clones, hk's, ar's, ak's etc.

[Ridgeway]

I'm kinda curious as to what defines a clone(I know that it is more or less self-explanatory , but I hope you'll see my point/issue):

AR15's are made by quite a few companies. I have one from Bushmaster & one from Oly. Now I believe that pretty much all of the AR companies, from Armalite to DPMS, RRA, to Oly, simply make clones. Ok, simple enough. But then what is a non-clone? Would a new Colt AR15 be a "real" AR15 & not a clone?
It just seems to me that the clone issue is less defined as regarding AR15's, as I don't recall ever hearing a [insert any AR15 company here] AR being refered to as a clone specifically unlike HK.
As Colt AR15's, though usually commanding a slightly higher priced, generally do not appear much more desirable than a similar Bushmaster, whereas a real HK53 is far more desired than a Vector clone.

Ditto with AK47's. Anything not made @ Izhmash(ok I'm sure I butchered that name ) is a clone. So it is more or less impossible to buy a real semi-auto AK47, correct?

I'm really not trying to sound like a moron or gun newb in the above paragraphs but more setting up the question for the following:

Lastly, and of most interest is the HK line of rifles, the 9x series, the sp89 & hk53. All of the aformentioned are now rather $, relativly speaking.
Yet the clone option is far more limited than it is for AR's. Of the top of my head I can think of only Special Weapons(iffy quality), Ohio Rapid Fire($$$), and Vector. Is this just b/c the hk weapons have not been on the market for nearly as long a timeframe? Will we see more HK clone companies, as right now there appears to be only 3 choices, with only 1 of them being universally approved of/liked(Vector)?
My biggest question is why does a HK clone seem far less desirable than say a AR or HK clone? Is the HK clone quality just that much worse than the AR quality?
For me it just seems easier to buy another AR "clone" than buy something from Vector, when I could have a real HK if I saved up a little more. Thus the question arrises, are HK clones less desirable simply b/c there is still a sufficient quantity of genuine HK's that are not yet priced out of the reach of most shooters?


I'm mostly interested in the HK clone issue...I think I described my point & question sufficiently.

 

[The Grand Inquisitor]

I think it is wrong to think of Colt rifles as somehow "original", especially considering they use non-mil spec parts UNLIKE many other (and better) AR builders.

The same goes for Kalashnikov's. Izhmash has no direct line on making AK's that are more "pure" than any other maker. AK stands for Avtomat Kalashnikov - it doesn't have any designation about who makes it, and an AK made in the former Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, or wherever are "true" AK's in every sense of the word.

 

[Father Knows Best]

Excellent question. Personally, I buy quality first, and brand name second. If Bushmaster or RRA makes a better AR-15 than Colt for the same or less money, then that's what I buy. That's not how everyone looks at it, though. For some people, the brand name is everything. If it doesn't say "Colt" on it, then it is worth less to them. That's o.k. by me, too, as it means demand is lower for the high quality firearms I care about.

Sometimes the "clones" are lower quality, but not always. For instance, I would never recommend that anyone buy a Century HK91 (semiauto G3) clone, despite the low price, because they're poorly made. On the other hand, I don't see any reason to pay $2,500+ for a "real" HK91 when $700 will get you a PTR-91 that is as good or better.

 

[modifiedbrowning]

www.jldenter.com

 

[444]

Well, there are a couple issues here.
An AR15, is an AR15. But an AR15 is an M16 clone.
An AK47 is a select fire weapon. The ones most of us buy are clones of that and arn't even called AK47s by the manufacturer. They arn't real AK47s. They look like AK47s but arn't EXACTLY like an AK47. For example, I used to own a Norinco that I think they called an AKS ????? The news media would call it an AK47, but it isn't really.
In these examples, the real weapon is select fire and the clone is semi-auto. One is a military weapon, the other is something made to be as close as possible to that military weapon but since it is sold to civilians, it isn't exactly like the real one: it is a clone.

Then we have the HK clones that are not actually built by HK. For example, I bought two HK G3 parts kits. When you get the parts kits the receiver is cut in half. You have to remove the receiver and rebuilt the rifle on an aftermarket, American made, receiver (which also isn't select fire). When you get all done, it isn't a real HK. It does have almost all HK parts, but it isn't a real HK. Therefore, it is an HK clone.

In genetics, the word clone means an exact duplicate. In guns, this isn't usually the case. Although it could be. I own a Sten Mk.II. It isn't a real C&R military surplus Sten. It is a parts kit assembled on an aftermarket receiver tube by Taylor. It is exactly like any other Sten, except it was made in the fairly recent past by an American civilian company and was not made for the British military: so it is a clone also.

 

[226]

...never mind (edit: not referring to anyone's post)

 

[444]

It is actually very simple.

It is either the real thing, or it isn't.
If it isn't, but it is made as a copy of the real thing, it is referred to (incorrectly) as a clone.

 

[wardog]

Excellent question. Personally, I buy quality first, and brand name second. If Bushmaster or RRA makes a better AR-15 than Colt for the same or less money, then that's what I buy. That's not how everyone looks at it, though. For some people, the brand name is everything. If it doesn't say "Colt" on it, then it is worth less to them. That's o.k. by me, too, as it means demand is lower for the high quality firearms I care about.

Sometimes the "clones" are lower quality, but not always. For instance, I would never recommend that anyone buy a Century HK91 (semiauto G3) clone, despite the low price, because they're poorly made. On the other hand, I don't see any reason to pay $2,500+ for a "real" HK91 when $700 will get you a PTR-91 that is as good or better.

Ditto!

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Saigas are made at the Izhmash factory. Saigas can be cheaper in price than a lot of AK "clones"... or variants as I like to call them.

I personally do some research and buy what is both good and financially feasible. I won't pay a premium for a brand name if it has nothing more to offer me than a competing brand that offers identical or superior performance for less money. Some people want the bragging rights of having a purebred gun or a certain brand name and that's fine too. Higher cost does not always equal better. Then again, sometimes you get what you pay for. Research and asking questions pays off as each firearm family (AK, AR, HKs) seem to vary a bit in terms of what other companies are currently producing variants. Good luck!

 

[benEzra]

I think "clone" is a term best avoided when talking about AK's, personally. I think describing a SAR-1 or a WASR as a civilian AK-47 lookalike, rather than a civilian AK-47 clone, is clearer because it more accurately describes the relationship. In most other uses, a clone is essentially a carbon copy, but as has been mentioned above, a SAR-1 or a WASR is not a real AK-47. Even a civilian AK-47 lookalike made at the Russian AK factory isn't a real AK-47, in that it is built on a different (civilian) receiver. There is enough misunderstanding of the difference between civilian AK lookalikes and actual military AK's without adding to it via the use of the word "clone."

AR-15's are a bit different, since although an AR-15 is an M16 lookalike, you also have the issue of AR-15 style rifles made by other makers. Most of us call them AR's or AR-15's (e.g., ar15.com isn't just about Colts), but the fact that Colt has trademarked the name AR-15 means that a Bushmaster XM-15 is not really an AR-15. It legitimately can be considered an AR-15 clone, though, since it is identical enough to share broad parts compatibility.

In the case of HK-type rifles built using HK parts on a non-HK receiver, you could legitimately call those HK clones since they can be considered clones of semi-auto-only HK's in most instances.

Just some thoughts.

 

[TODD3465]

With AR-15's it simple. If it's a Colt it's original if not it's just a clone.

None GI parts YEAH RIGHT. If you have ALL GI parts in an AR-15 it's NOT an AR-15 it's an M-16.

Some of the differences in parts in Colt rifles were originaly ATF mandated. I honestly don't know why current Colts no longer have the funky double screw pivot pin. I know the FCG pins are still oversized. But they work just fine in my M-4 Sporters.

You guys can talk up the Bushbabies and other clones all you want.
I've owned 3 clones all being problematic from day one and 3 trouble free Colts, still have 2 of them.

Oh BTW- Maybe you all could tell me if the curved bolt carrier I saw in a buddies Bushbaby was actually meant to go in a gun made for shooting around corners.