Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by CLP, Jan 20, 2015.
Yep, that's what I meant! I stand corrected.
Ahhhhhh, the GOOD kind of freak out!
Arsenals are awesome rifles. I've got a full size and a pistol in 223. They'll shoot anything through them just like the original. Mine sits in its place also
Ok... my interest has been piqued. What is the most expensive AK-47, (that holds true to the original specs)? I need to know because I can't afford THAT one and will check out the next best, (which would be a ____?). I'd buy American in a heartbeat, (look at the quality of a Ruger!), but, I want an original in 7.62. Trained with a M14 and was then handed a lil .22 made with lots of plastic. Sorry, can't handle that no matter how wonderful they are now after millions of dollars have been spent to improve them. AK-47 with a .30 cal bullet... I'm game!
Kalashnikov USA booth at SHOT...not many RIFLES...but these were everywhere...
I want to see this in a zombie movie...
Some great pics! Thanks.
The dichotomy here is a funny read. Yes of course I think the American's can build a better AK if they want to, the higher end builders are evidence of this, but I also agree that the pedestrian level all American AK will probably be missing the "how they used to make them" kind of quality but maintain the reportedly good reliability and accuracy the current all American offerings exhibit.
It's worth mentioning that there haven't been any "true" aks since 1986 or 94 or whatever it was. Up until a couple years ago most Ak's were assembled from parts kits and depending on the building got deservedly poor reputations. Fortunately it looks like that is starting to turn around. What I really want to see are some of those new Russian modernized AK variants. Those would be sweet.
I've seen these advertised in Guns and Ammo some lately. Just curious if anyone has seen,handled, shot one yet?
I noticed the one in the G&A magazine has Saiga on it, I was a little surprised by that. I guess their trying hard to copy the Russians, at least in name.
Anyway, has anyone had any experience with them yet?
I haven't even seen one.
I think the ones that they have shown that say Saiga on them are still just conversions and not rifles actually made here yet. The ones that Classic is/was selling that were branded as Kalashnikov USA were just Saiga conversions and didn't look like very good ones. The trigger guard was particularly horrendous.
I have had an AK on my list for awhile, but never put in the time to narrow down the choices
i would buy an American AK as long as its quality
PSA just released their AK but $750 is a little pricey....better options out there for the money
The average 7.62x39 AK shoots about 4" at 100 yards and the 5.45x39 AK shoots about 2" at 100 yards.
The average 16" barreled AR15? 2" at 100 yards.
It all boils down to:
Do you want close up (AK), or
Long range (AR)?
And, the AK costs less, but AR's are coming down in price.
This is an old thread and is being painfully recycled. Questions about the newly observed offerings should be put in a new thread.
so wait, I can't use my AR at closer range?
7.62x39, 5.45x39 and 5.56x45 are all intermediate cartridges designed and developed for intermediate ranges.
AKs in either caliber are not inherently inaccurate, nor is the AR the best choice for long range (depending on the definition of the term).
I prefer the ergos and sight radius on the AR better, which is why I own ARs and not AKs.
I'd take the VZ-58 anyway, if going to a 7.62x39 semi auto rifle.
In thread #62, I was more or less asking a question about thread #61, or if I was correct.
I think your input was informative, and thank you for it.
True. the SKS has the same action as an SAFN, everything in a straight line, NO rotary parts to fail to rotate..
Does it? Thought it was based off of the PTRS or PTRD.
Consider the AVS-36.
The SKS is not based on the SAFN, but it has the same type action. The bolts work the same. Ditto for the SVT-40. But, the SKS is evolved from Simonov's anti tank rifle and not the SAFN. They have the same locking method in the bolt.
The AR has a rotationally-locked bolt just like the AK or the M14. It has the same gas system as the MAS 49 or Ljungman. It is not descended from those rifles (though both locking method and gas system were copied from previous designs).
In any case, and while an older thread, I haven't seen any new Kalashnikov USA products, but unless they are a part of Ishmash or Molot, they won't be authentic AK's - any panache they get from the name will be quickly downed by the fact that they are just another clone. As evidenced by other threads currently running, they are unrelated.
Heck, even in the Soviet days, there was no Kalashnikov company. His products were made for the state primarily by Izhvesk.
Negative. The Ljungman & MAS use a direct impingement system where the gas from the gas tube pushes directly against a cup external to the carrier. The AR does not. The gas of the AR flows into an expansion chamber internal to the carrier where it acts on a piston inside a cylinder. Completely different design
So, couple things.
1) The company is called Kalashnikov USA but to my knowledge it is not actually affiliated with Kalashnikov Concern (the Russian company).
2) The Century Arms US made milled receiver AKs are pretty sweet.
3) My only hope is they are allowed to make the new Kalashnikov pistol the PL-14 but I highly doubt it. That would be sweet to get my hands on just for fun.
If their smart they should look at what rifle that the U.S. Market wanted for the longest time but the price for them right now is just crazy, they should add the SVD sniper platform to their list...if the price would be within reach for us.
RPD's for $650. That is all.
Bulgarian AK's are still fully available and on par with Russian, quality wise, so i see no point.
Mist, I'm not wrong. The gas system is the system by which the energy from the propellant is diverted to provide energy to activate the system. How the activation occurs is different (but not completely different, as you assert, since all metal parts are forced into motion by the direct action of the propellant gas). You're splitting hairs. The delivery of the energy is the same - unless you propose to get specific and point out tube diameters, lengths, barrel attachment, etc. You're arguing about the nature of the receptacle for accepting the gas.
In other words, the gas systems are the same. They have a clear channel by which propellant gas is captured from the barrel through an open port and diverted to the action so that the action can be operated by the direct force of the gas upon the action. That direct force of the gas moves the bolt carrier on all the rifles I mentioned.
Completely different? Not at all. The gas system is the same. How the bolt unlocks and actuates from the action of the gas is different, but not all that different. The fact that the AR has a rotating bolt and the Ljungman and MAS use a tilting bolt are far more different in operation than the gas systems of the various rifles.
And as I mentioned before, there was no Soviet Kalashnikov concern. Kalashnikov received credit for his design in the model designation AK (plus what ever suffix was added). Izhvesk and to a lesser extent Molot manufactured AK's, as did a slew of other manufacturers in the world. Word had it once that the Maadi was the closest thing to the Soviet AK out there. The Chinese AK's used thicker steel in the receivers. The Bulgarians made some of the best milled-receiver versions.
In any case, a Kalashnikov USA is as close to the original AK as if a company started today with the title "Garand Arms Works" and purported to make the original Garand. Or, as in fact is happening, Rock Ola and Inland making arms (or Springfield, Rock Island Armory, etc.).
Separate names with a comma.