I think my head is going to explode............(updated, sort of, post 32)

I've been fighting with my Norinco M14 for the last year and a half.

My first issue was with a Troy Battlerail that when installed caused the rifle to short stroke and fail to feed. I never managed to resolve that problem. The rifle is now wearing a Vltor stock and Vltor M14 rail. It runs now, but the accuracy is, to say the least, terrible. I'm getting 6-8 inch "groups" at 100m regardless of the ammo used. I've read lots of posts all over the web and I don't even know where to start.

Lots of the info mentions checking for fit in various areas, like stock to stock ferrule, etc, but I can't find any that mention how the parts actually should fit. Clearly, I don't have the background knowledge that I need to understand what I'm reading.

The gas cylinder is shimmed properly. It gets snug at about 4 o'clock and tight at 6. The rail is tight and straight. The scope and rings are tight.

I'm not looking for match accuracy. Service level groups would be just fine by me. If anyone can point me in the direction of useful information or help out here, I would be very appreciative. My brain is getting quite bruised from all the banging into the brick wall.

Thanks,
Steve

The offending rifle:

Norinco M14S shortened to 18.5", Vltor stock and rail, Bushnell 6500 1.25-8x in Leupold rings, match op-rod spring guide and USGI spring.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...beeb244e-1.jpg

I have absolutely no experience with the ''modernized'' versions but these may be a few areas to check. The barrel was cut down to 18.5'', right? Was it threaded straight afterward? Bullets brushing the thingy on the end of the barrel maybe.
Does the rail touch the stock anywhere? It shouldn't AFAIK.
It's my understanding that the ferrule is supposed to put slight up pressure on the stock tip when the TG is locked up. BTW, how does the TG lock up? Some force required to close it or does it close easy?

For unknown reasons, the last M1A on which I installed an 18" barrel refused to shoot as well. Horrible accuracy. But both of the random 22" barrels have been OK both before and after the 18" bbl install. On the other hand, a SAGE stock equipped 18" standard SAInc. rifle has been very, very accurate.

As far as front band fit, it needs to make no contact on it's rear face with the front of the stock. It also needs to have ~3-5 lbs tension between the lip and the bottom of the stock and be well centered. The handguard should not touch the stock. The triggerguard should take some force to close. There's lots more, but those are good starting points.

Have you investigated the Blackfeather stock, yet? Seems like a good system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevo

The rifle is now wearing a Vltor stock and Vltor M14 rail.

---

That is, I think, part of the problem. A rifle should not "wear" anything. It is not a tailor's dummy. And the "clothes" affect the barrel dynamics.

Now for Grandpa's fundamentalist point of view:

Get rid of the plastic flimflam, ground-tracking radar, satellite telephone, automated teamaking facilities and whatever else is hanging on that long-suffering barrel and turn it back into the original GI configuration as far as you can.

Then try it out with ammo that is also as close to GI ammo as you can get or reload.
You may be positively surprised.

Some of these fully tricked-out modern rifles remind me of the Starfighters that were bought by the Germans way back heaven knows when. They were offered in various options: high-level interceptor, ground attack bomber, long-distance reconnaissance etc. etc. And the Germans said "Yes" to everything. In one model. The result was a flying emporium of all possible functions that crashed notoriously frequently, sometimes because the pilot pressed the wrong button and ejected himself. On one occasion while the plane was upside down, doing a roll over the runway at an air show. Hammered into the tarmac at several hundred mph, there was not much pilot left to bury.

Seriously, I think your barrel is suffering from bad vibrations. Get back to basics and start from scratch. If you can't find specific info for the M14, I imagine that the tweaking tips for the Garand will illustrate the principles quite adequately.

Garands are easier in most respects to tune than the M14. But Patrick is right about the barrel harmonics thing. Try it without that big rail thing on top. No handguard at all, if it suits you. It is likely crashing into the forestock during the firing sequence.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...uff01612-1.jpg
The old carbon fiber stocked rifle that is currently just under 8 lbs (with handguard) without optic.

I don't know if this link that goes into some detail of the experiments will work, as the blog is no more on the current internet:

http://web.archive.org/web/201203032...tes-page3.html

Thanks for the tips regarding handguard and stock fit. I should be able to take a look at them tomorrow.

- The crown is perfect and threaded straight. No bullet strikes on the flash suppressor.
- Regarding "modern flim flam". The stock is a modded USGI, nothing new there. This rifle is useless to me without an optic as my eyes are not getting more suitable to longer range shooting as I get older. I've already tried an ARMS 18 scope mount but the reciever side geometry on this rifle means it required extensive fitting. I wouldn't be surprised if harmonics were the issue, but Vltor has a very good reputation so I won't chuck the rail in the garbage just yet.
- The trigger group requires a moderate level of force to lock and open.

I'm not interested in the Blackfeather at all. I really don't like the way they do business.

Thanks to all, I'll report my finding as soon as I can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevo

regarding handguard and stock fit.

---

One easy test: Grab the forestock and handguard just behind the front band and attempt to squeeze the top and bottom towards each other. The stock should be able to move freely upwards (under pressure) at least 0.030" or so. It's also a good thing to have some side clearance so that the stock can move a bit R&L. Mostly because the barrel whips about in sort of a star shaped (very rough analogy) pattern under recoil. Check for rub marks all about the front end if you've fired it a fair amount. The only rubbing should be on the top of front band lip and bottom of the stock ferrule.

Hey, Patrick: Here's a real pretty test bed for you!:ugh::

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tuff0014-1.jpg
:lol: Flayed and sliced JAE stock. (Good bedding system, including a vertically adjustable front band tensioner, but obviously not a favorite assembly...) Note the "bad" handguard contact, though- so it was removed after the photo.


OH! ETA: Check your scope! These rifles have a reputation for destroying optics. One lower cost solution is to use optics made for spring powered air rifles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

Some of these fully tricked-out modern rifles remind me of the Starfighters that were bought by the Germans way back heaven knows when. They were offered in various options: high-level interceptor, ground attack bomber, long-distance reconnaissance etc. etc. And the Germans said "Yes" to everything. In one model. The result was a flying emporium of all possible functions that crashed notoriously frequently, sometimes because the pilot pressed the wrong button and ejected himself. On one occasion while the plane was upside down, doing a roll over the runway at an air show. Hammered into the tarmac at several hundred mph, there was not much pilot left to bury.

---

I remember that...so, THAT'S what happened! Always wondered why they had so many problems.

F104s also had bottom eject! That's one reason that they would invert at low altitude... I seem to think the design was later changed, but that bit of info has wandered out of the old brainpan- mostly because it's not propeller driven, nor WWII or earlier.

The later Starfighters featured upwards ejection and a two-step eject handle - push forward to blow canopy, pull back to eject. It was in this aircraft that the Air Force discovered that the two-step handle didn't work. In an emergency, most pilots just pulled back. Because the seat didn't have a canopy penetrator built in, ejection through the canopy was often fatal. There was a National Guard base at my hometown airfield with an F-104 interceptor squadron based there. The squadron was re-tasked and handed over its F-104s to the Luftwaffe. A German pilot developed an engine fire on takeoff and fatally punched out through the canopy.

Now let's talk about awkward re-tasking. The fighter squadron mentioned above, 151st fighter squadron with its F-104s, was re-tasked to fly KC-97GL Stratotankers in support of the Strategic Air Command's Operation Chrome Dome and MAC's Operation Creek Party. They carried out the transition in eight months. Can you imagine the morale problems with going from F-104 fighter jock work to flying a 4.2* engine piston freight plane? Oh, my. The unit was re-designated the 134 Air Refueling Wing.

Bob

* Four double-row Pratt & Whitney R-4360-59B radial engines, two General Electric J47 Turbojets

At least we're still talking "exploding heads"....Sorry!

M14 to F-104, now that's a thread going sideways!:)

There are many points of contact between the stock and the handguard, both with the Vltor stock and my USGI. The stock has zero upward play at the tip as it is touching the handguard on both sides.

How best to fix this? It seems like I should sand down the top edges of the stock where they contact the rail.

Shave the underside of the handguard where it touches the stock. Or at least that's how it's done on the ''conventional'' version. jmoore can probably advise better than I can as he has way more experience with the modernized versions than I do.
Another modification commonly done when accurizing M14/M1A's is welding or screwing the front band to the gas cylinder. This takes the play out and keeps the band from sliding around on the cylinder barrel plus makes the stock tension much more consistent. I prefer the welding method myself because screws can work loose under recoil, even if secured with lock tite.

Shaving the handguard won't work on this one, it's all aluminum.

That's what I was thinking, aluminum. It would have to be done in a mill but I still think it's the correct thing to do instead of shaving the stock but I could be wrong. Let's see what jmoore has to say about it then we'll both know. :D

I don't think it matters all that much which surfaces is relieved. My general rule of thumb is "modify the cheaper part first". But that's a rule that's often broken. First thing that I would do is to remove the handguard altogether and check the band tension and clearances before doing anything else. If the gas cylinder is crashing the stock or impeding movement, then the stock will definitely need modding first. Usually a good place to start is relieving the front ferrule and stock to NM style. Easily enough done with a Dremel or similar.

As far as unitizing the front band to the gas cylinder, if there's no free play with the system tight, then leave it be for now. If the band is loose, then there's shims that can be used to correct that as opposed to the more permanent methods. It also avoids the possibility of having the front band not sitting with even centered bearing on the ferrule's bottom surface and no way of adjusting. Welding is fine, but wait to the end of the process, if possible. Otherwise, you may have to tweak the barrel rotationally, etc., etc.

jmoore,
The gas system is tight and shimmed correctly. What does "band tension" refer to?

I decided to go ahead and relieve my USGI stock this evening. I went with the stock instead of the handguard as it was much easier with the tools and skills I have and can be touched up with paint. I sanded it evenly from approximately abeam the op rod guide to the tip. I also had to grind down the stock end cap a bit. It now has space between the stock and the handguard full length. It also has the 3-5 pounds of tension at the lip on the front band that you mentioned and can be deflected upwards approximately 2 mm before it contacts the handguard.

Now to get out to the range and see the results.

Thanks for all your help, I really appreciate it.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevo

What does "band tension" refer to?... It also has the 3-5 pounds of tension at the lip on the front band that you mentioned and can be deflected upwards approximately 2 mm before it contacts the handguard.

---

Ummm...???

As far as freeplay, 2mm ought to do. BUT, it might do to paint or otherwise lightly color the close fit areas to check for rubbing during the firing sequence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevo

Shaving the handguard won't work on this one, it's all aluminum.

---

So shave the aluminium. If you do not have a multiple-axis fully programmable milling machine and a tame programmer - why, just try a FILE. Yes, it's slow, but you should only be needing to take off a matter of hundredths of an inch, unless something is seriously bent. The usual criterion for barrel-stock freedom is being able to slide a postcard around everywhere without it binding. I don't see any need for 2mm clearance all round - or have I misunderstood something?

Anyway, I see that you now seem to have made the necessary adjustments. Good luck at the range!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

Ummm...???

As far as freeplay, 2mm ought to do. BUT, it might do to paint or otherwise lightly color the close fit areas to check for rubbing during the firing sequence.

---

I'm just going by what you posted here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

As far as front band fit, it needs to make no contact on it's rear face with the front of the stock. It also needs to have ~3-5 lbs tension between the lip and the bottom of the stock and be well centered. The handguard should not touch the stock. The triggerguard should take some force to close. There's lots more, but those are good starting points.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

So shave the aluminium. If you do not have a multiple-axis fully programmable milling machine and a tame programmer - why, just try a FILE. Yes, it's slow, but you should only be needing to take off a matter of hundredths of an inch, unless something is seriously bent. The usual criterion for barrel-stock freedom is being able to slide a postcard around everywhere without it binding. I don't see any need for 2mm clearance all round - or have I misunderstood something?

Anyway, I see that you now seem to have made the necessary adjustments. Good luck at the range!

---

Patrick,
I do know how to run a file. Given the choice between removing material from a $400 handguard or a $100 stock to accomplish the same goal, I'll take it off the stock first.

I should have taken some pictures of it as well. There was considerably more than hundredths of an inch that needed to be removed, and from more than just the edge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevo

I'm just going by what you posted here...

---

OK, then! All on the same page I reckon.

The main oddity to this bedding is the tension is reversed from the usual direction (on bolt actions, etc.) of the forestock pressing upwards against the bottom of the barrel. Here the forestock exerts downward tension against that little lip.

Gotcha, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

The usual criterion for barrel-stock freedom is being able to slide a postcard around everywhere without it binding. I don't see any need for 2mm clearance all round - or have I misunderstood something?

---

Yes.:runaway: Misunderstood the addition of a midlength ported gas system hung by easily servicable, but not accuracy enhancing, means to a lightweight barrel connected to an even more easily disassembled action that is barely mated to flexible stock. About as not like a bolt action rifle as is possible whilst still remaining fairly "traditional" in role and contruction.

The Garand's gas system, being far further forward, has less opportunity to disrupt things in a dynamic manner whilst the bullet is still in the barrel. It also has much more action support in the stock due to it's longer and thicker legs than the M14. Both have very light action bodies which receive firing recoil impact, plus bolt rearward and forward impacts during the loading cycle. Even a well glass-bedded, double lugged M14 action's heel will flex upwards over 0.004-0.005" off the stock when the bolt hits!

There's more! Off axis flexing due to the assymetrical nature of the op rod, mid band centering, op rod to gas piston positioning rotationally, as well as longitudinally, gas piston to gas cylinder fit, spline tightness, Non uniform stock to action fits amongst and even within the various commercial action manufacturers, damping effects of various barrel lengths, weights and attachments- and that's just things off the top of my head.

These rifles can shoot well, but they can also be quite the nightmare. Personally, I think it's worth the trouble. Too bad it's far too late for a third generation with all the lessons learned over the past fifty years incorporated into a new military platform.

:thup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevo

I do know how to run a file. Given the choice between removing material from a $400 handguard or a $100 stock to accomplish the same goal, I'll take it off the stock first. I should have taken some pictures of it as well. There was considerably more than hundredths of an inch that needed to be removed, and from more than just the edge.

---

Ok, sorry, I did indeed misunderstand something. That's an expensive handguard! But in such an expensive setup, I am surprised that so much material needs to be removed, from wherever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

There's more! Off axis flexing due to the assymetrical nature of the op rod, mid band centering, op rod to gas piston positioning rotationally, as well as longitudinally, gas piston to gas cylinder fit, spline tightness, Non uniform stock to action fits amongst and even within the various commercial action manufacturers, damping effects of various barrel lengths, weights and attachments- and that's just things off the top of my head.

---

Thanks for the explanation. It sounds as if the Garand is, in fact, easier to deal with. By the time the Garand piston can really upset the dynamics, the bullet is on its way. But a friend has one of these M14 shorties, in GI configuration, which shoots very accurately, without any of this bother, which is why I made my suggestion of going back and starting over, on the old engineering principle of "If it's not there, it can't go wrong":dunno:

The shorties tend to be harder to sort when they're not happy. But the thing that drives one to madness is that some do very well indeed!

This one in a SAGE stock is fairly acceptable with no fancy barrel or any sort of fine tuning.:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff081-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff088-1.jpg
3/4" dot at 100yds (Usual jmoore used and pasted multiple times over several sessions target.)

But a lightweight it's not. The military versions have done quite well as DMRs. As a GP rifle, probably not my first choice, but it is an evolutionary step towards modernizing the platform.

ETA: Note that the SAGE system locks the action and the barrel at the mid band quite rigidly into the chassis. In this case, the front end has no support at all. Something that's just not workable in a conventional stock, because the front band lip is essentially the "front action screw" for a bolt action. There's nothing much else to keep the barreled action from trying to rotate up and out of the stock under recoil. (Not altogether literally, but maybe it conveys the idea.)

The stock/handguard interference appears to have been the major issue I was up against. I managed to make a short trip to the range today before I got chased away by the incoming blizzard. I only had a chance to shoot it at 50m but it shot groups, rather than "patterns", with the best 5 shot group of 1 1/2" and nothing worse than about 2" with cheap Norinco ball.

Here's a couple of pics. The first one illustrates why I went with shaving the stock rather than the handguard and you can see the paint marks on it from the initial trials. The second shows the shaved stock. I repainted the shaved edge to make any contact more obvious.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6d95dc3e-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...89d12495-1.jpg

Range report since the blizzard?

It's still not right. Better, but not consistent.

From marks on the stock's paint it looks like the inside of the stock cap was banging up into the gas cylinder. I relieved that a bit and will see if it makes a difference.

As per your earlier suggestion, I've also taken the handguard off and will shoot it to see if it's the stock causing the problems.

Well, here's an update, of sorts. I tried everything I could think of. I measured, checked, torqued, re-torqued, relieved, took it to an M14 clinic, re-did the op-rod guide, consulted a psychic....you name it, I tried it.

And then I gave up. There's no sorting that rifle out with a handguard type rail. It will not shoot with one installed. Period. So I ordered an ARMS 18. The dealer sent me a used, broken one. Obviously, I've sent it back and am awaiting a resolution. So, I'm still in limbo on that mounting method.

Then I saw a deal online and thought, "screw it, let's go a different direction entirely". So, yesterday I came home from the range to find these outside my garage door. Happy they've arrived, unhappy that UPS are morons.

Brand new Norinco 18.5" shorty and a case of 1040 Chinese steel-cased ball. $818 plus tax, delivered:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...23a5a18f-1.jpg

Rifle out of the stock:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...acf09f66-1.jpg

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...439a855c-1.jpg

And:

5 shot, 2" group at 100m:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...7801f134-1.jpg

So, same stock, same rail, same scope, same ammo on a different rifle. And it shoots! That pic is the best group, but I did no worse than 3" at 100m. I'm happy with that result.

The rifle still needs some tweaking. The gas system could use a shim and the flash suppressor is so far canted I'm not sure I can zero the irons. I'll most likely replace it with a USGI version or a brake. The rear sight is mostly serviceable, but the windage is extremely tight. I guess the wrong Chinese high school shop class put this one together.

I had a brand new 18" barrel chambered with a match reamer that just would not shoot. Went through months of gyrations trying to sort it. The fix was a used no name 22" barrel out of a friend's used barrel pile.

ETA: I guess that was covered way back on page one. But your solution has merit. Start over. Expensive up front, but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

I had a brand new 18" barrel chambered with a match reamer that just would not shoot. Went through months of gyrations trying to sort it. The fix was a used no name 22" barrel out of a friend's used barrel pile.

ETA: I guess that was covered way back on page one. But your solution has merit. Start over. Expensive up front, but...

---

The sad part is that the rifle is pretty much the cheapest part of the entire equation. For the $400-ish I should have bought another one last year. And if that one didn't work, buy another.

The darn things are almost disposable at that price and don't depreciate much at all, even when well used. I don't think I've ever seen one as low as $300 and that's only 25-35% off MSRP.

The prices are over double that in the US. And the "boutique" manufacturers want to generate even more snob appeal. It's a wonderful platform, but the design traded ease of building a precision rifle for a host of other good features.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevo

The gas system could use a shim and the flash suppressor is so far canted I'm not sure I can zero the irons

---

Then you need to re-index the barrel. No magic, just do it. Otherwise it's not right. And it never will be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Then you need to re-index the barrel. No magic, just do it. Otherwise it's not right. And it never will be.

---

The barrel is properly indexed.

The splines for the flash suppressor and gas cylinder are inline. The gas cylinder is straight, the front sight is canted because the flash suppressor itself is defective. Not an uncommon thing on the Norinco, according to Hungry.

If the barrel was not indexed right, the Vltor rail wouldn't mount either. It clamps to the grooves in the barrel shoulder for it's middle mounting point and would be visibly rolled to one side if those grooves were not square to the charger guide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

The prices are over double that in the US. And the "boutique" manufacturers want to generate even more snob appeal. It's a wonderful platform, but the design traded ease of building a precision rifle for a host of other good features.

---

When did Garand come up with the original mechanical layout for the M1/M14, in the late 1920's? It's a product of it's times and a modern rifle it certainly is not.

If our laws didn't restrict .308 ARs to being range-only toys, the M14 would be far less popular, even though it would remain 1/4 the price of the AR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevo

the flash suppressor itself is defective. Not an uncommon thing on the Norinco, according to Hungry.

---

Roger that. So, it's a new part or remove that part? I have one close to me that just removed the FS and mounted a scope. The flash and blast are prohibitive now though. Hungry has already looked at it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Roger that. So, it's a new part or remove that part? I have one close to me that just removed the FS and mounted a scope. The flash and blast are prohibitive now though. Hungry has already looked at it?

---

If I took the sight assembly off it wouldn't be noticeable, but I think I'll replace the whole thing with one of the SAI brakes from Brownells. I'll wait until I get a new muzzle device in before I take a cold chisel to it. The welds look pretty solid on this one.

No, Hungry hasn't looked at this particular rifle, though he did look over my old one. It was one of the tidbits of info I gleaned from him when we had him here for an M14 clinic in mid-July.

I think my head is going to explode............



Information overpressure? :madsmile:



Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Information overpressure

---

Bourbon helps...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

I think my head is going to explode............



Information overpressure? :madsmile:



Bob

---

LOL. I blame John Garand for my problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Bourbon helps...

---

Ick. Though it did drive me to drink a few times, I went for the bottle of rum. :D

I think if John Garand had a few more years to cipher over it, there would be a marvelous, hard to manufacture, but user friendly solution.

Ah, I think I'm in love.

Shot out to 500m today, making first or second shot hits on steel dialing in the come-ups as I went from 300m to 500m. My buddy, who never fired an M14 before today, had no issues hitting at 500m. And that was with the cheap Norinco steel-cased ball! All is good in my M14 world, for now.

I've got a new gas cylinder and piston coming for my old rifle. I think that may be the root cause of my failures-to-feed.