auto capabilty, and the op rod take down notch, and relieved mounting slot for the connector arm assembly in the front of the receiver bottom. As for current manufacturer's capabilty of replicating the machining on G.I., IMHO, I see 762mm at the forefront today.

I know this is hard to swallow, but none of the companies are making a true mil spec receiver. LRB probably comes the closest. It's not legally possible to produce a true mil spec M14 receiver for obvious reasons. The important thing is that all of the miltary components fit and function properly on the receiver. LRB, Springfield, and Fulton appear to fall into this catagory while the others seem to be questionable. Early receivers like Armscorp were inconsistant while SEI were very good.

I am aware of your splendid reputation in the field of M14 rifles and do not wish to detract from any of your statements. But, except for the items listed above that I wrote about in this post, I can find nothing on a 762mm receiver that is not mil-spec. The examples I have built from LRB are not the closest to G.I. Not even close IMHO. Their receiver bridge's were very thin and mislocated. The receiver locking lugs were well out of spec. to the drawings. When used with a G.I. bolt, the removal of material to gain proper headspace was at maximum for safety concerns. I am very impressed with the receivers offered by Fulton Armory today. Getting a little off subject because they are not G.I. spec like the OP asked. They are the easiest to build that I have seen lately. All G.I. parts seemed to be a drop in fit with minimal fitting or effort. Finish is nice and range reports are favorable from all recent builds. Springfield is failing in several areas that I find. Receiver bridge, locking lugs, barrel rings, firing pin cam machining, and scope mounting capabilities. I have had several returns to the factory for these items. After their many years of manufacturing these receivers, I find this questionable.

 

[Jersey Devil]

The "cold" hammer forged barrel is done on a rotohammer, it swages the barrel around a mandrel which produces a finished barrel. It is quite accurate.
The "hot" forged receiver is done on a drop forge with a very large weight and several molds, the hot ingot is placed inside a mold, the weight or hammer is dropped, the weight smacks the blank and shapes it to the mold. During the War military manufacturers had a number like 7 drops to complete the forging. Hot forged does not make a complete finished part, it makes it into an outside correct shape with the inside still full of metal, the machining process removes all of the inside metal, they do a finish machine on the outside with flange removal. The barrel process is completely different than the receiver.
There has been some great debates as to the correctness of current or past civilian receivers being manufactured to USGI prints. The general consensus in my opinion; there has never been nor are there any that have been made to USGI prints. The fact the M14 was full auto and the M1A is semi required dimension changes, on the op rod ledge, it got wider, the rear of receiver got thicker, dismount notch got moved and so on. This caused the design prints to be modified, which means the manufacturer, depending on who that was, changed the dimensions to meet their needs both for the semi conversion as well as their machining requirements. No current manufacturer has the capability to replicate the machining done on the originals.
Having said all this, it really depends on what you want, some want name recognition, others feel strongly about buying "American only", others believe cast is as good as forged or vice versa. You have to decide what is important to you. All receivers made by every manufacturer has good ones, everyone also has suspect ones. Everyone here will have good cause to explain why they have what they have.
Buy one , build one, I guarantee one will not be enough.

Jim

I know this is hard to swallow, but none of the companies are making a true mil spec receiver. LRB probably comes the closest. It's not legally possible to produce a true mil spec M14 receiver for obvious reasons. The important thing is that all of the miltary components fit and function properly on the receiver. LRB, Springfield, and Fulton appear to fall into this catagory while the others seem to be questionable. Early receivers like Armscorp were inconsistant while SEI were very good.

Cold hammer forging is used on things like barrels to produce an almost finished product. This isn't possible with the complex nature of the M14 receiver. Hot hammer forging is a tried and true method of forging the rough shape, eliminating some machining steps and imposeing added strength in critical areas.

Thank you to both of you for such informative replies to my questions. It is hard to swallow, but I do understand why a true M-14 mil-spec receiver is not possible for civilians. Even though I am an LEO, I am inquiring on a civilian basis for these sorts of things since I am unlikely to get a real M-14 as a patrol rifle any time soon.

I have been doing a lot of thinking and on one hand it seems almost silly to spend so much money on a 100% USGI parts kit only to not be able to have a USGI receiver. I mean seriously, have you seen the price of that TRW trigger group on GB!!!??? It's over $400 with 4 days to go! I bid on it when it was at $125 and I figured I'd go as high as $200, but $400+++!!! Really???

So, that all said, are there any benefits to laying out the money for a complete USGI parts kit?

Thanks,
--Brian

 

[jake2far]

So, that all said, are there any benefits to laying out the money for a complete USGI parts kit?

Thanks,
--Brian

In one word, Yes.
Try here: http://treelinem14.com/M14-Parts-Kits_c31.htm
If you have the time find an older SAI, Armscorp,Fed Ord, Fulton, or any of the other manufacturers who built on M14 parts kits, they can be a bargain.
For the money you could spend on a LRB, 7.62MM, or any of the others it is possible to find an already assembled one with USGI parts. it can be fun, kinda like a treasure hunt. If not than pony up the money to any of todays builders and scratch that itch.

Jim

 

[82nd ABN]

Here we go again!

 

[bigblock]

7.62 receivers would be better if it did have a wider op rod support and thicker heal. We can only build simi auto rifles. These things make them stronger and perform better in simi auto. The US government failed by tring to make full auto 7.62MM rifles in this light weight configuration of the M14. The M14 is useless in full auto. LRB makes the best receiver at this time for a simi auto M14 clone.

I still to this day don't know why H&R, TRW, or Winchester did not just make a simi auto version when they had the tools and people in there factory to build them for the civilian market. H&R and Winchester could have made M1 Garands also for civilian sales too.

 

[Mainzer]

To answer your question, there are indeed others, but LRB is on the top of the A list. Fulton is cast . More questions about SEI than answers. 7.62 seems to be hit and miss as far as quality and dimension goes. 7.62 and LRB are hammer forged per mil-spec. The others are not. Good luck finding your receiver. I have chosen LRB for my last 7 M14 type rifles.
Semper Fi
Art

I'm somewhat new to most of this...just roaming around, taking it all in. But if a cast receiver is dimensionally correct and properly heat treated is it really inferior to a forged receiver. I've seen very few, if any, complaints about problem cast receivers unless it was improperly machined.

I have one of each; a Poly, forged receiver, redone and rebarreled by SEI and a Springfield cast receiver. So far (knocking on wood), I can tell no difference.

Thanks,
Bob

 

[nf1e]

Mainzer, Cast can be just fine at times. The OP was looking for something close to Mil-spec. That in itself would eliminate cast. There has been so much controversy over this debate , I don't think we need to open that can of worms again. There have been a few threads recently where improperly handloaded ammo caused failures in a couple of cast receivers. That is enough for me to keep away from anything cast for the future. I have built a number of rifles on LRB receivers in the last few years, and they have all gone together perfectly with USGI parts.

 

[Gus Fisher]

I still to this day don't know why H&R, TRW, or Winchester did not just make a simi auto version when they had the tools and people in there factory to build them for the civilian market. H&R and Winchester could have made M1 Garands also for civilian sales too.

I'm sure the answer is as easy as there wasn't nearly enough call for the rifles AND they would have cost a lot more than most anyone could afford.

 

[Jersey Devil]

Guys,
Thank you all for your input. I can tell that perhaps this thread pissed some of you off and knocked me down a couple notches on the coolness scale.........I can read through the lines....."Here we go, another newbie coming along asking questions that have been asked a million times." I did use the search function, and yes there are a lot of threads like this, but this stuff changes like the wind so I think it's a topic worthy of keeping fresh.
Anyway, I took some of your advice and picked up a copy of "The Last Steel Warrior." I am going to read it from cover to cover. When I am done, I will be back, more educated hopefully.
Thanks.
--Brian

 

[Ted Brown]

I am sure that "Devil" truely believes what he has stated about his experiences with various M14 receivers on the market. All I can say is my comments reflect many years of building M14 rifles on most every company's receivers. That and working on real GI M14s in the service. I have not had many problems building rifles on LRB, SAI, new Fulton, or early Smith receivers, but I have had many on all others. I really hate sending receivers back to the manufacturers due to factory defects so I try to stick with products that I trust. It's saved me a lot of pain...

 

[bd111]

LRB's are forged and some of the 7.62's may be closest to U.S. Rifle M14 spec. That said, a Valley Ordnance (Melvin Smith) era SAI M1A cast receiver will accept your GI parts and PROBABLY your GI chrome-lined barrel without a hiccup, if you can find one.

 

[jbrooks]

...That said, a Valley Ordnance (Melvin Smith) era SAI M1A cast receiver will accept your GI parts and PROBABLY your GI chrome-lined barrel without a hiccup, if you can find one.

Yup, my VO receiver accepted a NOS USGI chrome lined barrel and headspaced right at 1.635" with absolutely no effort.

JWB