Smith Enterprise or Springfield Armory?

parabellum

New member
I'm thinking about buying an M1A/M14 receiver upon which I'll eventually build a rifle. Can anyone offer opinions or observations on which would be the higher quality platform? Are both receivers cast? I've looked around, but I can't find much info on manufacturing techniques for these two choices. Price isn't really a consideration, as both receivers I've seen are priced around $450 to $600. I'd rather spend the extra money to get the best. Any help is appreciated.
 
Hi Gary. Good to see you. Are you saying the Springfield receivers aren't milspec in that area? What are the consequences of this, and how would it affect a build like I'm talking about? Also, what about the method of manufacture for each? Cast, forged, or is this something that you think should even factor into my choice? Thanks.
 
Smith did make some forged M14 semi-auto receivers early on, but transitioned to investment cast. Now he's not making any at all, and from his website, hasn't made up his mind whether he will ever again. Springfield Incorporated M1A receivers are also cast, as are Armscorp M14NM/M21 receivers. In a twist of irony, the Chinese Polytech/Norinco receivers are forged! But their bolts are too soft to maintain headspace safely, go figure. Entreprise Arms supposedly builds a forged M14 receiver, but I haven't heard from anybody yet on how they hold up and dimension out compared to the USGI article. Since they're all semi-auto clones of the original USGI M14, it's a safe bet to say that none of the clones are indeeed "milspec", considering they're missing receiver mass for such goodies as select fire attachments, etc. If you mean Rockwell hardness or scope mount dimensions, I've been tickled pink with my Armscorp M14NM/H&R mutt, much more so than the Springfield Inc. M1A that I had to pass on because of a BAD receiver. Here's a pic:
http://www.geocities.com/gew98.geo/m14nm.jpg
 
While the web/bridge serves to reinforce the receiver, it also disengages the tail of the firing pin when the action is unlocked. If it's rough casted, it causes the tail to wear, and this could lead to premature breakage of the tail.

Gewher98 is correct in that early Smith receivers were milled, and later ones casted, just like the current Springfields and Armscorp receivers. So, there isn't any choice with regards to production technique in selecting a new receiver. I haven't seen the Armscorp receiver yet.
 
parabellum - I undertook this same research a year ago, with the same less than numerous options you've discovered.

The Springfield Armory receivers seem to offer the best combination of quality and availability. Fulton Armory recommends them for M-14 type rifles that they build. I have heard both good and bad things about Armscorp.

If you want a forged receiver, by all means investigate the Polytech option. You can read more at: http://www.fulton-armory.com/M14SReview.html

Good luck!

Cliff
 
From the m1-m14 e-groups forum (see fourth paragraph):

From: David L. Peterson <dpeterson@r...>
Date: Tue Aug 15, 2000 9:52pm
Subject: RE: Polytech tests


Late this afternoon I decided to call Smith Ent. and see what they had to
say. I didn't catch the name of the person I spoke to, except that the
references he made indicated he was an owner/principal of the firm. It was
interesting conversation on a number of points, some of which I thought may
be of general interest.

First, they recommend hardening for any receiver less than 50 on the
hardness test. When I asked what would be the result of not doing this,
specifically about a dangerous failure, he said it was a matter of wear on
contact points. He specifically mentioned the effect of a close to 56
hardness sight adjustment on a 50 or below receiver serrations. Their
process brings it up to about 60. He said the process was $100, though
their web site says $150. About another issue, he said they don't update
their web site often.

Secondly he did speak rather disparagingly of other vendors popular on this
list in regards to their viewpoints and expertise on the subject. While
this made a negative impression on me, that doesn't rule him out as being
knowledgeable, so I continued to listen with an open mind.

Third, straight from the horses' mouth, they are currently manufacturing
receivers, and have been all along. They make only five or six at a time,
and they are spoken for the moment they're done. Price $600. Next year
they will start making them 100 at a time, and he said the price would be
$1200! I didn't get into why they would be costing so much more, as they're
out of my league.

Lastly, if you keep the Chinese barrel, it will not cause complications
later if you replace it with a domestic offering.

Turnaround is 3-4 weeks. I think he told me some other things, but it
escapes me now.


The above was "posted" in reply to:

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Simpson [mailto:bullet@s...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 7:08 PM
To: M1M14
Subject: Re: [m1-m14] Polytech tests


The Chinese approach to hardening their receivers is somewhat different
from US practice, largely owing to the Chinese selecting a different steel.
The steel specified for USGI receivers is 8620, the Chinese selected what
would be a a 5000 series steel in US terms. Both are excellent steels for
this application but have different properties when it comes to heat
treatment. The Chinese receiver has a lower surface hardness but still
excelent core hardness. The Chinese reciever is "tough" and will not stretch
but if you apply a conventional hardness tester to both receivers, the
Chinese receiver will show up as being out of spec ie, "soft". You might
think that this condition might lead to accelerated wear where moving parts
come into contact but neither I nor anybody else (Clint included) have noted
this in the field, so it would seem to be a non -issue.

The Smith Enterprises solution would seem to me to be an inappropriate
fix to a nonexistant problem. Each alloy of steel has its own particular set
of recipies in order to arrive at the various desired mechanical properties
for different applications. To go back after the fact (particulary without
the provenace and tech support of the steels manufacturer) and tweak the
mechanical properties of as intricate a finished part and with the wide
assortment of sectional thicknesses as an M14 receiver strikes me as more
likely to do harm than good. I have never heard of a Smith Enterprises
reheat treated reciever being harmed by the process, but I remain leary of
the procedure.

In the meantime, I own one each, a SA Inc. receiver, a Armscorp receiver
and a Polytec reciever. Guess which one I built my "bet 'yer ass" battle
rifle on? Yup. The Chinese one. :) At about 1000 rounds, the headspace has
yet to move so much as .0005".

-Tom




[This message has been edited by mbott (edited August 16, 2000).]
 
Thanks for all the responses. Lots of great info to assimilate. I guess I'll just have to call Smith and Fulton Armory tomorrow and hear what they have to say firsthand, since there are conflicting opinions. I'm glad to hear Smith is in fact manufacturing receivers, and I did see one for sale for $600.

Two more questions:

Who would you have to build your rifle?

Were there different contractors for the 20 round G.I. magazines, and if so, which would you buy and which would you avoid?

Thanks again. :)
 
Since Fulton is backlogged, I'd ask Smith to do it (as if they're not backlogged either). Let one builder handle everything.
 
As for 20 round USGI magazines, yes... there were different contractors. As far as I know, any of them in good condition will work fine.

Make sure they're USGI and not Chinese import.

Two good sources for USGI mags -
http://www.cole-distributing.com/specials.html

and
http://www.cdnninvestments.com/m14m1a.html

I bought a couple from the latter - new, but not factory sealed. They still look brand new - mfr'd by Borg Warner.

You can't go wrong with Cole Distributing either. My 520 round 'spam can' of Lake City .30-06 from them arrived today and I am a happy camper! :D

Cliff
 
Back
Top