I've stated that the milled receivers are tighter, more rigid, and more accurate, you just for some reason fail to beleive it.
If you read what I wrote you would know that what I do not believe is that any of that translates into any practical advantage. Perhaps you can plagiarize something addressing that point.
advantages of milled receivers over stamped:
1. Rigidity.
2. Strength. Considerably more tensile, shear, cross stress strength. Milled, forged steel is just plain stronger and more durable than any stamped assembly (regardless of how “thick” the stamping is).
3. Part/action alignment. The part and action alignment is consistent throughout the life cycle of the rifle. Being milled from one piece, there is nothing in the frame to loosen or shift out of alignment.
4. Much more stable platform. Fixed mating surfaces ensure alignment and function.
You are describing attributes and then making an a priori assumption that said attributes are better with out really speaking to why they are better. I guess it shouldn't suprise me that your response is not tailored to address that point since you plagerized the above lol.
If one were to try to summarize why those attributes are superior they might simply say that a milled gun offers a longer service life (point 5 of your copy and pasted reply) and is more accurate. I asked about what practical advantage existed. So lets treat those two points in turn and see if there genuinely is a practical advantage, ok?
Service life. Let take as our starting point that milled receivers have a longer service life and are generally more durable. Does that offer a practical advantage? Do you know of stamped receivers failing? Do stamped receivers exhibit an unacceptably short service life? The fact is one can put tens of thousands of rounds through a stamped receiver. Most users will never wear one out. Even if they did there is another consideration. The cost of a stamped receiver versus a milled one. A stamped is much less expensive. Given the cost to manufacture or buy each one could replace the stamped receiver multiple times. Thus where is the real practical advantage? There really isn't one. Thing A being more durable than thing B doesn't matter if you are never going to wear either one out. It matters even less when the cost of thing B and a couple replacements is less than thing A.
Accuracy
Some say that milled are more accurate. This claim is probably mostly theory. I've never seen any real evidence to bear it out, particularly anything that attempts to isolate receivers as the variable. Even if it were taken as true that a milled receiver is more accurate we are wanting to know if there is a practical advantage held by the milled receiver. The first question is how much more accurate is the milled gun? Most people who claim they are more accurate only try to claim that it is slight. We are not talking about the milled gun being sub MOA or even 1 MOA and the stamped gun being 4 MOA. I am not aware of any data that can reasonably show what difference can be attributed to a milled receiver. The state of the bore/crown on an individual gun is likely to account for much more. A stamped gun can be a 2 MOA gun fairly easily and I have seen stamped guns with hand loads, scopes, and a bench do better than that. What kind of accuracy do you think can reasonably be expected from a milled gun? They aren’t MOA guns. Further most people shoot cheap ammo through their AKs which, along with the shooter, is most likely the limiting factor. All the surplus ammo I have shot (i.e. what militaries are feeding AKs) is far from match grade ammo. It doesn’t matter if you have a custom bolt gun with a Krieger barrel if you are putting crappy inconsistent ammo through it. The mechanical accuracy of the rifle is only one factor.
Further with an AKs open sights and/or shooting from field positions most shooters cannot take full advantage of the accuracy of a stamped AK. If the mechanical accuracy of the weapon is not the limiting factor what practical advantage is gained by an increase in the weapons mechanical accuracy, particularly a relatively slight one? So if you are going to shoot hand loaded ammo, with a scope, from a bench a milled gun might offer a slight advantage in accuracy that would show up one paper with nice inch marked squares on it. If you are going to use it as the OP states in the one thread or as weapon (the topic in the other) there is no practical accuracy advantage to a milled gun. A milled gun in practical terms really only offers more weight IMO.
Thus the question that I asked remains unanswered. What practical advantage does a milled gun have? I’ll also repeat the other question you do not want to or cannot answer; what task does the milled gun do, what is it good for, that a stamped gun isn't?
Maybe you can find something else to plagiarize in order to answer those questions.
