M14 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,482 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Once in a while I am privileged to tidbits of industry insider information. This doesn’t happen often and usually it is accompanied by a disclaimer or a request for confidentiality which I always honor. This is one of the happy exceptions.

Last week I received a call from my friend Lou Biancospino, the owner of LRB Arms in Floral Park, New York. He told me LRB has survived the hurricane and flooding that plagued much of New York. That in itself was good news indeed. He also told me that he was in receipt of a report from the H.P. White Laboratory, Inc. regarding recent destructive testing of one of LRB’s M14 rifles.

The H.P. White Laboratory is one of the most respected labs in the country who specialize in product testing. Lou thought the results were significant, but he is always reluctant to toot his own horn so to speak, He did however say it would be OK if I let the news out. He would postpone flogging until later…

So, I found a copy of the lab report in my mail box on December 14th. It was published on December 5, 2012. LRB Arms M14SA rifle serial number 034XX was submitted on November 21, 2012 with a request for destructive testing. Testing was conducted in accordance with provisions of HPW-TP-0101.00, EXCESSIVE PRESSURE TEST. Special cartridges were intentionally overloaded in steps starting slightly below SAAMI Service and increasing. Pressure was measured in pounds per square inch (PSI).

Round Pressure (PSI) Damage

1 49,220 None
2 63,220 None, Approx. maximum average
3 80,420 None, Approx. proof pressure
4 104,020 None
5 108,020 None
6 110,020 None
7 119,020 Action had to be opened with a mallet due to damage to bolt face and extractor failure

The destructive pressure tests are not pass-fail, and the information is presented for engineering analysis only.

It was noted that there was no damage to the receiver or barrel and that head space after the test remained the same as before testing. I don’t know how many other companies have run these tests on their rifles, but LRB has certainly established a new goal for the competition.

Receiver integrity was such that it was felt that the cartridge cases could have been completely filled with the testing powder creating much higher pressures without damage to the receiver. The failure of the extractor caused the test to end because a replacement was not available.

I am impressed and I think this should end any doubts about the integrity of hammer forged receivers.

I recently inspected a M1 Garand receiver that suffered a catastrophic failure due to a squib load that left a bullet stuck in the barrel. The subsequent shot caused the case to rupture, which blew apart the stock, broke the bolt (the lugs did not fail), blew off the magazine floor plate and damaged several other parts. The receiver cracked on the bottom of the barrel ring and at the bridge. The barrel had no obvious damage, but the re are two bullets stuck in the bore about four inches behind the muzzle and the cartridge case nearly melted into the chamber walls. A portion of the cartridge case base was firmly attached to the bolt face. The receiver is a 5.4 million range serial number. Food for thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,465 Posts
Thanks, Ted. Congratulations to LRB Arms! Also, John Garand casts a long shadow. GI5
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,570 Posts
Very impressive! Lou is rightly justified in taking pride in the results of this test.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,393 Posts
another company that did similar testing is dsarms on their billet fal recievers.
http://www.dsarms.com/pressure_test.asp
not many companies are willing to do this and i applaud both dsa and lrb for doing these tests. I own both dsa and lrb rifles and I would bet my life on them if need be. I wonder how a sai m1a or century fal would hold up to these tests
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,519 Posts
Interesting info Ted. Certainly nice to have some real data although the examination criteria are purely qualitative. Where's the comparative data????? Like a cast receiver failed at 90K PSI for example....b/c it most likely won't. You may need repetitive stresses to fatigue the receiver to failure.

Also you have an N+0. One receiver is not enough data to make any conclusions on integrity, strength, etc. Definitely no way to state anything is superior to....what??? You have no comparator experiencing the same over-pressure loads under exact laboratory conditions.

This is somewhat misleading and no way scientific nor quantitative.

While I am sure LRB makes a superb product, this proves little to nothing other than it can take 119k PSI.

I'm sure the squib round pressure was much greater in magnitude. Perhaps approaching 200K PSI+. Seems if they wanted to take the LRB to failure they should've maxed it out until it broke. Seems they stopped short of receiver failure or even catastrophic parts failure.

Not trying to say LRB doesn't make a fine product, arguably the best commercial M14 receiver available, just the test to a scientist like myself leaves a lot desired.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,482 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
LRB has each batch of new receivers tested for core and case hardness to insure they are in spec and the receiver that underwent the destructive test is typical of LRB's attention to details and their integrity.

I can't give any comparitive data becasue there simply isn't any available. LRB wasn't trying to show their receiver was stronger than anyone elses, they just wanted to verify that their receiver was as strong as required by military standards.

I'd love to see similar test results from any company making any other cast or bar stock receiver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,519 Posts
Well publication of this type of material puts pressure on them to do so.

Only other issue I find likely is.....if they found data that was weaker than LRBs they would keep the info from public release. A company is only going to release data that improves sales potential. They are not going to publish negative results.

Lou should send an SAI, Fulton, and SEI receiver to the same company as a comparator.

My gut feeling is they would all pass this level of pressure testing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,789 Posts
Just a cautionary note, but seeing those PSi numbers is not to be considered a "green light" to overload the rifle. Based on similar previous experience w/ mfg.'s, not publishiing proof test results is to prevent/discourage someone thinking they have a huge safety margin and go off the deep end in loads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,465 Posts
There's some discussion of improperly loaded ammunition destroying a Texas era M1A receiver in one of the Tom Buss OGCA newsletters around 1972. Tom Buss discussed the incident with Elmer Ballance at the time. Mr. Ballance felt that the chamber pressure likely exceeded 100,000 PSI in that particular incident. FWIW

From M14 Rifle History and Development Fifth Edition regarding pre-2000 Smith Enterprise, Inc. M-14 receivers:

"At least forty receivers under serial number 00100 were machined from billet but Smith Enterprise, Inc. made its first receivers by the precision investment casting method. The raw castings left a large amount of metal that had to be machined away to obtain the final form. All Smith Enterprise investment cast receivers have been made with virgin bar stock AISI 8620 alloy steel certified by the supplier and verified by Smith Enterprise. The cast receivers were stress relieved before machining. The Smith Enterprise “forged” billet machined receivers were made from fine grade Hart AISI 8620 alloy steel certified by the supplier and verified by Smith Enterprise. Manufacturing of receivers starting with billet allowed even more control over the receiver form. Billet was plasma cut into the starting shape.

All heat treatment of all Smith Enterprise receivers has been certified by the vendor and verified by Smith Enterprise. After heat treatment, the receivers were cryogenically treated. All of its receivers were examined by magnetic particle inspection and some were X-rayed. All receiver barrel ring threads were inspected using a USGI thread timing gauge. Post-heat treat receiver surface and core hardness was examined by spectrum analysis using test mounts (receiver specimens) every 100 rounds fired for a time then every 200 rounds for awhile and then randomly after that. The specimens for the test mounts were cut at various points on the receivers. These test mounts show the case depth of Smith Enterprise receivers is 0.012 " to 0.015 " and the core hardness to range from 35 to 40 HRC in accordance with the USGI M14 receiver drawing F7790189. Smith Enterprise also required spectrum analysis of the receiver when its heat treat vendor changed personnel. Such testing and resultant analysis led to a standard operating procedure for heat treatment. All of this inspection and non-destructive examination was part of the Smith Enterprise, Inc. quality control program.

Note that the reader MUST NOT perform the testing described herein. Personal injury or death may result. Ron Smith personally test fired the very first receiver without it having been heat treated. He shot it for twenty rounds to prove the integrity of the material. The headspace had set back 0.010 " by the twentieth round. Smith Enterprise had Thunderbird Cartridge Company (Laveen, AZ) make up two hand load lots of proof test ammunition for them. One batch of proof test rounds was loaded to 65,000 psi and the other was loaded to 76,000 psi. Thunderbird Cartridge used nickel plated Federal cases and M118 bullets. The bottoms of the 76,000 psi cases were colored purple for identification. Next, a second receiver with no heat treatment was shot twice with 65,000 psi proof test rounds. The headspace had set back 0.010 ". After this, ten receivers were selected out of the first lot of 100 finished receivers. Each of these ten receivers was fired with one round of 65,000 psi proof test ammunition.

Then one finished receiver was selected for destructive testing. Scott Medesha was a witness to this destructive testing. First, ten rounds of 65,000 psi proof test ammunition were fired. Next, 76,000 psi proof test rounds were fired. After four rounds of 76,000 psi proof test ammunition, there were some signs of problems but the receiver had not failed. The cases were seizing in the chamber. Therefore, Scott Medesha went home and loaded up one round of ammunition. Ron Smith states this cartridge was loaded with a large charge of Hercules (now Alliant Techsystems) Unique pistol powder and a 175 grain bullet. Taking suitable precautions, the destruction cartridge was loaded into the rifle chamber and fired. Scott Medesha achieved the desired result. The receiver failed with a dull, muffled boom. The cartridge case vaporized, the barrel blew out about two feet in front of the stock, and the bottom forward one inch of the bolt blew apart, the magazine blew out of the action and all magazine spot welds gave out. The back of the receiver gently rolled off to one side. The receiver on both sides behind the locking lugs cracked. However, the locking lugs on the receiver and the bolt held! The M14 enthusiast should not turn his nose up at a well-made investment cast receiver."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,510 Posts
Is anyone here familiar with the reason the last batch of receivers from LRB is having to be reworked ? It's a 4 week delay because they were not right and needed some work done to be up to spec I was told on the phone. I'm wondering what the problem was. I feel OK asking because I have bought their products before and am waiting on one of these delayed receivers as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
Is anyone here familiar with the reason the last batch of receivers from LRB is having to be reworked ? It's a 4 week delay because they were not right and needed some work done to be up to spec I was told on the phone. I'm wondering what the problem was. I feel OK asking because I have bought their products before and am waiting on one of these delayed receivers as well.
I've not heard of it. However it is good to hear that they'd catch stuff before it hits the streets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
Ted: Thanks for sharing these results with the readership of this form. I, for one, find them interesting. The comment:

Testing was conducted in accordance with provisions of HPW-TP-0101.00, EXCESSIVE PRESSURE TEST.​

Says it all. Results provided.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Excessive Pressure Test

Actually, successful completion of that protocol requires two samples.

Section 4.0 Test Sample

http://www.hpwhite.com/uploads/file/101-00.pdf
p
We were only given data from one.
Two guns tested using a different method, but Ted quite correctly notated in his fourth paragraph the specific testing method under the provisions set forth; as did DavidinMD above. The assertion was not made in either post without the qualifier.

Your disposition is quite contrary and regularly so.

I read your post on intelligence a few days back. I rarely ponder my intellectual capacity. My ego used to prod me back in my younger days, but that's long since past.

My father had a copy of a poem in several conspicuous locations around our house growing up. It bothered me when I read it, because I was quite competitive, quick tempered and didn't really think my parents had much to teach me. Sometime in your leisure, you should take a look at the poem "Desiderata"

You also touched on the subject of validity, sample sizes and the like. It should be noted you made a broad conclusion regarding a certain product based on a very small sample not too long ago. Your posts were beefs, and since you assert positive information is primarily posted to increase sales, I could argue negative information is presented to hinder the same.

What's more, you follow-on by "ass uming" the pressure of a squib and the potential testing conclusions from other types of receivers with no basis for your assumption.

"My friend" you're full of contradictions and I often wonder about the various personalities floating around in that super computer of yours.

I'm not picking a fight....just pointing out the obvious; something as a casual observer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,704 Posts
"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by jywolfe; Today at 06:55 PM. Reason: Transient ischemic attack
"
Got a chuckle out of that one... is that like a brain f**t? DI2

Nonetheless, hammonje did make a valid reference to the protocol, and I for one appreciate the documentation.

Not picking sides or a fight, but all this is good info. Glad I have my forged Polytech... GI1

JWB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
I personally would be much more inclined to believe in the quality of the LRB product if they could offer more then just a one year warranty for their product. A pressure test on just one receiver really doesn't mean a whole lot, in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
I personally would be much more inclined to believe in the quality of the LRB product if they could offer more then just a one year warranty for their product. A pressure test on just one receiver really doesn't mean a whole lot, in my opinion.
Can you cite a single occurrence of lack of warranty causing LRB to not take care of a manufacturing flaw or defect? Folks love to bring up the 1 year warranty, but cannot show that a longer one was ever needed.
edit: You've brought up the 1-year warranty on several threads over a period of time. Sufficient time to cite some examples of customer service lacking.

How long was 7.62MM's warranty?
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top