Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Posted: 1/2/2004 5:23:36 PM EDT
I saw on the history channel the AK/AR-15 story where they brought Stoner, & Kalishnakov together. While talking about the AK it was stated that it was designed to be made with a stamped receiver, & all the parts were meant to be loose so a lot of dirt wouldn't cause a jam, & it was supposed to be a sloppy, but functional type weapon bye design.
I had always heard the just the opposite of that.
Then I read a review of Arsenal AK's in small arms review, & they talk about the fit, & function of these weapons & how they have a milled receiver, & how wonderful they are.
I would like an AK, but I'm confused as to what is best. I only want one, & I want to get it right the 1st time, & I just don't know whats best.
Is milled or stamped best?
Is $650 to $750 for a new Arsenal more than I need to spend to get a really nice AK?
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 5:34:01 PM EDT
Stamped.
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 5:39:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2004 5:40:40 PM EDT by Searcherfortruth]
OK, so stamped is better, so I should be able to find something better than an Arsenal AK for far less, right?
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 5:41:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 5:56:06 PM EDT
The parts in a AK are supposed to have forgiving tolerences(lose parts) by design..

This does not affect the quality of the rifle one bit...Also this is why the AK is not a match rifle..
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 5:58:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2004 6:09:50 PM EDT by QCMGR]
CampyBob can give you the best answer; but as I understand it the AK-47 was designed with a stamped receiver.  The milled receiver was a stop gap because the stamping tools were complicated to make.  It has been my experience that a well engineered stamping is often superior to a machined part.  I prefer the stamped AK.  I bought an SAR-2 and it has been a great little rifle.  I went shooting with the MI crew last winter.  It was -15 out.  My AR would not feed but the SAR-2 never failed.  The liberal tolerances do reduce accuracy but definitely improve reliability.
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 6:42:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By QCMGR:
CampyBob can give you the best answer; but as I understand it the AK-47 was designed with a stamped receiver.  The milled receiver was a stop gap because the stamping tools were complicated to make.  It has been my experience that a well engineered stamping is often superior to a machined part.  I prefer the stamped AK.  I bought an SAR-2 and it has been a great little rifle.  I went shooting with the MI crew last winter.  It was -15 out.  My AR would not feed but the SAR-2 never failed.  The liberal tolerances do reduce accuracy but definitely improve reliability.



Of all people, (other than Campybob), I figured you would be the last person to misuse that word.

BTW, I prefer stamped over milled only because of the weight.

Link Posted: 1/2/2004 6:45:05 PM EDT

tolerences


no, its


Clearances!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 6:57:51 PM EDT
You can get a nice preban pretty reasonable if you are willing to look around and be patient...

My favorite is a Hungarian folder. Damn does that thing shoot great, and it looks cool as hell.

But ya gotta quit smoking dope. It is a felony to lie on your form 4473.
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 7:03:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2004 7:05:02 PM EDT by Winston_Wolf]

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:

tolerences


no, its


Clearances!!!!!!!



... True, it's amazing how often these terms are misused and misunderstood. An AK47 can be built in a factory demanding close and tight tolerances on details and assemblies, yet final assemblies are designed to have adequate and relatively large clearances.
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 7:11:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By G-CODE:

Originally Posted By QCMGR:
CampyBob can give you the best answer; but as I understand it the AK-47 was designed with a stamped receiver.  The milled receiver was a stop gap because the stamping tools were complicated to make.  It has been my experience that a well engineered stamping is often superior to a machined part.  I prefer the stamped AK.  I bought an SAR-2 and it has been a great little rifle.  I went shooting with the MI crew last winter.  It was -15 out.  My AR would not feed but the SAR-2 never failed.  The liberal tolerances do reduce accuracy but definitely improve reliability.



Of all people, (other than Campybob), I figured you would be the last person to misuse that word.

BTW, I prefer stamped over milled only because of the weight.




I was speaking to the masses!  We can discuss the GD&T later.  Besides, I did say CampyBob can give the best answer.  But yes, to save the rest of my tarnished reputation it is the generous clearance between mating surfaces that enhance reliability.
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 7:22:32 PM EDT
Well, the milled receiver came first, then they went to stamped to reduce manufacturing time and cost, so as to start putting the ak out by the millions.the AK47 went into production in 1949, and the stamped went into prod. in 1958 or so, give or take a year.
If you want a range only tack driver, get the AR. If you want a gun that will function everytime you pull the trigger, rain or shine, foul weather or fair, clean or full of mud, get an AK47 or AK74. If you are worried about cost, build your own from a Milsurp parts kit and aftermarket receiver. The Polish PMKMS is a new demilled kit w/ underfolder stock. The Hungarian AMD65 is a tanker/paratrooper model with sidefolder stock. Liteweight and fun to shoot. $160.00 for the Polish kit, and the AMD65 can now be got for $90.00. It is used, but still very nice.
                OJF
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 8:48:42 PM EDT
yes the milled was first. the best one in production today is a hybrid molot factory.
Link Posted: 1/3/2004 8:17:23 AM EDT
stamped, Stamped!, STAMPED!!!!

Can't stand the added weight of a milled.

Handled many, shot several, always preferred the stamped myself.
Link Posted: 1/3/2004 8:51:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/3/2004 8:54:48 AM EDT
Top Top