SkinnyGrey
Member
I am looking to buy an AK 74. I would appreciate any help as to which manufacturers make the more quality variants of this rifle. Many thanks in advance!
Ak 74
- Thread starter SkinnyGrey
- Start date
- Status
One suggestion...
Check out a Saiga AK pattern. Here's a link: http://www.jgsales.com/saiga-5.45x3...gi,-converted-by-delta-arms.-new.-p-6905.html
Check out a Saiga AK pattern. Here's a link: http://www.jgsales.com/saiga-5.45x3...gi,-converted-by-delta-arms.-new.-p-6905.html
JustinJ
Member
Arsenal is the gold standard. Either Bulgarian or Russian, both are as good as it gets.
Atlantic and K-var are your two best bets.
Atlantic and K-var are your two best bets.
JHenry
Member
ive heard good things about waffen werks and interarms(although their tantal has been reported to have some problems)
TurtlePhish
Member
Flame suit on...
If you can, look at a Century build in person. If everything is cosmetically sound, it's probably the best you can get for a lot less money. Mine is flawless.
Check for canted sights/gas blocks.
If you can, look at a Century build in person. If everything is cosmetically sound, it's probably the best you can get for a lot less money. Mine is flawless.
Check for canted sights/gas blocks.
henschman
Member
I think the Saigas are the best deal going... the IZ-340 with the AK front end parts is what I would get. Converting the rest of it back to AK configuration is child's play. Afterwards, you have a real-deal Russian AK74 for a lot less than what an Arsenal would cost you.
JustinJ
Member
Not exactly. A "real-deal" AK does not have nuts and bolts holding the trigger guard and safety stop in place. Nor does it have two empty holes on either side. It also has a consistent finish on the bottom that matches the rest of the receiver. I'm not knocking at home conversions but i don't consider them equal to professionally assembled Arsenals either. For the record i have a home converted Saiga 12 and I'm doing a .308. I am however debating the expense of the proper tools to do rivets instead of nuts and bolts.
Okiegunner
Member
I have been very satisfied with my "Waffen Werks" build.
Inebriated
Member
It isn't too much work to use rivets, and finish the whole thing correctly.
Though I agree, Arsenal is always done better than 99% of home conversions (mine included), and costs about the same. I love my SGL21.
HorseSoldier
Member
Really depends on what you're willing to spend and if you have any particulars you are looking for (this or that style stock, street legal or SBR'ed Krinkov, etc).
I'd recommend Krebs Custom for a 74 clone, but only if you are willing to pay high end AR kind of money for an AK.
I'd recommend Krebs Custom for a 74 clone, but only if you are willing to pay high end AR kind of money for an AK.
meanmrmustard
Member
M10, or a Saiga conversion. Want the best? Arsenal. Plain n simple.
I guess if an aresenal is the gold standard then something like a Fuller build is diamond encrusted platinum.
If you think its not as good than rivet them on, weld up the holes, and refinish the thing. Its not like those are particularly hard things to do. If you cannot manage some of those tasks yourself, say welding up the holes or the rivets you could get them done easily by someone else and still come in well under the Arsenal price tag.
That said, I've never seen the things you mention make an ounce worth of difference in function.
+1 Those really affect what the best buy is. If you like the configuration and just what an arsenal come with they are often the best deal. That said they are antiquated configurations and if you are after function first you are likely going to change enough things that it may not make a whole lot of sense to buy an arsenal and then swap all the parts you want onto it after the fact. On the other end of the spectrum if you don't necessarily want the look of a particular configuration one can get a rifle that is the functional equivalent while spending hundred less.
What is your price range? What is your intended use? Do you want a particular look or are you building to serve a particular task?
Personally given the price of AKs vis-a-vis ARs right now I'm not sure I'd be buying an AK unless I REALLY wanted one and had my AR bases covered. I say that as a guy who loves kalashnikov guns and owns a dozen or so. Many Arsenal models run nearly $1000. That is pretty hard to justify when PSA was selling mil spec ARs with FN hammer forged barrels plus an Aimpoint and mount for $999 last weekend. AKs are as a class really over priced right now.
meanmrmustard
Member
If buying a $1000 AK means shoot it and forget it, money better spent than an AR. I baby mine, or rather, clean religiously. The AR vs AK has been done to death, it's not about modularity or weight, as the AK has neither going for it. It's reliability. Plain and simple.
12gaugeTim
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 293
Just a few hours ago I finished removing the fire control group from my Saiga IZ240. Waaaaay easier than I thought it would be. If you have the tools handy I recommend converting a Saiga yourself. You'll definitely be more attached to the rifle when you're done.
AethelstanAegen
Member
I can't speak for Waffen Werks, but the Interarms Tantal is good to go. You're thinking of the Century Arms built Tantals which had a significant (wrong caliber barrels) problem in the past. I'm told those are fixed no too but I went with an Interarms Tantal to avoid the problems. Mine has been 100% and I couldn't be happier with my choice. Interarms also has a lifetime warranty, Century has a one year from the day it left the Century factory (ie it will likely be expired by the time the rifle is available for purchase).
So with an Interarms build you're good to go (I've never heard a complaint about them). With a Century Arms build you should at least inspect yourself and it might be good to do a test fire to ensure it doesn't keyhole.
I really like the way the "bakalite" mags look in the rifle.
We are talking about an AK-74 here. Most folks want them to shoot cheap surplus ammo. That ammo is corrosive. Is that fire and forget? I'd worry much less about shooting a few hundred rounds or cheap 5.56 through any AR and sticking it the safe than doing the same with a 74 and some corrosive surplus.
Furthermore with respect to reliability and "fire and forget" generally:
How many and which AK and AR variants do you own?
How many carbine courses have you been to with either type of gun?
How many rounds have you shot through your AK that has the most rounds?
What is the greatest number of rounds you've put through your Ak and AR in a day, a weekend, between cleanings?
What malfunctions have you experienced with each and what was the suspected source of the malfunction.
Anyone that talks about ARs (or even AKs) as a monolithic group likely doesn't know what he or she is talking about. There is a huge range of ARs. They very widely in how they are built and in the quality of the components used. The end products vary from crap to really good guns. I would always rather have an AK than a crap AR. However, when we talk about ARs it behooves one to be more specific than simply referring to ARs as if they are all the same.
A properly built AR is going to be more than reliable enough for 99% (or more) of shooters. In fact a proper AR can go more rounds without cleaning than most owners will ever even shoot through it. See for example "Filth 14" a BCM rifle that had tens of thousands of rounds put through it in carbine courses without being cleaned. If that's not fire and forget I don't know what is.
I'm sure you know something about reliability that guys like Pat Rogers, Travis Haley, or Larry Vickers don't about reliability of guns. Travis Haley states he shoots over 100K rounds a year. Rogers put about 1300 rounds every 3 days down "Filthy 14" (last I heard it had 41K+ through it. That gun is not an anomoly. Rogers states they have run a number of guns to 15,000+ rounds without cleaning or malfunctions. How many guns have you put 15,000 rounds through? Plus, these guys see many many many more go down range through lots of different guns. Haley and Vickers teach AK classes as well. I'd suggest folks look to their informed opinions and experiences about reliability over yours or mine.
I personally have shot cases of wolf through my Noveske without cleaning it. I've put a case through it in a two days of training and then done the same thing the next time I've taken it out without any failures. Sure maybe a Del ton or DMPS or other guns where manufactures cut corners can't do that but any of the quality mil spec (or better) guns should do it without much problem.
You might chose to baby your AR. You might have a poorly built weapon that requires such nonsense. However, to project that on to quality guns is silly. That type of maintenance is what Pat Rogers referred to as, and I quote him directly, "Absolute stupidity..." Rather he says that if he was still carrying a gun for a living
How often do you clean your AK? I tend to clean mine every couple thousand rounds, about as often as my ARs. Any gun that is going to be a "go to" weapon needs to be inspected every five thousand rounds or so, be it a Sig, an Aug, an AR or an AK.
For $1000 (and less) one can get an AR that is boringly reliable with no more maintenance, or cleaning than an AK requires. I know I know, the experience of the top people in industry (and my own experience) doesn't matter because we have good old internet conventional wisdom to refute it.
What the AK has really had going for it until recently is a lower cost than other weapons systems.
Last edited:
Inebriated
Member
For the love of god, just drop the AK vs. AR argument for ONE thread. Those who want an AK will train with an AK, and become proficient and effective with an AK. Same for the AR.
Doing the front is easy enough. But you won't come in very far under the cost of an Arsenal, if you're actually using quality parts, or unless you just happen to have the parts laying around.
Ignition Override
Member
TurtlePhish:
Could many of those Century -74 builds which had barrels with 5.56 (versus 5.45) bores still be floating around?
The detailed description by "Sturmgewehr" about two years ago on THR was an eye-opener.
His 5.45 bullets all made flat "key-holes" at 100 yards, and Century told him that he was one of the very few (or only owner) to receive a free barrel replacement on his Tantal. There have been reports of other Tantals with the same serious problem, but I'm glad that the vast majority seem to have the correct bore.
They are very appealing rifles and I would like to see what a bullet does to a feral pig (any Youtube videos with 74s used on hogs?).
Could many of those Century -74 builds which had barrels with 5.56 (versus 5.45) bores still be floating around?
The detailed description by "Sturmgewehr" about two years ago on THR was an eye-opener.
His 5.45 bullets all made flat "key-holes" at 100 yards, and Century told him that he was one of the very few (or only owner) to receive a free barrel replacement on his Tantal. There have been reports of other Tantals with the same serious problem, but I'm glad that the vast majority seem to have the correct bore.
They are very appealing rifles and I would like to see what a bullet does to a feral pig (any Youtube videos with 74s used on hogs?).
Last edited:
JHenry
Member
I can't speak for Waffen Werks, but the Interarms Tantal is good to go. You're thinking of the Century Arms built Tantals which had a significant (wrong caliber barrels) problem in the past. I'm told those are fixed no too but I went with an Interarms Tantal to avoid the problems. Mine has been 100% and I couldn't be happier with my choice. Interarms also has a lifetime warranty, Century has a one year from the day it left the Century factory (ie it will likely be expired by the time the rifle is available for purchase).
So with an Interarms build you're good to go (I've never heard a complaint about them). With a Century Arms build you should at least inspect yourself and it might be good to do a test fire to ensure it doesn't keyhole.
I really like the way the "bakalite" mags look in the rifle.
i know century's are known for keyholing and what not, but ive seen a few people report that in the interarms as well. i dont doubt that the vast majority of them are fine(id trust interarms over century any day) but i was just passing along what i have read. as far as their 74 styles go (which i think the OP is more towards anyway) i havent seen a complaint on them.
like i said ive seen a "few" people report a problem with them but then again arsenals have the occasional problem.
meanmrmustard
Member
How many have you? As if it mattered to me, what is your basis for round count before inspection? Where does mil spec give you a by when cleaning anything other than bore is concerned? What does a carbine course have to do with proven track record of reliability of the AK? Shooting however many rounds in a week I can afford, how much is that in AR speak? I shoot my AKs more than my ARs in prep for hostile situations, is that bad? In every thread you're on, if youre disagreed with you start asking for credentials. For all anyone knows, I'm an instructor from Venus. Your "Dirty Dozen" or whatever that's called has been thrown around before. All it does for me is show the evolution of the AR into, finally, a half way decent rifle as of late. AKs were already being abused before the AR was born. Good thing they're cheap?
Don't worry about answering these questions. I think I have my answers, along with an idea of your legal career.
Back on topic: I'm with Adam123; a converted Saiga is a fine rifle. Mines never failed, well none of my AKMs have failed (duh), but it's really well built.
Last edited:
JustinJ
Member
Fuller would be i think considered more of a boutique AK shop, akin to Krebs or Noveske, but regardless I don't see their features as improving the reliability or durability of the gun. I've never owned one but are they actually higher quality than arsenal or do they just add some cool features?
Yes, one can weld or add rivets but to install them correctly is a different matter and both methods require tools which cost money. Unless one already has the tools laying around it will generally just be cheaper to buy an Arsenal. Refinishing methods is a whole other discussion. Regardless these are things that the vast majority of "at home converters" never do.
I don't see them as altering function either but i question if they will be as durable and reliable. I tend to prefer the methods that the designers AK's decided on. I've never seen those methods fail either but i've also never seen those methods tested in the jungles of Vietnam, mountains of Afghanistan or streets of Chechnya. Does this matter to the vast majority of US AK owners? Probably not. I do however still prefer the best methods even if i'll almost certainly never rely on them. Each must of course decide if the extra cost is worth paying.
I'd say a Fuller or Krebs is higher quality in the same way an Arsenal is higher quality than a typical basic pistol grip conversion saiga.
This can be true. It depends on a number of factors, including where the prices of saigas are at when you buy. Saigas prices over the last at least 5 years have risen and fallen many times. Right now they are as high as I've seen them, making various other AK options more attractive, in terms of price/value. One other thing to consider is economies of scale. Will you only get one rifle, or will you add a x39, and a 5.56, and a S12, and a 308, etc?
While I have not seen the whole universe of home conversions or even a sample from which I could reliably extrapolate, I would imagine that is probably correct. However, I think that begs the question of why they don't. I believe it is because functionally there has proven no deficiency in doing it that way. Back when I used to be more into Saigas, and was acquiring multiples of various calibers and configuring them to best serve my uses, I devoured basically all the info I could find online about them and modification folks were doing. I've never seen someone report any function issue caused by any of the things you list.
I think that is a fair question. The only one of the three I see actually having any kind of durability or reliability issue whatsoever is the screwed on trigger guard. I would imagine that a properly riveted trigger guard is in theory more durable or reliable than one screwed on and fastened with locktite. However, I also believe this is a theoretical advantage. I have never seen or even heard of someone's trigger guard coming off when attached by two (or even the one screw method). Users may not take such guns to war, but I know of a number of folks that take them to hard use carbine classes and use them about as hard as civilians can or will (without intentionally trying to break the gun). I think the type of forces that would damage the screwed on guard would also damage a riveted on guard. The more valid concern would be the screws coming lose. I do not think it is very likely that two loctited screws are going to come lose at the same time. Even if they did when one uses that method there is enough tension on the trigger guard that it alone keeps it fairly secure. If however it failed, so what? It would be inconvenient and bothersome, and one would need to reattach it. However, it is not a critical part to the gun functioning. It is not like we are talking about a bolt, or a carrier, or other vital part.
I tend to prefer the methods that make the gun best serve my purposes. A simple example is that I prefer to use a retainer plate to the OME method of retaining the FCG. It is better and makes the gun much easier to service.
I agree fully with that. I personally don't find it compelling to say that a riveted trigger guard is worth a the added cost (which again one could do it, including acquiring tools for less). If it is to someone else, I certainly cannot tell them they are wrong.
I tend to prefer the best for my purposes I can get as well. This is actually why I personally wouldn't ever own an Arsenal (that and their financial support of Harry Reid, but I digress). For the money I can get a configuration that works much better for how I use my guns. To me there is no sense in buying an arsenal and then tearing it apart and building it into a configuration much better suited for my uses.
I do think arsenal's tend to be most attractive when one wants the particular configuration they come in.
Not credentials. It is asking the basis of your opinion. It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another thing entirely to actually have it be based on something. When someone wants to opine, I think it is perfectly reasonable to inquire into what experience they have informing that opinion. I've noticed that people that actually have a significant amount of experience with things tend to have opinions that differ from those that don't and from what everybody just knows. If you'd like the answers to those questions I'll PM them to you as not to derail this thread. Just let me know.
- Status
