Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/12/2010 8:47:29 AM EDT
Why doesnt Arsenal offer a better quality finish or a Duracoat option like DSA does?

How can I put a folding stock on my sgl21? Can I just remove the screw and bolt a new one on? Can I use the full sturdy folding stock that they offer on the SLR?
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 11:17:32 AM EDT
Because the only people that care about the finish on an AK are fashion conscious Americans that are also cheap bastards that bitch about anything that increases the price like Duracoat.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 11:48:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By alfred10:
Why doesnt Arsenal offer a better quality finish or a Duracoat option like DSA does?

How can I put a folding stock on my sgl21? Can I just remove the screw and bolt a new one on? Can I use the full sturdy folding stock that they offer on the SLR?


you can just bolt on one of those romy wire sidefolders. the triangle/poly sidefolders are much more involved than just bolting it on. you need the trunnion and harware and modifying the receiver.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 1:29:21 PM EDT
The original design has the reciever cut for the folder. Some builders can modify your existing reciever to accept the triangle style side folder, but it would probably be cheaper to sell your rifle and buy one that already has it.

Ace Ltd. should offer some decent side folder options.

The stock below should also work as a drop-in (check Copes), but it's going to add to your stock length when open. And add a tail to the end of your receiver when folded.





Link Posted: 9/12/2010 1:39:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Because the only people that care about the finish on an AK are fashion conscious Americans that are also cheap bastards that bitch about anything that increases the price like Duracoat.


Well, I am getting my refinished in para and resin.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 4:59:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Because the only people that care about the finish on an AK are fashion conscious Americans that are also cheap bastards that bitch about anything that increases the price like Duracoat.


Eh, I hate the finish on my SGL not because I'm fashion conscious but because any cleaning solvent you use on the gun takes the paint off! Arsenal asks enough for these guns that they should at least apply paint to them that wont come off during cleaning. I could care less how the paint looks as long as it sticks to the gun.

Link Posted: 9/12/2010 5:54:52 PM EDT
There's a parkerizing under the painted finish.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 6:17:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ermac:
There's a parkerizing under the painted finish.


Do you know this for certain? Seems odd they would cover a parkerized finish with paint. I have no idea, but I've ordered an SGL21 based on the general consensus that the finish and craftmanship of the rifle is of a high quality.

And btw, will post pics when she arrives!
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 6:23:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jeepthing07:
Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Because the only people that care about the finish on an AK are fashion conscious Americans that are also cheap bastards that bitch about anything that increases the price like Duracoat.


Eh, I hate the finish on my SGL not because I'm fashion conscious but because any cleaning solvent you use on the gun takes the paint off! Arsenal asks enough for these guns that they should at least apply paint to them that wont come off during cleaning. I could care less how the paint looks as long as it sticks to the gun.



Ack! Are you serious? The 'coating' or 'paint' will actually come off via standard cleanig products? Sorry for questioning, just first I've heard this.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 6:26:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2010 6:27:57 PM EDT by IMR]
Use only CLP to clean with, and you won't harm the finnish/paint.

The Arsenal manual states this.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 6:37:19 PM EDT
It's the same finish the Russians put on their AK's. Check out a Saiga, same story with the finish.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 6:40:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By IMR:
Use only CLP to clean with, and you won't harm the finnish/paint.

The Arsenal manual states this.


Thanks for the reply, I'll comply with the advice. And I realize even a parkerized finish will show wear over time as evidenced on my SA XD (but it doesn't come off while cleaning, only holster wear).

I guess, in the end, you want a rifle to perform as expected, even if you carefully lean it against a tree but it falls on gravel... After all it's an AK, designed to perform even when painted with mud ;)
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 6:58:39 PM EDT
There's actually 2 kinds of finishes that Arsenal has on their rifles...the original Bulgarian paint on the SLR series (because those rifles came from Bulgaria) and the Russian finish on the SGL series because those rifles (surprise) came from Izhmash, in Russia

People talk about how easy the SGL finish comes off...it doesn't. No you should definately NOT use Hoppes or harsh chemicals on it because it will come off relatively soon with repeated cleanings, but the SGL finish does not run off like ink, it is quite a bit tougher than the Bulgarian Arsenal paint. I soaked the 74 brake from my SGL31 in Hoppes overnight, the next morning vigorous cleaning with a rag caused the finish to peel off where it had already started to wear. It didn't ruin the finish or cause it to wipe right off but it definately helped make the wear much faster, though 90% of the finish remained intact, as opposed to the 95% it had on before the Hoppes. I've cleaned the SGL31 with Hoppes as well, the receiver finish held up fine but again I don't recommend it, just trying to debunk the myth that the SGL finish is the same as the Arsenal...it isn't.


The Arsenal SLR finish wipes off with Hoppes, it's literally paint and can't stand up to anything harsh at all...this is true and Hoppes will smear and discolor the finish extremely quickly.




If you clean either the SGL or SLR's with CLP you'll be fine, but the SGL finish is definately tougher than the original Arsenal. In reality there's no reason to use anything other than CLP or Ballistol and if thats what you use the SGL's and Arsenal finishs hold up reasonably well to field use.




Z

Link Posted: 9/12/2010 7:21:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2010 7:22:57 PM EDT by saigamanTX]
No you should definately NOT use Hoppes or harsh chemicals on it because it will come off relatively soon with repeated cleanings,


On the SGL paint any ideas Zen when you might start seeing the finish coming off? I've noticed even paints like Dupli-Color engine enamel stand up to Hoppes?
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 9:02:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ThugBass:
Originally Posted By Ermac:
There's a parkerizing under the painted finish.


Do you know this for certain? Seems odd they would cover a parkerized finish with paint. I have no idea, but I've ordered an SGL21 based on the general consensus that the finish and craftmanship of the rifle is of a high quality.

And btw, will post pics when she arrives!

It's what Walker English told me that all the Russian AK's have that. They say the SGL's use the same exact finish.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 3:11:33 AM EDT
I know for absolute certain that at least some of the SGL-21 rifles are parked under the paint. I stripped my SGL-21 all the way down to the parking and repainted it. It had 2-3 layers of OD, DT, and FDE over the black. I soaked it for over a day in paint thinner. I had no choice other than stripping it off because the weapon could not be cleaned or serviced (everything was stuck, big time). Everything including the brake was parkerized underneath the factory paint.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 5:11:41 AM EDT
Pure and simple, the finish is crap. GUNKOTE over a parkerized base is the only way to go, and will withstand the harshest of cleaning agents.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 6:56:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LIONHART:
Pure and simple, the finish is crap. GUNKOTE over a parkerized base is the only way to go, and will withstand the harshest of cleaning agents.


I could be mistaken, but I read somewhere that Gunkote doesn't adhere well to parkerizing that isn't freshly applied.

Link Posted: 9/13/2010 1:20:53 PM EDT
What odd thinking. People buy AKs because they are AKs and with that comes the good and bad. They are finished just the same as one in the Russian military and then we apply US cleaning products to them which the Russians do not use and then we complain about how bad the finish is. I would figure that most that get a AK would know that AKs are not US designed weapons, AKs have short sight radius, AK fit and finish is not usually what we expect in US arms, AKs can not be run and expected to run just the same as a M4 does. They are different weapons with different traits. No real reason for the Russians to bend over and put a finish on these any different when we buy them like they are.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 2:12:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By evlblkwpnz:
Originally Posted By LIONHART:
Pure and simple, the finish is crap. GUNKOTE over a parkerized base is the only way to go, and will withstand the harshest of cleaning agents.


I could be mistaken, but I read somewhere that Gunkote doesn't adhere well to parkerizing that isn't freshly applied.



If the parked based is properly degreased, there is zero difference.

Link Posted: 9/13/2010 2:27:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2010 2:33:22 PM EDT by IMR]
Originally Posted By scottrh2:
What odd thinking. People buy AKs because they are AKs and with that comes the good and bad. They are finished just the same as one in the Russian military and then we apply US cleaning products to them which the Russians do not use and then we complain about how bad the finish is. I would figure that most that get a AK would know that AKs are not US designed weapons, AKs have short sight radius, AK fit and finish is not usually what we expect in US arms, AKs can not be run and expected to run just the same as a M4 does. They are different weapons with different traits. No real reason for the Russians to bend over and put a finish on these any different when we buy them like they are.


Well said... you're exactly right.

I've had my SGL 31 for a couple of months now, and have shot & cleaned it 10 times.
I use water to flush out the corrosive salts, and clean/lube with CLP.
The finish looks just as good, as the day I bought it.

Link Posted: 9/13/2010 5:20:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By scottrh2:
They are finished just the same as one in the Russian military and then we apply US cleaning products to them which the Russians do not use and then we complain about how bad the finish is.



I never knew that the paint they used is what the Russians use. Though i cant see the point of going that into detail when they don't even chrome line the gas tube and muzzle brake. It Seems pointless to me after all these are neutered civilian versions of the AK sold to Americans using American cleaning products.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 5:49:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jeepthing07:
Though i cant see the point of going that into detail when they don't even chrome line the gas tube and muzzle brake.


Arsenal doesn't go into that kind of detail on the SGL's...they are built in Russia and use a factory finish, so they get imported just as they are. The Russians don't chrome line the gas tubes either, so those are factory too.



Arsenal doesn't bother chrome lining their US made brake, wish they would but they don't.



Z
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 6:06:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TX-Zen:
Originally Posted By jeepthing07:
Though i cant see the point of going that into detail when they don't even chrome line the gas tube and muzzle brake.


Arsenal doesn't go into that kind of detail on the SGL's...they are built in Russia and use a factory finish, so they get imported just as they are. The Russians don't chrome line the gas tubes either, so those are factory too.



Arsenal doesn't bother chrome lining their US made brake, wish they would but they don't.



Z


Yeah, but Chris Butler does..

Link Posted: 9/13/2010 6:07:19 PM EDT
His brake is really nice, I had one on my 7.62 Saiga conversion. Good stuff.



Z
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 10:42:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By scottrh2:
What odd thinking. People buy AKs because they are AKs and with that comes the good and bad. They are finished just the same as one in the Russian military and then we apply US cleaning products to them which the Russians do not use and then we complain about how bad the finish is. I would figure that most that get a AK would know that AKs are not US designed weapons, AKs have short sight radius, AK fit and finish is not usually what we expect in US arms, AKs can not be run and expected to run just the same as a M4 does.

I thought the whole reason people pay all the extra money to buy an Arsenal over a Century was "fit and finish". They both work equaly well and are equally accurate. So if fit and finish is no longer important, and in fact the finish on an Arsenal gets ruined with something as common as Hoppes (never heard of that on a Century), why would anyone want to pay extra for an Arsenal? I certainly don't understand this. I really thought "fit and finish" was Arsenals claim to fame.

Link Posted: 9/14/2010 11:11:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By haertig:
Originally Posted By scottrh2:
What odd thinking. People buy AKs because they are AKs and with that comes the good and bad. They are finished just the same as one in the Russian military and then we apply US cleaning products to them which the Russians do not use and then we complain about how bad the finish is. I would figure that most that get a AK would know that AKs are not US designed weapons, AKs have short sight radius, AK fit and finish is not usually what we expect in US arms, AKs can not be run and expected to run just the same as a M4 does.

I thought the whole reason people pay all the extra money to buy an Arsenal over a Century was "fit and finish". They both work equaly well and are equally accurate. So if fit and finish is no longer important, and in fact the finish on an Arsenal gets ruined with something as common as Hoppes (never heard of that on a Century), why would anyone want to pay extra for an Arsenal? I certainly don't understand this. I really thought "fit and finish" was Arsenals claim to fame.



Something called quality control. If you spend enough time reading the history of CAI you'll find a very spotty record. Some guns are fine while others are horrid. This hit or miss record is indicative of a lack of quality control which is generally the hallmark of a product built to a price, as in, as cheaply as possible.

Other than the Arsenal paint not being resistant to powerful solvents you'll be hard pressed to find any real complaints with the quality or performance of the rifles. Closer quality from example to example is a sign of better manufacturing practices and a stricter adherence to quality control.

While I'm sure Arsenal is making a fair profit margin on their product they can do so because their marketing strategy has been to produce and sell a quality product, whereas in most cases CAI's strategy has been to sell a cheap product. Both have their place in the market.

With this said, I do have to agree that Arsenal should improve the quality of the coating product they use. I'm sure that something similar to Norrell's Moly or KG GunKote is available in wholesale quantities from sources of industrial coatings, at a reasonable price. But then again that would mean they would have to strip the original Saiga rifle completely, re-spray and bake. The labor and time involved would add to the cost of the rifles.

Personally, I'd take an Arsenal rifle over a CAI any day. I'd either avoid solvents that damage the paint, or I'd strip it and recoat it in a better finish if it really bothered me.

There is more to “fit and finish” than just paint.


Link Posted: 9/14/2010 11:25:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2010 1:46:17 PM EDT by Birddog1911]

Originally Posted By haertig:
I thought the whole reason people pay all the extra money to buy an Arsenal over a Century was "fit and finish". They both work equaly well and are equally accurate. So if fit and finish is no longer important, and in fact the finish on an Arsenal gets ruined with something as common as Hoppes (never heard of that on a Century), why would anyone want to pay extra for an Arsenal? I certainly don't understand this. I really thought "fit and finish" was Arsenals claim to fame.



As someone still new to the AK, I honestly have to wonder this myself. I'm not bashing either; I'm looking for honest inputs. Are the barrels better? Bolts?

Of course, you'll never get a true side folder from a WASR, and that is a big point to me.

Edited to add:
The poster above me answered the questions.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 12:25:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By haertig:
I thought the whole reason people pay all the extra money to buy an Arsenal over a Century was "fit and finish". They both work equaly well and are equally accurate. So if fit and finish is no longer important, and in fact the finish on an Arsenal gets ruined with something as common as Hoppes (never heard of that on a Century), why would anyone want to pay extra for an Arsenal? I certainly don't understand this. I really thought "fit and finish" was Arsenals claim to fame.


I just sold my WASR and bought an Arsenal just for that reason, fit and finish. Absolutely nothing wrong with the WASR, it never jammed in the 400 or so rounds i put through it, and was more accurate than I was for sure. Actually it's rugged exterior of tool marks and uneven finish was kind of a 'cool' factor... looked like it was picked up off a battle field.

But just because I need to heed the warnings about harsh solvents that can harm the finish, doesn't mean I don't value the nicer finish. All I need to do is use appropriate cleaning products and I'm good to go.

Another note about the finish, in the manual it states that the finish is the same applied to all of the rifles that come out of that factory, supposedly being a more authentic/mil spec AK that would be issued to military personnel.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 5:34:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imaposer2:
Originally Posted By haertig:
Originally Posted By scottrh2:
What odd thinking. People buy AKs because they are AKs and with that comes the good and bad. They are finished just the same as one in the Russian military and then we apply US cleaning products to them which the Russians do not use and then we complain about how bad the finish is. I would figure that most that get a AK would know that AKs are not US designed weapons, AKs have short sight radius, AK fit and finish is not usually what we expect in US arms, AKs can not be run and expected to run just the same as a M4 does.

I thought the whole reason people pay all the extra money to buy an Arsenal over a Century was "fit and finish". They both work equaly well and are equally accurate. So if fit and finish is no longer important, and in fact the finish on an Arsenal gets ruined with something as common as Hoppes (never heard of that on a Century), why would anyone want to pay extra for an Arsenal? I certainly don't understand this. I really thought "fit and finish" was Arsenals claim to fame.



Something called quality control. If you spend enough time reading the history of CAI you'll find a very spotty record. Some guns are fine while others are horrid. This hit or miss record is indicative of a lack of quality control which is generally the hallmark of a product built to a price, as in, as cheaply as possible.

I highly doubt that anyone here has purchased enough Arsenals, or Centurys, to qualify for commenting on quality control. The only thing people can do is parrot "what they read on the internet" and possibly embellish it as they go along. And what you "read on the internet" is certainly not the gospel truth.

Think about it, if you just paid $300 more for a rifle that is 99% the same as somebody elses less expensive one you have to justify to yourself WHY you paid that extra money. If the fit and finish argument has worn thin (bad pun!), it must be the quality control argument, right? It's just human nature. After all, it IS easier to fix the rare "canted sight" than it is to refinish that other brands rifles because somebody used a standardly available cleaner, Hoppes #9. Especially considering that the finish fragility effects all (or many of) their rifles, not just the rare one here and there like the canted sights issue (which is largely a thing of the past anyway).

Anyway, I'm not arguing against Arsenals. I know they are fine rifles, although too expensive for what they are IMHO. However, if their paint is really that fragile, whether it's the "standard Russian" fragility or not, I'd have to think twice about buying one when other perfectly fine and non-fragile options are available. Especially since those other options are generally less money.


Link Posted: 9/14/2010 5:43:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2010 6:47:09 PM EDT by TX-Zen]
Originally Posted By haertig:
I highly doubt that anyone here has purchased enough Arsenals, or Centurys, to qualify for commenting on quality control. The only thing people can do is parrot "what they read on the internet" and possibly embellish it as they go along. And what you "read on the internet" is certainly not the gospel truth.





Are you actually suggesting that Centruy doesn't have QC issues




Z
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 6:23:56 PM EDT
Century turned me way off with the 5.56 bores on the AK74s causing keyholeing and the parked finish that rusted.

Other than that CAI makes ok stuff for the most part, however in the end I wanted a AK that was made in Russia in a real AK plant by real Vodka drinking Russians. Century could not provide that. What came is a Russian AK with many of the same marking I have seen in SW Asia, sights that sit perfect and needed no windage to zero as it came laser sighted, a chrome bore, tight mag well and Russian printed material crap. I got my piece of mind if nothing else for my cash.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 6:41:22 PM EDT
There's nothing really wrong with the WASR's. They don't look pretty, but most of them works fine as intended.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:19:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TX-Zen:
Originally Posted By haertig:
I highly doubt that anyone here has purchased enough Arsenals, or Centurys, to qualify for commenting on quality control. The only thing people can do is parrot "what they read on the internet" and possibly embellish it as they go along. And what you "read on the internet" is certainly not the gospel truth.





Are you actually suggesting that Centruy doesn't have QC issues




Z


Huh? Did he imply that? Kinda sounded that way to me too. Oh well...

And BTW, I'm not talking about parroting, I'm talking about a long history of threads from actual owners of CAI rifles that have posted about their specific issues, one after another with many having to send more than one rifle back for replacement before finally getting one that was satisfactory. If that isn't indicative of QC issues I don't know what is. On the flip side, about the only complaint you usually find with with Arsenal rifles is this issue regarding the paint. Oh sure, they may have an occasional problem too, but the numbers just don't justify what you're saying at all.

If you care to dig deep enough you will find a whole host of issues with CAI rifles. Things like improper headspace, warped and twisted recievers, trunnion and receiver misalignment, feeding problems, canted FSBs, RSBs, GBs, mag wells that were either too loose or too tight, mag release issues, etc, etc. And this is just with the WASR series of rifles. Poke a little deeper in other CAI firearms, including but not limited to their other AK offerings, and you will continue to find issues after issue. Am I saying they're all bad? No I'm not, I'm just saying that from a QC standpoint they are not up to a very high standard.

Link Posted: 9/14/2010 8:45:07 PM EDT


The only Ak that Century produced (and these were sub contracted out) were the Yugo's.......
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 10:58:18 AM EDT
Arsenal's claim to fame used to be the fit and finish back on the SAM rifles. The SAM5 and SAM7 both featured a very nice even finish. These were milled rifles that were very smooth and very nice in appearance.

Starting with the SLR-105 rifles Arsenal started importing stamped receiver rifles made in Bulgaria that were then converted into the final configuration before being sold. These rifles DID NOT have the finish found on the SAM rifles and the SLR-105 had a crude finish in comparison.

Since then the SLR-106 and SLR-107 rifles were both imported from Bulgaria with the SGL rifles coming from Russia. All of these rifles come with the factory finish that was applied either in Russia or Bulgaria.

If you only want a cheap AK to go blasting with then the Century rifle will be just fine. However the differences between a Arsenal SGL rifle and a WASR rifle are pretty obvious to anyone with some experience in AK's.

Let's just use the SLR-106FR and a WASR-10 rifle. The SLR-106FR has a spring loaded firing pin(versus free floating on the WASR), correct receiver with mag well dimples(no dimples on the WASR), Bulgarian chrome lined muzzle break(versus a simple slant break on the WASR), polymer double stainless steel insulated front hand guards(versus basic wood on the WASR) and an AK-100 series folding rear stock(versus a fixed wooden stock on the WASR). Also ALL SLR-106FR rifles have 100% new parts in them versus some WASR rifles that are made from demilled surplus rifles.

Maybe none of these things matter to you, that's fine. And there might not be any functional difference between the two(However I can say with pretty good confidence the SLR-106FR in 5.56 will be more accurate then a WASR rifle). However they cost money and its a very BIG reason why an Arsenal will cost you more money.

And this isn't even getting into country of origin. Bulgarian/Russian or....Romanian. Might not matter to you but to a lot of people they will pay more for that Bulgarian or Russian rifle.

There isn't anything wrong with a WASR rifle that is free of bugs but there is a real difference between an Arsenal and a WASR rifle. If nothing more then what parts the Arsenal in made of.


-
Link Posted: 9/16/2010 4:20:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2010 4:28:02 AM EDT by Citadel-SC]
Originally Posted By haertig:
Originally Posted By Imaposer2:
Originally Posted By haertig:
Originally Posted By scottrh2:
What odd thinking. People buy AKs because they are AKs and with that comes the good and bad. They are finished just the same as one in the Russian military and then we apply US cleaning products to them which the Russians do not use and then we complain about how bad the finish is. I would figure that most that get a AK would know that AKs are not US designed weapons, AKs have short sight radius, AK fit and finish is not usually what we expect in US arms, AKs can not be run and expected to run just the same as a M4 does.

I thought the whole reason people pay all the extra money to buy an Arsenal over a Century was "fit and finish". They both work equaly well and are equally accurate. So if fit and finish is no longer important, and in fact the finish on an Arsenal gets ruined with something as common as Hoppes (never heard of that on a Century), why would anyone want to pay extra for an Arsenal? I certainly don't understand this. I really thought "fit and finish" was Arsenals claim to fame.



Something called quality control. If you spend enough time reading the history of CAI you'll find a very spotty record. Some guns are fine while others are horrid. This hit or miss record is indicative of a lack of quality control which is generally the hallmark of a product built to a price, as in, as cheaply as possible.

I highly doubt that anyone here has purchased enough Arsenals, or Centurys, to qualify for commenting on quality control. The only thing people can do is parrot "what they read on the internet" and possibly embellish it as they go along. And what you "read on the internet" is certainly not the gospel truth.

Think about it, if you just paid $300 more for a rifle that is 99% the same as somebody elses less expensive one you have to justify to yourself WHY you paid that extra money. If the fit and finish argument has worn thin (bad pun!), it must be the quality control argument, right? It's just human nature. After all, it IS easier to fix the rare "canted sight" than it is to refinish that other brands rifles because somebody used a standardly available cleaner, Hoppes #9. Especially considering that the finish fragility effects all (or many of) their rifles, not just the rare one here and there like the canted sights issue (which is largely a thing of the past anyway).

Anyway, I'm not arguing against Arsenals. I know they are fine rifles, although too expensive for what they are IMHO. However, if their paint is really that fragile, whether it's the "standard Russian" fragility or not, I'd have to think twice about buying one when other perfectly fine and non-fragile options are available. Especially since those other options are generally less money.




Good grief, maybe and just maybe the problem lies with people with inferiority complexes who worry way too much about other people's rifle purchases. Maybe they are the ones trying to JUSTIFY their purchase.

Like with many products, people purchase firearms for a multitude of reasons including function, country of origin, originality, aesthetics, fit and finish, and subtle things like "correct" features. Maybe there should be only one brand of rifle for people to purchase so we can avoid all this nonsense.

If all someone cares about is simply function, then go to your local gun store and purchase the cheapest firearm(whatever that may be) that functions - and then please shut up. Way too many busy bodies on here who are worried about other people's rifle purchases.

As for Arsenal's finishes, I have never had a problem nor understood the complaints, but I do not obsessive compulsively scrub my rifles until the paint comes off either. If you want a WASR etc. then go buy one. If you want an Arsenal then go buy one. Great either way, it is just that simple.

Also, if you have no respect for the anecdotal opinions of the members here when it comes to rifle quality etc. then why are you here exactly? Is that not one of the main points to having this type of board?

But I guess I am just "parroting" away.
Top Top