Good AK-47?

[Maverick223]

Spotty-Shottie, I do have a few suggestions. First I would loose the laser, IMO they just get in the way. That would make way for the flashlight on the side of the forend and get rid of excessive bulk and weight. Additionally I think it would be a good idea to replace the NCStar with something of higher quality if you plan to use the rifle for any serious work (if not keep it till you break it).

 

[Wispa]

If an Arsenal is in your budget, go for it! If you need to spend less up front and add on later then get a Saiga and convert it yourself. It's easy to do and you can make it your own with whatever accessories you'd like.

I have a Saiga in .223 which I converted earlier this year. It's well finished (for an AK ) and the build is rock solid. When I was in the market to buy mine I didn't even know about Arsenal. If I did I would have bought from them. They use the same Russian receivers as Saiga (Izhmash) but do all the conversion work for you. So, if you don't want to work on it yourself I'd suggest going with a pre-built Arsenal model. Either way you can't go wrong.

Here's mine. I left the stock Saiga forearm on there as I don't mind it. I will be changing my pistol grip to a Hogue or something similar.

 

[simonriece]

There is no bad AK

The Kalishnikov action is very robust. It is used in the Valmet, Galil, and various other improved flavors. An early import Chinese model, MAK90 or 91 offers great value, but they won't win any 300 yard matches. Some of the later Russian models are even more impressive, in terms of fit and finish, but reliability remains the same. Early Chinese models went for 180 bucks, and some very good Russian models can be had for less than 350 these day. In my opinion, milled receivers are a better deal than those that are stamped. This assumes that the receiver was milled from a quality block and not monkey metal. I own several of both, and I will say that one of my heat treated stamped receivers 'i don't advertise' performs almost as well as a respected ar15 manufactured rifle. I still prefer my milled weapons, even though they seem to be less accurate and are heavier. It is a personal choice.

 

[Maverick223]

There is no bad AK

Apparently you haven't had the opportunity (or misfortune) to use a Century product.

 

[kwelz]

Maverick you speak the truth LOL.

I have actually seen some ok Centuries. But they are so hit and miss I am not willing to take the chance. I see a lot of them go through my friends shop. They spend about 300 bucks getting them up to par. And for that they could have just purchased an Arsenal Saiga to begin with,

 

[huduguru]

There is so much bs in this thread it's shocking. A stamped receiver AK loosening rivets after 1000 rounds? Any stamped AK from a former eastern block country is made for full auto fire, they will last many times more than that. Must have been one of those American made pos receivers(eg., B West).

I have owned quite a few Century Sar-1's, and WASR AK's and the only problem I have ever had was one where the trigger pin walked out and rounded out the hole. The shepard's hook didn't engage the notch in the pin correctly. It was my fault for not noticing it. Every one I have had has functioned 100% and has been accurate enough to hit a man sized target at 350 yards. That is all they are required to do. An AK is a weapon of war, not a friggin benchrest rifle.

As far as a milled receiver being more accurate, does anyone have any
concrete evidence(numbers, groups) that this is the case? Could it be possible that it might be a higher quality barrel that is installed in the milled receiver
rifle that might make it more accurate?(eg, Bulgarian barrels) The Soviets stopped making the milled receivers in the 50's when the AKM came on line, think they might have known what they were doing? I would guess hundreds of times more stamped receiver AK's exist in the world than milled.

If the stamped receiver is so bad, why did the massive Soviet war machine
deem it more than adequate for the job? The job of destroying enemy personnel, not some fat, retired guy shooting ground hogs.

 

[Maverick223]

I have owned quite a few Century Sar-1's, and WASR AK's

huduguru, neither the SAR or WASR was made by CAI, only imported by them. They may be a bit crude, but are decent rifles IMO.

As far as a milled receiver being more accurate, does anyone have any
concrete evidence(numbers, groups) that this is the case?

I have heard it many a time, but have never been able to discern a difference when comparing similar rifles. In fact the Saiga AKs have always grouped best for me (at least after the trigger was replaced with a decent one).

If the stamped receiver is so bad, why did the massive Soviet war machine deem it more than adequate for the job?

Mostly because it is cheaper and simpler to produce, but also because it works just as well and allows the individual soldier to carry a greater payload of ammunition.

 

[huduguru]

-Maverick, I went back and read my post and never said they were made by
Century.

-I have heard great things about the Saigas also in terms of accuracy. But to
me(and the Soviets), the difference between a 4" group and a 2" means
nothing, as I see my WASR as a defense rifle and a fun plinker. If I want to
hunt ground hogs, I'll get a bolt action. If a man sized target is within 300
yards of me, they are in deep doo doo and that is all they were ever
expected to do.

-Exactly, less machining, less weight and a service life that more than met
durability standards FOR A SELECT FIRE WEAPON WEAPON MADE TO
DESTROY ENEMY PERSONNEL.


Sometimes we loose track of the fact that the AK was made for one thing,
killing human beings. Not that I would condone that, except in the most
dire of circumstances.

 

[M2]

You obviously don't own an Arsenal!

Honestly, they are the cream of the crop when it comes to production AKs. My SGL20 is the nicest AK I have, and nothing else I've owned or shot comes close to it. Unless you are going to get a Jim Fuller custom job, it's about the best you can buy from the factory (and it is coming from the factory!).

That said, my two Yugo Centurys are nice rifles, and other than one having a canted front sight (which Century fixed for free), there is nothing that would stop me from buying another Century. Yes, I've heard stories of bad builds; but I have yet to see one that's any worse than the average WASR-10.

I still prefer to buy an AK in person, to inspect it beforehand; but don't let the rhetoric keep you from considering a Century-built AK. You'd only be doing yourself a disservice...

Cheers! M2

 

[Maverick223]

Maverick, I went back and read my post and never said they were made by
Century.

My apologies if I jumped to conclusions I assumed that you were defending CAI built rifles.

 

[philpost]

You obviously don't own an Arsenal!

Honestly, they are the cream of the crop when it comes to production AKs. My SGL20 is the nicest AK I have, and nothing else I've owned or shot comes close to it. Unless you are going to get a Jim Fuller custom job, it's about the best you can buy from the factory (and it is coming from the factory!).

Uh oh - I have one too, and I like it a lot, but you may have brought down the wrath of the "Arsenal is an overpriced marketing scam" crowd.

 

[M2]

Anyone who badmouths an Arsenal AK is talking out of their fourth point of contact!

Honestly, I don't give a rat's what anyone says about it; I have one and know how good it is. Anyone who tries to convince me otherwise can save their breath...

By the way, I like your signature!

Cheers! M2

 

[Spotty-Shottie]

Thanks for your input Maverick223, I agree with you about the scope. Hopefully I never have to get serious with it. The laser is kinda fun when I fold the stock, I may keep that or get a more discrete one (if I can get over my penny pinching....lol).

 

[Maverick223]

Glad you found my criticism constructive and useful, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being frugal, especially on an AK.