Is the M-305 a milsurp?

[buckbrush]

As the title says, are the m-305's a milsurp or a replica? O, this is my first post here. Great site!

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Stevo]

For the purposes of this site, they're not considered a milsurp.

[tiriaq]

China may have manufactured some of these rifles for military sale or use, but the rifles in Canada are certainly not military surplus rifles, any more than the commercial Springfield rifles are.

[Claven2]

That being said, we have a forum for discussion of this type of rifle here:

NON-Milsurps General Discussion Forum (click here)

Also, if you are building a GI clone on a Norinco receiver, then we would consider that milsurp since it's the closest you can get to a real M14 in Canada without being older than Stevo (and that's old!)

[Light Infantry]

That being said, we have a forum for discussion of this type of rifle here:

NON-Milsurps General Discussion Forum (click here)

Also, if you are building a GI clone on a Norinco receiver, then we would consider that milsurp since it's the closest you can get to a real M14 in Canada without being older than Stevo (and that's old!)

So then why is this thread in this forum?:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=1100

The Norinco has had a lot less changed on it from mil-spec than any of the copies coming out of Germany.

LI

[Claven2]

A fair comment. the German guns could have gone either way, but they are designed to be exact reproduction of the WW2 rifles, including markings.

I'm not aware of any Norinco M305's that duplicate US proofs, markings, cosmetic selector switches, walnut or fiberglas stocks, or really anything quality made except for some of the admittedly good parts like the receiver, berrel, and oprod which doesn't have a selector mill-cut.

If the Norcs were trying to be accurate copies, they would be more appropriate - though if anyone is really upset about this delineation, let me know and I'll move the SSD products posting to the off-topic forum.

The Norc is a good gun, but sitting next to a real GI rifle, it's shortcomings and differences are painfully obvious. The SSd guns looks real in all respects except for not going full-auto.

[Light Infantry]

I hope no one is really getting upset over this! (it's not CGN afterall). I guess you look at it from a proofs point of view and i was looking at it more from a mechanical changes point of view, where i believe the German guns would have seen more extensive mods.

Doesn't really matter as long as a both are allowed being discussed.

I think the Norinco is a good rifle and compared side to side with the real thing (I have had the real thing) I don't see any "huge" shortcomings. This is rack grade vs rack grade comparison. Finish was better (different?) on the USGI.

I really feel a lot of people got carried away with all the mods that were being done if all they wanted was a blaster. if you were tricking it out for a precision rig, i could possibly see doing some or all the extra work.

Doesn't really matter as long as a both are allowed being discussed.

Now that brings me to another thought:

Say you wanted to make your Norinco M-14 look even more American GI. If you stamped the H&R or TRW or Springfield lettering along with a correct range serial number on the heel of the receiver, would that be legally ok? I am not contemplating doing it, but was rather curious.

LI

[Redhorse]

I have an M14 built on a norc reciever,the majority of the work
was done by Morpheus 32 on the CGN and the rest was finished
here in town.It turned out to be a decent shooter and all parts
used are USGI.It took awhile to get the parts though.Regards
Redhorse

[Claven2]

I too have built a GI rifle on a Chinese receiver and there's really nothing wrong with that, or discussing it here. the rifle was more milsurp than chinese.

Cosmeticaly and design-wise the Norinco is very similar to the GI gun, but there are rather huge quality issues between the two. GI wood was better made and more durable. period. The Norinco sights are cheaply cast parts. junk. Some of the parts are very good though.

In the case of the SSD guns, the parts are exactly made the same as the originals, forgings and all.

As for putting marking on the heel, you need to retain the original serial number and maker's marks that it is registered under. If you stamp additonal marks into the heel, I doubt you are breaking any laws, but you ARe breaking laws if you obliterate the "official" markings on the side of the norinco receiver.

[Claven2]

And PS: We are not in the business of forcing valid topics off the boards. My only concern is the thread being filed in the right topic