I was running through the vepr website reading about the recievers. I came across this page.

You can see in the second paragraph where they write that stamped recievers last longer and have better accuracy over milled?

I always believed it was the other way around. The vepr recievers are top notch granted, but maybe I was misinformed?
It would seem to me that a milled reciever would have a longer service life and produce greater accuracy??

I don't know how true this is, but I read a similiar article.  It stated the reason being the milled reciever won't flex with the moving parts the way a stamped reciever will, thus causing excessive wear.  Makes sense to me, but I still want milled.

I would think a milled would last longer also. But I can't see wearing out a stamped one in mylifetime... WarDawg

While i would think milled would technically be stronger, and last longer, keep in mind the AKs reputation came largely from stamped versions. Milled versions were only made for 8 years i think, 51-59.

I wouldnt worry about wearing out either kind.

Quoted: I wouldnt worry about wearing out either kind.

Agreed.

I'm not worried about wearing out any AK. Just curious to know about the info they had posted..

That's Robinson's website. They sells VEPR's with stamped receivers. Of course they are going to claim they are better.

Look at the countries that have made milled rifles in the last 20 years - Bulgaria, Finland, Israel. Right there, you have a virtual "who's who" of the countries who have built the highest quality AK's, ever. Each of them could have built stamped guns instead, but didn't.

Finland experimented with stamped guns for a few years in the 1970's before concluding that they offered absolutely no advantages over milled receivers.

The only "advantages" that stamped receivers have over milled receivers is that they're cheaper and easier to produce in large quantities, and are somewhat lighter. Of course, the VEPR RPK receivers totally negate the weight advantage.

There is nothing wrong with stamped receivers, but to claim they are somehow "better" is absurd.

Quoted: That's Robinson's website. They sells VEPR's with stamped receivers. Of course they are going to claim they are better. Look at the countries that have made milled rifles in the last 20 years - Bulgaria, Finland, Israel. Right there, you have a virtual "who's who" of the countries who have built the highest quality AK's, ever. Each of them could have built stamped guns instead, but didn't. Finland experimented with stamped guns for a few years in the 1970's before concluding that they offered absolutely no advantages over milled receivers. The only "advantages" that stamped receivers have over milled receivers is that they're cheaper and easier to produce in large quantities, and are somewhat lighter. Of course, the VEPR RPK receivers totally negates the weight advantage. There is nothing wrong with stamped receivers, but to claim they are somehow "better" is absurd.

Regardless of who has them or who has been using them, anyone in construction will tell you that a structure which flexes can withstand much more force then one that is rigid.

I can name a few right of the bat.  Airplane wings, skyscrapers, bridges, vehicles, any type of propeller, houses in earthquake zones, etc etc.

Even with this, I think there is no way a common person is going to outlast any AK receiver.  But their presumption is correct.

I don't think very many of us would ever wear out ANY AK receiver.  These weapons were designed for full-auto use under third-world battlefield conditions we are using them as semi-autos and I think most of us care for our rifles a little better than the average "insurgent".

Remember that the very highly regarded HK rifles and some others also use sheet metal receivers, and many M-1 Garands that saw action in WWII are still perfectly reliable today.

Quoted: Regardless of who has them or who has been using them, anyone in construction will tell you that a structure which flexes can withstand much more force then one that is rigid.

You mean like a (forged) sword blade, right?

I can name a few right of the bat.  Airplane wings, skyscrapers, bridges, vehicles, any type of propeller, houses in earthquake zones, etc etc. Even with this, I think there is no way a common person is going to outlast any AK receiver.  But their presumption is correct.

Remember that the (stamped) M60 and HK21 are known to beat themselves to death over time.

IMO, their presumption is strictly marketing BS. The ONLY reasons that the Russians switched from milled to stamped receivers were COST and WEIGHT.

I agree that no one here will outlast an AK receiver of any kind.

The first AK-47 was stamped, but they didnt have the manufacturing skill/technology to make it strong enough so after two years they switched to milled. When they had the manufacturing capability to produce a strong enough stamped receiver, they went back to stamped, to a modification of the original design. The AK was never designed, never supposed to be a milled receiver. To claim the only reason they went with stamped was cost and weight, as if they were driven to use something subpar to save money, is not accurate.

Quoted: The first AK-47 was stamped, but they didnt have the manufacturing skill/technology to make it strong enough so after two years they switched to milled. When they had the manufacturing capability to produce a strong enough stamped receiver, they went back to stamped, to a modification of the original design. The AK was never designed, never supposed to be a milled receiver. To claim the only reason they went with stamped was cost and weight, as if they were driven to use something subpar to save money, is not accurate.

It is true that the Russians wanted to use a stamped receiver for their new Kalashnikov design. They had seen how the Germans had successfully been using this method to produce lighter and more quickly manufactured weapons, and therefore having an advantage when needing them in short order. These were the main reasons for wanting their AK's to be in stamped steel receiver design. Though they started with their stamped idea, they soon noticed that they had to gain some more experience with this method of manufacturing before they could strongly rely on them, and before they could call themselves experts on this method of manufacture. In the meantime, they had no choice but to go back to their proven milled methods.
This may have temporarily shelved their idea of having a lighter and faster produced Kalashnikov weapon, but the milled method definitely secured them with a very rugged firearm (though it would be slower to produce and heavier in weight).
Once their stamping glitches were resolved, it made sense for them to finally achieve their original idea, which was for a lighter and faster produced weapon.

As for the Vepr, they are some very rugged firearms (using the stamped steel receiver thickness and design of the RPK), but it would be expected for countries like Russia, and companies like Robinson and Molot (which currently only offer stamped steel receiver designs) to promote what they sell as being the best.
But,........ I just can't see that as being considered a reliable or unbiased source.

There's a firm in the U.S.A. that not only has legal ties with a former Com Bloc AK manufacturer (actually licensed), but that also sells AK's in both receiver designs (milled and stamped). The company I speak of is the Arsenal Inc of Nevada firm. They are licensed by Arsenal of Bulgaria, and have technicians and production employees that used to work at the mother factory in Bulgaria.

Being that Arsenal Inc has a real stake in both designs, and that they actually sell both receiver type AK's for profit, their views on this subject would hold more water than any other company that may be offering only one receiver type.        


This question of how these two receiver types compare was posed to an Arsenal Inc Representative, and this was his response:


Re: stamped vs. milled specs.

MILLED

General statement: A properly manufactured MILLED receiver is superior in all aspects to a stamped receiver, for the following reasons:

1. Rigidity. It doesn’t get any more rigid than this.
2. Strength. Considerably more tensile, shear, cross stress strength. Milled, forged steel is just plain stronger and more durable than any stamped assembly (regardless of how “thick” the stamping is).
3. Part/action alignment. The part and action alignment is consistent throughout the life cycle of the rifle. Being milled from one piece, there is nothing in the frame to loosen or shift out of alignment.
4. Much more stable platform. Fixed mating surfaces ensure alignment and function.
5. Longer service life. Stronger, more rigid, consistently aligned frame retards part wear and extends service life of action parts.

Disadvantage: Milled receiver AK is heavier than stamped receiver type. This is offset by slightly more controllability and less recoil from heavier weapon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STAMPED

General statement: STAMPED receiver rifles are less costly to manufacture and thus can be offered for a lower price. Other advantages over MILLED receiver rifles are:

1. Lower weight.
2. Higher production due to reduced manufacturing time.


AKW
Arsenal Inc.




***On a related note:

Arsenal Inc. of Nevada "and" the Arsenal Co. of Bulgaria, both use the forged and milled method for manufacturing their milled receivers (rather than milling them from barstock). With all else being equal, milling quality, metal quality, heat treating, etc, milling from forgings will produce a higher quality product than milling from barstock. There is tons of available information that supports this claim, and can be found by various sources. The following information is just one source that would directly be tied with this discussion (coming from the Migeta/Arsenal Inc. board Representative, Arsenal-DPC), and though Arsenal Inc uses milled from forgings for their milled receivers, they also use investment cast triggers (in "some" of their guns), investment cast front sight housings, investment cast gas chambers/housings, and maybe some other components. So their view on this subject is again coming from more than just a little first hand experience, and from a firm having horses in more than one race:

"There are several methods to fabricating steel parts for high impact applications. They are (in descending order of quality):

1-Milled Forgings (the method used by Arsenal Inc to manufacture milled receivers and double hook trigger fire control groups): A heated billet is forced under pressure into the general shape of the end product, resulting in maximum density with multidirectional “grain” or elongation of the crystalline structure, conforming to the contours of the part. The part is then precision CNC machined into the finished product. Finally, the part is heat treated to exact specification, which further strengthens the part. The end result, although expensive to manufacture, results in the strongest and most precise part available with today’s technology.

2-Milled from a solid billet: Although considerably less costly, this process is inferior to milled forgings as the grain, is directional (flowing in one direction or plane); therefore the part has a weaker structural integrity.

3-Casting: Although, for reasons of economy, this method is widely used, it does not offer the strength of parts milled from forgings or the precision of CNC machining

4-MIM (metal injection molding): For reasons of economy this method is also widely used. Again, it does not offer the strength of parts milled from forgings or the precision of CNC machining"



Here are some other sources that compare or show the benefit of forged and milled "over" methods like milled from barstock or casting:

***From the "forgefair dot com" website:
Forging refines the grain structure and develops the optimum grain flow, which imparts desirable directional properties such as tensile strength, ductility, impact toughness, fracture toughness and fatigue strength.


***From the "How Stuff Works" website:
The advantage of forging is that it improves the strength of the metal by aligning and stretching the grain structure. A forged part will normally be stronger than a casting or a machined piece.


***Also from the "How Stuff Works" website:
Q.Why choose a forged instead of a machined component?
A.Forging improves the grain flow of metal and therefore a forged component will always be stronger than a machined one. Machining is inherently destructive to the integrity of the metal.


***From the "Queen City Forging" website:
Machined bar and plate may be more susceptible to fatigue and stress corrosion because machining cuts material grain pattern. In most cases, forging yields a grain structure oriented to the part shape, resulting in optimum strength, ductility and resistance to impact and fatigue.


***From the "SniperCountry dot com" website:
Concerning forged vs. billet machined vs. cast;
if all else is equal (steel alloy choice, alloy purity,
reciever dimensions, heat treatment, etc) then forging,
if done right, has a strength and possibly a stiffness
advantage.  

A few myths, some truth.

First of all, it is a myth that the Soviets needed to improve their stamping and thats why they switched to milled.  Actually, the reason they switched was fairly mundane.  Things were starting to switch to stamped metal manufacture, but they had a limited amount of stamping capability and quite alot of milling machines and skilled machinists.  Consequently, if they could mill the product instead of stamping it, they could use machines and tools already existing and the skilled workers, rather than making dies, new machines, etc.  So they started making the AK in a milled rather than stamped format.  This is confirmed in a way by te capture of a first model, stamped AK in Africa.  It had been used for nearly 60 years and had no finish and a homemade buttstock, but it still ran fine.  Sorry, I don't have a link to that one.

Forged sword blades?  Swords flex or they break.  Period.  Flexing absorbs shock.  The science of sword design could take up pages and designs changed over the years as defenses and purposes changed.  But it is a fact that metal that can't flex (flex, meaning bend and return to true, not just bend) can survive greater stresses than a piece  that is too rigid.  

Durability is not always a desired feature.  The best example is the M16/AR15 magazine v. the AK47.  We enjoy the benefit of Millions of magazines manufactured by cheap eastern bloc labor.  But material costs and labor involved is actually greater than th M16 aluminum magazine.  The M16 magazine was designed with disposibility as part of its design.  We hang on to ours and baby them to an extent.  But in a military environment, magazines are disposable.  It is expected that they will be discarded and damaged on the battlefield.  So if you expect something to have an average lifespan of 2 years, you don't design it to last 30.  

That said, a milled receiver is more rigid than a stamped and heavier.  In this context, rigid is better for accuracy potential.  Assuming the mating surfaces of moving parts are properly mated and have some lubrication, their friction and wear will be less than that of moving parts that flex.  The flexing will present momentary high spots that will experience greater friction and wear faster.  With regards to to the AK however, they are overbuilt enough that the wear and potential rivet flex/breakage is a non-factor.

The Israelis chose to build the Galil with a milled receiver for a number of reasons.   Potential accuracy was greater and they could mill in a scope attachment.  I'm afraid I don't know whether existing machinery economics played a factor with them or not.

What is desireable for an individual is not necessarily the same for a state.  If a stamped receiver can be manufactured for 1/10th the cost of a milled receiver, then it makes sense as long as other factors such as accuracy, lifespan, etc. are acceptable.  The fact is, original milled AK47s and stamped AKMs have survived far more abuse than is reasonable, and well past the time that their design has become dated and newer designs have taken over.  It s easier to dump your 30 year old rifles for a newer design and  a different caliber if the old ones are mechanically worn out.  For us as individuals, state economics and planned obsolescence are not desireable factors.

This is the bottom line.  Milled and stamped are available.  Both will last longer than our shooting lifespans.  Stamped weighs less and costs less.  Milled is heavier and more expensive.  Because of barrel tolerances, accuracy is comparable.  You'd really need a  better barrel and better ammo to really see an accuracy difference between the two.  Get whichever one you want for the reasons you want.  Whichever is "better" for you is what counts, not what is "better" from a state perspective.

You mean like a (forged) sword blade, right?

True...the sword is very strong when you use the CUTTING edge.  Hit the blade from the side and it will mostly likely snap in two.

I'm kinda partial to a forged and milled receiver myself - I work in pump manufacturing and we work with castings that are milled.  You wouldn't believe the problems we have with castings - some come in with microscopic cracks that you can't see, but will leak water under pressure.  A forging increases strength on a molecular level - it is far and above the best method if done properly.  All this being said - milled AK receivers are heavy and kind of defeat the AK's purpose when it comes to cheap manufacturing.  Even with a modern 4 or 5 axis CNC mill you are talking about quite a bit of machine time to produce a batch of milled receivers (probably nearly an hour of run time to machine a solid piece into a thin-walled piece).  Stamping an AK receiver takes 3 or 4 hits from a progressive die setup in a press.  A little fast spot welding and jig-fixtured riveting and your done in minutes.  Accuracy in an AK is somewhat of a misnomer when you talk about rigidity.  7.62 x 39 isn't any better than minute-of-pie-plate accuracy.  I've got an 74 kit built on a OOW receiver (remember these are fairly soft steel, they only harden the trigger group holes) and it will shoot circles around ANY 7.62 x 39.  Now I would like to see a side-by-side comparison of an SLR-105 stamped vs a SAM5, but I digress.  Stamped receivers are more than adequate for general AK use - most of us who prefer milled admit it is mainly for sentimental reasons.

A few myths, some truth. First of all, it is a myth that the Soviets needed to improve their stamping and thats why they switched to milled. Actually, the reason they switched was fairly mundane. Things were starting to switch to stamped metal manufacture, but they had a limited amount of stamping capability and quite alot of milling machines and skilled machinists. Consequently, if they could mill the product instead of stamping it, they could use machines and tools already existing and the skilled workers, rather than making dies, new machines, etc. So they started making the AK in a milled rather than stamped format. This is confirmed in a way by te capture of a first model, stamped AK in Africa. It had been used for nearly 60 years and had no finish and a homemade buttstock, but it still ran fine. Sorry, I don't have a link to that one.

What i said was basically from a history channel Tales of the Gun show on the AK-47. I just checked again and they say the stamped receivers could not be produced fast enough to meet demand. They then have some guy on there from Janes that says welding technology of the time was not up to par. They later say "it was not until 1959 that industrial capacity allowed for the necessary retooling", whatever that means. The Janes guy later says of the AKM, "they solved the welding problems and strengthened the sheetmetal receiver."

So if they couldnt produce the stamped receivers fast enough, but had a bunch of milling machines and machinists sitting around, then that makes sense. As far as technology lacking, i have heard that a few places, but who knows, maybe the guy is wrong.

Has anyone ever seen a worn out AK stamped or milled??

What is the round count an AK-47 can take before it starts to loose accuracy or jam? Of course cleaning it every 500-1000 rounds. I've always wondered that. Sorry for the off topic question...

Quoted: Quoted: The first AK-47 was stamped, but they didnt have the manufacturing skill/technology to make it strong enough so after two years they switched to milled. When they had the manufacturing capability to produce a strong enough stamped receiver, they went back to stamped, to a modification of the original design. The AK was never designed, never supposed to be a milled receiver. To claim the only reason they went with stamped was cost and weight, as if they were driven to use something subpar to save money, is not accurate. It is true that the Russians wanted to use a stamped receiver for their new Kalashnikov design. They had seen how the Germans had successfully been using this method to produce lighter and more quickly manufactured weapons, and therefore having an advantage when needing them in short order. These were the main reasons for wanting their AK's to be in stamped steel receiver design. Though they started with their stamped idea, they soon noticed that they had to gain some more experience with this method of manufacturing before they could strongly rely on them, and before they could call themselves experts on this method of manufacture. In the meantime, they had no choice but to go back to their proven milled methods. This may have temporarily shelved their idea of having a lighter and faster produced Kalashnikov weapon, but the milled method definitely secured them with a very rugged firearm (though it would be slower to produce and heavier in weight). Once their stamping glitches were resolved, it made sense for them to finally achieve their original idea, which was for a lighter and faster produced weapon. As for the Vepr, they are some very rugged firearms (using the stamped steel receiver thickness and design of the RPK), but it would be expected for countries like Russia, and companies like Robinson and Molot (which currently only offer stamped steel receiver designs) to promote what they sell as being the best. But,........ I just can't see that as being considered a reliable or unbiased source. There's a firm in the U.S.A. that not only has legal ties with a former Com Bloc AK manufacturer (actually licensed), but that also sells AK's in both receiver designs (milled and stamped). The company I speak of is the Arsenal Inc of Nevada firm. They are licensed by Arsenal of Bulgaria, and have technicians and production employees that used to work at the mother factory in Bulgaria. Being that Arsenal Inc has a real stake in both designs, and that they actually sell both receiver type AK's for profit, their views on this subject would hold more water than any other company that may be offering only one receiver type.         This question of how these two receiver types compare was posed to an Arsenal Inc Representative, and this was his response: Re: stamped vs. milled specs. MILLED General statement: A properly manufactured MILLED receiver is superior in all aspects to a stamped receiver, for the following reasons: 1. Rigidity. It doesn’t get any more rigid than this. 2. Strength. Considerably more tensile, shear, cross stress strength. Milled, forged steel is just plain stronger and more durable than any stamped assembly (regardless of how “thick” the stamping is). 3. Part/action alignment. The part and action alignment is consistent throughout the life cycle of the rifle. Being milled from one piece, there is nothing in the frame to loosen or shift out of alignment. 4. Much more stable platform. Fixed mating surfaces ensure alignment and function. 5. Longer service life. Stronger, more rigid, consistently aligned frame retards part wear and extends service life of action parts. Disadvantage: Milled receiver AK is heavier than stamped receiver type. This is offset by slightly more controllability and less recoil from heavier weapon. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAMPED General statement: STAMPED receiver rifles are less costly to manufacture and thus can be offered for a lower price. Other advantages over MILLED receiver rifles are: 1. Lower weight. 2. Higher production due to reduced manufacturing time. AKW Arsenal Inc. ***On a related note: Arsenal Inc. of Nevada "and" the Arsenal Co. of Bulgaria, both use the forged and milled method for manufacturing their milled receivers (rather than milling them from barstock). With all else being equal, milling quality, metal quality, heat treating, etc, milling from forgings will produce a higher quality product than milling from barstock. There is tons of available information that supports this claim, and can be found by various sources. The following information is just one source that would directly be tied with this discussion (coming from the Migeta/Arsenal Inc. board Representative, Arsenal-DPC), and though Arsenal Inc uses milled from forgings for their milled receivers, they also use investment cast triggers (in "some" of their guns), investment cast front sight housings, investment cast gas chambers/housings, and maybe some other components. So their view on this subject is again coming from more than just a little first hand experience, and from a firm having horses in more than one race: "There are several methods to fabricating steel parts for high impact applications. They are (in descending order of quality): 1-Milled Forgings (the method used by Arsenal Inc to manufacture milled receivers and double hook trigger fire control groups): A heated billet is forced under pressure into the general shape of the end product, resulting in maximum density with multidirectional “grain” or elongation of the crystalline structure, conforming to the contours of the part. The part is then precision CNC machined into the finished product. Finally, the part is heat treated to exact specification, which further strengthens the part. The end result, although expensive to manufacture, results in the strongest and most precise part available with today’s technology. 2-Milled from a solid billet: Although considerably less costly, this process is inferior to milled forgings as the grain, is directional (flowing in one direction or plane); therefore the part has a weaker structural integrity. 3-Casting: Although, for reasons of economy, this method is widely used, it does not offer the strength of parts milled from forgings or the precision of CNC machining 4-MIM (metal injection molding): For reasons of economy this method is also widely used. Again, it does not offer the strength of parts milled from forgings or the precision of CNC machining" Here are some other sources that compare or show the benefit of forged and milled "over" methods like milled from barstock or casting: ***From the "forgefair dot com" website: Forging refines the grain structure and develops the optimum grain flow, which imparts desirable directional properties such as tensile strength, ductility, impact toughness, fracture toughness and fatigue strength. ***From the "How Stuff Works" website: The advantage of forging is that it improves the strength of the metal by aligning and stretching the grain structure. A forged part will normally be stronger than a casting or a machined piece. ***Also from the "How Stuff Works" website: Q.Why choose a forged instead of a machined component? A.Forging improves the grain flow of metal and therefore a forged component will always be stronger than a machined one. Machining is inherently destructive to the integrity of the metal. ***From the "Queen City Forging" website: Machined bar and plate may be more susceptible to fatigue and stress corrosion because machining cuts material grain pattern. In most cases, forging yields a grain structure oriented to the part shape, resulting in optimum strength, ductility and resistance to impact and fatigue. ***From the "SniperCountry dot com" website: Concerning forged vs. billet machined vs. cast; if all else is equal (steel alloy choice, alloy purity, reciever dimensions, heat treatment, etc) then forging, if done right, has a strength and possibly a stiffness advantage.

I should have guessed that there would be a "few" folks that would not like to see too much input being shared h=85%

Quoted: Side note: I've seen really sloppy milling on some M48's, and nicer stamping on M48a's.

Just for those that may be wondering what an M48 or M48A is, they are Yugoslavian made bolt action rifles closely based on the German Mauser design. Both the Yugoslavian M48 & M48A Mausers are made using milled steel receivers. The differences between the two rifles are found in much more minor components, such as their trigger guards. The earlier made M48's had a milled trigger guard, while the later M48A's had a stamped trigger guard.  


I see that the original poster has made this thread into a stamped/milled AK receiver poll. These can always be fun, but since most people having a Kalashnikov based weapon will own a stamped steel version, it will most certainly become a popularity contest, one not actually based on much fact.

In any case, it should still be fun    

Quoted: First of all, it is a myth that the Soviets needed to improve their stamping and thats why they switched to milled.  Actually, the reason they switched was fairly mundane.  Things were starting to switch to stamped metal manufacture, but they had a limited amount of stamping capability and quite alot of milling machines and skilled machinists.  Consequently, if they could mill the product instead of stamping it, they could use machines and tools already existing and the skilled workers, rather than making dies, new machines, etc.  So they started making the AK in a milled rather than stamped format.  This is confirmed in a way by te capture of a first model, stamped AK in Africa.  It had been used for nearly 60 years and had no finish and a homemade buttstock, but it still ran fine.  Sorry, I don't have a link to that one.

I just found a similar reference to an early AK-47.

gunsnet.net/forums/showthread.php?t=228681 (third post)

I'm not sure about the dates stated in the first post. It reads as though no AKs entered service until 51, and the AKM wasnt in service until 61. Where would the type I fit in? Interesting post though regardless.

Yeah alot of good info in here. Thanks everybody for the input.

BTW I own both the vepr in 7.62x 39 and a SA M7 Carbine. As well as other AKs

I've owned Mak-90's, NHM-91's, Romaks, Hungarians.  

I own a (stamped) VEPR II Carbine and two (milled) Arsenal SA's in 7.62x39 right now and even though they are seem to be more accurate some of the other AK type rifles I've owned I doubt I could have ever worn one out.

I voted for milled only because of your specified criteria
"You have to pick one of these guns to last you your entire life"
I truely see little difference but a milled by it's nature should be able to last longer