I agree, but for almost a half century, there was this coverup that the only allowed causes of slamfires were high primers and "your worn out receiver bridge". In terms of finding out when this started, I went through every American Rifleman issue from post WW2 to current. The National Rifle Association had retired Ordnance Bureau employees, the Army actually paid for the National Matches up to 1968 in which NM Garands, and NM M14's were being used by State Associations. It was not till the 1970's that civilians were able to buy the civilian M1a rifle. So for decades military and copies of military Garands/M14's were the predominant service rifles on the firing line. It would not do to question the safety of issue service rifles, or either, service type rifles used in the National Matches. It would upset the Army, and no one likes the idea of a rifle firing without the shooter pulling the trigger!
We were taught by the US Army and the NRA that the primary cause of slamfires were shooter misconduct. And that is what is taught in American Rifleman articles from the early 1960's to the 1990's . Back in the late 50's, Shooters could buy a NM Garand if they attended Camp Perry. Once these rifles were in the hands of civilians, who used the sensitive commercial primers of the day, often neck sizing "for accuracy", slamfires occurred. Also, the M14 was under attack by the Colt M16 advocates in the early 1960's. The combination of these things created an active dis information campaign by the Army, through the NRA, of which two items became dogma within the shooting community. These were that only high primers and worn out receiver bridges were the cause of slamfires. The concept of primer sensitivity did not exist. By omission, we were taught that slamfires have nothing to do with primers or firearms design. It was explicitly stated in print that both the Garand and M14 were perfectly safe designs, free of flaws, and the only causes of slamfires were shooter misconduct: sloppy ammunition or worn out guns. This is what competitive shooters were taught, this is what the shooting community was taught. And this is what you would have read in the American Rifleman, and would have heard on the firing line.
It did not help that the only primers on the market till 1999 were commercial primers. I called CCI around 1999 and they had decided to introduce their mil spec primer line during the Clinton primer scares. The NRA has always been sensitive to advertisers. Upsetting ammunition manufacturers by suggesting their primers were too sensitive for the Garand mechanism would result in ads being pulled. If you don't know, the magazine model since the 1888's is that the subscription cost is artificially low. Call the subscription earnest money. Where the magazine makes its profit is from ads. Losing an advertiser will get editors, writers, etc, fired. And there was not much anyone could do, as all the primers on the US market were the very sensitive commercial primers. And primer makers were proud to proclaim just how sensitive their primers were. I remember Federal bragging they had the most sensitive primer. Here is Remington touting sensitivity:
the key is "sensitivity". This ad is from March 1972.
So, if you have been taught by trusted authorities that the only causes of slamfires are high primers and worn out guns, and you want small groups, and sensitive primers mean small groups, you are going to look for the most sensitive primers you can find. Sensitive primers are fine in bolt guns, they are not good in semi auto mechanisms with free floating firing pins.
Once the shooting community was saturated with the lie that slamfires were only due to shooter misconduct, it took decades for the inprint guys, and shooters, to realize that primer sensitivity has something to do with slamfires.
I believe the tide began to shift once the internet came on line, and shooters were able to report slamfires with factory ammunition, and after Bushmaster took Colt to court and ended the Colt monopoly on AR15's. I talked to Springfield Armory and asked the representative on Commercial Row at Camp Perry why they had never had a AR15 on their product line. Well they had, in the early 1970's. And immediately Colt sued them with a ceases and desist order. It was bogus, but as the rep said, Colt was flush with Government money from M16 contracts and was going to sue Springfield Armory until the legal costs bankrupted Springfield Armory. So SA decided to agree to never build AR15’s. Colt has sued a lot of companies, I remember USFA was sued by Colt over something about their single action revolvers.
However, Bushmaster decided to take Colt to court when Colt sued them, (don’t remember when) and won. Colt did sue Bushmaster over the use of “ M4” as a name, and lost. Once hundreds of thousands of AR15’s were in the hands of civilians, reports of slamfires with commercial primers, and commercial factory ammunition began surfacing on the web. There was a huge amount of denial in the late to mid 1990’s, but AR15’s did not have receiver bridges, and the rifles were slamfiring with factory ammunition.
As an example of the strength of the NRA coverup is this post by CE Harris. CE Harris was an American Rifleman writer, may have been a Technical Editor, in the 1970's and 1980's. And even as late in 2010, after lots and lots of slamfire reports in all weapon types have appeared on the web, he is not going to agree that primer sensitivity has much, if anything to do with slamfires. Especially in the M14.
M1A M-14 slam fire
__________________
In Home Mix We Trust
From the Home of Ed's Red
73 de KE4SKY
Last edited by Ed Harris; June 3, 2010 at 09:37 AM.
Ed is setting a high standard as few can own an all original military M14, but it follows the NRA "perfect military rifle" theme. But there is a report of one at least military M14 rifle slamfiring out of battery with CCI Benchrest primers. (M14forum) And the Government had out of battery slamfires in M14’s with Government ammunition.
A Bullseye bud was on a USMC 1000 yard team at Camp Perry. He showed me a picture of him, and his team on the Vaile firing line, holding their M14’s. He told me of two out of battery slamfires that injured fellow Marine Team shooters. In both incidents, the bolts blew out. One shooter lost an eye, and the other was severely injured in the eye, but he did not know if the second shooter lost his eye sight.
Anyway, given a half century of misinformation about slamfires, primer sensitivity, and Garand mechanisms, I am not going to blame Joe for doing something stupid. Yes, using Federal match primers increases the risk of a slamfire, but when both the US Army and the NRA are telling you that only high primers and your worn out gun cause slamfires, you don't know that Federal commercial primers are inappropriate for the mechanism. .
Federal does make a mil spec primer, I saw ads, never saw the primers.
I am going to say, slamfires occur with mil spec primers. The frequency of slamfires with mil spec primers is less, but, they happen.
You are reducing your risk of a slamfire by sizing the case smaller than the chamber. And always loading from the magazine. But you cannot reduce the risk to zero, because you don't know the individual sensitivity of the primers you are using, and in every batch of primers, some are more sensitive than others. And the occasional real sensitive primer happens.
I had Roland Beaver add a firing pin spring to a Garand bolt. This was to reduce the impact of the firing pin on the primer.
Now, why did this primer not go off? Sure looks to be well dimpled.
Even though I have a firing pin spring in the bolt, I found the depth of the indent scary. I am sizing the cases smaller than the chamber, I ream the primer pockets, prime by hand and ensure the primer is below the case, and I use mil spec primers. Even though I do all of this, I am still trusting on luck, that the primer does not ignite.
Last edited:
user name is appropriate.
