The traditional AK is a beautiful and lethal weapon.

Unfortunately the pistol grip is designed for 8 year old girls, the stock is the same way and has a tiny amount of area that connects with your shoulder, the triggers usually suck, the safety is clunky and  difficult to manipulate with efficiency, the sights are crude and difficult to see in low light, there's no bolt hold open, and the magazines can be difficult to change under stress.

I wouldn't want to be shot at with a classic AK.  I wouldn't feel "undergunned" with a classic AK.  But I would definitely prefer a modernized AK if I had to use an AK in a life or death situation.

Thank you.

It's a shame that Mako is getting the response that they are on this thread. The mako gear I own is excellent. The folding stock is I picked up from them is the best purchase I have made for my AK. I think people are confusing them with CAA or something and that's not a fair comparison.

Agreed.  All the Mako/Fab Defense gear I have is very well made and I would recommend it to anybody without reservation.



 

Even though I am a purest  my brother and old man have Mako gear on their AK's and the stuff is great especially the recoil reducing stock and rails. They really think outside the box to bring some great products to the market AR and AK.

everything you just said shows how much you understand about the development of the AK platform. We have been through this before, there is a reason why the stock was desinged in such a way,same with the pistol grip.

shitty sights? in low light? apparently you have not compared a traditional peep sight and AK sights in low light. Peep sights in low light actually block nearly 70 per cent of the incoming light through the aperture, so it will actually appear DARKER, where the AK sights do not exhibit such phenomenon.

no BHO DOUBLE
magz hard to change under stress... triple
practice.

While I do perfer the classic Ak setup I am planning a more modern Ak "build" based off a saiga 5.45 but nothing to this extent but if it works for you I will not bash you for your decisions. Buuut WTF is up with the recoil reducing stock?? Is this marketed towards women and kids?? If you need a recoil reducer on any caliber Ak please never buy a 12ga shotty as you may cripple yourself or loose control of the weapon altogether..just seems gimmicky to me.

Edited...VA-gunnutStay classy guysTake your own advice...









 

LOL while I do agree, I do not think mako was posting this in hopes of being flooded with compliments but more for feedback and marketing..mako is a great company with well built products but While not some peoples cup of tea and they have a asshole way of letting everyone know it mako knows what they are doing and are doing it good.






 

Vendors have to be pretty brave to post on this site!  I have a hard time understanding why vendors try to defend themselves online.  The reality is that critics will almost always be more vocal than supporters, and whenever I see vendors try to defend themselves, the net effect is usually me losing confidence in the professionalism of the vendor.  If a five year old calls you a moron in real life, most people will ignore him, rather than take the time to explain that their actual intelligence quotient places them in the top 10% of the human race.  That being said, I tend to agree that Mako is being unfairly criticized for being on the wrong side of a double-standard.  If you look at the AR-15 Complete Rifle section of the EE, you generally tend to see a lot more $1000+ rifles than you do in the AK-47 section.  This is primarily due to the expensive accessories that we love to throw on AR-15's –– usually with the justification of enhancing accuracy, ease of use, or speed (in some respect).  


Time to play the Devil's Advocate...
Nonetheless, as someone who is much more partial to the AK series of rifles, I can definitely understand why members of this sub-forum are so opposed to 'gussied up' AKs.  A large part of the AK's appeal is its simplicity and low cost.  I can go out and buy a converted Saiga 7.62 for around $510 OTD.  At that point, I'll have a pretty darn reliable rifle that's capable of placing 10 rounds within a human-head-sized target at 100 yards.  The marginal gains from adding expensive accessories are NOT usually in proportion to the cost.  When a builder starts adding expensive accessories, the price often creeps up faster than the perceived (or actual) value of the upgrades.  Would I be happy using a Kreb's rifle?  Absolutely!  Would I be twice as happy with the Kreb's rifle relative to a simple converted Saiga.  Absolutely Not.

Second, regardless of what any of us claim on the internet, we DO care about the value of our rifles.  In the AK world, originality and "foreign-exclusivity" are arguably the largest predictors of value.  A Russian Krinkov with matching parts and an original barrel would be worth far more than a Waffen Werks AK74.  Why?  Because Krinkov's are rare, matching parts are desirable, and original Russian rifles command a premium.  A $510 converted Saiga 7.62 will be worth at least [most likely] $510 in a year from now –– if not more.  However, expensively optioned AK's tend not to maintain their initial cost/value.  I like the fact that I paid $689 ($712 OTD) for a Saiga SGL-21 and would probably have little difficulty selling it for the exact same (or possibly higher) price.  The smoothing and finishing work Kreb's does to his rifles is undoubtedly top-notch –– but it's not worth a whole lot more to me than a simple converted Saiga.  Most AK fans are aware that the rifle is somewhat inherently limited by operating-design factors and ammunition quality.  To that end, the very tiny usability-improvements offered by "M4 tactical style upgrades" –– as utilized in the limited combat training we may participate in –– are hard to justify, given the cost.

Recoil reducing AK stocks have been around since the 1960's. Maco is just modernizing them.

As long as components are bolt on and don't require permanent modifications to the host weapon- then I'm all for them. Just wish the products had a wider base of AK style rifles they could be used on.

I have fired ARs with gas pistons or something similar in the stock to reduce recoil.

I am by no means a small man, but I came away from the experience thinking how much

more I actually enjoyed shooting the AR with the recoil reducer than shooting those without one.

I have to wonder if any of those who are talking smack about them have actually put rounds

through a rifle with a recoil reducing stock.

Thanks for the nice write up.  The rudeness and ignorance of some of the hall monitor, know-it-all types we have here, is shameful.  
As an aside to this thread, I have always wanted to make a suggestion to a Mako representative, and I might as well take this opportunity:





Please design an AK stock that doesn't look so ... poseurish?      I'm struggling to find the right word.  I was going to say "tapcoish"  but didn't want to malign them.  





I know it shouldn't matter how something looks, and I know it is ultimately a matter of opinion, but the vast majority of consumers can see right away if something looks like a quality enhancement, or if it looks like a toy.    





For example, a CTR stock and Palm USA Handgrip is a no nonsense, quality, utilitarian enhancement.  The Mako stock or handgrip just doesn't make that impression. I think it's all he extraneous frills.  The sculpting; fingergrips, mako shark gills, etc.     It's difficult to quantify, but there it is.      





I wanted to like them because the pricing and the quality is good.   However, there is just no getting past it.   It just doesn't look like something you would put on a serious weapon.  





There would be a big market for a folding, collapsible AK stock that would plug right in to a standard rear trunnion.   Something with quality design and materials, functional, and doesn't look like an abomination.  I can't believe nobody has designed one yet.  



I hope you are able to take my critique in the helpful, positive way with which it is intended.    
 
 

You should try the recoil compensator stock yourself. I was skeptical until I tried it, but it really works well. With 7.62x39, recoil is virtually non-existant, about like a .22 LR. The inline, adjustable design (like a AR buffer) is a plus, too. Bottom line is it translates into faster, more accurate rapid fire shots.  IMO it works a lot better than the muzzle brakes I've tried, without the muzzle blast directed back at the shooter.

Damn this thread!! I just ordered the SBT-K47FK stock system to try out for my self.

What is that cylindrical part at the rear of the stock? Please tell me it's a compartment that will fit an AK cleaning kit

Nah, I have one of your pistol grips and it's does not fit a standard AKM cleaning kit tube. I could just put the contents but then it rattles inside. I actually like the MAKO pistol grip but had to go with a US made one due to 922r compliance.

I was skeptical of the AK recoil compensating stock until I tried it –– it works very well. I liked it so much, I got another for one, and then another one for an AR15, which also virtually eliminates felt recoil and muzzle flip. On the AKs, the shock absorber is in the "buffer tube" while on the AR it's in the buttstock itself.

I am going to give it a try with irons. Though I am a traditional ak guy this piece of kit has got me a bit excited.

+1 –– it virtually eliminates muzzle flip and felt recoil.

Admittedly, I approached it with macho skepticism ("this thing must be for girls, etc.") but it made me shoot better...and enjoy it more. I just wish there was something like this for all my long guns.

I liken it to the difference between a 1947 Harley hard tail vs. a modern sport bike. So we're talking apples to apple as far as powerplants, it would be like comparing a '47 Panhead with a late model Buell sport bike with Ohlins suspension. If you tried to take the '47 around a track at anywhere near the speeds that the Buell is capable of, you would wad it up immediately. Now some people think a '47 Harley looks cool putzing around, but I'll take a modern sport bike handling and speed every time.

zzz

You are correct, I have an Aimpoint on the lowest mount I could find on there now so cheek weld is much better and I get a lower cowitness as well.

Likewise, I really don't see the big deal with a side folder other than legally you can put one on now.  I understand the argument for space constraints, but I'd always take a "locked" adjustable stock over a side folder.

I might of missed it, and correct me if I'm wrong, the only "high dollar" (over $400) "tactical" stock you offer is folding?  I do like the design of that adjustable cheek riser.  For myself, it's hard to beat  a plain MOE with $20 cheek riser, but it's not adjustable and sometimes not user friendly without a tool to remove LOL

A dumb guy like myself just can't figure out why a high dollar Krebs uses a VLTOR stock.  I've never used one, but it seems like it's a hit or miss with guys, BUT the one thing I might be missing and can't find, is if VLTOR offers some kind of cheek riser.

As was pointed out to me previously, one big advantage to the Krebs rail system is the use of optics.  Just seems to make sense to offer a stock that gives you a decent cheek riser system, particularly with the higher dollar Krebs.  Keep in mind, when I say high dollar, I'm talking about over 2k.  Given the price for an Arsenal nowadays and the overall pricing on AK's, Kreb's lower dollar model guns don't seem high dollar anymore.

I do like your GLR16CP model with adjustable cheek riser, but the dumb question of the day is why do you guys have those "ridges" on the stock?  What's wrong with plain and simple looking?  Is there a structural reason for them?  How secure is the locking mechanism on the cheek riser and do you get any play with it over time (screws coming loose)?

Honestly, don't know why Krebs doesn't use your stock (with adjustable cheek riser) on their KTR series, just would make a little more sense to me unless I'm missing something. Although I've never shot a Krebs, it seems even with their KTR series if you go with an optic of some sort, the stock looks a little low, at least for myself.

zzz

You should definitely give the riser a try. I thought the exact same thing as you, but their risers are rock solid. Believe me, I bang my rifles around quite a bit and the riser on my folder has been awesome.

I always wondered about the cuts and designs on lost of different israeli gear. I decided to ask a buddy who met with a former IDF guy and he said they were the equivalent to racing stripes over there. Again that's just an opinion from someone I know, but I do find that to be an interesting comment.

zzz

The riser for that stock is precisely the reason why I ended up buying something else.  Mine would not hold firm between shooting trips and required frequent adjustment.  Plus, I found it difficult to lower it down when not using an optic.  There are better-designed stocks with cheek risers out there

Thanks for the reply.  Took time.

No love on my end for Magpul, just found that I like the simple look of the MOE and the cheek riser is simple and secure.  

AND as it turns out, I have a decent size beard LOL

FYI you do a lot better than myself when it comes to quoting and responding in the same post.

(and intune69's rifle)

+1, but  I don't hang a bunch of stuff of an AR either.

Good trigger
folding stock if your operational needs require it
micro red dot on ultimak rail
2-point sling (I like the blueforce wire for front mount)

that's it.  

well maybe if you really really really need a flashlight - a removeable VLTOR-type mount in front of your red dot can be added.

Oh, and TRAINING.  You cannot replace training with gizmos.
I'm all for technology and  innovation, but "different" doesn't  mean "better."  Changing a part isn't necessarily "upgrading".  It is just "changing" and in my never-humble opinion is often "downgrading".

3x 5.45 Bulgys on NDS-2SF receivers and an Arsenal 107 F

So this rifle can be set up just how you like it.

Sure . . . all I have to do to "upgrade it" is put all that stuff off and put the original parts back on.

Now it also has two upgrades that truly are improvements - the magwell flange and the safety lever.  No one can use these without realizing that they are a major improvement.

I've used both and I think they are waste-of-time gizmos that are an attampt to manually work around the need to train - and to discover through training that an AK is not an AR.

If you gave me a straight stock AK and told me I could ad two improvements, these are the two I would choose over collapsible stocks, optics, anything else.

Clearly articulating your priorities reveals much to your audience.  I respect your clarity, although I am in diametric opposition to your views.  

My first two choices are  trigger and  optics.    I think we can "assume" that we are starting with a rifl that is otherwise correctly built and "safe" to operate, so repairs to the host gun are unnecessary.  

My priority depends on how bad the current trigger is. I've had some triggers come into my shop that were so bad it was impossible to get any good hits past 200 yards. A standard trigger job is  not too difficult for most people to do - free directions on my website.   So a decent trigger I go red dot first, and a bad trigger, I'd fix that first. Anyway . . .  In *My* opinion, red dot optics are the greatest combat multiplier since the invention of the semi-auto.

You are welcome to endorse a wider safety and a mag well funnel as the most significant improvements possible on the AK.  I suspect your doing so says something about your expereince with the rifle. "You've got to be joking" is what flashed through my mind . . . and then I realized you were serious.  Like saying the most substantial improvement one could do to my truck would be a spoiler.  Huh?  Really?  

I do see some value in the extended safety lever - and within the extended safety levers, I think that the Krebs unit is the nicest.  It is also double the cost of the next best.  While I generally give cost a low ranking in evaluating a product, the Krebs is significantly higher in price then I think can be justified even by it's acknowledged high quality.

The problems I have with an extended safety lever are two-fold.  The AK is a simple system and is common.  Training with a part that is different than all other AKs means when one picks up another rifle, muscle-memory will be working against you.  I admit, this is something that people who train at my level consider and is a non-factor for most recreational shooters.  I have used the unit, I like it, but I haven't bought one (8 actually, since I outfit all my rifles the same) because I don't see it as meeting my own cost-benefit analysis.

The second issue is that of training.  AR-drivers masturbate the safety lever because they can.  Much training is derived from US military rifle training, which is how to bring a large group of people to a minimum standard in a minimum time with nobody getting shot.    The selector lever on the AR is right there - begging to be frantically moved back and forth over and over and over . . ..

The AK isn't.  So now one must make a philosophical choice.  Do we take our AR-15 training manual, cross out "ar-15", and write in "ak-47", or do we write a new manual based on the AK being a different gun?

I opt for the second.  When I have my rifle slung over my back, it is on safe.  When I have my rifle in my hands, it is because I anticipate using it.  The safety is off.  For those who fear they will somehow unintentionally fire their weapon without the safety on . . . well, I wouldn't want such a person on my range even with a mechanical safety.  

Now the problem is that we have so-called "trainers" who have been teaching people to masturbate their AR-15 safeties for years, and they are unable or unwilling to look at an AK as anything other than a ugly AR.  So to participate in their classes, one must masturbate the AK safety - up and down, up and down, until one's fingers bleed.  Been there, done that.  If that's what the person is stuck with, then the extended safety lever is nice.  But if you challenge the premise - the "need" to masturbate the safety, I think that eliminates teh need for a device that makes it easier to masturbate the safety.

i could not agree more. this has been addressed/arguied many times, and people STILL bitch about it. One of the qualified AK instructors (and by quialified i mean someone who trained and used AK as their primary tool in combat) told me that if he EVER decided to go outside and anticipate a potential use of his AK, the safety is OFF to begin with. period.

He wasn't commenting on your training courses. He was commenting on the western need to constantly manipulate the safety, like the AR15. It also directly challenges the notion of an "enhanced" safety for the AK, and whether that is even necessary. Are you saying you subscribe to the constant safety manipulation in your courses too?

Perhaps you should read what I write before commenting on it.

I haven't commented on your training.  Only the products you submitted to a public forum for review and comment.

On the other hand, the products you endorse (and your stated priority-ranking of those products) does say something about your training methodology - the two are always linked.  

I stay away from labeling any specific technique or style as "good" or "bad".  I am more interested in evaluating the pros and cons of each (product, principle, technique).  I teach principles and I recommend products and  techniques that facilitate those principles.  A different technique (or product/technique interface) that accomplishes the same principle may be an equally valid alternative, or even superior in some circumstances.  But I also use as a principle, training for worst-case scenario.  I believe a technique that  works well only in certain circumstances, but does poorly in others, should take second seat to a possibly slower technique that works in a wider range of scenarios.

And the principles that  I base the techniques on, are subject to peer review as to whether the principle itself is applicable.

I thought this is why we have an Industry section....