AR15.Com Archives
 Type 1 AK47
Ermac  [Member]
5/28/2009 11:24:47 PM
Now as you know the Type 1 AK47 was the first AK ever made.


Now the type 1 AK47 has thicker stampings then even the Yugo, it weighed around 9.5 pounds quite heavy. What I'm wondering why hasen't any company made type 1 recievers for AK collectors?
Paid Advertisement
--
wesmerc  [Team Member]
5/29/2009 12:21:04 AM
maybe turbothis on theakforum will make you one
Rayman1  [Team Member]
5/29/2009 1:31:54 AM
Originally Posted By Ermac:
Now as you know the Type 1 AK47 was the first AK ever made.
http://www.thegunstorelasvegas.com/images/gunrental/largegun_photos/ak47.jpg

Now the type 1 AK47 has thicker stampings then even the Yugo, it weighed around 9.5 pounds quite heavy. What I'm wondering why hasen't any company made type 1 recievers for AK collectors?


Actually, it wasn't the first AK ever made - it was just the first one Kalashnikov designed that went into service. There were others, like this one:

Ermac  [Member]
5/29/2009 2:02:47 AM
Originally Posted By Rayman1:
Originally Posted By Ermac:
Now as you know the Type 1 AK47 was the first AK ever made.
http://www.thegunstorelasvegas.com/images/gunrental/largegun_photos/ak47.jpg

Now the type 1 AK47 has thicker stampings then even the Yugo, it weighed around 9.5 pounds quite heavy. What I'm wondering why hasen't any company made type 1 recievers for AK collectors?


Actually, it wasn't the first AK ever made - it was just the first one Kalashnikov designed that went into service. There were others, like this one:

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q86/Blue_Falcon_One/Junk/o_01AK-46I-1.jpg

I'm aware of that.
Rayman1  [Team Member]
5/29/2009 2:41:47 AM
There was talk of making a Type I receiver from one of the vendors quite a while back but the real problem would be making it worth it. There's so few people out there with a Type I kit or parts that it wouldn't make the venture profitable to do.

Definately would be cool for those with a Type I kit, though.
briansmithwins  [Team Member]
5/29/2009 12:48:20 PM
The Type 1 also uses unique front and rear trunnions, so those parts would have to be fabbed also.

Since the Sov had problems with Type 1 service lifetime you're talking about a repo that's heavier, way more expensive, and not as durable as a AKM. Probably not a big market. BSW
FlaDevmeister  [Member]
5/29/2009 4:21:17 PM
What they said. No demand. Sure, some would want their collections complete by having a Type I (keep in mind the Russians never made a disctinction between types and the moniker is strictly Western) but I don't see that much of anyone would want to bother. The Type III and the AKM's are the most popular which is why you could get them. The Type I wasn't around long. And the AKS started to come online in the late 50's. The "ubiquitous AK-47" that people are most familiar with is one version or another of AKM, contrary to what most think. The actual AK-47 Type III's are usually about as far back as anyone wants to go for their collections.

Now you get somebody to make receivers and bring in kits for the AN-94 "Abakan" and tell me where I can sign up for serial number AN-00001!!!!!
Fields_Overseer  [Member]
5/29/2009 10:33:39 PM
Originally Posted By FlaDevmeister:
...Now you get somebody to make receivers and bring in kits for the AN-94 "Abakan" and tell me where I can sign up for serial number AN-00001!!!!!


Ermac  [Member]
5/30/2009 12:56:53 AM
Originally Posted By briansmithwins:
The Type 1 also uses unique front and rear trunnions, so those parts would have to be fabbed also.

Since the Sov had problems with Type 1 service lifetime you're talking about a repo that's heavier, way more expensive, and not as durable as a AKM. Probably not a big market. BSW

Not as durable says who? I think the modern metalurgy of today would make it more durable.
Chris_1522  [Team Member]
5/30/2009 1:02:32 AM
You'd need a type 1 kit to build it and call it a clone, anyway. Good luck with that.

(I know they're out there, but man...finding a Russian type III is hard enough!)
briansmithwins  [Team Member]
5/30/2009 1:06:26 AM
Originally Posted By Ermac:
Originally Posted By briansmithwins:
The Type 1 also uses unique front and rear trunnions, so those parts would have to be fabbed also.

Since the Sov had problems with Type 1 service lifetime you're talking about a repo that's heavier, way more expensive, and not as durable as a AKM. Probably not a big market. BSW

Not as durable says who? I think the modern metalurgy of today would make it more durable.


The Sov had problems with the rivets that hold the trunnion to the receiver failing. Or so I recall from 'Kalashnikov - the Arms and the Man'. BSW
Chris_1522  [Team Member]
5/30/2009 10:38:21 PM
Other than the apparent lack of rivets, the trunnion-reciever interface on the rifle depicted in the OP looks a lot like that of a Saiga .308.
xjronx  [Team Member]
5/31/2009 12:09:39 AM
Elk river makes a thicker than standard stamped receiver.
briansmithwins  [Team Member]
5/31/2009 11:50:19 AM
Originally Posted By Chris_1522:
Other than the apparent lack of rivets, the trunnion-reciever interface on the rifle depicted in the OP looks a lot like that of a Saiga .308.


It's actually pretty different. The Type I used countersunk rivets that are very hard to see.

Found a pic of the Type I front trunnion. You can see it includes the bolt guides. BSW
1saxman  [Member]
5/31/2009 12:18:36 PM
'I think the modern metalurgy of today would make it more durable.'

There is no major difference in WWII steel 'metalurgy' and today's, except the quality of many steels was actually better in WWII. Any service problems most likely were the design, not the materials.
briansmithwins  [Team Member]
5/31/2009 1:02:47 PM
Originally Posted By 1saxman:
'I think the modern metalurgy of today would make it more durable.'

There is no major difference in WWII steel 'metalurgy' and today's, except the quality of many steels was actually better in WWII. Any service problems most likely were the design, not the materials.


Are you serious?

Big differences in steel from 60 years ago and today. Just off the top of my head, ATS34 and CPM S30V weren't even a wet dream to the engineers of the WWII era. Whole areas of metallurgy have been developed since then: stainless steels became cheap enough to see wide use, as did aluminum, not to mention the nickle and cobalt super alloys being introduced.

Besides, a modern AK would look a lot like a SCAR or G26. Plastic and metal to make it cheap and strong. BSW
jithaca  [Member]
6/3/2009 8:27:38 PM
Having stripped the remant of the Type I receiver from the Barrel Trunnion stub (the trunnion was cut in the demill process ) I find it hard to belive there were any issues with these rifles failing. As far as the steel goes, an analysis of the shell from one receiver was

Russia Type I Fe 98.2% Mn 1.0% Ti 0.9% Cu .12%

Can any one familiar with steel allows chime in?



Paid Advertisement
--