Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

1mm or 1.6mm AK reciever?

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by jpwilly, Sep 20, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jpwilly

    jpwilly Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,892
    Location:
    Phoenix AZ
    I'm ordering this AK from Lancaster Arms and was wondering what if any BIG benifit could be had by getting the thicker 1.6mm vs 1mm reciever? Getting the Tan Furniture, Reciever Scope Mount and AK-74 muzzle break.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. fletcher

    fletcher Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,559
    Location:
    TX
    Durability would be the only thing that comes to mind. Unless others chime in and say that the 1mm is sufficiently durable, I wouldn't worry about it.
     
  3. nalioth

    nalioth Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,841
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    If it was durability, the Russians would have used 1.6mm receivers in the AKM.

    There is no known reason to choose 1.6mm over 1.0mm in the receiver thickness.

    Please don't tell me it makes the AK more accurate. The bolt locks to the barrel trunnion at the moment of ignition. Receiver thickness has nothing to do with it.

    Another marketing tool "More is Better".
     
  4. jlbraun

    jlbraun Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,213
    The 1.0mm is fine. I have a 1.6mm and don't think it makes any difference. You have to do 0.6mm of filing on all the accessories you fit to it, though.

    I would reconsider that 6 position stock though. They have a reputation for being fragile.
     
  5. Archibald Tuttle

    Archibald Tuttle Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    41
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I personally like the stamped 1.6mm, theres something that doesn't appeal to me about the 1mm stamped receivers, most likely a weight issue and most I've handled seem to be of less quality.
     
  6. MudPuppy

    MudPuppy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,529
    Location:
    UK and Texas
    The 1.6's feel beefier, but I'd agree that 1.0 is "good enough".

    All those russian stamped AKs are 1.0s.
     
  7. SoCalShooter

    SoCalShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,091
    Location:
    That's for me to know and not you!
    1.6mm will probably be heavier also may not seem like much but over the entire reciever it could add a pound or two maybe less. If it were me I would probably go with the 1.6 because it would be a little beefier and I would probably avoid the stamped recievers.
     
  8. jpwilly

    jpwilly Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,892
    Location:
    Phoenix AZ
    I have read here regarding the differances quoted below.

    Could be some of that internet truth / hyperbull??
     
  9. MD_Willington

    MD_Willington Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,692
    Location:
    Canuck in SE WA State.
    Posted in CAPS !! 1.5mm must be better !!!

    I think it's a load... and so does my co-worker who used to own and use a Russian AKM on a daily basis against people with their own Russian AKM who were using them against him...

    What's Russia use 41xx steel, while it has been noted that Norinco used 5xxx tool steel in their firearms.. harder steel... but why thicker?

    Also I've never seen a stamped Valmet or Galil...
     
  10. Joe Demko

    Joe Demko Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,523
    Location:
    Just two minutes from sanity.
    I have a Lancaster fixed stock with the 1 mm receiver. It is lighter and handier than my 1.6mm underfolder.
    People whose judgement I trust have stated there is no difference in accuracy between the forged and stamped rifles; so I don't see why there should be any difference between stamped rifles of differing thickness. WRT durability, the intartoobs has taught me that any AK can be filled with a mixture of epoxy and iron filings, dropped from a space shuttle, run over by a drag-line, and zapped with a particle beam and it will still function fine. Since I read it on the on a computer it must be true. Since that is ANY AK, the thicker reciever equates to plain old excess weight.
     
  11. dstorm1911

    dstorm1911 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,143
    Location:
    Tucson, Az most of the time
    the weight difference is 4 oz actually ;) yes we weighed a NODAK Yugo reciever and a NODAK NDS-1 reciever on a digital scale we use for shipping the difference is a hair over 4 ozs for the bare recievers...

    1.0 is fine for the standard AKM where ya will notice a difference is with reciever mounted optics otherwise there is zero difference in accuracy with iron sights, And as ya won't wanna play with a grenade launcher without havin the RPK front trunions then there is no other benifit, with a folder being fired primarily with the stock folded the pistol grip area can get more stressed on a 1 mm reciever as it takes the full brunt of recoil but most have a reinforcing plate to negate this issue
     
  12. nalioth

    nalioth Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,841
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    The 1.0mm and 1.6mm are both stamped receiver steel thicknesses.
     
  13. mpmarty

    mpmarty Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,163
    Location:
    So. Western Oregon
    Receivers tend not to get very hot so that should not be a problem. The 1.6 thick receiver would be desirable for the Glock drive over it with a truck test, other than that, if you keep your AK off the ground the 1.0mm should be fine.
     
  14. Navy87Guy

    Navy87Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    637
    Location:
    Stafford VA
    I have the Lancaster 1.6mm AK -- there's no noticeable difference from my 1.0mm Saiga -- except I seem to have more issues with the bolt carrier, possibly due to the different width due to the thickness.

    Save yourself the extra money and get the 1.0mm receiver. Consider the millions of AK's in use around the world 95+% of them are 1.0mm stamped receivers. They don't seem to have any problems with durability!

    Jim
     
  15. ROMAK IV

    ROMAK IV Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    457
    Try a milled reciever or a 1.6 receiver AK, and work the action. Both will flex less. While, yes, the action is locked at the moment of ignition, but a more rigid base is important and there will be less tendancy for binding and flexing. In an AK platform, with an AK caliber, the difference in accuracy will probaly be barely noticable or even non-existant since few AK's will be optimized for accuracy. I do think there will be quite a bigger difference in durability and reliability, but even thin receiver AK's are fairly reliable anyway. I DO like double hook trigger groups. There was a $30 difference between 1.0 mm and a 1.6 mm receiver Ak underfolder, so I bought the 1.6 mm rifle. So, No! there isn't going to be a BIG difference.
     
  16. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    8,536
    Location:
    Down East in NC
    You get to build really big biceps from carrying the heavier rifle around. :D

    Honestly, I don't think durability with the 1mm receivers will be an issue, since the Soviet AKM-47 had a 1mm receiver and had/has the reputation of being practically indestructible. And a non-automatic civilian AK isn't as thermally stressed as a real AKM. The main difference will be weight, I think.

    The 1.6mm receiver was originally made for the RPK light machinegun (squad auto, IIRC), which was expected to get a lot hotter than a regular AKM due to extended strings of fire. (Those 40-round magazines and large-capacity drums you occasionally see are RPK mags.)
     
  17. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    The 1.6mm were for the RPK, as previously noted, and then adopted by the Yugoslavians and others for durability shooting rifle grenades. While they are sturdier than the lighter construction receivers, it's not something even heavy AK users will really see any benefit from except in unusual and uncommon circumstances.
     
  18. dstorm1911

    dstorm1911 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,143
    Location:
    Tucson, Az most of the time
    folks, heat is not an issue with an AK reciever....... the sheet metal is taken to 600 degrees for heat treating....

    here is a video of a FA so hot it ignited

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3B5Fi1qwvA&NR=1

    in fact me and my partner took an RPK fa dealer post sample up so hot after 12 chicom 75 rnd drums we not only burned off the HGs we literally melted the barrel, it went orange hot and the rounds started cooking off on their own in the chamber resulting in a 75 rnd runaway gun till it was empty...... it was sitting there on the bipod and the barrel just started bending up it stopped at a 45 degree angle when the empty drum contacted the ground.... we wanted to see how much the shot out barrel could take as we were going to be installing a brand new barrel anyhow...

    Whats stresses the reciever is the harmonics setup as the recoil pulses collide in a full auto and particularly in a rate reduced full auto a non rate reduced AK has totally different harmonics.......

    However... I've deal with too many European AKs with enough rnds through em that they had shotgun bores literally, no cracks etc...
     
  19. Obiwan

    Obiwan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,158
    Location:
    Illinois
    Perhaps they went to thicker metal

    Because they were using inferior grades

    Or because they had a bunch of it

    Or...it was a selling point...new and improved...thicker
     
  20. ftierson

    ftierson Member.

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    922
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    1mm...

    :)

    Forrest
     
  21. .45&TKD

    .45&TKD Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,077
    So, do the Century Yugo AK's have the RPK front trunions and are they OK for launching grenades?
     
  22. jpwilly

    jpwilly Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,892
    Location:
    Phoenix AZ
    Thanks everyone great feedback! I've decided to get the 1.6mm because want to build bigger biceps lugging the extra 4oz around!! Also, because after handeling both versions I noticed a difference in flexability of the reciever and feel of the rifles. Plus, I added the option for the side scope mount and would prefer a more solid reciever.

    Otherwise, thanks to your feedback I have realized not to expect much of anything beyond that...not more accurate, not going to launch grenades, not planning to drive over it with a car, neither will probably crack under moderate to heavy semi auto usage. I spent the extra $50 and at this point it's a rather small investment considering what I end up spending on everything else; red dot sight, ammo, magazines etc etc.
     
  23. Cannonball888

    Cannonball888 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,172
    Location:
    Florida
    Get a milled one and it can double as a boat anchor. :p
     
  24. nalioth

    nalioth Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,841
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Yep, just like the originals.

    Have fun.
     
  25. LeibstandarteAdH

    LeibstandarteAdH Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    535
    Location:
    South Carolina (Midlands)
    I would think about buliding my next AMD-65 with a 1.5 or 1.6, if i was planning to shoot a lot of bursts with it folded, or sell it to someone who was.

    But thats not to say the last AMD-65 SBR Semi-Auto on a Vector "MK99 7.62" rec. that we built was flawed by having a 1mm and no grip plate by any means. That i know of YET anyway.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page