View Full Version : Question about A.R.M.S. #18 M-14 scope mount.
Do these mounts have issues with being mounted to non-USGI M-14/M1a clone receivers?
Issues as in the dimensions of the commercial receivers being out of spec enough to cause the scope to be at a different enough angle from the bore axis that the scope would be near or past it's windage and/or elevation adjustments.
I have a Federal Ordnance (early USGI parts model) M-14 that I'd like to scope.
Thanks,
AG42b
The issue is not with the mounts, rather with the receiver. I use ARMS mounts and rings on my SA M1A NM with no problems. I find it to be dependable and it is one of the lower bases on the market. There have been issues with out of spec receivers having problems with this and other mounts. Smths or Sadlack make a mount and kit that allows you to measure problems and send the mount back to the factory for adjustment at no extra charge. Maybe some one with experiance can chime in with more details.
Right now I'm seriously considering replacing that Fed. Ord. receiver with a better one and then put a scope on it. I'm finding out that there aren't many sources of M14 receivers at all, though.:(
Thanks for the reply.
Right now I'm seriously considering replacing that Fed. Ord. receiver with a better one and then put a scope on it. I'm finding out that there aren't many sources of M14 receivers at all, though.:(
Thanks for the reply.
Sounds like these days, having the GI parts is the bigger issue than a good receiver so you already have over half the battle won. What year is your Fed Ordinance? From what I understand, the quality of their rifles were from excellent to poor depending on year of manufacture with the early guns being the best. Of course you are going to find a good smith to build the gun for you as M14s aren't as easy to build as ARs :( Seems like the 7.62 and the LRB receivers are the best rated. If you haven't already checked out the M14FL forums you should as that is the place to go for all things M14.
I finally decided to try an ARMS 18 on my rifle, it should be delivered tomorrow so I'll happily report my results. I like the design better than the Brookfield based mounts due to the low profile but am concerned with fit as well as ejection issues. Seems it is kind of a craps shoot as to whether they will work with a receiver or not, but it seems that the earlier SAI receivers are better than the older. Mine is a 1993 gun. I ordered mine from Brownells who have a good return policy if this mount doesn't work out.
titsonritz
10-18-10, 11:27
Right now I'm seriously considering replacing that Fed. Ord. receiver with a better one and then put a scope on it. I'm finding out that there aren't many sources of M14 receivers at all, though.:(
Thanks for the reply.
http://www.lrbarms.com/home.html
http://www.lrbarms.com/home.html
I've been to thier website. Those cost more than what I paid for the whole rifle.
Sounds like these days, having the GI parts is the bigger issue than a good receiver so you already have over half the battle won. What year is your Fed Ordinance? From what I understand, the quality of their rifles were from excellent to poor depending on year of manufacture with the early guns being the best. Of course you are going to find a good smith to build the gun for you as M14s aren't as easy to build as ARs :( Seems like the 7.62 and the LRB receivers are the best rated. If you haven't already checked out the M14FL forums you should as that is the place to go for all things M14.
I finally decided to try an ARMS 18 on my rifle, it should be delivered tomorrow so I'll happily report my results. I like the design better than the Brookfield based mounts due to the low profile but am concerned with fit as well as ejection issues. Seems it is kind of a craps shoot as to whether they will work with a receiver or not, but it seems that the earlier SAI receivers are better than the older. Mine is a 1993 gun. I ordered mine from Brownells who have a good return policy if this mount doesn't work out.
I'll probably just stick with the Federal Ordnance receiver.
Hey, it hasn't blown up yet:sarcastic:
My last thought on a scope mount has been a Sadlack. The steel one costs more than the ARMS #18 but for $45 more they'll custom fit it to the receiver. Thier aluminum one costs closer to the ARMS, though.
By all means let us know how your ARMS mount works out.
LRB would be a good choice for a replacent receiver but they're too expensive.
Thanks
I'll probably just stick with the Federal Ordnance receiver.
Hey, it hasn't blown up yet:sarcastic:
My last thought on a scope mount has been a Sadlack. The steel one costs more than the ARMS #18 but for $45 more they'll custom fit it to the receiver. Thier aluminum one costs closer to the ARMS, though.
By all means let us know how your ARMS mount works out.
LRB would be a good choice for a replacent receiver but they're too expensive.
Thanks
Will Do.
Like I said, check out M14FL forums and see where your FedOrd receiver sits in terms of build quality - you may very well have one of the good ones and in such case certainly no need to replace.
If you end up with a lot of money to spend and decide to go with an LRB then get the M25 version with the built in rail mount - that will take care of all concerns.
Concerning cost, it may be that you paid less for your Fed Ord than an LRB receiver runs today, but that was then and this is now. The GI parts on your rifle alone are worth far more than you paid for your rifle in the beginning! :eek:
Will Do.
Like I said, check out M14FL forums and see where your FedOrd receiver sits in terms of build quality - you may very well have one of the good ones and in such case certainly no need to replace.
If you end up with a lot of money to spend and decide to go with an LRB then get the M25 version with the built in rail mount - that will take care of all concerns.
Concerning cost, it may be that you paid less for your Fed Ord than an LRB receiver runs today, but that was then and this is now. The GI parts on your rifle alone are worth far more than you paid for your rifle in the beginning! :eek:
I joined M14FL on this past Sunday and did a lot of research and found a lot about Federal Ordnance. The general consensus is that the older ones made from USGI parts on a receiver made for those parts are good to go.
I bought mine in 1997 for either $600 or $650 off of someone who bought guns but didn't shoot very much at all.
I was happy as could be with it and even shot it in some NRA Hi-power matches and didnt do too bad at all.
About then I started to find scathingly negative reviews from "experts" that swore they were too dangerous to consider shooting. I took that at face value and sort of set that rifle aside and haven't shot it very much since.
Recently I've found a few reports online of individuals who claim they have had Fed. Ord. M14's blow up on them but mysteriously there are no details which makes it BS.
In a nutshell I'll just keep that receiver.
As for scope mounts I've been reading a lot of very promising reports on Sadlak so for now I'm looking in that direction.
Thanks.
I joined M14FL on this past Sunday and did a lot of research and found a lot about Federal Ordnance. The general consensus is that the older ones made from USGI parts on a receiver made for those parts are good to go.
I bought mine in 1997 for either $600 or $650 off of someone who bought guns but didn't shoot very much at all.
I was happy as could be with it and even shot it in some NRA Hi-power matches and didnt do too bad at all.
About then I started to find scathingly negative reviews from "experts" that swore they were too dangerous to consider shooting. I took that at face value and sort of set that rifle aside and haven't shot it very much since.
Recently I've found a few reports online of individuals who claim they have had Fed. Ord. M14's blow up on them but mysteriously there are no details which makes it BS.
In a nutshell I'll just keep that receiver.
As for scope mounts I've been reading a lot of very promising reports on Sadlak so for now I'm looking in that direction.
Thanks.
If your Fed Ord falls into the good category, then I'd run with it too. If not, you could probably sell the gun for parts for about what you paid for it and move on. A real quick way to check if you gun has GI parts is that GI parts will have a slightly green tint to the parkerization.
I looked very closely at the Sadlak mounts but I really want the low profile of the ARMS so that has led me to give it a try. Brownells should accept it back if it doesn't fit and then the Sadlak will be my next choice. The mount should have shown up by now, but I screwed up and specified UPS instead of USPS, so now I have to wait for them to "artificially" delay my order. :mad:
If your Fed Ord falls into the good category, then I'd run with it too. If not, you could probably sell the gun for parts for about what you paid for it and move on. A real quick way to check if you gun has GI parts is that GI parts will have a slightly green tint to the parkerization.
I looked very closely at the Sadlak mounts but I really want the low profile of the ARMS so that has led me to give it a try. Brownells should accept it back if it doesn't fit and then the Sadlak will be my next choice. The mount should have shown up by now, but I screwed up and specified UPS instead of USPS, so now I have to wait for them to "artificially" delay my order. :mad:
Yeah they're USGI and I knew that right off. TRW, H&R, and Springfield don't sound very Chinese. One of the things that drew me to the ARMS in the first place was, like you said, the low profile.
If necessary Sadlak will fit the mount to an individual receiver for $45, though, and there's a good chance it'll need that for a really good fit.
If I get the ARMS and it doesn't fit then I'll be stuck with it because the vendor won't take it back after I drop-kick it down the driveway:sarcastic:
Yeah they're USGI and I knew that right off. TRW, H&R, and Springfield don't sound very Chinese.
Then you definitely got one of the good ones!
I remember back in 1993 (long before I could afford expensive guns), I saw a Fed Ord rifle at a dealer. I wanted it bad and started saving but it was sold before I could come close (I settled for a Marlin Camp 9 carbine), I recall he wanted $600 for it. I didn't know anything about M14s so who knows what I would have ended up with.
SPCStryker
10-20-10, 02:02
I'm in the exact same boat. I've got me a lovely USGI FedOrd M14 and I've been wanting to scope it, but the mounts... oh god, the mounts. With all the different receivers and mounts, it's a craps shoot. I was even considering putting a long eye relief scope or an Aimpoint on a set of rails up front, but they get so hot that I'm reluctant to put optics out there.
Scope mount showed up today. I got it test mounted and everything looks good - no binding or twisting. I'll torque it down tomorrow.
Scope showed up also (I'm going to try a Leupold Mark AR 3-9) but I as of yet do not have rings for it. The graduations on the elevation turret are both in MOA and in yards (calibrated for M193). I plan on getting a custom BDC calibrated for 168gr OTM.
I really wont know how well everything aligns until I get the scope mounted and zeroed. Unfortunately the bank is broke right now so I'll have to either scavenge up some "place holder" rings or maybe just throw my Aimpoint M2 on it.
I plan on going with throw lever rings so I can dismount the scope with little loss in zero. I love LaRue's stuff, but ARMS is so much more affordable (especially with a discount).
I put the mount on and torqued it down (not fully as I was just going to test fire it) to about 70%. Every thing went on well and looked good.
Didn't have rings for my new Mark AR scope so mounted my old Springfield Govt scope back on it and took it out. On a side note, I sighted the rifle in at dusk and took my new Leupold along - what a HUGE difference in light transmission the Leupold had over the Springfield scope!
Short and sweet, the mount works perfect! Scope was zeroed in about 12 rounds (don't have a laser boresighter so I just shot groups).
With the scope off, the low profile makes shooting with irons very easy. You barely notice any part of the mount in your line of sight, it is out of the way.
My other concern was ejection. There were zero ejection problems either on the range or with empty casings at home. The only issue I did have is with empty casings when I put my Aimpoint in the ARMS 17 mount on top and mounted it forward. I have the throw lever on the right and this does interfere with the ejection. If you do plan to put throw levers on the mount, definitely put the throw levers on the left hand side. At the range where I work I have seen M1As with Sadlaks which have ejection problems. The low profile of the ARMS would make this even worse. Supposedly this is mostly due to newer Springfields having commercial extractors and the path of ejection being more upward than outward.
My rifle is a 1994 build with a serial number in the low 80000 range and is pretty much all GI parts. I would imagine if your rifle is in this range, you should have no issues either.
I'm very happy with this mount at this point and glad I gave it a try as I think it is the best mount option for my needs as long as it fit my rifle. We will see how it works long term.
Now it is time to just reinstall it with the thread lock and mount the new scope.
ICANHITHIMMAN
10-23-10, 18:58
Sadlik will machine their mount to your reciver
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.