Given the frequency with which you engage in ad hominem attacks (quite a few of your past posts seem to involve that behavior), you are hardly one to say anything about that.
Why don't you either PM the links of such incidents to me or post them here if you like and if I have I will apologize to those people.
I'd also imagine that many here are already aware of the advantages offered by milled receivers: forged, milled receivers offer both increased rigidity and strength as well as greater accuracy.
Milled receivers offer no advantage in accuracy this is a myth that likely arises out of the fact that many milled receiver guns had better barrels installed than many of the low end stamped guns. Please explain how the milled receiver its self affects accuracy?
Lets assume agruendo that the milled gun is more accurate. How much more accurate is it? Is the difference greater than that caused by the cheap steel cased ammo most folks shoot through their AKs? If you are shooting 4 MOA ammo then what does one care about a slight (again assuming for sake of argument it actually existed) increase in accuracy? Is this difference enough that it would make a difference to folks shooting with open sights from field positions. Again I imagine for many that is also more of a factor than the purported accuracy advantage.
The small difference is mass between the stamped and milled receivers (7.25 pounds vs. 8.30 pounds or an ounce over a pound) mitigates recoil better and is hardly an issue except perhaps for those who are miserably out of shape
That depends on how one is going to use the gun. If it is walk it over from the care to the square range and go through a few mags then it makes no difference. If your uses are more expansive than that then a 1lb can make a lot of difference over time it can also make a difference in how the gun handles, say transitioning from one target to the next. I know a lot of very in shape hikers that go nuts over reducing mere ounces of their load.
It offers superior rigidity, strength and accuracy. Its slightly greater mass (1.05 pound) attenuates recoil better than the minimally lighter system.
This is what your argument really boils down to but where is the practical advantage?
Ridigity is not an inherent advantage what does it result in that is better. I know you will say accuracy, but that has been discussed, and is addressed further below.
Strength/durability: I might agree that it is stronger or wears better, but I do not believe the added strength is really a practical advantage. I am not aware of any incidents of a stamped receiver failing (outside of nasty Kabooms that would have mangled a milled one as well). Even people that put AKs through vary hard use are unlikely to wear out or break the receiver. There is no problem with the stamped receiver not being strong enough therefor the stronger milled one really isn't offering a practical advantage, more of a theoretical one. Furthermore, seeing as a stamped gun is half the price I'd rather just have a whole spare gun as a backup if I was truly worried about durability. The barrel and other parts are likely to go before the receiver anyhow. Will a milled gun out last 3 saiga conversions? If not dollar for dollar I don't even see an advantage in durability period versus a stamped gun.
Accuracy: Again you have stated this is a fact but you certainly have not demonstrated it or even given a bases for anyone to believe it is true apart form the fact you have said it. My experience with dozens of different AKs, as well as simply considering how an AK actually functions, and the lack of evidence, as opposed to assertions, that milled guns are per se more accurate than stamped guns leads me to believe this is just an often repeated but unsubstantiated claim. I have already treated above the lack of practical advantage even if it were true, and there is not evidence that it is.
Yes extra weight reduces felt recoil but felt recoil is a non issue on an AK.
In sum, extra weight is a poor traded off for slight recoil reduction is a very soft shooting gun. There is no good evidence that milled guns are per se more accurate than stamped guns, stamped guns are already more than durable and strong enough, thus stronger and more durable might be a theoretical advantage but is not practical advantage.
Oh, and by the way the argument, you disagree with me ergo you are emotionally invested, is a logical fallacy and does nothing to strengthen your contentions but much to undercut them.
Milled/forged receivers command a premium in the market place for many reasons.
They are less common and more expensive to build perhaps? It is not a result of superior function that matters in any practical way. Lots of things command a premiums for all kinds of reasons.
In the end I still don't see what PRACTICAL advantage a milled gun offers period and even more so when one considers the added cost.
There is nothing to substantiate that they are per se more accurate
Even someone who uses their gun very hard is unlikely to have the receiver fail from on them from wear. I've never seen or heard of it happening in a carbine course, competition or any other hard use activity. Stamped receivers hold up to hard use in .308 guns too.
The x39 AK does not recoil enough to be an issue for shooters that I know. If it was an issue it could be dealt with apart from making the gun heavier.
A milled gun does offer disadvantageous:
Cost
Weight (which depending on use 1 lbs can be a big deal)
Parts availability: not a huge issue but things are in my experience generally speaking easier to find for stamped guns.
In sum I believe stamped guns are a better choise because a milled gun wont really do anything better than stamped guns, but it is heavier (which it me is a disadvantage) and costs significantly more.