first of all i'm going to start saying that i'm not a professional gunsmith or a professional editor ;) but i like the safe use of weapons ;)
Now, i hope you guys enjoy this as much as i did making it, we all know the pros and cons of both weapons (ar and AK) so i spend a few time editing feature on both weapons and create what appear to me like a new kind of rifle, i call them the SRD-1 (5.56/223 version) and SRD-2 (7.62x39) both use common parts from the AR and the AK, those are just concept painting that with a lot of luck i may be able to produce some time in the future. i'll go into details as my project evolve.
i would like to know what everyone think about this project and please let me know "how" i can improve the design and feature of them.
* rifle free with payment of tax's and requirement of service apply.
September 5, 2008, 09:21 AM
sure free.. Only 300days of my life ;)
September 5, 2008, 10:04 AM
The Deawoo rifles thaat were imported a few years ago also fiits that billing. I shot one this last spring and loved it.
September 5, 2008, 10:29 AM
Now if only there was a way to take the AK platform and marry it to a shotgun with an expensive 10 roung mag....:)
September 5, 2008, 10:37 AM
DTE - dumbest thread ever
September 5, 2008, 10:44 AM
I don't think its a dumb idea, but I am not a fan of trying to blend the looks. Howabout blending the strengths, while eliminating the weaknesses? A 7.62x39 semi-auto that's as reliable, uses the same magazines, and simple as an AK, while possessing the sights, stock options, and ergonomics of an AR would be a dream come true rifle for many people.
The closest you could get I think, would be to take an SKS-M/D, give it tech-sights aperture sight (TS200), and give it the Tapco stock.
September 5, 2008, 11:05 AM
ok, then.. how ab out this. why keep the eccentric ak style charging handle and dis the centerline symmetric charging handle of the AR? Some might argue that the off-center mass that moves with the bolt contributes to the inaccuracy of the AK type rifle. Further, they would argue that the colinear alignment of forces at play in the action of the AR is what helps keep it on target, puts the recoil more inline with the target line, and contributes to the accuracy of the rifle.. Sum of the moments. Stoner went to Engineering school, kalashnikov didn;t have the benefit of having a rigourous understanding of certain engineering principles. He was nonetheless a genius but but he never took into account certain things that make the AK jump all over the place. That was of little consequence to the Russians; all they cared about was getting lead down range. Stoner HAD to design the rifle to eliminate as much as possible any unneccessary (I never can spell that right) moment arms. Look down on your AR next time you get a chance. It's closer to L/R symmetrical than most other rifles on the market. I'll spare you the force and moment free body diagrams.
September 5, 2008, 11:18 AM
The kids got on the interwebs again.
September 5, 2008, 11:36 AM
Some of you guys are overly harsh I would say. Didn't your mama's ever teach you that if you don't have something nice to say... Think high road.
The concept if fine, but I would venture a guess that you aren't the first to have it. A little more refinement would be necessary.
Using the stock design from an ar15 would put the stock inline with the bore, which reduces recoil (which it looks like you have). The ergonomics and controls of the ar15 are perfect imo, as is the easy to insert magazine. The accuracy of the AR is desirable, while the tapered case, gas piston operation and general reliability of the AK is better.
To try and marry these two rifles and have one that really works isn't impossible, but it isn't possible to just cut and paste in reality to get the parts together, to much retrofitting.
Personally i think the AR is about perfect, except for the cartridge, and arguably the DI gas system. And really neither one bothers me all that much.
The problem is, if you go bigger cartridge... to much recoil or weight. The current 5.56 is to wimpy and people want a better manstopper. If you go gas piston, then it become to heavy. But the DI system is too dirty. There is just no pleasing some people. Design is almost always a comprimise of sorts.
September 5, 2008, 11:48 AM
Okay, not to hijack, but are there two different rifles of ANY make or model that could somehow be made into a unique platform that is somehow greater than the sum of its parts?
September 5, 2008, 12:09 PM
It's pretty much already been done, and in a few variations.
It's just that most are no longer imported or never will be.
Imagine, just imagine, if we could get Valmets, Daewoos, Sig 550s (not the 556), Galils (with quality parts), etc.
The Daewoos used to be imported, but no longer. There are a few Valmets floating around, but big $$$$. Just imagine if they were imported in high quantities like Siagas and WASRs...
September 5, 2008, 02:36 PM
the two worst things about ak's, the charging handle, and the safe/fire switch. Something must be done about those, such as a charge handle more like a galil, and a select fire more like an ar...
The AK charging handle is perfect as is. It's simple, rugged, doubles as a forward assist and allows you to fully manipulate the bolt if you have a jam and yes, AK's do sometimes jam. A Galil style bolt handle doesn't work well with optics. You're right about the safety however. It does suck. The Mosin Nagant is probably the only rifle that's worse.
My own biggest gripe about the AK is the top cover. It's right where the rear sight and an optics rail should be and it's not solid enough for the rail. Someone needs to come up with a rock solid replacement that can mount optics and return to zero. Then while we're at it, we could raise the sights up 1" higher and redesign the stock to give it a proper cheekweld with the higher sights. ARMS makes a good removable top cover for the FAL. It's solid and holds a zero. If someone could come up with the same thing for an AK they'd have a hit.
September 5, 2008, 02:50 PM
The various AKSU (Krinkov) designs have the solid top cover that you're talking about. They are fixed in place by a pivot pin at the front, and reinforced at the rear for a tight fit. The Poles also found a workaround for the top cover, by attaching an optics rail from the rear sight base and rear trunnion. The Israelis did it on the Galil by just tightening up the clearances on the top cover.
I don't want to rag on the OP more than everyone else already has, but combining the elements of two different rifles takes a lot more than using photoshop to swap the furniture between them. If it didn't, the PSL and Dragunov would be the same gun. :)
September 5, 2008, 02:52 PM
September 5, 2008, 02:53 PM
"If you go gas piston, then it become to heavy. But the DI system is too dirty. There is just no pleasing some people. Design is almost always a comprimise of sorts."
I'd disagree my 180B weighed in at 6lbs for a 20" barrel, vs. 6.5lbs for a 16" M4 style weighting 6.5, a full 20" A2 style is closer to 9lbs. The DI system isn't that heavy at all, it's probably only a few ounces heavier then the GI system.