AK47 Education

atlanticfire said:

Here we go again, sigh [...] If you want milled, and can afford milled and are willing to pay than get it. Also find some original (russ) thick as snot steel slab mags. I got two for 300. Ive owned Saiga fired tons of them and am not a supporter, they are OK nothing more.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree with this statement. The milled receiver makes the rifle no more durable, nor any more accurate. I find that it worsens the balance (by moving the CG forward) and adds additional weight and expense, nothing more. I will concede that they look a bit better, but the AK isn't the best looking carbine to begin with, so that is a moot point IMO. Additionally I have found that any commie steel magazine will work just as well as others, why spend extra when they are more than good enough?

Get one in 7.62x39, however, 'cause magazines are slightly cheaper and ammo is inexpensive and plentiful.

Click to expand...

Gonna disagree with this one, too. 5.45x39 has been running well under the cost of 7,62 and I've been paying ten bucks for mags. Of course, I have both.

I love my Romanian WASR. I had read that the Soviet accuracy standard was approximately 15 cm at 100 meters. This is 6 inches at 109 yards. My Romanian came with a cleaning kit and two Tapco magazines. It was from Century and my sights are on straight. Also my magazines fit just right in the receiver. I also was caught up on stamped vs. milled but just decided what the heck. Around here (NE Ohio) milled receivers jack the price up alot. Saigas in my experience seem to shoot rather well. I agree with the previous poster get your ak in 7.62X39 due to cheap and plentiful ammo and its a good performer too. Its also the original caliber (M43). Enjoy!

A friend just bought a Century AK-74 (5.45) with several mags for a little over $420. Word is that with three mags they are going for about $370 from centerfire systems. After having shot a couple magazines through it today and gotten an idea of how it performed, I was surprised by some of the groups. One 75 yard group was just over an inch with two shots touching. Although we're both out of practice, the potential is there. And the function was perfect. Ammunition (corrosive, but who cares?) is about $130 for a thousand rounds!
If you just want something to shoot and have around, I'd at least consider an AK-74. For a bit over $500 you can have a functional rifle, a few mags, and some ammo put away.

Personally, I did go the 7.62x39 route. I like the heavier round. But there is something to be said for ammo that costs half as much!

@ Atlanticfire, that Beryl style mount you have there, when you take it off for cleaning, how hard is it to get it back to zero? I'm wondering because I'm kicking around a few different ideas, thought about one of those too.

Click to expand...

I remove the rear screw and just move it up enough to clean and get it back togather. I have to admit that I dont clean it unless I've shot somthing that I think is corrsive. And people can say what they want, I can't count the AKs that I've owned and now that I can afford it I'll buy quality milled AKs from now on. And from a collector stand point, whats a chopped up Saiga worth resale wise?

I never said 5.45 ammo was cheaper. Just said 7.62x39 was inexpensive and plentiful. 5.45 is usually from .02 up to .08 less per round than 7.62 (from the same manufacturer) - but it is still cheap to shoot for a rifle cartridge.

I've been paying $12.95 + shipping for surplus European 5.45 mags. If you have a source for them at $10, please share 'cause I still need several more.

Quote:
Get one in 7.62x39, however, 'cause magazines are slightly cheaper and ammo is inexpensive and plentiful.
zoom6zoom
Gonna disagree with this one, too. 5.45x39 has been running well under the cost of 7,62 and I've been paying ten bucks for mags. Of course, I have both.

Click to expand...

Quentin said:

you can get some very nice upper tier AKs or you can hold the price down to $400 and get the WASR-10/63 which will do the job as well as most AKs

Click to expand...

I always get confused when I see this.

The Avtomata Kalashnikov is a military design, produced to military standards.

There are no "upper tier" or "crap grade" models¹ - they all do as they're designed. If you believe there are "upper tier" AKs, then I guess the [strike]propaganda[/strike] marketing is working . .


[1] in factory models. There are US vendors who can turn perfectly good AK parts into a non-functional wall ornament.

I remove the rear screw and just move it up enough to clean and get it back togather. I have to admit that I dont clean it unless I've shot somthing that I think is corrsive.

Click to expand...

One big advantage to the Ultimaks, you have easy access to clean the gun, and clean it you should, corrosive or otherwise. I've never understood the mentality of not cleaning your guns, regardless of what they are or what they cost. All that is is negligence.

And people can say what they want, I can't count the AKs that I've owned and now that I can afford it I'll buy quality milled AKs from now on.

Click to expand...

Hey what ever floats your boat. If it was as big an issue as youre making it, then all the arsenal made AK's would have quickly gone back to it, but they havent, and for good reason. Stamped guns are cheaper and easier to build, and just as strong and reliable.

whats a chopped up Saiga worth resale wise?

Click to expand...

A properly done gun, about $1200+ these days.

The Avtomata Kalashnikov is a military design, produced to military standards.

Click to expand...

The ones built for Eastern bloc militaries and inspected for compliance to milspec, yes. The ones built for the U.S. civilian market, sometimes (except for the semiauto-only part, of course), but not always.

There are no "upper tier" or "crap grade" models¹ - they all do as they're designed. If you believe there are "upper tier" AKs, then I guess the propaganda marketing is working.

Click to expand...

Well, I own an inexpensive Romanian AK (SAR-1), and I'll have to disagree with some aspects of that one. I do agree that from the standpoint of reliability, a SAR or WASR will run every bit as well as a Krebs, Arsenal, or converted Saiga. However, some of the latter use higher-grade barrels (little bit better accuracy) and pay more attention to parts fit, finish, etc., so what you get in that department does vary by price. My SAR's finish, both wood and metal, is "industrial" at best, while some of the higher end AK's I've seen are more AR-like in fit and finish.

Some of the higher end AK's also reflect recent Eastern bloc upgrades to the original design, such as the Russian AK103-style 90-degree gas blocks, sidefolding full stocks, and whatnot, and some come with AR-style rear sights.

I also agree with you with regard to magazines. I shoot my AK a lot, and as a result I'd rather have five or ten milsurp ex-Warsaw Pact magazines than one or two ultra-expensive high-end magazines. The cheap milsurp mags work just as well, and I don't care so much about them getting scratched when dropped or when using them to whack the mag release as I would if they were $75 each instead of $10.

A properly done gun, about $1200+ these days.

Click to expand...

hehe, maybe you can put that much into one. But try selling it for that. Are their really companies out there ripping people off that much for a Saiga?

Restored Saigas (not the import versions), yup, thats what they are going for these days.

I only paid about $700 for mine when Krebs started doing them. Mine is the "chopped down" version with a 14" barrel.



These days, they will build you one pretty much any way you like. Personally, I dont see the point of trying to make an AK into an AR, and still prefer the basic Ak for the most part.

http://www.krebscustom.com/KalashnikovRifles.shtml


One thing you do end up with with the restored Saiga's by Krebs and a couple of others (I'm not talking about home built jobs here) is, basically a true Russian AK, that was originally made in the factories that make the AK's for the Russian military. It may not look like much in its import version, but it did start out as a "real" AK, or at least, as real as you can get here, short of older, original NFA guns.

Well, I own an inexpensive Romanian AK (SAR-1), and I'll have to disagree with some aspects of that one. I do agree that from the standpoint of reliability, a SAR or WASR will run every bit as well as a Krebs, Arsenal, or converted Saiga. However, some of the latter use higher-grade barrels (little bit better accuracy) and pay more attention to parts fit, finish, etc., so what you get in that department does vary by price. My SAR's finish, both wood and metal, is "industrial" at best, while some of the higher end AK's I've seen are more AR-like in fit and finish.

Click to expand...

I have AK's across the whole spectrum of price, and other then the US made guns, all have worked and shot about the same with ammo they like. (The US guns were the least accurate.) The higher dollar guns may have a better fit and finish, and maybe some better compliance part, but thats about all. Just paying more doesnt mean you wont have issues. My Arsenal/Global Trades SSR-85C was the prettiest AK I've owned, but it had out of spec components, compliance parts break early on, and was the worst shooting AK I've owned.

I also agree with you with regard to magazines. I shoot my AK a lot, and as a result I'd rather have five or ten milsurp ex-Warsaw Pact magazines than one or two ultra-expensive high-end magazines. The cheap milsurp mags work just as well, and I don't care so much about them getting scratched when dropped or when using them to whack the mag release as I would if they were $75 each instead of $10.

Click to expand...

The surplus mags are the way to go. I got a bunch of new in the wrap Bulgarian and Romanian mags back when they were gong for $75 for 10, and they have all been 100%. Even the beat up and abused Hungarian mags I got for around $3 each work as well, even though they look like they were run over by a tank. Most of the original, milspec mags are a weapon unto themselves, and over engineered. Like most other things "original" AK related.

Forget the TAPCO crap and most of the other Airsoft/AR type add ons, there are only a few real world items available that actually work under any kind of realistic use, and are worth spending your money on in that respect.

all i can say is the same thing that has been said time and time again it seem...

wasr-10

mine shoots great just stay away from the promags they suck an my ak and my friends wasr..

by the way does any one want to buy so promags????

I've been paying $12.95 + shipping for surplus European 5.45 mags. If you have a source for them at $10, please share 'cause I still need several more.

Click to expand...

Just two off the top of my head:
Centerfire

Copes

The ones that have been painted strip nicely with Citristrip.... I have found some lovely plum and brick red mags under that black paint.

Excellent! Thanks! (btw, I thought Centerfire was out of business)


http://www.thehighroad.org/member.php?u=29184

zoom6zoom
Member


Join Date: April 24, 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,703


Quote:
I've been paying $12.95 + shipping for surplus European 5.45 mags. If you have a source for them at $10, please share 'cause I still need several more.
Just two off the top of my head:
Centerfire

Copes

The ones that have been painted strip nicely with Citristrip.... I have found some lovely plum and brick red mags under that black paint.

Click to expand...

I'll add my .02 but most of the basics are already out there.

*Avoid 5.56NATO/.223 AK variants. They are not as reliable as 7.62x39 and 5.45x39. The reason is that 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 were Standardized in the WARSAW Pact. As the WARSAW Pact disolved the nations that tried to go 5.56NATO/.223 in their AK's did so on there own without any standardization between themselves. The 5.56NATO/.223 AK's require country specific magazine for any sort of reliability. The mags are harder to find and considerably more expensive.

I personally like 7.62 over the 5.45 for the same reasons our troops cling to 7.62NATO over the 5.56NATO.

Avoid 5.56NATO/.223 AK variants. They are not as reliable as 7.62x39 and 5.45x39. The reason is that 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 were Standardized in the WARSAW Pact.

Click to expand...

So if they standardized the cartridge it would be just as reliable? The "reason" it is not as reliable is the lesser taper of the cartridge, and I don't buy this making hardly any difference at all. Just look at all the FALs, Garands, m14s, G3s, et al that keep on going despite their respective cartridges having little taper.

I personally like 7.62 over the 5.45 for the same reasons our troops cling to 7.62NATO over the 5.56NATO.

Click to expand...

Please cite how you know all of these "ill-equipped" troops prefer the 7.62x51mm over the standard 5.56x45mm. All the troops that I know don't want to carry a 7.62 rifle.

Please cite how you know all of these "ill-equipped" troops prefer the 7.62x51mm over the standard 5.56x45mm. All the troops that I know don't want to carry a 7.62 rifle.

Click to expand...

Is there any reason to bother requesting that we keep this on topic?

(In other words... please DON'T turn this into a 7.62 -vs.- 5.56 thread...)

I wanted to get into the AK game as cheap as possible so I picked up a WASR understanding that the finish would be a bit more rough, etc but that it would likely be plenty reliable. I've had it only a few weeks but it goes bang every time, no problems yet and accurate enough though I haven't done any serious bench rest shooting to get a real idea.

I refinished the wood on mine:





If you get a WASR make sure to get one with the slant brake, bayonet, sling, tool kit, etc. I paid $10 more...totally worth it.

Hope that helps.

Maverick223 said:

Hizzie said:

Avoid 5.56NATO/.223 AK variants. They are not as reliable as 7.62x39 and 5.45x39. The reason is that 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 were Standardized in the WARSAW Pact.

Click to expand...

So if they standardized the cartridge it would be just as reliable? The "reason" it is not as reliable is the lesser taper of the cartridge, and I don't buy this making hardly any difference at all. Just look at all the FALs, Garands, m14s, G3s, et al that keep on going despite their respective cartridges having little taper.

Click to expand...

What I believe was meant was this:

If you buy a .223 Kalashnikov, you cannot buy just any milsurp magazine for it and expect it to fit (as you can with the standardized cartridges). This is due to the communists all producing their own magazine designs for their particular .223 offerings.

There have not been near as many .223 AKs produced either, which makes any milsurp .223 AK mag a relatively rare (read: expensive) beast.

As we all know, US made Kalashnikov mags (in any caliber) make great training aids, but shouldn't be counted on for the reliability their milspec cousins offer.

Sam1911 said:

Is there any reason to bother requesting that we keep this on topic?

(In other words... please DON'T turn this into a 7.62 -vs.- 5.56 thread...)

Click to expand...

Apologies , Sam, that is not my intention. It just irks me when folks speak for the common soldier without getting their facts straight.

Maverick223-You just couldn't wait to find some way of taking offense to somebody's post so you could stick up for the 223 could you?

It really has nothing to do with the cartridge itself just that lack of a standardized set of specifications for building the rifles. The USSR provided technical packages, training and even machinery to their Communist Brothers to build the AK47, AKM and AK74 rifle. Former WARSAW nations didn't get together to come up with a standardized set of specs for 5.56/.223 AK variants. Therefore all parts and mags are not always readily interchangable. This become even more of a problem once a parts kit is assembled on a US made receiver.

Regarding "ill equipped" troops. I made no such comment, that was all you.

Have a great day!