Dwight's Gunleather

machining differences M1 vs M14

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • toppkatt
    Fire Team Leader
    • Apr 2011
    • 91

    #16
    Re: machining differences M1 vs M14

    Interesting observations and no doubt are a part of the 'problem'. But even in 'the day' there were not always machinists running the various set ups. My father once told me there are machinists and machine tool operators and machine tool operators are way less expensive. Of course even a machine tool operator WAS still there while the operation was being machined instead of placing a workpiece in a jig then going off to repeat this operation only to return to take the 'finished' part out and send on to next operation.

    Comment

    • dave-2
      Section Leader
      • Apr 2011
      • 645

      #17
      Re: machining differences M1 vs M14

      Something not always included in the mix are the "Bean Counters" [apologies to any time/money people reading] concerns about productivity. We see various types of products we all purchase over the years change. Machined components get changed to castings ,then changed to plastic and occasionally eliminated through a different design. General quality is reduced and even packaging goes from sturdy boxes to blister packs. Most of these come from the accountants insisting on lowering the unit cost trying to increase profit. It's their job. How much this impacted the '14' program is hard to prove. Modern manufacturing is,for the most part, driven by unit cost and planned obsolescence .
      Winner 2011 Team M14 "Offhand Challenge" Match Category

      Comment

      • jdwboy
        Platoon Sgt
        • Mar 2011
        • 1864

        #18
        Re: machining differences M1 vs M14

        Sometimes new was are better. Casting and MIM are good examples.. back during WWII casting was not nearly as good as it is today. Ruger (there are others I'm sure) has produced very rugged, strong firearms for years now (most all of theirs are cast).

        MIM, still looked down upon by many, has came a long way. Originally, as in any new process, there were issues mostly gone now. Most car engines have many MIM parts that work a lot harder than where MIM is used in firearms (usually small parts such as slide stops, sears, etc.) I was reading an article at a friend's house (mechanical engineer) in a trade journal that MIM is stronger than most of the "traditional" manufacturing. (their words)

        Just because its new or cheaper doesn't make the old way "better".

        8th RRFS Phu Bai
        1969-1971
        Phu Bai is All right

        Comment

        • Hardheaded
          Section Leader
          • Dec 2016
          • 984

          #19
          Re: machining differences M1 vs M14

          Well MIM , metal injection molding not made in Mexico
          My dumb as$ had to look that one up , I'm a lineman not a machinist
          I was in knowledge of the procedure I just never knew that is what it was called
          I knew I would learn something today-again

          Comment

          • toppkatt
            Fire Team Leader
            • Apr 2011
            • 91

            #20
            Re: machining differences M1 vs M14

            Originally posted by jdwboy
            Sometimes new was are better. Casting and MIM are good examples.. back during WWII casting was not nearly as good as it is today. Ruger (there are others I'm sure) has produced very rugged, strong firearms for years now (most all of theirs are cast).

            MIM, still looked down upon by many, has came a long way. Originally, as in any new process, there were issues mostly gone now. Most car engines have many MIM parts that work a lot harder than where MIM is used in firearms (usually small parts such as slide stops, sears, etc.) I was reading an article at a friend's house (mechanical engineer) in a trade journal that MIM is stronger than most of the "traditional" manufacturing. (their words)

            Just because its new or cheaper doesn't make the old way "better".
            Well, time will tell, but that takes (wait for it)...




            TIME!

            Comment

            • Pat C.
              First Shirt
              • Jun 2020
              • 2275

              #21
              Re: machining differences M1 vs M14

              Give me some Time and I'll post up the SA Ordnance files on machining processes at the arsenal as well as Winchester . Hydraulic tracing mills via platen transfer machinery and broaching dominated the M14 manufacturing .Many specialty processes ,single function machines .

              Some probably have seen but I have documented with pictures of two different M14 receivers I manually machined and although machinery was different the principles were the same .

              Comment

              • VanHahner
                Command Sgt Major
                • May 2011
                • 14800

                #22
                Re: machining differences M1 vs M14

                "After numerous delays and production crises – including the rejection in December of 1960 of 1,784 of H&R receivers (about ten percent of the receivers that had been made up to that time) that could not withstand the pressure of firing due to a steel mix-up – Robert McNamara made a famous speech on the rifle program in June of 1961, stating: “I think it is a disgrace the way the project was handled. I don’t mean particularly by the Army, but I mean by the nation. This is a relatively simple job, building a rifle, compared to building a satellite or a lunar lander or a missile system.” At that time, there existed a grand total of only 133,386 M14 rifles, despite the type having been adopted four years prior.

                It was in this same month, in a climate of adversity towards the laborious US rifle program that the Berlin Crisis broke out. Occurring on the forefront of the fight against Communism, the crisis and eventual construction of the Berlin Wall put on public display a significant amount of military material and equipment. Among these, journalists would notice US soldiers carrying the old M1 Garand rifles, which further blackened the eye of the M14 as a weapon unsuitable for production, much less nuclear-era warfare:"

                For the rest of the story:

                In 1957, the T44E4 rifle was formally adopted by the United States Armed Forces as the United States Rifle, 7.62mm, M14, but this only marked the beginning of the rifle’s troubles. After numerous delays and production crises – including the rejection in December of 1960 of 1,784 of H&R receivers (about ten percent of the receivers that had been … Read More …

                SGT USMC 8541
                I CORPS 3rd MAR DIV
                RVN 67-68

                Comment

                • VanHahner
                  Command Sgt Major
                  • May 2011
                  • 14800

                  #23
                  Re: machining differences M1 vs M14

                  This was the picture in the paper that resulted in the termination of the M14 ! It was humiliating for Robert McNamara that we were still caring M1 rifles at that time and only had a grand total of 133,386 M14 rifles, despite it being adopted four years prior.

                  Check Point Charlie 1961



                  "Berlin Wall put on public display a significant amount of military material and equipment. Among these, journalists would notice US soldiers carrying the old M1 Garand rifles, which further blackened the eye of the M14 as a weapon unsuitable for production,"

                  SGT USMC 8541
                  I CORPS 3rd MAR DIV
                  RVN 67-68

                  Comment

                  • geardoc
                    Squad Leader
                    • Nov 2017
                    • 416

                    #24
                    Re: machining differences M1 vs M14

                    I hate McNamara. One of his runts is counsel for the CIA now.

                    McNamara was everything about McNamara. He really thought he'd be president and he sacrificed men's lives to pave his ambitions. Lot of qualities in common with McNamara with the Clintons.

                    Given the M14's staying power, it's been well worth the investment. I know people who were in both Iraq wars and Afghanistan who really liked the rifle, and said it was much easier to deal with than the M110/SR25.

                    It's funny, my dad warned his nephew- "Don't go poking around in geneaology- it's like looking under rocks during snake season." Found we have one relative who did time in the MAZE for making guns for the IRA. Another one served in the Rifles with the Aussies as an advisor.

                    The one in the Rifles said that if they could trade up an M-14- they would, so they'd have something capable of FA and took 7.62mm NATO.

                    Comment

                    • Pat C.
                      First Shirt
                      • Jun 2020
                      • 2275

                      #25
                      Re: machining differences M1 vs M14

                      Originally posted by toppkatt
                      I was wondering, when changing from the M1 to the M14 were there many changes that contributed to more difficulty in machining or changes in specifications for receiver acceptance leading to more rejections? Changes in steel used? From what I've read, I know it's not a lot, but it seems we were able to turn out the M1 during wartime better than we could the M14 in 'peacetime'. It just seems that all I hear about is the difficulty forging and machining the M14 today by the current makers. How casting is the process most used. Am I being misled or reading something into current production and production during the 1950's - 1960's? While CNC wasn't around during the heyday of M14 production, we were able to make enough M1's during WWII and Korea. What happened? Change in metallurgy? Fewer qualified machinists? Or again, am I wrong. It's ok if you say I'm totally incorrect. Knowing you are an expert I was hoping you could tell me I was wrong and why, or if my observations are slightly correct what is the reason for this?
                      Thanks for your time.
                      They were ever redesigning /improving but the only trouble I know was traced back to supplier/sub contractor issues . The M14 receiver has a lot of the same characteristics as far as design and tolerances but even though they are similier most of the broaching cutters and set ups had to be altered.

                      On top of that the first NC machines were being introduced ,the Armory had four Cincinnati three axis mills but I don't know what roll they played .At SA a large part of the exterior was broached same as the late M1's . Tracing mills and lathes were still used all of which can be seen in the thread I started .

                      Winchester decided to go with a complete new manufacturing set up using the George Gorton transfer milling station as seen in the thread I started .They had some issues that I am not sure exactly what . I know H&R helped them with receivers until they could get up tp speed .

                      TRW was a master at manufacturing precision componants and excelled at forging the had no issues I'm aware of .They did however have the benefit of knowing the in and outs due to them being last contractor. Had the M14 remained in production they would had mass produced them easily .

                      They used a chain broaching machine for doing the external contours ,blanks loaded on pallets and driven by chain drive passing through the broaching cutters ,very efficient .
                      They had Krueger lateral transfer mill that uses the pallet transfer system taking parts to each stage of machining .
                      They were making bolts at a rate of 190 per hour on a 32 station transfer mill .

                      The M1 Garand receiver is actually more difficult to make because of the long slender legs warping issues and the internal broaching done to the receiver .other than that they are the same basic design. Forging die would also be more difficult to make because of the twin legs .

                      The amount of inspection that went into M14 production was extensive ,hand gaging , air gaging , see pictures of the inspection dept. in the SA thread.

                      Todays makers have the benefit of advanced CNC but just not enough market to mass produce ,I think whats being produced today is pretty close to the real deal and getting better thanks to people and builders that point out errors and suggestions .

                      Different steels were used during M1 production but ultimately settling on 8620 alloy and is what was used on the M14 and still is today on commercial receivers

                      Comment

                      • Pat C.
                        First Shirt
                        • Jun 2020
                        • 2275

                        #26
                        Re: machining differences M1 vs M14

                        I have the original cost analysis report on PDF but here is a good online version.

                        Comment

                        Loading...
                        Working...