Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/29/2006 4:34:56 PM EST
Arsenal's webiste claims that the weight difference is only .10 kg between the two (SLR 3.31 [no rail] vs SAM 3.41 [no ban style no rail])... length difference is negligible, barrel is same, mags are same.... oddly enough, teh msrp on the SLR's is higher than teh SAMs were when they came out and were avilable new, but htat's besides the point.

IS this a get both, or is one superior ?
(hint: I'm considerring getting both..... just want to put optics on only one and keep the other KISS)
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 5:07:55 PM EST
With the milled reciever and equal or lower cost the SAM-5 is probably the better buy but if you want something that's lighter and more compact the SLR is your best bet. I'd get the SLR. Quality and shoots like a dream, despite the stamped receiver. YMMV.

CMS
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 1:34:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By cms81586:
With the milled reciever and equal or lower cost the SAM-5 is probably the better buy but if you want something that's lighter and more compact the SLR is your best bet. I'd get the SLR. Quality and shoots like a dream, despite the stamped receiver. YMMV.

CMS


The SLR is actually a little longer when open....
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 2:17:22 AM EST
I own both. IMHO you get more for your money with the Sam-5. The SLR is a neat rifle it's just not up to the same qaulity standard as the SAM-5.

The trigger on the SLR suck's it feels very strange and has a mile of travel.
The finish of the SLR sucks.
The SLR has a standard 800m site unlike the RPK adjustable sight on the SAM-5


Im not totally bashing the SLR it's a fine rifle. If you already have a SAM-5 and have some extra $ get one while you can. If you are trying to choose between the two get the SAM-5.
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 3:23:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By ark-and-spark:
I own both. IMHO you get more for your money with the Sam-5. The SLR is a neat rifle it's just not up to the same qaulity standard as the SAM-5.

The trigger on the SLR suck's it feels very strange and has a mile of travel.
The finish of the SLR sucks.
The SLR has a standard 800m site unlike the RPK adjustable sight on the SAM-5


Im not totally bashing the SLR it's a fine rifle. If you already have a SAM-5 and have some extra $ get one while you can. If you are trying to choose between the two get the SAM-5.


yup I bought the SAM5 off the EE and now considering an SLR as a stowaway backup...
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 7:40:21 AM EST
UPDATE, got a KISS RRA 16" A2 14.5+ phantom. cost me less than an SLR and she's got all the RRA features I like. It doesn't use same mags as the SAM, but at least its the same caliber and she came with mags so I'm good! I'm gonna pop an acog or compact acog on the AR CH and call it a day. I got the arsenal I was looking for (in both senses of the word), not onlto the handung!

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&f=21&t=390310
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 8:26:05 AM EST
just realized I blew through 15000 posts starting this thread. I need to get out more.
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 3:06:06 PM EST
About two pounds.

C
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 3:12:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By Centurian77:
About two pounds.

C


not even close.

SAM - 3.46-3.51kg (depending on model acc to arsenal)

SLR - 3.31kg (all models acc to arsenal)
Link Posted: 10/30/2006 11:00:42 PM EST
Both rifles and simular but vary different. I own both the no ban SA M5 no ban version and just recently aquired the new SLR-106FR. The only thing these to rifle share basically is the Arsenal name and chamber of the 5.56mm.

Both guns have thier own unique design from the past to the present evolution of the AK weapon system. Both guns share the highest quality and the best of the best in my humble opinion when it comes down to top shelf quality and product line.

The SAM5 with its milled receiver, Nato length stock, RPK adj rear sights and flash hider is a accurate rifle and provides a different way of doing business. Shooting 5.56 out of an AK is really different that has many advantages. The latest release of the SLR106FR is an extension of the same idea with added bang and cost to the package. The 106 has it all, everything one could expect in added accessories with a updated stamped receiver, 100 series folding stock, and all the goodies of the AK74.

Link Posted: 10/31/2006 1:41:08 AM EST
yeah the folding stock is DEFEINITELY a huge plus. they went with tthe right one in the SLR's too.... one day, I'll get an Ace folder on the SAM..

I've actually ahd a SAM and a Galil before this episode. I had to sell both, but when it came down to which one I'd keep for a while, the SAM stayed. I love these rifles. she deserves a compact acog, but won't get one till I figure out how to mount one lower than is currently possible.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 2:31:00 AM EST
The only bad thing about the 106 is the thing is so damm expensive, but once you handle the 106 and operate the true presision side folder you can really understand why the gun costs more. The rifle provides all the pre ban features including a accessory lug which is found on only a few of the Arsenal AK's. The SA M5 is a nice rifle and in the best buy catagory. I picked mine up for less that 680.00 last year and the only short term negitive was the green stock which after time looks fairly bad ass with black or clear mags. I contacted Tantal. and will buy a Kobra Russian red dot sight, AA battery version for the 106 which will add more fun for the range and looks for the 106.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 9:15:49 PM EST
I'll have to say that the SAM-5 and SLR-106 are two different guns. Each has it pro's and cons. I love how the 106 has the left siding folder and accessory lug. How ever I do love the feel of a milled reciever with the nato stock. I sold a post ban SAM-5 for my 106 and don't regret it because I have still a no -ban SAM-5R too.
Top Top