AK Milled Vs. Stamped Receiver


PDA






BigDeesul
August 22, 2010, 01:15 PM
Would you rather have an AK with a milled receiver, or a stamped variant? What's your opinion and why?

If you enjoyed reading about "AK Milled Vs. Stamped Receiver" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sam1911
August 22, 2010, 01:24 PM
Personally, I like the stamped ones.

Lighter, waaaay cheaper. I've shot some very accurate milled receiver guns. Like 1.5" off the bench at 100 yds with very average ammo. But my 5.45 stamped AKS-74 will do about 2" at the same distance, off the same bench, with mil surplus ammo, so I haven't noticed any practical benefit from the added weight and cost.

Carrying one and using one in dynamic situations make the lighter weight a plus.
Practical service life is far greater with both guns than almost any shooter -- even in wartime -- would ever exceed, so no measurable difference there.

briansmithwins
August 22, 2010, 01:25 PM
Stamped.

Lighter and cheaper with no real disadvantages.

The actual stressed parts are solid steel on either receiver type. The stamped receiver has very little stress on it where it's riveted to the trunnion. BSW

BigDeesul
August 22, 2010, 01:32 PM
BSW, that's one of the best explanations I've heard in a while.

AK103K
August 22, 2010, 01:40 PM
Stamped. For most of the reasons above. They also generally offer more options as far as furniture and related accessories go.

Evil Monkey
August 22, 2010, 01:50 PM
stamped, the AK is already heavy enough.

481
August 22, 2010, 02:17 PM
I have three Arsenal SA M7s and 3 SAS M7s and I prefer milled receivers. Just something about that solid hunk of milled steel that instills the extra confidence that it'll be around for a very, very long time.

I'll take every little bit of extra durability that I can get.

wally
August 22, 2010, 02:20 PM
According to the History Channel's "Tales Of The Gun" the original AK-47 design called for a stamped receiver, but the Soviet stamping and heat treating technology of the time was not up to the task. So the milled receiver was born, turning an 8 lb casting into a 2 lb receiver was horribly inefficient, even for the Soviet standards of the time.

noyes
August 22, 2010, 02:36 PM
Chinese extra thick 1.6 , stamped.

Sebastian the Ibis
August 22, 2010, 04:01 PM
Sam & Briansmith nailed it.

Milling is expensive and adds weight, however more complicated designs can be made with milling. The AK receiver is not complicated and it can be stamped so there is no reason it should not be. Your car would not be any more reliable if the door panels were milled not stamped. It would just add weight and expense. The same is true with AK's.

Bolt action rifles, which have to be milled, are more accurate than AK's, sten's, grease guns etc. that are stamped. However people compare apples to oranges and think that since rifles of a type which require milling are more accurate than stamped designs, milling a stamped design will make it more accurate - its not.

Hizzie
August 22, 2010, 05:20 PM
Stamped.

Lighter, cheaper, more stock options (try replacing that fixed stock with a folder on a milled receiver), dissapates heat faster. Stamped AK's also came in many more "fun" flavors such as the AMD-65. My favorite AKM.

Enachos
August 22, 2010, 05:35 PM
Stamped. Don't see the practical advantages to a milled receiver... Just added weight IMO.

Girodin
August 23, 2010, 12:09 AM
Interesting thread with interesting answers :)

My thoughts are found in this thread (of which the current thread is a spin off): http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=539907

The cliff notes version is what has been said here by others. There is no practical advantage to a milled receiver thus I'll take a gun that is lighter and costs less, to whit, the stamped receiver.

If you enjoyed reading about "AK Milled Vs. Stamped Receiver" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!