AK: Cheap or Fancy?

[Shrinkmd]

I've been reading the past posts, and it seems like although the Arsenal and VEPR AK's are very well made, they are still less accurate than a brand name AR like a Bushmaster (although still probably a couple hundred bucks cheaper?) I'm interested in owning one, but a little unsure of which way to go. Normally, I am willing to pay extra for quality, but not if it doesn't matter all that much. So, reliability and accuracy wise, is it worth spending more than double what the WASR goes for to get a nice, milled-receiver AK?

Most likely use is occupying space in collection, cheap plinking, the reported reliability factor, and having a sister for the SKS

 

[Shane333]

If you want a great AK at a decent price, get a Saiga. If you like shooting .223 it comes in that caliber. You can keep it as is or do a pistol grip conversion.

Just a humble suggestion.

As far as accuracy is concerned, my .223 Saiga is a very accurate gun. Using it I outshot my neighbor and his Bushmaster.

 

[MartinS]

The Saiga is a good rifle. Have one in .308. For the military type my kid and I went the Romanian route, a SAR 1 and a SAR 2. Both are flawless in function and will hit a torso sized target at 300 meters. The SAR 2 shoots tighter but both will do what they were made for. I think you could spend a lot more for essentially the same thing.

 

[DMK]

What are you looking for? Do you want an uber-reliable 3-4MOA homeland defense rifle? Would you rather have something that can tear out the X-ring at 200 yards? Are you looking for a cheap plinker? Do you just want an AK so you have an AK?

Some folks really like the AK platform and want the best possible rifle they can get in that platform. Some folks aren't that "into it" and just want a representive AK for the collection.

Personally, I don't think even the best AKs can compete with ARs in the same price range for accuracy. ARs also have much better sights and more options for mounting optics. However, ARs aren't as indestructable and reliable as the AK. Nor are they as compact.

It's all about what's important to you.

 

[deputy tom]

I like the rugged looking and lower priced romainians.WASR's are ok if you can't locate an SAR-1.YMMV.tom.

 

[Shane333]

...
Personally, I don't think even the best AKs can compete with ARs in the same price range for accuracy. ARs also have much better sights and more options for mounting optics. However, ARs aren't as indestructable and reliable as the AK. Nor are they as compact.

It's all about what's important to you.

Gotta disagree with you a little there. While the standard AKM/AK47 is no match for AR accuracy, the AK variants in 5.45 or .223 come awefully close if not equal to AR accuracy.

Also, have you seen the plethora of optic variants for AK's? Just swing by Kalinka optics (not endorsing the company) and browse the tons of varying optics to get an idea of the range available.

As for AR optics being better, where do you get that idea? Most AK optics are very well made and as tough as a tank too.

 

[DMK]

Gotta disagree with you a little there. While the standard AKM/AK47 is no match for AR accuracy, the AK variants in 5.45 or .223 come awefully close if not equal to AR accuracy.

You may have a point there. But the AR still has a slight edge.

Also, have you seen the plethora of optic variants for AK's? Just swing by Kalinka optics (not endorsing the company) and browse the tons of varying optics to get an idea of the range available.

Yea, there are a lot of very good optics that could be mounted on either rifle. It's just easier to mount them on an AR (flat top).

As for AR optics being better, where do you get that idea? Most AK optics are very well made and as tough as a tank too.

I never said AR optics are better. Too many variables there (just about anything could be mounted on either rifle). I said that ARs have better sights.

 

[clange]

When you pay more for an AK you get better fit and finish, rare or hard to find configurations like folding stocks, and maybe if you're lucky some better accuracy.

Stamped or milled doesnt really matter either. The stamped rifles weigh less, but the milled guns have less felt recoil. Pick your poison, because other than weight theres little difference.

 

[Shane333]

Oops. My bad. Yes, you are absolutely right. The AR has better sights.

Accuracy-wise. I agree that even with similar cartridges, the AR is going to have an edge.

As for ease of mounting scopes, the AK is one of the easiest rifles to mount a scope on. The majority of AK's have a side mount base on the left side of the rifle. Slip the scope onto the mount and lock it into place in less than 5 seconds. Need to take it off in a hurry? No prolem. Release the latch and pull the optics off. Again, less than 5 seconds needed.

 

[Correia]

Too broad to answer. It all depends on what you want to do, and how much money you want to spend.

Between the WASR vs. a Vepr or a good Saiga conversion, to me it is worth the extra $100-$200. By far.

AR vs. AK - Depends on what you want to do. I like them both.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

I say go cheap. Just hand pick it so you can tell if any of the common problems exist on the one you're picking up (canted sights/gas block, etc).

Reason being, the high-end AKs give you better fit and finish, and that's it. The cheaper ones (with new barrels) shoot as well (or poorly) as the high-enders.

IMO, if you want a pretty rifle, buy something other than an AK. If you want an extremely reliable gun with plenty of accuracy FOR WHAT IT'S DESIGNED FOR, there's no need to pay several hundred $$ for a good paint job. You can take your cheapy Romanian, Egyptian, whatever and make it look nice for a lot less than the price difference between it and the high end ones.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I would say it depends. If you want to tinker and accessorize and you're genuinely interested in learning the platform, the WASR or a Saiga may be the way to go. The process of replacing trigger groups, lightly Dremeling burrs from mag wells, replacing furniture, ect. helps you learn the operation of the rifle. My brother and I each bought WASRs a month prior to the AWB sunsetting cause we didn't trust our Congress-things and wanted to have something to scare liberals with. Mine has been very reliable and surprisingly accurate. I can hit gallon water jugs at 150 yards and easily keep semi-rapid fire COM at 200. My brothers is having issues that I think are remotely tied to a Blackjack buffer he has. He is going to get an Arsenal to suplement his WASR cause he has the funds to do so. I think I am going to experiment with other systems and am thinking about a DS Arms FAL or JLD as my next rifle. But I never regretted the WASR.

Now if you just want to take it out of the box and don't want to fiddle with things, get an Arsenal, VEPR, or Krebs. I've read multiple reviews where these rifles have group 2.5" or better with Wolf ammo. And they all share the robust operating mechanism of the AK.

 

[Preacherman]

I'd say it depends what you want it for. If you want a "fun gun" for plinking, and just for the pleasure of annoying the anti-evil-black-rifle crowd, a cheap AK variant is fine. If you want to rely on it for your own defense, I'd suggest a better-quality version.

For myself, I took a Saiga (which is basically a "civilianized" AKM, made in Russia) and am having it converted to full AK configuration. You can do this for a couple of hundred bucks, which puts the total cost of the package in line with a VEPR or lower-end Arsenal AK. I'm going further, putting on high-end accessories like a folding collapsible stock, Ultimak scout-type scope mount, etc. None of these are "necessary", but I'm fine-tuning this AK to my own tastes and out of my own experience. I'll probably end up with a total package (gun plus accessories plus gunsmithing costs) in the $700-$800 range, but it will be completely customized to my taste. I like that idea, myself...

So, I guess there are three "layers" to look at:

1. Fun, cheap, low-end AK variant (SAR, WASR, etc.).

2. Higher-end AK variant (VEPR, Arsenal).

3. Custom build (take a quality gun like a Saiga as a foundation, and customize to your heart's content).

I have one or more at each level, and like to play with them.

There are also the way-out-there top-of-the-line AK variants such as those by Krebs, the top-end Arsenals, etc. However, you're talking the $1,000-plus level for one of these, and quite frankly, I think the AK is just not that sort of gun. If I were spending that much money on an assault-type weapon, I'd be looking at FN's or things like that.

 

[TheHomelandSoldier]

Go with the "medium" to "high" price guns. Find them used to save the $ and personally inspect before purchase. AK's are simple to field test. High price does not always mean good quality, and low price mean junk either. One can purchase a lightly used MAK-90 for example for $300-400. They are generally nice rifles. Other than that,

Vector,

VEPR,

Krebs,

Arsenal.

If anyone's first AK is a cheap AND crappy rifle, they will not appreciate the AK for it's potential.

 

[flip180]

Well, not exactly. My first and only AK was and is a '99 Sar-1. That model AK and year number were noted to have lots of problems with fit, finish and quality of parts especially the FCG. I can't complain being though I paid 289.00 for it. Yeah, it isn't going to win any beauty contest and is by far the worst gun in my collection and far a the fit and finish goes but, it is there to be a fun gun and a SHTF gun. I have since modified it to suit my taste with a modification here and there. I say go cheap. If you like it, put a little money into it. If I spend over 500.00 for a new AK, I will definatley also look at spending a couple of extra hundred dollars for an AR instead. To me, fit and finish aside, an AK is an AK.

Flip.

 

[Coronach]

Like the others said, it depends what you want.

A SAR or a WASR is a nice, cheap, light handy carbine. they tend to be so-so in the accuracy department.

Arsenal/whatever AKs will do everything a WASR will do, and probaably be more accurate, will look nicer, and will cost more. Whether the looks and added accuracy will be worth it are up to you.

Veprs are stunningly accurate AKs, but they're a little more spendy and are heavier...you should heft one before you decide. They're carbine length, but I'd not term them "handy." They also look funny and don't take standard AK stocks and grips.

If you're looking for economical trigger time, you should just buy $400 worth of ammo for your SKS. That, or get a .22 upper for your AR.

As to optics and sights, the AK iron sights suck. Period. However, many AKs come with the side-mount rail, and there are a whole slew of optics you can hang on those puppies. The Russians are strange little monkeys in the world of sights and optics (mounting scopes off to the side and/or kinda high up, doing funky things like taking a small objective lens and magnifying the image to get a 1x perspective, requiring you to dismount the optic to adjust elevation and windage) but I'll be darned if their glass doesn't work. I thought my Vepr was merely "pretty good" until I hung a PK-AS on the side rail. Holy cow. I'd venture to say it is pretty close to a 1 MOA rifle, I just didn't know it because of my poor skill with the crappy iron sights.

I'm less impressed with the KTR solution to the crappy sight issue. I just don't think that the whole dustcover scope rail thing is a great idea. The irons are worlds better, but I'm having rezeroing issues with them when you take off the cover. I think that someone who was looking for an AK with better sights might be better served with investing in a good russian optic and using the AK irons as BUIS. the KTR still wins in the sexiness department, and it is just plain fun to shoot with iron sights.

JMO,
Mike

 

[clange]

Agreed on the sights and optics. The irons suck, and a good red dot may shrink your groups 6x or so. My groups out of my SAR-1 went from 6-8 inches at 100 yards, to .8 inches at 60-65 yards with a PK-AV red dot. I've also got two kobras now, which are awesome for the money.

 

[Euclidean]

Well what do you want, a good out of the box rifle or a fun gun?

I just got a GP WASR-10 for Christmas and I am having a blast with it. It has turned into a project gun. I have done some light file work on the gun and its magazines to make them fit tightly but smoothly, and I have taken off the furniture sanded it down and am currently painting it the color of my sister's choice.

I have to say this is a ton of fun and I would be nervous doing things like this to a more expensive rifle. I think I've gotten the rifle to the point it will do what I want it too however.

But I have to admit my expectactions aren't that high. I just want it to shoot pie plate sized groups at 100 yards and eat ammunition without so much as a miss and I'll be happy.

 

[mndfusion]

When you buy an inexspensive AK you feel more free to do custom things to it and worry less about breaking it.

 

[Euclidean]

Exactly! Do you want to do serious social work or do you want to play around?

The funny thing is, I'm playing around, and by doing so I'm making something that could do social work if it had to, such as my recent work fixing my magazine issue. Essentially this means I no longer have said magazine issue. Suddenly I've got a viable weapon system on my hands.

The platform was made for ignorant peasants, and it's quite easily tweaked by the casual or even not so casual American gun enthusiast whose marksmanship, handling, and technical skills are leap years ahead of the millions of conscripts around the world who use this gun. They don't have any problems getting the cheap ones to work; they are after all killing each other with them somehow.

Plus it gives you an appreciation for something nicer like a VEPR or an Arsenal, and if you get something like that down the road, you have a supply of magazines, ammunition, accessories, and a spare gun already. I have found that when it comes to guns I actually use for anything serious, I inevitably buy a similar backup gun or else I get that same model over again.

 

[Gary G23]

It all depends on what YOU want. When I went AK shopping a few years back I compared the Romanian and Bulgarian guns side by side. I GLADLY paid the extra $200 for a Bulgarian.

 

[dogngun]

I have an SAR 1. It does everything it's supposed to do, and nothing it's not supposed to do. It's just what I wanted, and saved me enough money to buy 4 additional 30 round mags and 500 rounds of ammo.
I have used the M-14 and the M-16 in the army, and the AK is my preference because it is as close to 100% reliable asw a machine can be.

Mark

 

[grimjaw]

Cheap first, expensive later, once you're hooked.

jmm

 

[sobrbiker883]

I can't vote, because I wanted Russian and cheap.

I converted a Saiga, now w/a Romanian folder........

Shoots 100% reliably, but doesn't hold a candle to the AR's of mine and I wouldn't bother with the AK at all past 300 yards.........7.62X39 of course.

 

[aaronrkelly]

First well assume your going to get the AK - everybody needs an AK. Just for the "evil" rifle factor alone.

I got a WASR and a MAK90 - while the MAK90 isnt the best AK in the world its a pretty decent rifle and its miles ahead of the WASR in term of fit and finish.

That being said an AK should be cheap, that one of their biggest selling points. I think you should buy a "cheap" AK.

If the cheapest AK you can find is a WASR then get the WASR. Mine has not failed, it has no trigger slap and the FSB isnt canted. Their isnt any more mag wobble on my WASR then there is on my MAK90. Its a great gun for the money.

6 months after buying my WASR I had somebody ask me if I would be interested in a MAK90. I said maybe, whats the price. They replied $250 - I bought it on the spot. That still meets my first "cheap" requirement.....good deal for me.

Would I spend $400 on an AK - yep.

Anything over $600 and I would probably pass and I would have to really like it to spend in the $500 range for one.