Quoted:
Quoted:
What would I pay for it? No more than $500 if it was brand new. $400 used and in good condition. And even then, I'd really have to think about it.
Yes, I'm being serious.
Okay, great, that's about what I've comitted to in my head. I trust the opinions of all of you. I'd really like to know, though, what issues with the rifle and/or company that brings you to these judgements. What and how are you comparing this rifle to the others by? I'm a nuts and bolts kind a person and when I finally get an AK I'll want to know all I can about them.
gk
It's not that the rifle necessarily has functional issues. For all I know, it works fine. It's just that, to most "AK guys", there is absolutely nothing desireable about this rifle. Here are it's faults as I see them:
1. It is a Century. Century is known for hit or miss quality.
2. If you paid anything even close to the retail price, it could almost be guarnateed that you'd lose money in the event you ever wanted to sell it.
3. Most AK guys value at least a small amount of authenticity or history to a rifle. This has neither.
4. While looks are subjective, and arguably unimportant anyway, this gun looks cheesy. It almost looks like an Airsoft, or some bubba'd tacticool special.
5. This AK is unproven. Almost every componant is unproven. The receiver, barrel, almost all of it. Combined with #1 above, that's a risk many won't take.
6. Century claims this rifle is 100% American. Some doubt that truth of that statement (not that it necessarily matters in terms of function).
7. For the same amount of money or less, there are many other AK's out there that are proven. Why be the test dummy for this one?
Other people may have other reasons.
Like I said, it might work fine. And if you can really get a new one for $500, considering that retail is close to $900, it might be a good deal for you.
But I just have no desire whatsoever to own this gun. It would be one of the last guns I'd buy for $500, and
the absolute last for $900.