Thanks guys!

Yes, I do like the M14 battle rifle. I would like to see them come onto the CMP market. They could do the same thing they did with the M14NM, and weld the selector switch thus rendering it inoperative. But the libs call it an assualt rifle, HAHA, and would not allow its sale. "There are enough of those military killers out there now", I believe it was Diane Feinstien that said that little piece of BS or something very similar.

Klinton had hundreds of thousands of M-14s destroyed during his administration.

You could easily cut off the auto selector lug, but the ATF's position is that once a weapon has been full-auto, it will always remain an NFA weapon.

There have been several efforts over the years to get M-14s sold by the CMP. None succeeded.

TR

Congratulations to you and your bride. May you have many more years together.

Congrats, I'm on my way to 24 years.


My current interest is in a battle rifle in .308 with carbine sizing. Something with a folding stock and probably a suppressor. Something that would be easily legal in most of the USA.

I've had a little experience with the M-21 system. 10rds and the Redfield scope made it easy to hit targets at 300-900m. I've since heard some of the 'reservations' about the M-21. I understand your problems with it.

Put 3rds through the M-24 system, but without a spotting scope who knows who hit what.

Most of my "long-range" shooting (out to a klick) was with various battle rifles in .308 using open sights. Opposition learned to stay at least that far away. Got quite expert with the M-8/M-40 system but I don't think I can get a permit for that anymore...

Does anyone know the real story of where those selector welded up M14NM's came from? I remember my first years at Perry with the NH state team 15ish years ago, we had M14's with welded selectors. I always thought it was weird that we had them set up that way. I believe the M14's somehow came from CMP or NRA and were donated to the NH state team. From time to time the welds would break loose and ruin someones target. Which at the Nationals, completely sucks.

For the record (for me) they shot very well in the 200yrd offhand and 600yrd prone. I was always clumsy with them in the rapid fire mag changes. Overall, I liked it better at Perry than the AR. The heavy weight gave them good stable shooting.

The two assigned to me was one with a wood stock and one with a really tacky looking woodland camo plastic stock.

The M14 NM came from several sources, some were from Rock Island, the actual arsenal. (You should see the museum there, they have a compete run down of the M14NM evolution. Very interesting. Some were from Benning's shop, and I believe some came from Picatinny.

Yeah, if they were still shooting them in your time frame then the system would be pretty beat. We had babied ones at Bragg with SOTIC and they had been there since 85 when we first started the program. I had a Benning armorer that kept them in top shape for the course. He re bedded them on a regular basis and we shot groups with them before each course to see which ones to issue and which ones needed re-working. Never had that weld break, but had some other really interesting things happen. Dave Zavitz was a whiz with the rifles and one hell of a shot.

I agree with the auto-receiver definition. I think there was something special about the M14NM with the teams. May have stumbled into some strange NFA history with this thread. Thinking about it some more the other State teams, as well as my State team allowed the team member to take the guns home with them between matches to continue to practice. There was never a "transfer" or Form 3/4. You just signed a book that you had XXXX serial number assigned to you. Very much like how we do in the Army. (To be clear, I am referring to Civilian teams, not a Army NG or RA team.)

I have to wonder about if certain M14NM's were "dewated" under some old ATF definition that made the welded selector a legitimate configuration for the time.(During the first AWB, late 90's.) Changing the gun to Title I status.

I do not know what year the definition of "torch cut/Saw cut deactivation" came about. My only guess is that possibly some M14 receivers were old enough? I would ask the ATF, but I know they would not be able to tell me. (Seems like a good thing for Small Arms Review to write an article about.) :cool:

And LongRange, Congratulations on the long marriage. That is some really good stuff. :) (Year six for me.)

As well, thank you for your input and wisdom whenever these weapon related subjects pop up.

There was another version of the M14, the M14M, which stood for "Modified." These were rack grade rifles with the selector lug welded to prevent its operation. I read somewhere that 12,000 were produced, with the intention of civilian sales, probably to NRA-associated groups. That source said that the sales program never got going due to events of 11/22/63. Small Arms of the World has a little section on the M model.

In the fall of 2000, my state's shooting association received a few M models from the CMP on a loaner basis. I was lucky enough to rent one of the seven rifles received, cost was $25/year with some goodly restrictions on storage and use. All these and other (NM) rifles got returned to CMP in '06.

The one I had was basically brand new from Springfield Armory, s/n in the 563k range. The M was overstamped at the heel, done not quite straight. It had the usual build issues relating to accuracy but had better machining than what SA Inc was doing at the time or earlier. (I had an M1A in the 49k range for comparison.) This rental M's biggest problem out of the box, was loose bedding from having the trigger group locked for maybe thirty-seven years.

I don't agree with it. If the weapon can be modified to safely and permanently make the weapon semi-auto, it should be permitted.

I don't agree with any of the restrictions based on maybe. Both bolt and lever action weapons have been turned full auto and that is one slippery slope. :munchin


I do not trust this gov't one whit especially when it comes to guns.

It is...

I have built three AK's and an FAL using kits. All "NEW" US manufactured receivers were semi-auto.

Turning an "auto" into a semi-auto is accomplished daily...

The ATF is talking barry's anti-2nd amendment game plan..

I did not mean I agreed with the ATF’s practices. I meant I agree that the ATF would see the receiver as a MG. My point was that for all intensive purposes it was a fully functional MG with a spot welded selector. Also the guns seemed to freely move around outside of the NFA registry. (My assumption).

Of course there are all kinds of formally full-auto platforms that have been modified to semi-auto. That is a little different in that there are certain conditions to completely change a Title II status to a Title I status. There are strict rules that govern such modifications. The M14NM and M14M would have been foul to all of them.

The M14M, as the above poster pointed out, was something different. I have not seen anything like that since. Have you ever seen a Full-auto (Title II ) AK47 with a welded selector that was being put up for sale as a Title I Semi?(Personally, I would say that’s likely a ATF sting.) It is a weird configuration and seems unlikely for the obvious reasons of the ATF calling foul.

You are not using the original full auto receivers, are you?

Even a .50 BMG parts kit does not include the right sideplate (serial numbered and registered part, according to the ATF).

The M14 loaners were an odd duck under a long gone DCM program.

You can grind off and weld up all you want to. If the serial numbered part of the weapon (receiver or frame) was originally full auto, you cannot legally remake it as a semi. You can use most of the parts, minus the serial numbered frame or receiver portion to make a new weapon on a semi-only receiver.

TR