1mm or 1.6mm AK reciever?


September 20, 2007, 04:31 PM
I'm ordering this AK from Lancaster Arms and was wondering what if any BIG benifit could be had by getting the thicker 1.6mm vs 1mm reciever? Getting the Tan Furniture, Reciever Scope Mount and AK-74 muzzle break.


If you enjoyed reading about "1mm or 1.6mm AK reciever?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
September 20, 2007, 04:32 PM
Durability would be the only thing that comes to mind. Unless others chime in and say that the 1mm is sufficiently durable, I wouldn't worry about it.

September 20, 2007, 05:38 PM
If it was durability, the Russians would have used 1.6mm receivers in the AKM.

There is no known reason to choose 1.6mm over 1.0mm in the receiver thickness.

Please don't tell me it makes the AK more accurate. The bolt locks to the barrel trunnion at the moment of ignition. Receiver thickness has nothing to do with it.

Another marketing tool "More is Better".

September 20, 2007, 05:48 PM
The 1.0mm is fine. I have a 1.6mm and don't think it makes any difference. You have to do 0.6mm of filing on all the accessories you fit to it, though.

I would reconsider that 6 position stock though. They have a reputation for being fragile.

Archibald Tuttle
September 20, 2007, 05:50 PM
I personally like the stamped 1.6mm, theres something that doesn't appeal to me about the 1mm stamped receivers, most likely a weight issue and most I've handled seem to be of less quality.

September 20, 2007, 05:56 PM
The 1.6's feel beefier, but I'd agree that 1.0 is "good enough".

All those russian stamped AKs are 1.0s.

September 20, 2007, 05:59 PM
1.6mm will probably be heavier also may not seem like much but over the entire reciever it could add a pound or two maybe less. If it were me I would probably go with the 1.6 because it would be a little beefier and I would probably avoid the stamped recievers.

September 20, 2007, 06:01 PM
I have read here (http://www.ak47world.com/rifles.html) regarding the differances quoted below.

THAT SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING, as the GALIL AK's, F.E.G.'s from Hungary, Arsenal of Bulgaria, and Russian AK's were all tested against the Chinese Norinco, and the Norinco came out on top as the most rugged, and best value DUE TO THE USE OF THICKER 1.5MM STAMPED CHINESE RECEIVERS, DOUBLE-HOOK TRIGGERS FOR SMOOTHER TRIGGER-PULL, and thicker Chinese barrels, despite the fact that it would have been easier for Finland and the U. S. Navy Seals to buy AK-47 variants from other Eastern European, or Russian sources.

Finally, Norinco of China, Zastava of Yugoslavia, and Valmet/Sako of Finland all use at least 1.5mm steel for their stamped receivers on their AK variants, thus eliminating the need for "mickey-mouse" anti-trip devices (band-aid that does not solve the problem of too thin receivers) found in the trigger groups of thinner 1mm steel receivers of Warsaw-Pact AKM's.

AKM is the Russian term of: Avtomat Kalashnikova Modernizya , which means modernized AK-47, referring to the stamped AKM versus the milled AK-47 of 1947.

Warsaw-Pact AKM's include: Soviet/Russian mfg.,F.E.G. of Hungary (SA-85's, etc.), and Romanian W.U.M.-1's, W.U.M.-2's, S.A.R.1, S.A.R.2, S.A.R. 3's, as well as Maadi AKM's, RML, RPM, and the MISR-90.

What does receiver thickness and the lack of "mickey-mouse" anti-trip device that only complicates your trigger group, mean to AKM performance???

Simple, if you only fire your thinner receiver AKM variants lightly, you usually won't have any problems.

But if you need more out of your AK, like sustained fire/rapid fire, like with 75, or 100 round drums, or with other "extreme situations", the thicker 1.5mm stamped receivers found in Norinco, Valmet/Sako, and Zastava/Serbian rifles are more durable.

This means the thicker 1.5mm receiver AK's are a lot less likely to experience malfunctions like the thinner 1mm receiver AK's do, when the thicker receiver Chinese, Yugoslavian, or Valmet's get hot under rapid fire, sustained-fire situations, because there's less "fatigue", thus "flex" & jams, in the thicker 1.5mm steel receivers, than in the thinner-walled receivers of the Warsaw-Pact AKM-type rifles.

Could be some of that internet truth / hyperbull??

September 20, 2007, 06:24 PM
Posted in CAPS !! 1.5mm must be better !!!

I think it's a load... and so does my co-worker who used to own and use a Russian AKM on a daily basis against people with their own Russian AKM who were using them against him...

What's Russia use 41xx steel, while it has been noted that Norinco used 5xxx tool steel in their firearms.. harder steel... but why thicker?

Also I've never seen a stamped Valmet or Galil...

Joe Demko
September 20, 2007, 06:56 PM
I have a Lancaster fixed stock with the 1 mm receiver. It is lighter and handier than my 1.6mm underfolder.
People whose judgement I trust have stated there is no difference in accuracy between the forged and stamped rifles; so I don't see why there should be any difference between stamped rifles of differing thickness. WRT durability, the intartoobs has taught me that any AK can be filled with a mixture of epoxy and iron filings, dropped from a space shuttle, run over by a drag-line, and zapped with a particle beam and it will still function fine. Since I read it on the on a computer it must be true. Since that is ANY AK, the thicker reciever equates to plain old excess weight.

September 20, 2007, 07:04 PM
the weight difference is 4 oz actually ;) yes we weighed a NODAK Yugo reciever and a NODAK NDS-1 reciever on a digital scale we use for shipping the difference is a hair over 4 ozs for the bare recievers...

1.0 is fine for the standard AKM where ya will notice a difference is with reciever mounted optics otherwise there is zero difference in accuracy with iron sights, And as ya won't wanna play with a grenade launcher without havin the RPK front trunions then there is no other benifit, with a folder being fired primarily with the stock folded the pistol grip area can get more stressed on a 1 mm reciever as it takes the full brunt of recoil but most have a reinforcing plate to negate this issue

September 20, 2007, 07:05 PM
1.6mm will probably be heavier also may not seem like much but over the entire reciever it could add a pound or two maybe less. If it were me I would probably go with the 1.6 because it would be a little beefier and I would probably avoid the stamped recievers. The 1.0mm and 1.6mm are both stamped receiver steel thicknesses.

September 20, 2007, 07:16 PM
Receivers tend not to get very hot so that should not be a problem. The 1.6 thick receiver would be desirable for the Glock drive over it with a truck test, other than that, if you keep your AK off the ground the 1.0mm should be fine.

September 20, 2007, 07:58 PM
I have the Lancaster 1.6mm AK -- there's no noticeable difference from my 1.0mm Saiga -- except I seem to have more issues with the bolt carrier, possibly due to the different width due to the thickness.

Save yourself the extra money and get the 1.0mm receiver. Consider the millions of AK's in use around the world 95+% of them are 1.0mm stamped receivers. They don't seem to have any problems with durability!


September 20, 2007, 08:53 PM
Try a milled reciever or a 1.6 receiver AK, and work the action. Both will flex less. While, yes, the action is locked at the moment of ignition, but a more rigid base is important and there will be less tendancy for binding and flexing. In an AK platform, with an AK caliber, the difference in accuracy will probaly be barely noticable or even non-existant since few AK's will be optimized for accuracy. I do think there will be quite a bigger difference in durability and reliability, but even thin receiver AK's are fairly reliable anyway. I DO like double hook trigger groups. There was a $30 difference between 1.0 mm and a 1.6 mm receiver Ak underfolder, so I bought the 1.6 mm rifle. So, No! there isn't going to be a BIG difference.

September 20, 2007, 09:37 PM
You get to build really big biceps from carrying the heavier rifle around. :D

Honestly, I don't think durability with the 1mm receivers will be an issue, since the Soviet AKM-47 had a 1mm receiver and had/has the reputation of being practically indestructible. And a non-automatic civilian AK isn't as thermally stressed as a real AKM. The main difference will be weight, I think.

The 1.6mm receiver was originally made for the RPK light machinegun (squad auto, IIRC), which was expected to get a lot hotter than a regular AKM due to extended strings of fire. (Those 40-round magazines and large-capacity drums you occasionally see are RPK mags.)

September 20, 2007, 09:55 PM
The 1.6mm were for the RPK, as previously noted, and then adopted by the Yugoslavians and others for durability shooting rifle grenades. While they are sturdier than the lighter construction receivers, it's not something even heavy AK users will really see any benefit from except in unusual and uncommon circumstances.

September 20, 2007, 10:27 PM
folks, heat is not an issue with an AK reciever....... the sheet metal is taken to 600 degrees for heat treating....

here is a video of a FA so hot it ignited


in fact me and my partner took an RPK fa dealer post sample up so hot after 12 chicom 75 rnd drums we not only burned off the HGs we literally melted the barrel, it went orange hot and the rounds started cooking off on their own in the chamber resulting in a 75 rnd runaway gun till it was empty...... it was sitting there on the bipod and the barrel just started bending up it stopped at a 45 degree angle when the empty drum contacted the ground.... we wanted to see how much the shot out barrel could take as we were going to be installing a brand new barrel anyhow...

Whats stresses the reciever is the harmonics setup as the recoil pulses collide in a full auto and particularly in a rate reduced full auto a non rate reduced AK has totally different harmonics.......

However... I've deal with too many European AKs with enough rnds through em that they had shotgun bores literally, no cracks etc...

September 20, 2007, 11:29 PM
Perhaps they went to thicker metal

Because they were using inferior grades

Or because they had a bunch of it

Or...it was a selling point...new and improved...thicker

September 21, 2007, 02:14 AM



September 21, 2007, 03:22 AM
And as ya won't wanna play with a grenade launcher without havin the RPK front trunions

So, do the Century Yugo AK's have the RPK front trunions and are they OK for launching grenades?

September 21, 2007, 10:55 AM
Thanks everyone great feedback! I've decided to get the 1.6mm because want to build bigger biceps lugging the extra 4oz around!! Also, because after handeling both versions I noticed a difference in flexability of the reciever and feel of the rifles. Plus, I added the option for the side scope mount and would prefer a more solid reciever.

Otherwise, thanks to your feedback I have realized not to expect much of anything beyond that...not more accurate, not going to launch grenades, not planning to drive over it with a car, neither will probably crack under moderate to heavy semi auto usage. I spent the extra $50 and at this point it's a rather small investment considering what I end up spending on everything else; red dot sight, ammo, magazines etc etc.

September 21, 2007, 11:03 AM
Get a milled one and it can double as a boat anchor. :p

September 21, 2007, 11:39 AM
So, do the Century Yugo AK's have the RPK front trunions and are they OK for launching grenades? Yep, just like the originals.

Have fun.

September 21, 2007, 09:10 PM
I would think about buliding my next AMD-65 with a 1.5 or 1.6, if i was planning to shoot a lot of bursts with it folded, or sell it to someone who was.

But thats not to say the last AMD-65 SBR Semi-Auto on a Vector "MK99 7.62" rec. that we built was flawed by having a 1mm and no grip plate by any means. That i know of YET anyway.

September 21, 2007, 10:17 PM
Since I don't fire full auto with 75-100 round drums, I think I'll be fine with puny 1mm receiver, thanks.


September 22, 2007, 12:33 AM
obiwan, the Yugo's use a 1.6 because they are designed to launch grenades this is also why they use the RPK front trunnion, ya can't use a standard flat trunnion for grenade launching even with a 1.6 mm receiver because the rivets will shear under the much heavier recoil (when launching real grenades which are 1.3 lbs its advised to place the butt against the ground imagine firing a shotgun with 1 lb of shot instead of 1 oz of shot) The RPK trunnion provides opposing contact of sheet metal and trunnion as opposed to a lateral contact which only leaves the rivets to take the full force of recoil

The Chinese used 1.6 mm receivers originally because of heat treating issues the extra .5 mm provides more surface contact area if ya test a Norinco receiver ya will find its not heat treated in any area they relied on the heavier material same as with a milled receiver, This was what led B-West to not heat treat their receivers with their AKs built with Chinese parts ......... as many have learned and as I advised back then a 1 mm receiver NEEDS to be heat treated .5 doesn't seem like much but for an axis pin its alot....... ALL the Yugos built on Nodak spuds receivers are fully heat treated (Century uses NDS receivers too) the ones built on Vulcan receivers as well as a few others are not fully heat treated

September 22, 2007, 12:47 AM

What kind of practical difference in accuracy does receiver thickness make when using a siderail mount and what kind of improvement can you expect by using a scout type mount instead of a siderail mount? I have noticed that my .223 AK's are more accurate than my S308, but I'm wondering how much of that is due to receiver flex. All the shooting so far has been done with siderail mounted optics. My eyes aren't good enough for serious accuracy with iron sights.

If you enjoyed reading about "1mm or 1.6mm AK reciever?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!