Which of these AKs should I buy?

Girodin said:

Milled guns offer zero practical advantage. Paying more for a gun that is only heavier and offers not practical functional advantage is not something that appeals to me.

Click to expand...

In your uninformed opinion.

Girodin said:

When people result to ad hominems that is a good indication of the strength of their arguments. In stead of deviating from forum rules and resulting to childish name calling and other logical fallacies why don't you just explain the functional advantages of the milled receiver gun.

Click to expand...

Pot meet kettle.

Given the frequency with which you engage in ad hominem attacks (quite a few of your past posts seem to involve that behavior), you are hardly one to say anything about that.

I'd also imagine that many here are already aware of the advantages offered by milled receivers: forged, milled receivers offer both increased rigidity and strength as well as greater accuracy.

Their greater mass of the milled reciever attenuates recoil better than a slightly lighter (about a pound) system. You can make all the unsubstantiated claims about forged/milled receivers that you want, but those allegations positively fly in the face of reality: Milled/forged receivers command a premium in the market place for many reasons.

Those reasons:

People trust a milled forging more than they do a stamped and riveted sheet metal reciever. Rivets can and do serve as a stress/shear point once the receiver wears and loosens under stress or if they are set improperly; the sheet metal stamping can and does warp under high heat (extended firing) and sheet steel will never, ever be as durable or as strong as a milled steel forging.

The small difference is mass between the stamped and milled receivers (7.25 pounds vs. 8.30 pounds or an ounce over a pound) mitigates recoil better and is hardly an issue except perhaps for those who are miserably out of shape and given that many folks affix all manner of unnecessary "tacticool" stuff to their guns these days, the point you've made is moot at best.

Those who claim that a stamped sheet steel receiver is the equal of a milled forged receiver are fooling no one except themselves and are likely doing so simply because they cannot locate and/or afford one. That's called rationalization.

481 said:

Rivets can and do serve as a stress/shear point once the receiver wears and loosens under stress or if they are set improperly; the sheet metal stamping can and does warp under high heat (extended firing)

Click to expand...

Care to cite a source where an AK has failed under these conditions?

A factory AK, not an American mixmaster.



Since you can't, your argument holds no water, as to my knowledge, nobody's worn out an AK (with any receiver) yet.

. . and as far as "attacks", you're doing pretty good with your summation that those who choose stamped AKs are either ignorant or poor (because with the availability of the "divine" milled receiver AK, nobody would actually decide not to buy one, right?)

All AKs are good.

nalioth said:

Care to cite a source where an AK has failed under these conditions?

A factory AK, not an American mixmaster.

Since you can't, your argument holds no water, as to my knowledge, nobody's worn out an AK (with any receiver) yet.

. . and as far as "attacks", you're doing pretty good with your summation that those who choose stamped AKs are either ignorant or poor (because with the availability of the "divine" milled receiver AK, nobody would actually decide not to buy one, right?)

Click to expand...

Putting words into someone else's mouth is indicative of a pitiful and weak argument. I never used the derogative terms "poor" or "ignorant" in my post. If you took it that way perhaps its because you believe those terms apply to you and I am simply not responsible for that. Truth hurts, I guess.

Simply stating the facts does not constitute an attack and what little there is to argue is as "water-tight as a frog's butt". The milled forging is superior to the stamped sheet unit. It offers superior rigidity, strength and accuracy. Its slightly greater mass (1.05 pound) attenuates recoil better than the minimally lighter system.

The difference in mass is hardly a consideration given that people hang all kinds of attachments on their rifles, especially these days. I could understand the increased mass being an issue if the difference was really large/noticeable, like 4 or 5 pounds, but it simply isn't. Most folks runnin' around with AR platforms these days start out with a rifle that has a "curb weight" of ~7.75 pounds (give or take a quarter pound) before they start hanging accessories off of them and nobody calls those rifles "heavy".

Again, simply stating the facts does not constitute an attack. In my first post on this thread, I stated my opinion and preference. Both you and Girodin appear to have some emotional investment in the issue of stamped sheet steel receiver durability/quality and have reacted as you have. I can't help that, but facts are facts, like 'em or not. The milled forging beats the stamped sheet steel unit all week long with its greater strength and rigidity and better accuracy. It is unfortunate that you have both let this get under your respective skins.

Your contentiousness (as well as Giroden's) supports my assertion that people rationalize the stamped receivers as being "equal" to the milled/forged receivers even though they know that is not the case. I've spoken the truth and that is all there is to it; otherwise the issue wouldn't have gotten under your skin in the manner that it so clearly did when I called the issue into question.

Although I never addressed wear, the milled forging wins again since it will wear at a lesser rate since the forging process aligns the grain structure of the metal into a more durable form. Nothing like that happens with a sheet steel stamping.

I can understand why many folks would like a good milled. They can be a very solid build. Probably not needed by most folks but appreciated by many for a reason.

I have a friend that painted the whole AK in pink with black stripes.
Does it work the same? yes. Is it needed? no. Is is an exclusive item? yes.
Do folks like it? Some, I guess.

I don't understand folks lurking all day cutting and pasting people's previous comments looking for a senseless, meaningless argument that lead nowhere.

I see it every day.... AK vs AR, 9mm vs 40cal, Milled vs stamped, mine vs yours....

I am not saying this is the case here but sometimes I guess folks find this type of dynamic fulfilling in the solitude of their pity online existence.

Given the frequency with which you engage in ad hominem attacks (quite a few of your past posts seem to involve that behavior), you are hardly one to say anything about that.

Click to expand...

Why don't you either PM the links of such incidents to me or post them here if you like and if I have I will apologize to those people.

I'd also imagine that many here are already aware of the advantages offered by milled receivers: forged, milled receivers offer both increased rigidity and strength as well as greater accuracy.

Click to expand...

Milled receivers offer no advantage in accuracy this is a myth that likely arises out of the fact that many milled receiver guns had better barrels installed than many of the low end stamped guns. Please explain how the milled receiver its self affects accuracy?

Lets assume agruendo that the milled gun is more accurate. How much more accurate is it? Is the difference greater than that caused by the cheap steel cased ammo most folks shoot through their AKs? If you are shooting 4 MOA ammo then what does one care about a slight (again assuming for sake of argument it actually existed) increase in accuracy? Is this difference enough that it would make a difference to folks shooting with open sights from field positions. Again I imagine for many that is also more of a factor than the purported accuracy advantage.

The small difference is mass between the stamped and milled receivers (7.25 pounds vs. 8.30 pounds or an ounce over a pound) mitigates recoil better and is hardly an issue except perhaps for those who are miserably out of shape

Click to expand...

That depends on how one is going to use the gun. If it is walk it over from the care to the square range and go through a few mags then it makes no difference. If your uses are more expansive than that then a 1lb can make a lot of difference over time it can also make a difference in how the gun handles, say transitioning from one target to the next. I know a lot of very in shape hikers that go nuts over reducing mere ounces of their load.

It offers superior rigidity, strength and accuracy. Its slightly greater mass (1.05 pound) attenuates recoil better than the minimally lighter system.

Click to expand...

This is what your argument really boils down to but where is the practical advantage?

Ridigity is not an inherent advantage what does it result in that is better. I know you will say accuracy, but that has been discussed, and is addressed further below.

Strength/durability: I might agree that it is stronger or wears better, but I do not believe the added strength is really a practical advantage. I am not aware of any incidents of a stamped receiver failing (outside of nasty Kabooms that would have mangled a milled one as well). Even people that put AKs through vary hard use are unlikely to wear out or break the receiver. There is no problem with the stamped receiver not being strong enough therefor the stronger milled one really isn't offering a practical advantage, more of a theoretical one. Furthermore, seeing as a stamped gun is half the price I'd rather just have a whole spare gun as a backup if I was truly worried about durability. The barrel and other parts are likely to go before the receiver anyhow. Will a milled gun out last 3 saiga conversions? If not dollar for dollar I don't even see an advantage in durability period versus a stamped gun.

Accuracy: Again you have stated this is a fact but you certainly have not demonstrated it or even given a bases for anyone to believe it is true apart form the fact you have said it. My experience with dozens of different AKs, as well as simply considering how an AK actually functions, and the lack of evidence, as opposed to assertions, that milled guns are per se more accurate than stamped guns leads me to believe this is just an often repeated but unsubstantiated claim. I have already treated above the lack of practical advantage even if it were true, and there is not evidence that it is.

Yes extra weight reduces felt recoil but felt recoil is a non issue on an AK.

In sum, extra weight is a poor traded off for slight recoil reduction is a very soft shooting gun. There is no good evidence that milled guns are per se more accurate than stamped guns, stamped guns are already more than durable and strong enough, thus stronger and more durable might be a theoretical advantage but is not practical advantage.

Oh, and by the way the argument, you disagree with me ergo you are emotionally invested, is a logical fallacy and does nothing to strengthen your contentions but much to undercut them.

Milled/forged receivers command a premium in the market place for many reasons.

Click to expand...

They are less common and more expensive to build perhaps? It is not a result of superior function that matters in any practical way. Lots of things command a premiums for all kinds of reasons.

In the end I still don't see what PRACTICAL advantage a milled gun offers period and even more so when one considers the added cost.

There is nothing to substantiate that they are per se more accurate

Even someone who uses their gun very hard is unlikely to have the receiver fail from on them from wear. I've never seen or heard of it happening in a carbine course, competition or any other hard use activity. Stamped receivers hold up to hard use in .308 guns too.

The x39 AK does not recoil enough to be an issue for shooters that I know. If it was an issue it could be dealt with apart from making the gun heavier.

A milled gun does offer disadvantageous:

Cost

Weight (which depending on use 1 lbs can be a big deal)

Parts availability: not a huge issue but things are in my experience generally speaking easier to find for stamped guns.

In sum I believe stamped guns are a better choise because a milled gun wont really do anything better than stamped guns, but it is heavier (which it me is a disadvantage) and costs significantly more.

Girodin said:

Why don't you either PM the links of such incidents to me or post them here if you like and if I have I will apologize to those people.

Milled receivers offer no advantage in accuracy this is a myth that likely arises out of the fact that many milled receiver guns had better barrels installed than many of the low end stamped guns. Please explain how the milled receiver its self affects accuracy?

Lets assume agruendo that the milled gun is more accurate. How much more accurate is it? Is the difference greater than that caused by the cheap steel cased ammo most folks shoot through their AKs? If you are shooting 4 MOA ammo then what does one care about a slight (again assuming for sake of argument it actually existed) increase in accuracy? Is this difference enough that it would make a difference to folks shooting with open sights from field positions. Again I imagine for many that is also more of a factor than the purported accuracy advantage.

That depends on how one is going to use the gun. If it is walk it over from the care to the square range and go through a few mags then it makes no difference. If your uses are more expansive than that then a 1lb can make a lot of difference over time it can also make a difference in how the gun handles, say transitioning from one target to the next. I know a lot of very in shape hikers that go nuts over reducing mere ounces of their load.

This is what your argument really boils down to but where is the practical advantage?

Ridigity is not an inherent advantage what does it result in that is better. I know you will say accuracy, but that has been discussed, and is addressed further below.

Strength/durability: I might agree that it is stronger or wears better, but I do not believe the added strength is really a practical advantage. I am not aware of any incidents of a stamped receiver failing (outside of nasty Kabooms that would have mangled a milled one as well). Even people that put AKs through vary hard use are unlikely to wear out or break the receiver. There is no problem with the stamped receiver not being strong enough therefor the stronger milled one really isn't offering a practical advantage, more of a theoretical one. Furthermore, seeing as a stamped gun is half the price I'd rather just have a whole spare gun as a backup if I was truly worried about durability. The barrel and other parts are likely to go before the receiver anyhow. Will a milled gun out last 3 saiga conversions? If not dollar for dollar I don't even see an advantage in durability period versus a stamped gun.

Accuracy: Again you have stated this is a fact but you certainly have not demonstrated it or even given a bases for anyone to believe it is true apart form the fact you have said it. My experience with dozens of different AKs, as well as simply considering how an AK actually functions, and the lack of evidence, as opposed to assertions, that milled guns are per se more accurate than stamped guns leads me to believe this is just an often repeated but unsubstantiated claim. I have already treated above the lack of practical advantage even if it were true, and there is not evidence that it is.

Yes extra weight reduces felt recoil but felt recoil is a non issue on an AK.

In sum, extra weight is a poor traded off for slight recoil reduction is a very soft shooting gun. There is no good evidence that milled guns are per se more accurate than stamped guns, stamped guns are already more than durable and strong enough, thus stronger and more durable might be a theoretical advantage but is not practical advantage.

Oh, and by the way the argument, you disagree with me ergo you are emotionally invested, is a logical fallacy and does nothing to strengthen your contentions but much to undercut them.

They are less common and more expensive to build perhaps? It is not a result of superior function that matters in any practical way. Lots of things command a premiums for all kinds of reasons.

In the end I still don't see what PRACTICAL advantage a milled gun offers period and even more so when one considers the added cost.

There is nothing to substantiate that they are per se more accurate

Even someone who uses their gun very hard is unlikely to have the receiver fail from on them from wear. I've never seen or heard of it happening in a carbine course, competition or any other hard use activity. Stamped receivers hold up to hard use in .308 guns too.

The x39 AK does not recoil enough to be an issue for shooters that I know. If it was an issue it could be dealt with apart from making the gun heavier.

A milled gun does offer disadvantageous:

Cost

Weight (which depending on use 1 lbs can be a big deal)

Parts availability: not a huge issue but things are in my experience generally speaking easier to find for stamped guns.

In sum I believe stamped guns are a better choise because a milled gun wont really do anything better than stamped guns, but it is heavier (which it me is a disadvantage) and costs significantly more.

Click to expand...

Oh, save it.

As for hunting down all of your contentious/snotty responses, behave like a real man and do your own work instead of asking others to do it for you. I'll get you on your way though....

As for apologies, both you and nalioth can start with everything after my first post (#17) back on page 1 after you both attacked me simply for expressing my preference, a preference that had absolutely nothing to do with either of you. Read it again. Not a word to either of you, about you or your posts.

As far as I am concerned, neither of you have much to say, let alone contribute, unless that contribution is snarky, contentious commentary.



With that out of the way, since I had no intention of having these two "participants" hijack the OP's thread, I'd ask with apologies to the OP and everyone else that we now permit the thread to return to its intended topic and course.

I am going to get an AK Phd! you'll see buster!

As for apologies, both you and nalioth can start with everything after my first post (#17) back on page 1 after you both attacked me simply for expressing my preference,

Click to expand...

Or you could give a good faith reading to post 18 which was merely Nalioth posting his own opinion that differed from yours. Post #19 you replied with name calling and devolved from there.

With that thread history clarified, and it established that you are unwilling to back up your accusations made about me, I am very happy to keep it to answering the OPs question.

An important subsidiary question is whether a milled receiver is worth the extra cost (he is asking which one of two guns to buy, and one is a more expensive milled gun). On that note:

What practical advantage does a milled receiver gun offer?

What evidence do you have that a milled receiver is per se more accurate and how much more accurate is it? You have asserted this repeatedly what evidence do you have to support your bald assertions?

I'm sure the OP, and the rest of us, would find it more helpful if you used facts to refute whatever points I made in my last post that you find erroneous rather than merely telling me to "save it." If there is an error or you have a differing take on any of those points lets hear it and let the market place of ideas function. Point out what is untrue in what I have written, rather than merely calling me uninformed, (which is a synonym of ignorant BTW see post #29) or otherwise avoiding a discussion of the merits.

Greywolf,
Cannot go wrong with the SGL.

Also consider this one for the summer....

Hmmmm, I was really hoping to read some conclusive evidence that a milled gun was more accurate. It is interesting that for as many times as I have seen people fervently make that claim I am yet to see anyone substantiate it in any way.

Girodin said:

Hmmmm, I was really hoping to read some conclusive evidence that a milled gun was more accurate. It is interesting that for as many times as I have seen people fervently make that claim I am yet to see anyone substantiate it in any way.

Click to expand...

Why bother?

It is clear by your rhetoric that you are convinced that yours is the only authoritative perspective on the matter and clearly haven't bothered to read or cannot comprehend anything I've provided in support of my assertions.

I'd paste once more what I've stated above in support of my assertions, but your failure to comprehend (I am assuming that you've actually read what I've said, but I realize the risk of such an assumption) the information provided renders that an exercise in futility.

If you are looking for someone to provide you a platform upon which to continue to rationalize your beliefs you'll need to look elsewhere. I've more worthwhile pursuits to follow than dealing with your obstinate and unnecessarily contentious demeanor.

481,
Of several milled AK's I have shot over the years it is hard to say if they were a lot more accurate or not but what I can tell you is they were pretty darn good.
From time to time we came across a nice condition milled in the foreign weapons training program and folks jumped right into it. If I had to give a number I would say they group below 2" easy on average. I like the extra weight in any AK carbine whether is milled, or stamped or hardwood ...just like those beefed up barrels and trunions from the molot plant or many sub machine systems. I am a big guy so I can handle it. I know it is stamped but I love the saiga .308 as it seems to ride on the similar principals in terms of rigidity and obviously with a far superior round.

Cheers,
E.

1stmarine said:

481,
Of several milled AK's I have shot over the years it is hard to say if they were a lot more accurate or not but what I can tell you is they were pretty darn good.
From time to time we came across a nice condition milled in the foreign weapons training program and folks jumped right into it. If I had to give a number I would say they group below 2" easy on average. I like the extra weight in any AK carbine whether is milled, or stamped or hardwood ...just like those beefed up barrels and trunions from the molot plant or many sub machine systems. I am a big guy so I can handle it. I know it is stamped but I love the saiga .308 as it seems to ride on the similar principals in terms of rigidity and obviously with a far superior round.

Cheers,
E.

Click to expand...

E,

Yeah, the milled receiver AK47s seem to exude a certain quality over any other AK. The mass of an unladen milled receiver AK47 (8.25 pounds) compares favorably against the mass of a similarly unladen AR platform which can go from ~7.5 pounds (M4) to ~8.2 pounds (M16A2/AR configuration) depending upon barrel length and structural configuration.

Why those who choose to complain about the mass of a milled AK47 rifle do so, is a mystery to me since it is not inordinately heavy, especially for what it is. No one fusses about the weight of a plain jane AR and I find my AR (which runs at just a bit less than 8 pounds) to be a pleasant gun to carry and work with for a day.

Of the stamped units, I most prefer the RPK derivatives (I have a Krebs modified VEPR IIK in 7.62x39 that is highly reliable and shoots like a house on fire) for their greater wall thickness. Yeah, I am a big Molot fan. Still, I can discern a smoother degree of cycling/operation from my milled AKs which I believe is a product of the increased rigidity of the milled forging.

I've gotten accuracy results similar to yours from my milled AKs, especially when using domestically produced ammunition and all of my milled AKs produce accuracy in the 2.0 to 2.5 inch range when fired at 100m using only the "Com-bloc" iron sights. The one exception is when I use Golden Tiger and then I usually see groups in the 1.75 inch range at the 100m mark. I've pushed this loads out to 200m and groups open up as might be expected to just over 5.75 inches but I suspect that my eyes might have something to do with that, too.

Never fired one of the .308 Saigas. Sounds like I might need to familairize myself with one and soon.

Fellows Fellows, Realy man, it's a Frigging AK? I have a Maddi "Stamped" but have owned Milles they are all Good and all do the JOB? I see it as the Blonds vs Red Heads arguments? I like them Both and spend as much time as I have with BOTH! Never saw a reason limit myself, Sheesh, some people? LOL

RON

It is clear by your rhetoric that you are convinced that yours is the only authoritative perspective on the matter and clearly haven't bothered to read or cannot comprehend anything I've provided in support of my assertions.

Click to expand...

If that was the case I wouldn't ask for evidence. I'm very open to learning. I simply ask for more a basis to accept things than bald assertions. All you did was say they were per se more accurate. You in no way substantiated that. Since you didn't substantiate it reading again what you wrote won't help.

You have not answered any of the following:

What is the proof that milled guns are per se more accurate?

How much more accurate is a milled gun going to be than a stamped one?

Is this difference greater than the accuracy limitations of the ammo commonly used in AKs?

Is this difference likely to make any difference to a shooter using the gun with open sights from field positions?

If I wasn't interested in hearing an answer I wouldn't ask.

Is inquiring into the basis of an assertion really that unreasonable? Maybe it is just the circles I run in, but it seems to me it is typical to adult discussions.

If you can answer those questions I'd genuinely like to hear the answers. If you don't have answers then just say that, no need to couch it in words aimed at insulting me.

Agreed with Ron. Both nalioth and girodin have presented good evidence that stamped receivers are just as good. 481's opinion is his own and is unlikely to change.

Cal-gun Fan said:

Agreed with Ron. Both nalioth and girodin have presented good evidence that stamped receivers are just as good.

Click to expand...

No, they haven't. They've come equipped with nothing more substantial than their respective opinions. Your pronouncement that their opinion constitutes evidence moreso than anyone else's proves nothing other than your simple agreement with their opinion.

Cal-gun Fan said:

481's opinion is his own and is unlikely to change.

Click to expand...

You have an impressive grasp of the obvious. Perhaps you could also favor us with another sage observation like, "It is what it is." That'd be the "icing on the cake" of your argument .

Well, you Are the one who called someone a bitter Betty Wouldn't be talking to me about wording.

Both work well. No real advantages one to the other as opposed to weight savings. Some like this, some like that. If you've got the money honey, go for the milled... or stamped and more ammo.

I do find it interesting that Russia had to hold off on their stamping the AKM due to the lack of technology available in mother russia in '47. Wasn't it in the mid to late 50's when their AKM came down the line?

Milled might be better for the RPK in full auto... dunno. Not too many of those available at your LGS tho.

Get which one floats your boat and join in the "Mine is better than yours because..." never ending discussions. Maybe buy one of each then you can tell us which you prefer and why. tho I'm sure there will exist someone to question the veracity of any claims your experience will show.

Such is life.

Dont get one. get a Vz 58

The op decided to get an SGL I believe. Great choice, I'm getting one too. This thread has degenerated, can we lock it?

I like just going with a Saiga Sports Rifle and convert it yourself. Milled is nice but I have no complaints about my stamped receiver.

New AKMs are really good but a new stamped is hard to beat. The problem is to find a good original one these days. I don't like mixing US barrels and receivers however they are put together.
I also like the saigas as someone suggested. At least the main assembly is all untouched mil spec Russian.