Shooters Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I find this personal story a bit humorous. I had purchased a semi-auto M14S by Federal Ordinance some time back. I had actually picked it up from FedOrd in CA. It was a plain Jane rifle with the usual brown fiberglass military stock. I took it to the range and found it to be quite accurate and 100% reliable. I called a buddy and invited him to bring out his nice Springfield M1A rifle for a shooting session. He had not seen the FedOrd. Keep in mind this friend is something of a perfectionist.
We arrived at the range about the same time and began breaking out the gear. His Springfield was one of those "pretty" ones that had nice figure in the stock and he babied it to no end. When I pulled out the FedOrd he looked it over and made a remark about how crude it looked. I smiled and replied that my rifle was better than his and would much rather have the FedOrd at less than half the price. Having had fired both his and mine I knew the FedOrd showed well against the Springfield in the accuracy department. He asked why I felt the FedOrd was better. I threw the rifle to the ground and kicked it around with my boot. The look on his face was worth a million bucks! I asked if he would do that to his rifle. He said ABSOLUTELY NOT! I replied that is what made my rifle better. I bested him on the range that day too. That was too good!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
I'd rather own the Springfield if I could get a choice of either for free. So I could sell it and buy two of the FedOrd rifles. :D
 

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
36,720 Posts
I try not to drop my rifles in the dirt, but sometimes they ride on the dash of my Bronco on the deer lease. Have to say the 'uglier' the rifle the less guilt I feel about the practice :D

And yeah.... we have enough varmits to warrant the practice. Pigs need to get shot and I've gotten a few because a gun was handy on the dash.

My .35 Rem with a plastic stock fits the bill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Heh...most of my toys I'm not too concerned about if they take a scratch or thump, but I have a few that are 'too nice to use'... It's a problem for sure. [grin]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,280 Posts
I was taught to respect my tools and I wouldn't be caught intentionally abusing a rifle no matter how much I paid for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,966 Posts
I was taught to respect my tools and I wouldn't be caught intentionally abusing a rifle no matter how much I paid for it.

I'm with you on that Matt. Seems my rifles get enough scratches and dings without inflicting extra abuse on them.

Still makes for a good story FC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I was taught to respect my tools and I wouldn't be caught intentionally abusing a rifle no matter how much I paid for it.
But wouldn't it be comforting to know that a weapon your life may depend on in a battle situation (in the dirt, sand, snow, dust, heat, cold, rain, etc) would not fail? If you hadn't actually tried it under those adverse conditions you'd only be relying on what someone else said. I know the combat operating characteristics of both the M14 and the M16 in the jungle environment of southeast Asia. Fortunately today I can afford to own the semi-auto version of both. I won't go into a dissertation on the merits and drawbacks of either in this forum. It would turn into a book.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,981 Posts
Heck, I don't even intentionally throw my side cutters or channel locks on the ground and kick them around. That to me shows disrespect to the tool be it a screwdriver or a rifle. Never in a million years would I intentionally abuse a tool or weapon that my livelihood or life depends on.. Between your rifle that you intentionally throw on the ground and kick around and his well cared for rifle, I'd take his any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Between a well cared for FO M14 and an Springfield M1A, tough call, personally I would not say either one was better than the other without examining them and shooting them. I have seen some mighty fine shooting M1As and I don't care about the cost too much if the weapon is reliable, accurate, and gets the job done.
If I want a rifle that will work filled with crap, that will work with the least amount of maintenance, take the most abuse, and not really too concerned about accuracy other than MOHuman, I think I would grab the AK-47 off the rack and leave my Garands, AR-15s and the M14 for another day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,854 Posts
But wouldn't it be comforting to know that a weapon your life may depend on in a battle situation (in the dirt, sand, snow, dust, heat, cold, rain, etc) would not fail?
Yes, it would, and I believe that was the idea behind the military's (former?) basic-training strategy of having you enter a room full of tear gas with your mask on, and then take it off and deal with the tear gas. Leaves no doubt whatsoever that the mask works and you can rely on it.

I still don't throw my Garand down in the dirt and kick it around, though. OK, I don't do it on purpose! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Yes, it would, and I believe that was the idea behind the military's (former?) basic-training strategy of having you enter a room full of tear gas with your mask on, and then take it off and deal with the tear gas. Leaves no doubt whatsoever that the mask works and you can rely on it.

I still don't throw my Garand down in the dirt and kick it around, though. OK, I don't do it on purpose! :D
I don't normally do this on a regualr basis. I did it to prove a point. But with the FEDORD I don't lay it carefully down on a blanket to keep it from getting a scratch or ding. The same guy I was making the point with once bought a very nice "fired" S.A. M1A Supermatch at a gunshow and paid top dollar for it. When we took it to the range the following weekend we could get no better than 6" groups at 100 yards. He sent the rifle back to S.A. who had to replace the "shot out" barrel. So he had a lot more in the gun than it was worth. So much for buying a "babied" rifle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
I'd still take the Springfield. I guess I just don't get the point that was trying to be made by kicking your rifle around in the dirt. They say my XD pistol can be thrown in just about anything frozen and run over by a truck and still fire but I never felt the need to try it.
The M1a Springfield has nothing to prove to anyone that hasn't already been proved many times over.
I know I certainly wouldn't kick my M1 Garand around in the dirt intentionally because someone had a newer or cheaper model of one,that chose to do so. Like I said there's nothing to prove that hasn't already been proven. The Springfield M1 Garand and the Springfield M1A's history speaks for itself. Nuff Said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,896 Posts
I have a 35 rem Marlin 336C that I got dirt cheap, it needed a little TLC to get it running, looked like it was rode hard and put away wet. I had every intention of getting it working and selling it so I put an cheap NC Star scope and took it to the range to see how it shot, every load I put through it shot exceptionally well so I decided to hang on to it. For years it always seemed to be the one I would grab or loan out when hunting, never worried about any bumps or foul weather. One day I was refinishing another gun and decided to refinish the Marlin while I was at it. Underneath the yellowed finish was beautiful wood and the final result far exceeded my expectations. I put a Nikon scope on it, sighted it in and it still shot the same, but I haven't shot it since-its become a safe queen. End result is I really don't enjoy it nearly as much as I did when it looked beat.

I still cringe when I think of someone intentially abusing a firearm. The segment on Guns and Ammo TV where those two clowns abuse/destroy a perfectly good firearm to prove an already known fact really burns me up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
I Googled "Fed Ord" and saw nothing but a list of complaints, including one that they are unsafe to fire!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I Googled "Fed Ord" and saw nothing but a list of complaints, including one that they are unsafe to fire!
I'm curious about this. I'll check it out. I visited the FEDORD armory, spoke to the armorors, and observed them assembling the rifles (late 80's). They were using mil surplus parts on their own receivers (I was told they were made by mil contractor TRW). I was impressed by their operation. I have heard however bad things about the Norinco rifles that had soft metal receivers. Fulton Armory would not work on the Norinco's at all for that reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I Googled "Fed Ord" and saw nothing but a list of complaints, including one that they are unsafe to fire!
OK, here is a possible source for complaints about some of the FEDORD rifles. Bottom line here is check the serial numbers when buying. Isn't the internet a wonderful thing?!



Federal Ordnance built two types of M14 rifles, one with USGI parts and one with Chinese parts. USGI parts were used extensively in Federal Ordnance rifles through at least S/N 8877. Through at least serial number 394X the USGI parts were taken off USGI M14 rifles imported from Israel. By serial number 205XX, if not earlier, Chinese and Taiwanese reproduction parts were used to assemble its rifles. For example, Federal Ordnance M14SA serial number 502XX was assembled at the factory on September 13, 1991 with Chinese manufacture bolt, operating rod, trigger group and barrel. Federal Ordnance sold complete rifles as well as stripped receivers.

Synthetic stocks on Federal Ordnance M14 rifles may not have been USGI models but of unknown commercial manufacture. The original owner of Federal Ordnance M14SA serial number 22XX reports that the synthetic stock never had a selector cutout or USGI markings inside the magazine well. Further, the Federal Ordnance stock had a slightly rough finish. The butt plate was glossy black color instead of phosphate coated.

Century Arms International (then 48 Lower Newton Street St. Albans, VT 05478) assembled some of these Federal Ordnance receivers with Chinese parts at their facilities in Montreal, Quebec, Canada in 1990 just before the imported parts ban of November 29, 1990, brought them into the United States with the military style features (twenty round magazine, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, and hinged butt plate) which was legal at the time and sold them to the commercial market. Century Arms International ceased operations in Montreal around 1993.

The Federal Ordnance marking may be located on the right receiver leg instead of the receiver heel for Century Arms International assembled rifles. Some Federal Ordnance M14SA receivers have serial numbers with the letter C prefix followed by a hyphen then four digits, e.g., C-0116. These letter C prefix serial number receivers were sold as stripped receivers to Century Arms International in 1990 for assembly into complete rifles. Century Arms International assembled very few M14 type rifles with Federal Ordnance receivers and Chinese parts, as compared to the number of Chinese rifles it later sold. Serial number C-0388 is the highest serial number for this series observed to date."
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top