AK magazine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Building one from scratch is not likely to be cheaper unless you have a well stocked machine shop and access to the real thing for taking a metric butt-load of measurements. The USC conversion is the way to go if you want a UMP...a good alternative (much less expensive and already built) would be a Beretta Cx4 or perhaps drop the .40cal and go with a PS90, but that comes at a greater cost as well.

:)
 
Why would you convert an AK to .40sw? The 7.62 or 5.45 ammo is WAY cheaper and will do more damage at the range the .40sw would be effective.
 
Threads merged.

To the author of the OP; The answers you have been getting are probably about the best we can offer. Posting the question over and over again won't change the results, but will annoy the moderators.

Cut it out.
 
It sounds like what you WANT is a UMP, and this AK modification project is just a means to an end. It also sounds like you want a QUALITY finished product. Without multiple design iterations, prototyping, and testing, you are not going to get that. It just isn't realistic to hammer something out in 8 simple steps, and in the long run it will NOT be cheaper than buying a USC and a tax stamp.

Something else to consider, the top of an AK is a stamped dust cover. I wouldn't want that anywhere near my face (i.e., bullpup configuration) on a firearm that I plan to extensively and exhaustively modify. My good looks just mean too much to me to put them at risk like that ;)

Now, if you are still motivated to do this for academic curiosity or whatever reason, that's awesome and I support it. Just don't blow your face off.

What are the capabilities of the machine shop you have access to? That will give us some impression of what modifications may or may not be possible for you to make.
 
Sorry for the multiple posts. I thought the two topics where different enough. And another one was a mistaken repost when I tried to change the name of a previous post...

anyways, yeah, I'm not sure the tools I would have access too. I have many friends with many different tools, and may be able to find my way to the right tool if needed.

I definitely plan to prototype with mild steel first to track deformations, and then see what happens from there.

USC doesn't solve the problem because its overall length is too long, and I can't buy own a SBR.

I wanted to start another thread, but don't want to be yelled at. So let me steer the conversation over to something else.


Is blow-back really more reliable here? I want a gun I can bury in dirt and use later, like a standard AK. Does a blow-back system hold up as well... I imagine it would, but would love to hear some pros and cons for each system....
 
Blowback is simple.

Unless you're a competent machinist with a pile of cash, it's your best option.

I want a gun I can bury in dirt and use later, like a standard AK.

Then buy an AK and be done with it. You will not get any sort of reliability from a home brew monstrosity built on a converted platform...

If you want a .40, buy a .40.
If you want a bullpup, buy a bullpup.

If you want an AK... you can see where this is going.

What do you really want? Something different?

How about a wildcat AK in 9x39mm?
 
How about a wildcat AK in 9x39mm?
What about 10mm/.40cal? I think that would just barely fit the 7.62x39 case if necked up appropriately. Then it would still be a .40cal, and should be one heck of a thumper. ;)
 
Why not .357Sig? Out of a 16" barrel, I'd imagine the velocity would be astounding...

My "newest" toy is a GLOCK 31 in 357Sig (owned less than a year). The round's performance out of a 5" barrel is incredible enough as it is. Flat shooting round, accurate with a pistol out to 100yds...yeah, that's right. I wouldn't want to take it out that far, but it can go there with energy to spare. I'd love to see a Beretta Cx4 in .357Sig...damn, now look what I've done. :rolleyes:

My sincere apologies for a possible thread de-railment there.
 
Last edited:
And to answer the new question:

Firearms that are true "simple" blowback operated are so because it's the most basic, foolproof repeating system possible. They work by balancing the inertia of a relatively heavy bolt mass and a stout recoil spring against the operating pressure of the cartridge being fired. In other words, the cartridge fires and pushes the bullet one way and the (much heavier) slide or bolt and recoil spring the other way.

In handguns this is why simple blowback pistols like High-Points have large, heavy, blocky slides. That inelegant and unwieldy inertial mass is needed to balance the impetus of the cartridge being fired. Down at .22, .32ACP, .380, etc. power levels this is a reasonable system because the needed mass and spring strength is relatively low. As you move up in power, lets say 9mm and up, the mass needed and spring strength necessary to hold the breech shut during firing becomes less and less "reasonable."

It still works pretty well in carbines, though, because you can put a fairly heavy bolt and spring inside a carbine to counteract even a .45 ACP's energy. It's a bit much to heavy up a pistol slide that far, but if you ever handle the bolt assembly of an UZI you'll see what I mean. (Technically, an open-bolt Uzi acts in form of advanced ignition, which is not exactly strict simple blow back operation, but most semi-autos you'll see do fire from the closed bolt.)

Gas-op and recoil-op systems are more complicated. They are locked-breech systems that use the pressure of gas on a piston or slightly delayed inertial responses to unlock the breech once the pressure has dropped to safe levels. By default, you're adding stuff to the system and more stuff means more stuff to be slightly out-of-spec, dirty, damaged, or otherwise not contributing to perfect reliability.

So, I'd say that blow-back operation is more reliable, in general.

-Sam
 
thoughts?
There are ways to commit suicide with much less effort. :uhoh: Seeing this tutorial on manufacturing an illegal (at least as I see it), home-built pistol (much less a rifle that is closer to your face) out of sheet metal, aluminum, and thin flat stock is extremely dangerous. Proceed with the utmost of caution. Honestly I want nothing to do with it...as it is a good way to meet your maker. :eek:

EDIT: I don't know your background, but as an Engineer specializing in materials and forensics (I see a lot of things that do not work as intended), and amateur gunsmith/fabricator it is positively NOT something that I would attempt (in the manner detailed in the link above).
 
Last edited:
manufacturing an illegal (at least as I see it)

I cringe heavily at a lot of the shortcuts I see on that site, and the guy's rhetoric borders on "Infomercial" fluff, but I really didn't see anything illegal there. Did you? What?

I was concerned that he was going to delve into "zip gun" and/or AOW territory because of choosing a piece of pipe for a (smooth-bore) barrel, but the stuff I saw said he was using purchased rifled barrels intended for other firearms.

Just curious.

To the OP, just because youare considering building a home-built gun doesn't mean it has to be as laughably bad as that one. (Aluminum trunions, etc.) You could use his basic design as a model, but do a better job, mmmm'k?

-Sam
 
That was the idea. Buy an already taxed and registered ak74, and replace everything but the action.
 
I really didn't see anything illegal there. Did you? What?
I may be incorrect, but I don't believe that you can manufacture your own pistol (he made the receiver out of sheet metal) without doing a little formwork (though I may be incorrect) and with the text on the site, "untraceable state-of-the-art laminated bolt" or something to that effect, I highly doubt he went trough the proper channels to create such a weapon...but I may be incorrect, as I am not an attorney and have never researched the subject.

I was concerned that he was going to delve into "zip gun" and/or AOW territory because of choosing a piece of pipe for a (smooth-bore) barrel, but the stuff I saw said he was using purchased rifled barrels intended for other firearms.
Tell me more...using a smooth bore "pipe" makes a weapon an AOW...or just for an autoloading, modern gunpowder firing, pistol? I am very curious because I have just started a project of my own, a cannon (it is not shoulder fired, nor is it a pistol), and I thought a smooth bore using black powder (or BP substitute) would classify it as a "privative weapon" making it perfectly legal to produce. FWIW, the planned bore size is quite a bit over 0.5in.

To the OP, just because youare considering building a home-built gun doesn't mean it has to be as laughably bad as that one. (Aluminum trunions, etc.) You could use his basic design as a model, but do a better job, mmmm'k?
Amen.

:)
 
No, you can make a pistol (or rifle, or shotgun, or anything else not covered by the NFA or otherwise illegal to own) from scratch without having to any paperwork at the federal level (state laws may vary).
 
No, you can make a pistol (or rifle, or shotgun, or anything else not covered by the NFA or otherwise illegal to own) from scratch without having to any paperwork at the federal level (state laws may vary).
Good to know, I stand corrected. I still might consult an attorney before finishing up the cannon project, just to make sure I am 100% legal.

:)
 
That was the idea. Buy an already taxed and registered ak74, and replace everything but the action.

There is no registration of guns (except as practiced by a few states), unless you're thinking of buying a Title II AK-74 "machine gun" for this project, in which case you have more money to throw at this than I'd thought.

If you're just thinking of a regular "Title I" semi-auto AK-74, then the only taxes you'll have to pay are sales tax, if your state requires it.

-Sam
 
I may be incorrect, but I don't believe that you can manufacture your own pistol (he made the receiver out of sheet metal) without doing a little formwork (though I may be incorrect) and with the text on the site, "untraceable state-of-the-art laminated bolt" or something to that effect, I highly doubt he went trough the proper channels to create such a weapon...but I may be incorrect, as I am not an attorney and have never researched the subject.

You may make ANY "Title I" rifle, pistol, revolver, or shotgun for your own uses without reporting it to anyone, or putting a serial number or other markings on it. If you decide to sell that gun, you'll need to put a manufacturer's name (You) and city/state, and add a serial number. The ATF has this info on their web site.

Tell me more...using a smooth bore "pipe" makes a weapon an AOW...or just for an autoloading, modern gunpowder firing, pistol? I am very curious because I have just started a project of my own, a cannon (it is not shoulder fired, nor is it a pistol), and I thought a smooth bore using black powder (or BP substitute) would classify it as a "privative weapon" making it perfectly legal to produce. FWIW, the planned bore size is quite a bit over 0.5in.

A Title II "Any Other Weapon" covers a lot of ground (pen guns, handguns w/ vertical foregrips, etc.) but one of it's definitions is a smooth-bore handgun. Thus, pistol-gripped ONLY Short Barreled Shotguns are classified as AOWs instead of SBSs.

However, the crux of your question I think hinges on the gun in question being designed to fire cartridge ammunition of some kind. A double-barreled, smooth-bore, muzzle-loading, black-powder 20 ga. "Howda Pistol" with 12" barrels can be bought through the mail from Cabela's. The same gun designed to fire 20 ga. shotshells would be an AOW.

Generally, muzzle-loading black-powder arms are not regulated as firearms.
As defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(16) the term “antique firearm” means —



1. any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or
2. any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica —
1. is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
2. uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or
3. any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ‘antique firearm’ shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon, which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.

-Sam
 
My understanding is that you have to be a class II to build a gun.... is this only to build a gun you would want to sell? In either case I would rather have as many of the parts done for me as possible, and think using an AK74 action and replacing everything around it would maybe be the best way to go... or maybe not.. I'll have to look into the legality of some things here...

Thanks for bearing with me guys. I"M LEARNING!!!!

I'm not sure why this project seems crazy to alot of you guys. AK construction seems pretty straight forward to me. Now if I was building like an AR or something more complicated, yeah that would be crazy...

But as long as my barrel fits my bullets, and the rear part of the gun is strong enough, what could go wrong? Thats why I wanted to go with a piston operated, less modification does mean safer....

I dunno. Maybe this IS a crazy project. But i've learned so much from when I started, and I feel like if i just think more and harder, I could figure it out.....
 
I like the AK because I understand the ins and outs of the action. I understand how the cycling works, and its an easy gun to conceptualize. I'm willing to spend 7-8 hundred on the gun all together... and I believe it can be done. I may have to bring some parts to a person with a miller for optimum safety, but it seems doable, only just beyond reach. Lots of people make 9mm AKs, why is it so crazy to make a .40 AK in bullpup?

If you can sell me on the cycling of another type of weapon, I could be persuaded. USCs seem expensive, and I know nothing about their action.

This Hi-Point .40 seems interesting though... I can't find anything that helps me understand its cycling method, how the action works, and I have access to own one for study... I wonder how hard it would be to bullpup...

:UPDATE:

They sell a 9mm at a gunshop down the road. I'll run down there this afternoon and take a look at it. Just to get a feel for its mechanics...
 
My understanding is that you have to be a class II to build a gun.... is this only to build a gun you would want to sell?

You do not have to have ANY license or do any specific thing in order to build a gun -- or MANY guns -- for your own use. Provided that those guns fall under Title I of the National Firearms Act of 1934. So Rifles, Pistols, Revolvers, and Shotguns are all fine.

If you want to build guns for sale to others you must hold a "Type 07" Federal Firearms License. These still must be "Title I" firearms.

If you want to manufacture or sell Machine Guns, Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns, Suppressors, AOWs, and Destructive Devices, you must be the appropriate kind of SOT dealer.

Here's the breakdown on various types of Federal Firearms Licenses and Special Occupational Taxes:
A Class 3 SOT dealer is a dealer of NFA firearms
A Class 2 SOT manufacturer is a manufacturer of NFA firearms
A Class 1 SOT importer is an importer of NFA firearms

Type 1 FFL is a Title 1 dealer or gunsmith
Type 2 FFL is a Title 1 dealer doing business as a pawnbroker
Type 3 FFL is a licensed collector of Curio & Relic (C&R) firearms
Type 6 FFL is a licensed maker of ammunition and reloading components other than Armor Piercing ammunition
Type 7 FFL is a Title 1 manufacturer of firearms, ammunition and ammunition components other than NFA, Destructive Devices and Armor Piercing ammunition
Type 8 FFL is an importer of Title 1 firearms and ammunition
Type 9 FFL is a dealer in Title 1 firearms including NFA destructive devices, but no other NFA
Type 10 FFL is a manufacturer of Title 1 firearms, ammunition and ammunition components, including NFA Destructive Devices but no other NFA, and not including Armor Piercing ammunition
Type 11 FFL is an importer of Title 1 firearms, ammunition and NFA Destructive Devices, but no other NFA

In either case I would rather have as many of the parts done for me as possible, and think using an AK74 action and replacing everything around it would maybe be the best way to go... or maybe not..
Yup... That seems to be the focus of most of the thread.

I'll have to look into the legality of some things here...
The basics of it have been pretty well explained here. If you really stray far from the basic operation of the firearm you've chosen to hack, you may want to submit an official letter to the Tech Branch of the ATF for a declaration of the legality of what you're trying to do.

One thing to remember, that I've not pointed out before: If you start with a RIFLE, you may NOT make a pistol out of it. (Specifically, out of the serial numbered receiver that *IS* the rifle.) If you want to do a pistol build, you'll need to begin with a receiver that is sold as a pistol or stripped receiver. Once it's been made into a rifle, it cannot be made into any other configuration less than 26" over all and with a barrel that's less than 16" long. This is direct wording out of the original NFA. If you want to build a pistol on a receiver that was EVER a rifle, it will have to be registered as a Short-Barreled Rifle. Now, building AKs from parts kits, or modifying them this heavily is generally going to require a new sheet metal receiver shell anyway, so this isn't that big a deal, but it is something to watch for.

Thanks for bearing with me guys. I"M LEARNING!!!!
Surely!

But as long as my barrel fits my bullets, and the rear part of the gun is strong enough, what could go wrong? Thats why I wanted to go with a piston operated, less modification does mean safer....
Hmmm, what could go wrong? Maybe: it won't ever feed because the mag is not matched in design or position to the breech, ammo isn't the right shape/size to reliably get where it's supposed to go, the gun won't cycle because the gas volume/pressure produced by the pistol round is not anything close to that produced by the rifle round the gun was designed to fire, and a couple of other minor points.

It all seems "simple" when the system is assembled and functioning. It is not simple, though. An AK isn't something that Mikhail Kalashnikov built one afternoon on his kitchen table out of a car axle and a tree branch. Everything is balanced and calculated and carefully designed to work together and handle specific stresses. Muck around with one bit and you throw off something else.

Can you get it to work? Surely. With enough time, money, and a few prototypes.

I dunno. Maybe this IS a crazy project. But i've learned so much from when I started, and I feel like if i just think more and harder, I could figure it out.....
Well, I'm sure that you can. But no body here wants to see you end up with an expensive pile of scrap, or a dangerous gun, or something that kind of works but is monstrously unsatisfactory.

It may be a long road. Spend as much time as you can researching this on AKFiles.com and www.weaponeer.net. Those fellows have done this many times over and can at least tell you how much effort such a conversion is for professional gun plumbers.

Good luck!
-Sam
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top