The FAL Files  

Go Back   The FAL Files > Weapon Specific Forums > The M1 / M14 Files

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 23, 2019, 19:59   #1
Impala_Guy
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 55819
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gamecock Country
Posts: 3,570
Opinions on this Armscorp NM rifle

Looks like a 1989 receiver, marked M21 and built into a NM rifle with glass bedded stock (full pilar), NM sight base, knob, and aperture, and Krieger match barrel (not stainless) and the balance of parts GI (TRW bolt and HRA op rod and trigger group). I dont think it is a lugged receiver but I will ask. Appears to have been built by someone who knew what they were doing. Any reason not to trust these earler Armscorp receivers?







__________________
Don't spread our wealth around, spread our work ethic.........
Impala_Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 23, 2019, 20:46   #2
jimmieZ
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 319
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Central Florida USA
Posts: 907
Those early Armscorp receivers are good to go. If I remember correctly those are forged receivers. I've always liked the finish on their early receivers.
jimmieZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 23, 2019, 21:11   #3
Impala_Guy
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 55819
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gamecock Country
Posts: 3,570
Im pretty sure they are all cast and sometimes get confused with a joint project they were working on with Smith Enterprise for a billet receiver that fell through the cracks. I had heard that some very early Armscorp Silver Spring MD receivers were problematic but in general their heat treat was on par with SA cast receivers. Just wondering if this one was early enough to be concerned about. For the record this one is marked Baltimore not Silver Spring.
__________________
Don't spread our wealth around, spread our work ethic.........
Impala_Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 23, 2019, 22:49   #4
garandguy10
Registered
 
garandguy10's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 10840
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: some where
Posts: 3,910
The rifle looks to have a few rounds through it, so hopefully it works. That appears to be a earlier Armscorp receiver, so it should be good to go.

AFAIK all Armscorp M14 receivers were cast with the possible exception of a few receivers made for them by Smith Enterprises Inc.

You should inspect the receiver, bolt, op rod and trigger assm. closely for cracks, confirm bolt/receiver lug contact pattern, inspect bore and measure throat erosion and muzzle wear, check op rod spring length and condition in any M1 Carbine, M1 Garand or M14 rifle type rifle before it is shot.

Other than that, your rifle looks great, hopefully it shoots great too!
garandguy10 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 23, 2019, 23:56   #5
TerryN
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 55
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Yuma, AZ
Posts: 1,869
Question for the OP: how do you 'full-pillar' bed an M14-type rifle that does not have a lugged receiver? Answer: you can't. So, please do explain.
__________________
This ain't New Zealand. Just saying.
TerryN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24, 2019, 00:58   #6
MACV
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 1167
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: St Louis County
Posts: 3,270
Check the headspace with a no go gage. If its good to go and the price is right buy it.
__________________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." The Duke
MACV is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 24, 2019, 08:34   #7
Impala_Guy
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 55819
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gamecock Country
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryN View Post
Question for the OP: how do you 'full-pillar' bed an M14-type rifle that does not have a lugged receiver? Answer: you can't. So, please do explain.
Maybe I don't know the correct use of terminology, but the mag well metal was removed, the stock cleared out and fiberglass bedded from the top of the action all the way to the trigger assembly. This was also done at the heel of the receiver, though obviously not in the photo.

__________________
Don't spread our wealth around, spread our work ethic.........
Impala_Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 24, 2019, 20:34   #8
hardheaded
Senior Member
Gold Contributor
 
hardheaded's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 27964
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 976
I have the almost identical rifle with the same match conditioning , also marked Baltimore MD
sitting in a big red walnut stock
Whoever spun my rifle together did a great job
My first M14 , reliable rifle and pretty accurate with the ammo it "likes"
I replaced the OP rod due to the tab wearing and that's it
I would stuff a erosion gauge in the barrel and check headspace before purchase
__________________
Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.
Thomas Jefferson
hardheaded is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 25, 2019, 13:19   #9
V guy
Dinosaur
Silver Contributor
 
V guy's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 10282
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: miami
Posts: 17,347
I had an early one, and it was fine.

My friend got one and it would not shoot low enough, even with a front sight blade about twice as high as normal.

It turned out that the receiver's rear sight base was incorrectly machined, as were a number of them.

We tried changing barrels, gas cylinders, etc, but no soap.

Beware.
V guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 28, 2019, 17:39   #10
Jarhead504
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65022
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans Area,LA
Posts: 3,736
Brother Impala Guy: I have # 4696 and it is a decent M-14 clone, AFTER much hand-fitting, but that goes without saying when you are building and M-14 clone. Your number is past the "non-helix" issue that plagued the early Armscorp receivers. The sight base on my rifle was not machined properly. The legs were not parallel. These problems were corrected. I am tempted to have the TRW parts kit of which is made put on a Bula or LRB one but the rifle works now, shoots well, is safe and reliable and given the amount of rounds it takes to wear it out, even as a cast one, may not be worth the struggle to get it re-assembled.

Keep shooting yours.

Jarhead
Jarhead504 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29, 2019, 09:49   #11
ArtBanks
Veteran Member
Platinum Contributor
 
ArtBanks's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 28761
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New Preston, CT
Posts: 1,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impala_Guy View Post
Maybe I don't know the correct use of terminology, but the mag well metal was removed, the stock cleared out and fiberglass bedded from the top of the action all the way to the trigger assembly. This was also done at the heel of the receiver, though obviously not in the photo.

Simply a bedded action. No pillar involved. But it sounds cool anyway.
__________________
Semper Fi
Art
Sgt. USMC 66-72
RVN 67-68
ArtBanks is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 30, 2019, 02:11   #12
jenrick
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 31968
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 12
Pillar bedding uses metal pillars attached to the bottom of the action, and usually run through the stock. The pillars being incompressible ensure a consistent torque, as well as consistent positioning of the action in the stock.
Example can be seen here: https://www.stockysstocks.com/media/..._views_300.jpg
jenrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30, 2019, 20:51   #13
Impala_Guy
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 55819
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gamecock Country
Posts: 3,570
Thanks. I always thought it just meant the fiberglass went completely through the stock rather than just pad bedded like the military NM rifles were.
__________________
Don't spread our wealth around, spread our work ethic.........
Impala_Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 31, 2019, 10:20   #14
hagar
Registered
 
hagar's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 228
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 9,931
That yours? Nice wood on it.

Maybe we need an M1A shoot sometime, have not shot mine in ages.
hagar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31, 2019, 16:33   #15
Impala_Guy
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 55819
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gamecock Country
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by hagar View Post
That yours? Nice wood on it.

Maybe we need an M1A shoot sometime, have not shot mine in ages.
It will be soon. Need a base rifle for a scoped M14 clone. That leaves me one shooter in standard milspec config, and one safe queen. Just like I like it

I'm thinking an all iron sights day. Bolt gun, Garand or M14, and FAL. Best score standing and kneeling.

BTW I'm thinking of selling my SCAR 20s and just putting the Nightforce on my other 17
__________________
Don't spread our wealth around, spread our work ethic.........
Impala_Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 31, 2019, 16:47   #16
hagar
Registered
 
hagar's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 228
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 9,931
Sounds like a good idea!

I have a Bassett M14 mount and sniper cheekrest I may sell if you have an interest.
hagar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31, 2019, 18:58   #17
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 40,430
Most ARMSCORP M14 receivers are plenty good.

There were some that were released that were shit.

Especially toward the later end of Armscorp's run with that product.

My fresh-out-of-the-Navy nephew got one in the 90's that had some sort of Navy-swag marking on it. The elevation ears were cockeyed so that you only had any kind of click-engagement for about one-fourth of the rotation. The cocksucker who owned the company refused to make good on it.
__________________
.
.
.

Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31, 2019, 21:20   #18
fussbudget
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 81806
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 67
Beautiful stock and rifle
fussbudget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15, 2019, 19:21   #19
Impala_Guy
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 55819
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gamecock Country
Posts: 3,570
Got it sighted in today. Unfortunately I can only grace it with a lower end Vortex right now. I do like the SA 3rd gen mount, and it's one of the ones that only has crossed canons, not a whole billboard of shit stamped on the side. I havent detached it yet but the way the second mounting point pulls the mount over makes me think windage will be slightly off if I ever do (the stop bushing underneath may keep tension consistent).

It's a lovely rifle built as a NM and would be a shame to put a more fixed mount like the ARMs on it. Hagar and I really didnt get a chance to put it through its paces, we were still belching our way through a ribeye and potato / 2 beer lunch I whipped up on the old camping stove.

__________________
Don't spread our wealth around, spread our work ethic.........
Impala_Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2018 The FAL Files