AMD-65 on RPK receiver?


PDA






sv51macross
December 18, 2009, 01:40 AM
As someone who has a curiosity easily piqued by the esoteric and unusual, the AMD-65 has very much caught my attention, but the dismal accuracy reported puts me off from it, as I'm seeing people reporting very large groups, and my minimum limit for a AK-pattern rifle would be the colloquial 'minute-of-man' at 200 yards (reportedly easily achieved with a good WASR). So, I'm theorizing that if a parts kit was built upon a RPK receiver that it would improve accuracy the point I stated above. Would I also need an improved barrel (if available?)(tighter rifling?) or is the idea of a 4-5 MOA AMD-65 a pipe dream that should be abandoned?

Sorry if this question is sugar-coated with naivete, please forgive me.

If you enjoyed reading about "AMD-65 on RPK receiver?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
nalioth
December 18, 2009, 02:32 AM
The AMD-65 is a strange beast.

It was designed with a short barrel for tankers and vehicle crewmen who worked in tight places.

Nowadays, you can find AMD-65s (re)built here in the US with the original 14" barrel (with legally applied muzzle lengthener), or built with new US made 16" barrels. Which barrel is more accurate is up to the individual, but my money is on the original military barrel.

It really doesn't matter what receiver you have, the bolt is locked to the barrel at the moment of firing, and doesn't even begin to move until the bullet is long out of the barrel.

sv51macross
December 18, 2009, 03:23 AM
Then what is the difference between say, a the accuracy of a WASR and a Saiga/VEPR? Barrel flex? If that's the case then the shorter barrel/gas tube/piston should yield a more accurate firearm, correct? Or does the reduced barrel length not allow the 7.62x39 to sufficiently spin-up?
I'm looking at a grouping someone posted, and though there's no scaling on the target it appears to be a ten or twelve inch circle, and the grouping is around eight.
http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56087
[scroll most the way down]
Now, those are with open sights, would a sandbagged/scoped test reveal something closer to a grouping half that size?

John Parker
December 18, 2009, 07:02 AM
Now, those are with open sights, would a sandbagged/scoped test reveal something closer to a grouping half that size?



Yes! The horrible sights on the AK are, in most cases, where it's reputation for awful accuracy comes from. Remember who it was made by and who it was made for. Although it wasn't made as a precision-shooting rifle, it's still capable of hitting its target.

Sam1911
December 18, 2009, 08:10 AM
The AMD-65 is not going to be as easy to shoot well as a full-stocked AK. Beyond that there should be few differences.

Are there some Kalashnikovs that can't hold 4-5 MOA at 100 yds? Probably. But I'd say there are far fewer than reports would indicate. Instead, I think a lot of folks discover that the compact size, various uncomfortable and non-ergonomic folding stocks, somewhat rudimentary sights, unwieldy 30 rd. magazines, and cheap, low-quality ammo all conspire to make the guns a bit more difficult to shoot accurately (even -- or espeically -- off the bench), when compared to the bolt actions and lever rifles they might be used to.

I have shot 2-3" groups with AKMs in both 7.62 and 5.45, and I've watched one milled Norinco shoot honest-to-pete >1.5" groups, easily with surplus ammo.

Personally, I can't find much love for the AMD-65s. Just not shootable enough for my tastes. But if you do get one, I'd be pretty surprised if you find that a practiced shooter, using good bench techniqe, and finding ammo it likes (not just whatever's cheapest) couldn't hold at least 4" groups with it.

-Sam

sv51macross
December 18, 2009, 10:30 AM
So with a properly zeroed red-dot and me doing my part it would likely achieve my accuracy goal? what possible modifications could be made to improve the accuracy from a mechanical standpoint to the level of a Saiga or VEPR?
(Assumes the stock is modified to achieve consistent, comfortable cheek weld)

Sam1911
December 18, 2009, 10:54 AM
what possible modifications could be made to improve the accuracy from a mechanical standpoint to the level of a Saiga or VEPR?

Well, that's a good question. My personal belief is that, as long as the quality of the build is adequate, there's very little difference in mechanical accuracy potential betwen any of the AKMs. If the barrel is in good shape, the crown is clean and straight, there's not a whole lot else to check.

A good trigger helps (you) with accuracy, but an AMD build is going to come with a US-made trigger, probably a Tapco set. And they're usually pretty good. Sometimes, surprisingly good for what it is. (I dropped in a Tapco fcg when I built my AKS-74 and the thing is almost TOO light.)

Finding a solid and repeatable way to benchrest an AMD-65 will help, too. It's a compact gun, with very little in the way of a buttstock to rest on a rear bag, and both a magazine and that oddly angled foregrip in the way of resting it securely on a front rest or bag, as well. Taking the time to figure out or even make up a secure firing platform that can hold that oddly shaped gun will help you make more consistant shots from the bench.

What are your goals? If you simply want to prove to yourself that the gun is capable of a certain level of accuracy before you invest your time into training/practicing with it, this will probably be fine. But there's not much practicality or value in trying to punch tiny groups from a bench with such a gun. It's built to do OTHER things well. If you don't want, need, or plan to take advantage of its characteristic design goals, then owning it might be an exercise in frustration.

If you want a gun that you can stow somewhere inobtrusive, that has reasonable power at fairly close range, and you want to practice "practical" (or "action") type shooting scenarios in various field positions, you'll probably learn to love it.

If you want a gun for plinking from the bench, there are far better choices -- even among the Kalashnikov family (none of which are really at home in that role). In the end, it's kind of like road racing a dragster. Not really meant for this kind of thing.

-Sam

sv51macross
December 18, 2009, 11:35 AM
The first and third things you mentioned [Wanting it to be capable of minimum accuracy before investing time with it. / Compact, versatile, powerful platform for tactical play.] are the reasons behind this thread. I'm not a fan of the bench-rest shooter concept, in my case it would scream mall-ninja, and as you mentioned, inappropriate use for the firearm.

Also, I've seen psudo-peep-sights to replace the standard leaf sight, how do these rate? Are they substantially better than standard, or a waste?

Sam1911
December 18, 2009, 11:45 AM
peep-sights to replace the standard leaf sight

Like the Mojo sights? http://www.mojosights.com/ak47_sks.html

People who've bought them seem to like them. (Search THR for several threads.)

Some folks feel that aperture sights should be placed very close to the eye to work correctly, and the AK rear sight base is way too far forward for that. I tend to agree, but I've never shot with them.

The really hot ticket right now is the LaRue Iron Dot. http://www.laruetactical.com/pics/laruetacticalak-irondot/laruetacticalak-irondot.html

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/sam1911/irondot.jpg

Love to scratch up some cash for one of these sometime.

-Sam

Hizzie
December 18, 2009, 03:25 PM
The AMD-65 is more accurate than you think. That shorter barrel is stiffer and suffers less whip. That obnoxious muzzle brake makes follow-up shots quick and easy.

nalioth
December 18, 2009, 03:39 PM
Then what is the difference between say, a the accuracy of a WASR and a Saiga/VEPR?
Provided your WASR came with a good barrel (and not one where they screwed the pooch while manufacturing it), any differences are gonna be human ones.

briansmithwins
December 18, 2009, 05:15 PM
The receiver is among the last things that are going to effect accuracy. Barrel and crown quality are going to matter WAY more than what receiver the barrel is pinned into.

You handloading ammo for this precision AMD?

BTW, both my AKs, (SLR107FR and AES-10B) are 4MOA rifles, using Yugo M67 ammo. No difference even though the AES-10B has the thicker 1.5mm receiver. BSW

Gunfighter123
December 18, 2009, 07:39 PM
I have a TGI built AMD65 and can hit a basketball size target at 200 yards on demand.

As Hizzie posted The AMD-65 is more accurate than you think. That shorter barrel is stiffer and suffers less whip. That obnoxious muzzle brake makes follow-up shots quick and easy.

sv51macross
December 18, 2009, 08:17 PM
@ Gunfighter123

Sounds good enough to me! Open sights (leaf or Mojo?) or red-dot? And what kind of quality does (or should I say did) TGI build their guns to? Possible to achieve home-built with parts kit and nodakspud receiver (kit in question already has legal brake pinned on the barrel)?

Gordon
December 18, 2009, 08:40 PM
I put an AMD 63 upper on my pre 2nd ban 85 M receiver 4 years ago and an Ultimak rail with an Aimpoint M2 on it. I get 6" groups with good ammo at 200 yards which is good enough for me!

nalioth
December 18, 2009, 09:24 PM
Sounds good enough to me! Open sights (leaf or Mojo?) or red-dot? And what kind of quality does (or should I say did) TGI build their guns to? Possible to achieve home-built with parts kit and nodakspud receiver (kit in question already has legal brake pinned on the barrel)? You'll far surpass a TGI build if you build it yourself.

Don't get me started.

If you enjoyed reading about "AMD-65 on RPK receiver?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!