AR and AK questions!

[BigDeesul]

Ah, my friend, how misled you are (The kool-aid is tasty, isn't it?).

Please review the available slo-mo videos showing the milled receiver guns in action, and tell us they don't "flex, warp or bend" during firing.

While you're there, let us know about all those "crappy, flimsy and cheap" stamped AKs that have been in constant use since 1959 in many third-world countries (If they're so bad, why are they still functional?).

As far as "an AK with tighter tolerances", you've missed the point of it's design entirely. The beauty of the AK is it's loose tolerances. it's not a precision rifle, nor was it designed to be.

I like how you added in the "during firing" at the end of the sentence. I never said anything about during firing. All guns flex during firing. I mean the loose stamped AK's can be bent and tossed, and hammered back, and the accuracy is still just as crappy. Great for fun or plinking, or spray and pray, but not much else.

They're still in use because of their looseness and reliabilty. If you remember what this thread is about, and the reasons the OP will use the weapon, I don't think he lives in the desert and going to piss the weapon clean and Use animal fat to lube it.

It's funny how everyone gets soooo defensive about their beloved AK's.

I'm just stating the facts people.

 

[BigDeesul]

For a quality AR at a good price, check out the spikes mid-length (longer sight radius than carbine length). $800.

For a quality AK, check out the offerings from Arsenal (new, Russian builds) or just go for a WASR 10 if you can look it over in person. $700 and $400, respectively...

It's very good to see someone knows what a quality weapon is!!

Bri, you hit it on the head. The Arsenal AK's are very high quality. Thought about picking one up myself, but decided to build a custom one on my own.

 

[migkillertwo]

Good AK? Saiga conversion, WASR-10/WASR-2, or an Arsenal.

Good "low-end" AR? I've heard great things about CMMG's Bargain bin rifles. The ones with nitrided barrels are 599, and the Chrome-lined barrels are 650$

 

[Girodin]

It depends on what you order with you rifle. Your writing has a note of sensitivity in it as if your pissed. As though I got screwed by paying to much or that I'm not a "real" weapons user so I'm not qualified to comment. I'm didn't mean to offend you if I somehow did.

No sensitivity on my end. Your response might be projecting some onto me, I'm not sure. My post was merely pointing out that it is useful to know how one uses their weapon when they claim its been flawless. Sans such info it is a next to worthless comment. I was also simply trying to be as forthright as possible about the price difference. Like I say for many a SW might just be fine. For me and my uses e.g. shooting high round counts with a suppressor and my desires extreme reliability, durability and accuracy I believe their are better choices. That is not a value judgment of me or anyone else. Its selecting equipment to meet my needs nothing more. If that offends your or makes you feel like I'm putting down your stuff then I'm sorry.

It's not what a milled receiver will do, it's what they won't do, which is warp, bend, loosen, etc. You can build a custom AK with much tighter tolerances with a milled receiver than a stamped one. AK's obviously are a great weapon due to simplicity, reliability and price, but they're also crappy, flimsy, and cheap.

Lets prented that milled receivers didn't flex (they do). So what? My original question stands. In terms of function what does that allow a milled gun to do that a stamped wont? People say a milled is more durable. I've never seen compelling evidence that this is really true but for the sake of argument lets say it is. Have you ever known anyone to destroy their stamped receiver through use? Have you known stamped receivers to have durability problems?

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 that factor. Even if it were taken as true that a milled receiver is more accurate most people shoot cheap ammo through their AKs which, along with the shooter, is most likely the limiting factor. With open sights and shooting from field positions I can not take full advantage of the accuracy of a number of my AKs (or my AR although the sights are less of a limiting factor). I cannot think of a task that I would imagine a milled gun would better than a newly produced Russian stamped gun like a converted saiga. A milled gun in practical terms really only offers more weight IMO. You will notice that if you have to carry it much.

They only made "real" AK's with milled receivers for a short time. If they were really that much better, they'd still be making them that way.

Stamped receivers are cheaper and much more efficient to make. That is the major reason to stamp them.

Obviously the only reason they switched to the stamped receivers is ease and cost of manufacture. Compare the materials and labor that goes into milling a receiver as compared to stamping and bending a peice of sheet metal with some holes drilled in it. The stamped guns do work and shoot just fine. Like I said the AK is a great fun or SHTF gun, and everyone should have one.

It might be more accurate to say switched back to stamping them.

Do you own one? [referring to AKs?]

I currently own 7, mostly saigas at this point. I've had others in the past that I no longer own as well.

There's nothing you have to do to improve the SKS. The SKS is by far a superior weapon and design.

Yes that is why so many modern weapons have integrated stripper clips into the design and limited their capacity to ten rounds. As to SKS with removable mags I've been less than impressed with the reliability I've seen from them. I like an SKS but as a combat weapon I would much rather have an AK. Interestingly I haven't seen a single contractor over seas with a SKS in their hands. I've seen a bunch with AKs. Interesting that these people who are actually in harms way went with the AK not an SKS.

Just why do you think the AK is so much better?

Both can make COM shots out to 200 yard without much trouble so there is no practical accuracy advantage to either.

Both are pretty reliable guns in my experience. Although I have seen slam fire issues in SKS several times.

Where the AK would offer real advantages to me is:

1) Magazine capacity: ten rounds in a stripper clip is not as good as 30+ in a box mag IMHO. Again I've seen reliability issues with removable mag SKSs maybe a mag issue I'm not sure but I've seen it on multiple guns.

2) Weight: An AKM is apox 2 lbs lighter. That is not an insignificant amount of weight.

3) Simplicity of design.

4) Available in calibers that might be preferable to x39 for a given task

5) Parts and accessories

Great for fun or plinking, or spray and pray, but not much else.

I'll ask the same question again that you have never really answered. What task does the milled gun do, what is it good for, that a stamped isn't?

I'm just stating the facts people.

I'd call them gross generalizations asserted without evidence more than I'd call them facts. Statements like stamped AKs have "crappy" accuracy are not universal facts.

The Arsenal AK's are very high quality.

But I thought you said:

loose stamped AK's can be bent and tossed, and hammered back, and the accuracy is still just as crappy. Great for fun or plinking, or spray and pray, but not much else.

The Arsenal AK's are very high quality.

In what way is an Arsenal functionally superior to a basic home conversion Saiga? Since they are "very high quality" this should be a simple question.

 

[AK103K]

Just why do you think the AK is so much better?

For all the same reasons the AK's replaced the SKS.

For a couple, 30 round detachable mags, no strippers to deal with, a selector switch, a handier, more usable configuration, the availability of a zero repeatable mount, and the ability to put various optics on the gun, including a red dot. Should I go on?

There's nothing you have to do to improve the SKS.

Really? And who pray tell typed this? (hint? Post #6 )

".....You can pick up and un-fired SKS for around $300, and accessorize it with ATI furniture, and have a very tough, reliable and accurate weapon for under $500."

If it needs no improvement, why are you advocating doing so?

You obviously don't own an SKS by your comments, or have much experience with one.

Actually, as I stated earlier, I have a couple, a nice Russian Tula, and a plain Jane Norinco. I have a real good idea as to what and what not they are capable of, and from a realistic use standpoint too, not just from leisurely shooting them off a bench at bullseye targets at the range, which more often than not, seems to be the depth of experience of many, with any of them.

If anything, from your comments, I have to question just how much real time experience you really have with either, if you really think the SKS is so superior.

Perhaps in your case, the fact that your AK is a "home built", just makes my previous point as to why I wont own another, and why you might think the SKS is better.


I always love it when someone comes up with the argument that the "old" guns were always SO much more superior than what replaced them, when the countries that issued them, ours included, have moved on to bigger and better things, and usually with multiple decades of time passed since the changes. Even though time and technology have moved on, some people just cant, or wont.

 

[BigDeesul]

Some people like cheap crap, others like precision machined, well built weapons. I think there's been enough thread-jacking tonight.

 

[Girodin]

Some people like cheap crap, others like precision machined, well built weapons.

Its kind of funny calling an AK cheap crap copared to an SKS since the SKS is currently the cheaper weapon.

Seriously, why can't you answer any of the legitimate question posed to you above instead of ducking them and falling back to just saying something is crap? As articulate and convincing of an argument as that is I'd really like to hear something more concrete.

 

[BigDeesul]

I didn't mean the AK is cheap crap as compared to the SKS, I was simply referring to the stamped/milled argument. SKS being a better weapon is my personal preference, and is based on the heavy rigid design, longer barrel and greater accuracy. Also used with detatchable mags, I beleive it is a better weapon. Coming from me, who likes to simply shoot, rapidly, slowly, accurately, spraying the plinking pit, all around shooting.

This is why AK's with a milled receiver are better than the stamped variants. Even more so with the modern CNC milled receivers made in the US. I don't understand what the problem is? I've never had anyone disagree with the fact that a milled AK is better than a stamped one. Weird, I tells ya.

The trunion is riveted into the sheet metal receivers, and the barrel is installed in the trunion. The barrel goes right into the milled receiver, there's no transition part, which tends to allow movement where the trunion is attached to the receiver, causing the barrel to move.

Milled receivers are more solid, without the rivets and welds, etc. Stamped receivers are weaker. They can twist and warp with stress. Rivets, welds and screws can work loose.

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.

5. Longer service life. Stronger, more rigid, consistently aligned frame retards part wear and extends service life of action parts.

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 like stamped receivers, please stick with them and leave me alone. If you cannot understand the facts it's not my problem.

 

[rd2007]

I would start with an affordable AK. That is the lowest amount of funds up front and will give you an idea as to whether or not you want to continue the addiction. I'm still deciding whether or not I want to get an AR and if I do, it'll probably be a SIG 556, which isn't actually an AR.
If you go the AR route, I would look at the starter S&W M&P 15s. They still have the $100 rebate going and are pretty sweet. My son has the optics ready version and it is nice. However, if the SHTF, I'm reaching for my AK and G19...

 

[Girodin]

I want you to back up your claim that there is a task that a milled receiver gun is god for that a stamped receiver gun is unsuitable for. You made/insinuated that claim repeatedly. Please tell me what it is.

Thus, I'll ask the same question again that you have never really answered. What task does the milled gun do, what is it good for, that a stamped isn't?

 

[Girodin]

I didn't mean the AK is cheap crap as compared to the SKS, I was simply referring to the stamped/milled argument

Oh so you were calling the Arsenal guns that you previously praised cheap crap. Sorry I can't keep up with your logic.

 

[BigDeesul]

It is good for accuracy and reliability, for fit and finish. I answered the question in the first place. It's not what the Milled receiver does, it's what it doesn't do. I don't think that a particular task matters. How about the task of the barrel staying tight and not moving? The task of being a forged, machined weapon. Extra weight makes for less recoil, making it easier to stay on target for faster follow up shots.

I never made a "claim that there is a task that a milled receiver gun is good for that a stamped receiver gun is unsuitable for." I simply stated that the milled receiver AK is a better, more solid and well made weapon. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I've proven my point. It's all common sense.

You keep bringing up moot points. Please stop badgering me. Enjoy your stamped AK and stop hijacking the OP's thread. It's disrespectful.

 

[BigDeesul]

Oh so you were calling the Arsenal guns that you previously praised cheap crap. Sorry I can't keep up with your logic.

No, I obviously meant the arsenal Milled receiver variants. The stamped Arsenals are also a quality gun. You're obviously trying very hard to keep up with any logic that's not your own. Would you like me to explain anything else?

 

[BigDeesul]

My apologies to the OP. In no way did I want my post to turn into a pissing match about receivers.

 

[Girodin]

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 repete 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.

 

[Girodin]

The stamped Arsenals are also a quality gun.

Doesn't that contradict your previous statements e.g. "Some people like cheap crap". That receiver is nothing more or less than what you were bashing before.

Would you like me to explain anything else?

In addition to all the questions you haven't answered? Why yes, please explain why an arsenal stamped gun is a nice gun but the others mentioned in this thread qualify as cheap crap. If it is fit and finish I suggest you examine more Arsenals. Further, is pretty really the measure of whether an AK weapon is crap or not? If so it is a pretty poor measure. Its accuracy? On average an arsenal is not any more accurate than a saiga.

 

[Girodin]

How about the below from post 26. This seemed to insinuate that the milled gun could do more? Is that not what you were getting at?

I mean the loose stamped AK's can be bent and tossed, and hammered back, and the accuracy is still just as crappy. Great for fun or plinking, or spray and pray, but not much else.

How about the task of the barrel staying tight and not moving? The task of being a forged, machined weapon. Extra weight makes for less recoil, making it easier to stay on target for faster follow up shots.

If those things do not result in some noticeable difference in the operation of the weapon then why do they matter in the least? And to think that you say I am bringing up moot points that is rather ironic. I'd like to see evidence supported by a shot timer that a milled gun offers faster follow ups. But if theory is adequate then more weight makes it slower to get to target, harder to stay steady on target and slower to transition to target. Oh and you have to carry it around.

If I understand your latest comments they can be summerized as follows. The milled receiver AK is a better, more solid and well made weapon, just not in anyway that really makes a difference. Common sense indeed and an interesting definition of better.

 

[Alex45ACP]

I prefer the AK platform over the AR. I bought and tried both, and made the decision by asking myself this question: "Armed men are coming to kill you, they will be here in 30 seconds and you can choose between an AR or an AK to defend yourself, which do you pick?". I'd pick the AK in 7.62x39 every time. I believe most people would too if they were really honest with themselves.

The AK is more reliable, it is accurate enough inside the ranges I'll ever use it in combat (inside 100 meters, probably within 5 meters, but can be used out to ~300 meters if necessary, not that it ever will be), and since people tend to hide behind things when you shoot at them, I prefer the larger round for punching through walls, car doors, etc if I need to.

I think the ergonomics issue is overblown, and actually prefer some things about the ergonomics of the AK. Yes, you can flip the safety off on the AR without moving your firing hand, but I've never been sure why that's an issue. I don't plan to be running around switching the safety on and off constantly. In fact I carry a Glock that has no safety at all. If I need to use the rifle in self defense I'll leave the safety off until I'm done using it.

I prefer the right side charging handle location on the AK to the awkward location on the AR. I also prefer rocking the magazines into an AK rather than slapping them into the AR because that way I'm sure the magazine is locked in place.

ARs can be reliable... if you use the right ammo, the right magazines, the right lube, etc. Too many things to go wrong. The last thing I want is to be trying to clear a jam while bullets are flying at me or someone is bearing down on me with a knife. AKs rarely jam, and when they do the procedure for clearing them is much simpler and faster than with an AR.

(Anecdote: After reading on here and other sites about how ARs are reliable, the reliability thing is overblown, etc. I went ahead and bought one from a reputable company. Got good magazines, lubed it up, went to the range, and the thing jams on the very first round, with the extractor tearing the rim off the case and leaving it jammed in the chamber, requiring a cleaning rod to get it out. Had the same problem with different ammo, etc. I feel like I was burned by buying into the AR apologists rhetoric... I'll stick with my AK (which has never had a single jam after thousands of rounds) and probably sell the AR after I get it back from the company).

I can put a side folding stock on my AK and make it very small, ideal for discreet transportation during a disaster situation (riots, etc). Can't do that with an AR. I'm not interested in hanging a ton of stuff on my rifle except a red dot and a light, and with an Ultimak gas tube both can be mounted on an AK as easily as on an AR.

Having the same cartridges/magazines as your government is not an issue because you're not going to be resupplying from them anyway, it's more likely they'll be resupplying from you. Finding parts/ammo/mags on the black market will be easy after guns are banned in the US (I believe they will be within our lifetimes) since the AK is the most prolific rifle in the world. The stuff will be coming in from Mexico and etc.

Overall I believe the AK is the superior rifle.

 

[Walter W.]

So the ar is an m4 that is semi auto only, right? and doesn't fire 5.56 reliably

 

[WaywardAce]

I just picked up a GP 1975 AK from BudsGunshop for $451 out the door. No complaints so far.

 

[noyes]

Tantal AK74

5.45x39 Wicked

 

[BigDeesul]

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

It is good for accuracy and reliability, for fit and finish. I answered the question in the first place. It's not what the Milled receiver does, it's what it doesn't do. I don't think that a particular task matters. How about the task of the barrel staying tight and not moving? The task of being a forged, machined weapon. Extra weight makes for less recoil, making it easier to stay on target for faster follow up shots.

And just because I used information from another post does not mean I plagerized anything. I have much more important things to do that take an hour to write 900 character posts like some people, so cutting and pasting and changing a few words is much easier than wasting my time to explain a simple concept to someone who obviously takes it personally and gets defensive.

Your questions have been answered multiple times, yet you keep asking the same thing.

 

[BigDeesul]

There's been another thread started on the subject, maybe we can continue this pointless discussion elsewhere and keep the posts on topic with the OP's thread?

 

[Girodin]

It is good for accuracy and reliability, for fit and finish. I answered the question in the first place. It's not what the Milled receiver does, it's what it doesn't do. I don't think that a particular task matters. How about the task of the barrel staying tight and not moving? The task of being a forged, machined weapon. Extra weight makes for less recoil, making it easier to stay on target for faster follow up shots.

Re read post 40 and 42 where I addressed that exact passage from when you posted it before. Again you are just listing attributes and then claiming that they are a priori (which the world English dictionary defines as "known to be true independently of or in advance of experience of the subject matter; requiring no evidence for its validation or support." I'm thinking that maybe that term isn't something you followed) an advantage or make the gun better. As I addressed above those things you have listed translate to zero practical advantage.

You have never answered my question which is what is the practical advantage of milled receiver over a stamped one. I though that would be a very simple question for you since earlier in this thread you were so adamant that the stamped guns were inferior and even called them cheap crap. You never answered why an Arsenal stamped gun is "quality" and all the others mentioned in this thread are "cheap crap". You never answered how much of an accuracy difference exists between a milled and stamped gun. I could go on.

I think it has become abundantly clear that you cannot tell us anyway in which a milled gun holds a practical advantage (as opposed to merely having different attributes), nor back up your other overblown assertions. Unless you can then there is nothing to discuss.

And just because I used information from another post does not mean I plagerized anything.

I suggest you learn what the word plagiarize means. What you did is basically the exact definition of the word plagiarize.

 

[Girodin]

(Anecdote: After reading on here and other sites about how ARs are reliable, the reliability thing is overblown, etc. I went ahead and bought one from a reputable company.

What make and model AR was it?