NEW WASR vs. SAR-1


PDA






briang2ad
November 6, 2010, 05:04 PM
I read plenty of posts of folks who with newer WASRs have better experiences, and generally are as accurate as SAIGAs and Arsenals.

So... are they as good or better than the old SAR-1s which became very popular once they were gone...?

If you enjoyed reading about "NEW WASR vs. SAR-1" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bovice
November 6, 2010, 05:21 PM
My friend was shopping around for an AK style rifle back in March/April. We went to gun shows and looked at lots of different makes of AK style rifle.... But to me, they all pretty much looked exactly the same. Seemed to be of the same construction and similar if not identical materials. He went with a WASR and I think it probably shoots as well as any of the other ones out there. The bolt cycles nicely, the bore was in good shape, and the stocks weren't bad. They weren't finished as nicely as some that we saw, but a little bit of wood stain would fix that.

As far as I know, he hasn't had any failure to fire for any reason, shooting steel case wolf/brown bear or the winchester brass stuff. Only investment I think I would make is a red dot and a mount for it. The sights just suck, and its easy to get the rear notch maladjusted for elevation. But this is coming from an AR guy, so take that for what it's worth to you.

nalioth
November 6, 2010, 11:03 PM
So... are they as good or better than the old SAR-1s which became very popular once they were gone...? From a quality standpoint, they should be equal or better.

Today's WASRs are made from surplussed Romanian military Kalashnikovs. Every commercial Kalashnikov to come out of Romania from the early WASR era and before used parts rejected for military service.

IMHO, you're still better off buying and converting a Saiga, as it's made from all-new non-rejected parts (many right off the military assembly line). You just don't know if the WASR you're buying came from the Romanian military test-to-destruction batch . . .

Packman
November 6, 2010, 11:07 PM
Should be ok. Just watch out for a canted front sight block or gas block. Some of them have problems with this. It can be fixed, but it's a pain. Easier to just check ahead of time. If you look down the barrel as you're holding it in a firing position, it should make itself relatively obvious.

I have the WASR, mine has a canted front sight block. I'll get around to fixing it someday. Right now, I haven't shot it in a couple years. I wish I'd known to look for that when I bought it, but I was young and dumb.

Other than that, you should be good to go with either.

W.E.G.
November 6, 2010, 11:10 PM
Every commercial Kalashnikov to come out of Romania from the early WASR era and before used parts rejected for military service.

Where did you hear this, and what constitutes a "rejected" part?

With a condemnation like that, I'd think we would be hearing about SAR and WASR failures left and right.

...crickets.

mshootnit
November 6, 2010, 11:39 PM
Dad's got an SAR-1 which is a Clinton ban era AK with no muzzle device or bayonet lug. The rifle is pretty cool and I found the quality to be OK. I think the new WASR's are on par with that rifle. I don't think you would be disappointed.

Dionysusigma
November 6, 2010, 11:49 PM
The triggers in present-day WASRs are much nicer feeling than my old SAR-1. That's without firing, though--the SAR had a nasty case of trigger slap going on that nearly ruined the whole hobby of shooting for me early on. Aside from that, they seem fairly comparable in terms of quality. Not so much a fan of the "laminated" wood furniture, though...

nalioth
November 7, 2010, 12:00 AM
Every commercial Kalashnikov to come out of Romania from the early WASR era and before used parts rejected for military service.
Where did you hear this, and what constitutes a "rejected" part?

With a condemnation like that, I'd think we would be hearing about SAR and WASR failures left and right.If you read what you quoted, I said "rejected for military service", not "rejected for safety" or "rejected for overall quality". There have been many WASRs reported with bad barrel chrome, odd shaped parts, etc. None of which affect safety.

THe military has standards for it's equipment. Some of these standards make no sense to a civilian, but fwiw, the Romanians recycled their military rejects for more than a decade, and are now recycling their old military rifles.

If you enjoyed reading about "NEW WASR vs. SAR-1" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!