CMP M14 Announcement

[M-Tecs]

I always wanted one with WINCHESTER scrolled across the heel.

The most lusted after M-14 we had on the team was a Winchester with the serial number of 5225. Mine was a TRW.

[barnetmill]

I'm just going to guess that ATF has signed off on a means of cutting away the specific "machine gun" part of the receiver, leaving intact the majority of it which is now a non-NFA firearm, and then rewelding/machining it into a commercial semi-auto type. I have seen M16 parts kits with the fire control pocket of the receiver cut away being sold as title one firearms and supposedly ATF signed off on it. After all, they have reclassified some pre-sample machine guns as transferable, which still makes no sense to me although I'm not complaining about it!

The internet of full lawyers discussing this. I refer to Fudd Busters most recent post. The thing is there is not ATF rule or any laws that states once a machine gun, always a machine gun. So apparently this can re-decided anytime ATF chooses to do so. In fact one court case the courts found in favor of the defendant reversing that ATF on a machine always remaining a machine gun.
M2 carbines w/o the FA parts have been sold to civilians for years even if the receiver is stamped M2. .

[atfsux]

The internet of full lawyers discussing this. I refer to Fudd Busters most recent post. The thing is there is not ATF rule or any laws that states once a machine gun, always a machine gun. So apparently this can re-decided anytime ATF chooses to do so. In fact one court case the courts found in favor of the defendant reversing that ATF on a machine always remaining a machine gun.
M2 carbines w/o the FA parts have been sold to civilians for years even if the receiver is stamped M2. .

This reminds me of the way the short barrel rifle rules had to be amended after the government sold off a whole bunch of M1 carbines. The short barrel rifle regs USED TO BE 18 inches rather than 16. Then the gov't sold us a mess of M1 carbines with 17.5 inch barrels. Rather than face the embarrassing mess of trying to take back all those carbines over such a minor difference, the short barrel rifle regs were changed. And that was actual written law the gov't violated, not just mere administrative rule like this.

So how likely is it that after all the M14s are sold off to us that Congress if forced to make ATF abandon the silliness?

[country gent]

Im waiting to see several things, whats available. The shape these are in, Cost, and requirements.

In also curious on the conversion, is this a CMP only thing or could a civilian do the same conversion?

Most of the State associations have replaced their match M14 "loaners" with AR 15 match grade rifles.

In reality I see this as being late to be done as I doubt there are very few M1A/M14s still on the lines. In the 70s and 80s before the ARs really took off was when they could have really made a difference.

But the forged receivers are a big plus

[d4xycrq]

I’m looking forward to buying one or two. Have you seen the speculation on price? The numbers are all over Facebook. They’ll sell. Those RMDs aren’t gonna spend themselves.

[barnetmill]

Im waiting to see several things, whats available. The shape these are in, Cost, and requirements.

In also curious on the conversion, is this a CMP only thing or could a civilian do the same conversion?

Most of the State associations have replaced their match M14 "loaners" with AR 15 match grade rifles.

In reality I see this as being late to be done as I doubt there are very few M1A/M14s still on the lines. In the 70s and 80s before the ARs really took off was when they could have really made a difference.

But the forged receivers are a big plus

Frist thing one has to be able to legally acquire M14s for the conversion. We do not know the source for sure or the quantity to my knowledge.
The question would if an importer could do the same. The conversion, best bet is milling of areas where the receiver interacts with the full auto parts to prevent such functioning.
I would guess that if this goes as planned than importer could maybe go to taiwan, israel, and other places that might have M14s, purchase and do the modifications prior to importation.
There are better 7.62x51 nato chambered guns out there and the fact that I already own a polytech will result in not really wanting one.

[Delkal]

Frist thing one has to be able to legally acquire M14s for the conversion. We do not know the source for sure or the quantity to my knowledge.
The question would if an importer could do the same. The conversion, best bet is milling of areas where the receiver interacts with the full auto parts to prevent such functioning.
I would guess that if this goes as planned than importer could maybe go to taiwan, israel, and other places that might have M14s, purchase and do the modifications prior to importation.
There are better 7.62x51 nato chambered guns out there and the fact that I already own a polytech will result in not really wanting one.

We will see if anything for civilians changes. As I mentioned there was one manufacturer who rewelded cut GI receivers and sold them as complete rifles for big bucks. The problem was he saw cut them and the NFA required them to be torch cut. After selling the rifles the BATF paid a visit to everyone who bought one and made them surrender the receiver or it was felony jail time.

I am sure this will not happen with the CMP offerings but I would not generalize this ruling.

[barnetmill]

We will see if anything for civilians changes. As I mentioned there was one manufacturer who rewelded cut GI receivers and sold them as complete rifles for big bucks. The problem was he saw cut them and the NFA required them to be torch cut. After selling the rifles the BATF paid a visit to everyone who bought one and made them surrender the receiver or it was felony jail time.

I am sure this will not happen with the CMP offerings but I would not generalize this ruling.

This is extensively discussed in the recent youtube by Fudd Busters. He is a lawyer that owns NFA items and thoroughly research exactly the case that you were discussing.
If the GOP wins the POTUS of the US in 2028 there will not likely be a problem. If the DEMS get back in all bets are off.

[36g]

So, if this is possible with M14's what would be the difference with modifying the M16, M16A1's, XM177E1's and 2's to remove the FA parts and TIG weld up the third pin hole?

[M-Tecs]

We will see if anything for civilians changes. As I mentioned there was one manufacturer who rewelded cut GI receivers and sold them as complete rifles for big bucks. The problem was he saw cut them and the NFA required them to be torch cut. After selling the rifles the BATF paid a visit to everyone who bought one and made them surrender the receiver or it was felony jail time.

I am sure this will not happen with the CMP offerings but I would not generalize this ruling.

That issue was limited to M-K Specialties (Mike Kelly). The real issue was M-K Specialties never had formal ATF approval. They only letter stating it should be OK. Based on the fact that two other companies (Hahn and Pearl completed all the paperwork and are still legal so this was mostly an MKS issue. That being said the ATF rescinded Hahn and Pearls permissions to continue to manufacture but allow the legal ones already produced to remain legal. I've seen exactly one Hahn and never saw a Pearl or never knew anyone that had seen one.

I built two for follow competitors. One I was able to pull the parts before the ATF picked it up. The other the own got so spooked he just handed them the complete rifle including the Obermeyer 5R barrel that I turned and machined from a blank. The other one had a Krieger I installed. Both were setup of National Match competition.

[barnetmill]

So, if this is possible with M14's what would be the difference with modifying the M16, M16A1's, XM177E1's and 2's to remove the FA parts and TIG weld up the third pin hole?

A good question. Again I suggest looking up Fudd Busters recent video on this topic.

Being quite ignorant on aluminum, I do not know if can one tig weld a M16 lower. Also there is a shelf on side of a full auto M16 receiver. For the third pin hole from what Fudd Busters stated there could be several ways to make the third pin hole useless for functioning with full auto parts.
The biggie is for collectors of non-firing or semiauto machine guns. They can after modification use the original receiver.

[John Wayne]

Leave it to the government and cmp to ruin some fine full auto rifles that could have been sold to the nfa guys for MAJOR dollars.
JW

[barnetmill]

Leave it to the government and cmp to ruin some fine full auto rifles that could have been sold to the nfa guys for MAJOR dollars.
JW

There was no way that those rifles in FA configuration were going to be sold to any civilians. Also the M14 in full auto mode is not a very controllable weapon. If those weapons could be freely sold to civilians as FA, their price would drop. The selling price in non-NFA configuration will not be cheap and CMP is planning to make some major profits from the sale.

[Adam Helmer]

I retired from the federal government in 1996. In 1982 and 1984 I was a firing member of my state's High Power Rifle Team and shot a Match M14 both times at Camp Perry. I love the m14.

I did complex financial audits as well as worked criminal cases during my career. I am sad to see the DCM program being replaced by CMP. No government agency is self funding, as far as I know. If the CMP charter has lofty marksmanship funding goals that need funding from surplus gun sales, I ask why? I checked with my local club that runs matches and found out CMP is not funding anything.

The government is supposed to be the servant of the people. Property already paid for by taxpayers should be available to the citizens at decent prices. I have no desire to pay any insane CMP price. I rest my case. Your opinion may vary. Be well.

Adam

[barnetmill]

I retired from the federal government in 1996. In 1982 and 1984 I was a firing member of my state's High Power Rifle Team and shot a Match M14 both times at Camp Perry. I love the m14.

I did complex financial audits as well as worked criminal cases during my career. I am sad to see the DCM program being replaced by CMP. No government agency is self funding, as far as I know. If the CMP charter has lofty marksmanship funding goals that need funding from surplus gun sales, I ask why? I checked with my local club that runs matches and found out CMP is not funding anything.

The government is supposed to be the servant of the people. Property already paid for by taxpayers should be available to the citizens at decent prices. I have no desire to pay any insane CMP price. I rest my case. Your opinion may vary. Be well.

Adam

I have only once purchased an item from the CMP and it was trigger-hammer-sear unit for an M14 because at the time I could not find them elsewhere. I used to it achieve ATF parts compliance for a Polytech M14 and also to get a better trigger group for the gun. What they sell now days is expensive and seems to be more for some well off retirees that want to pay for some nostalgia.
We need to start anew the funding and pushing for high school and college rifle teams.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

M-14s. I love 'em. I was a doggie in the first half of the '60s (that was in the last century!) and my infantry outfit was the 2nd to get the new rifle after the stateside airborne. I remember the duce-and-a-halfs rolling up in the company street and unloading long, new wooden crates which were opened and inventoried on the spot. Brand spanking new M14s with wooden handguards.

I'm pretty sure my first was a H&R, later I had a Winchester, then another H&R. TRW wasn't a choice. I think they started making them when Viet Nam started heating up. Frankly, I've never seen one. Who knows what TRW means? Thompson Ramo Woolridge. Go to the head of the class. Many years later I worked for the USAF as a contract Security Police Officer, and a fellow officer was a security officer at TRW, and had been working there when the M14 was being manufactured. Some interesting conversations late at night. He claimed that the TRW rifles were the best of the breed, but it would be hard to beat the ones I used years before.

I recall the first live fire maneuvers we went on with the new rifles, and how the wooden handguards smoked, charred where they contacted the barrels, and a couple actually burst into flames. They were replaced in short order with the ventilated fiberglass handguard. Those broke easily and were later replaced with solid fiberglass handguards, but that was after my time. While I was still using them they just replaced the ventilated handguards that broke with a new one of the same variety. As an aside, Ruger's Mini-14 went through the same evolution, although I think the wooden handguards may still be an option. Many models bear the black plastic handguard.

Our rifles had a stud where the selector switch was located, and the "word" was that if we went into combat with the Warsaw Pact that the selector switches would be issued. Having previously extensively used the M1 I was of a mind that semi-auto was adequate. We did have a full auto M14 which we called the M15 and they were too light for their intended purpose and very inferior to the BAR with which we had been equipped previously. The only difference was the bipod and selector switch, and the pistol grip stocks came after my time. Once they designated myself and another member of the battalion rifle team to participate in a NATO squad automatic rifle match. We had no previous experience with the M15 version and came in 2nd to last. Other teams from other armies mostly used BARs or their version of that weapon such as the BREN. But as a semi-auto battle rifle I do not believe the M14 could be surpassed. I left the Army with a burning desire to own an M14, but knew that having the potential to be full auto that the Government would never release them for sale.

I was out of the military for about a year or two when I was able to purchase an M1 Carbine from the DCM. I think it was $22.50 delivered. A couple of years after that I was able to buy a second out of a barrel full in a Newberry's Dept. Store garden section for $65. Both were Standard Products manufacture. If memory serves, it was in the middle '80s when I was able to get my "one in a lifetime" M1 Garand from DCM. The new civilian Springfield Armory started making the M1A, but they were too expensive for my financial situation at that time. However, somewhere in there I read an ad in the Shotgun News where Federal Ordnance Corp. announced that they were taking pre-production orders for an M14 rifle to be designated the M14-SA to be assembled with new or like new G.I. parts on an investment cast receiver. I ordered three of them, and when they arrived was very pleased with them. Like a lot of weapons manufacturers, they were kind of secretive about their sources, but I have read that the receivers were made by the Santander Iron Works in Spain, at least the early ones. Because I ordered early they were all in the low 2,000 serial number range. In later years I sold one, but still have two of them. I have read where some claim that later production was not as good or reliable, but mine are fine rifles, highly accurate and there have been no issues with them at all.
It wasn't too long thereafter that a company named Smith started making forged receivers, but again too expensive for me to justify a purchase.

So now, the world has turned and modified M14s are to be sold to the public. I really want to have at least one. Yes, I agree with Mr. Helmer that they will doubtless be way too expensive. But one must be realistic and pragmatic about the matter. CMP has employees with car payments and dental plans to be paid for, and they have to turn a profit to remain in business. Again, as pointed out by another member, the supply of M14s was greatly diminished by destruction ordered by the Clinton Administration, large quantities given away to foreign governments, and wear and tear of the subsequent military actions. Harkening back to my army days, we hadn't had the new M14s more than a week when we had a training session that involved running and jumping through a mock doorway frame made of 2x4s and bayonetting a dummy on the other side of the doorway. One soldier went through the doorway with his rifle at "high port", bayonet affixed, and the bayonet caught one the left upper side of the framework, the butt hit against the lower right side of the framework, and his 200 lbs. crashed against the rifle. The barrel bent to about 90 degrees as his velocity and weight carried him on through where he crashed on top of the dummy. The observing Lt.s were not happy.... The point being, I guess, that anything desirable of which there has become less becomes more valuable. I recall when stationed at Ft. Ord for Basic Training whenever the training company entered a classroom for instruction the M1s were stacked and a guard left behind to assure none were taken. This might be slanderous, but I was told that every D.I. had one at home hanging on the wall that had been "lost" by some unfortunate recruit. A lost M1 was an $86 deduction from your monthly pay, which was only $72 a month. $86 seemed very expensive then, but what do M1s sell for now? There were far fewer M14s manufactured than the almost 6 million M1s that were produced.

As soon as this all shakes down I'll be ordering mine!

DG

[FergusonTO35]

There was no way that those rifles in FA configuration were going to be sold to any civilians. Also the M14 in full auto mode is not a very controllable weapon. If those weapons could be freely sold to civilians as FA, their price would drop. The selling price in non-NFA configuration will not be cheap and CMP is planning to make some major profits from the sale.

To be eligible for sale to citizens, a machine gun has to have been on the registry as of May 19, 1986. As I understand it, guns owned by the military are exempt from NFA so these never would have never been registered. Meaning, the question of whether these could be sold to citizens as machine guns has been moot for over 40 years now.

[FergusonTO35]

A good question. Again I suggest looking up Fudd Busters recent video on this topic.

Being quite ignorant on aluminum, I do not know if can one tig weld a M16 lower. Also there is a shelf on side of a full auto M16 receiver. For the third pin hole from what Fudd Busters stated there could be several ways to make the third pin hole useless for functioning with full auto parts.
The biggie is for collectors of non-firing or semiauto machine guns. They can after modification use the original receiver.

A few years ago there were a number of M16 parts kits with receivers on GB being sold as non-NFA firearms, the area where the selector and auto sear goes had been neatly cut away. The seller claimed that ATF had blessed this practice but the receivers still qualified as firearms due to not being completely demilled, no idea if that was true or not. In any event, I think it would be easier to modify an intact semi-auto or 80% receiver into a machine gun than to replace the cut away area on those.

[M-Tecs]

https://thecmp.org/affiliate/benefits/

The DCM was a very much need and a great program. The CMP doesn't come close to what the DCM was but due to Clinton/Gore going out of their way to kill various shooting programs it is the best we have and I for one and very glad Clinton/Gore were unsuccessful in killing this type of shooting program.

Pre 1996 firearms purchased for the DCM were government property. Post 1996 firearms purchased from the CMP are no longer government property since the Congressional mandate established the CPM as a federally charted 501(c)93) non-profit charitable and education organization to be funded thru the sale of firearms. This are provided to the CMP at no charge except for covering the cost of inspection, packing and shipping. One those firearms are transferred the CMP is the legal owner not the government. That was why the DCM could sell them in lower quantities and a much lower price.

The CMP is operating under the rules established by Congress nothing more. 100% of the blame for any dissatisfaction with the CPM belongs to Clinton/Gore.

For those that continually whine about the cost of CMP purchases none have been able to provide a realistic solution on how a civilian non-funded program and fulfill the intent of the original DCM?

Still waiting on a better option? I been asking that since 1996 with nothing but crickets.

[deces]

It would be nice to be able to buy a real bi-pod for these again.