What is the difference in these rifles? Several dealers at our last gun show contradicted themselves when I asked the question. The WASR-10's were selling for $20-$40 less than the SAR. Is there a big difference in quality?

the WASR 10s can only take 10 round mags.

the purpose of an inexpensive AK is the lay waste to bottle & cans by the truck load...  so why bother with one that can only hold a 10 round mag?  :)

The ones I saw had high capacity mags with them. Have they been converted to accept those?

I thouhght that the whole point of the WASR-10 was the "10" part in the name.  

they have smaller mag well so they'll only accept those narrower mags.  

I have an SAR-1 and for 329 they are a great deal of fun and a good entry level AK.

There are two different versions of the WASR-10.  One which takes single-stack 10 round magazines and another in which the magazine well has been opened up to accept double-stack magazines and parts replaced to make it compliant.  Aside from looking at the mag well, the price will tell you which one it is.  Quality-wise they are just as good as an SAR-1.

A hi-cap converted WASR can be the equal of a SAR. The quality of WASR conversions varies more than the overall quality of SARs. Without testing the unit, I'll gladly pay 10% more for a SAR.

I have a WASR-10(hi-cap) and a SAR1. The WASR-10 is nicer than the SAR all around. Straight sights, nicer wood and finish, no trigger slap, and it shoots better. The mag well was nicely done and everything works fine. I'd buy another.

There are a few new WASR hicaps for sale at some local shops in the $250-$300 range.  Without exception, they ALL look much better quality wise than any SAR I have seen.  Maybe I am missing something but the only difference seems to be the lack of the mag dimples in the receiver and the rails welded inside.  

Other than this, they are beautiful rifles.

That was my problem at the show. I ended up buying the SAR-1 because I was concerned the quality was not there with the WASR.  But the WASR-10's did look and feel alot better on the cosmetic side.

The dealers sure didn't know enough about what they were selling to affect my decision.

Ive got a MISR-10 that Im gonna replace parts and mill out for hicaps.
I got it for $200 a couple of years ago, and now I want hicaps

Quoted: I have a WASR-10(hi-cap) and a SAR1. The WASR-10 is nicer than the SAR all around. Straight sights, nicer wood and finish, no trigger slap, and it shoots better. The mag well was nicely done and everything works fine. I'd buy another.

Correct me if I'M wrong, arent the WASR's completely assembled in Romania at Cugir, and the SAR's are hatchete jobed here in the US by Centry Arms? This is what accounts for the fit and finish difference...

I thought I've heard for sometime that the original ROMAKS's or WUM-1's with the butthole stock a far better than the SAR's????

coltshorty14,
I'm not sure about the SAR's, I've heard both, depending who you talk to. I think Century is just swaping out the parts to meet the requirements. The WASR's have to have the parts replaced also to be converted. I've been told that some of the "issue" military guns are just a rough as some of the SARS, but I still find that kind of hard to believe.  

I have said it before, I will say it again. As far as "military issued" Ak's go the fit and finish of a SAR is average. These weapons are issued by militaries who are looking for the most cost effective solution for the most part. In the Red Army they probably get very nice rifles, but in the third world the soldiers get whatever can be produced cheaply, they could care less what they look like, as long as they work. I have seen soldiers carrying AKs that had unfinished stocks. In this country we buy these rifles as a luxury, we are particular about looks. In a military sense it fit and finish is not very important, how well they work is all that matters. In my military carrer I never heard a single war story about some joe buying the farm because he was carrying a ugly rifle, however I have seen corpses holding a rifle that they were trying to clear a jam on.

Edited to add: Oh yeah by the way, AKs do jam if they aren't cleaned regularly in combat enviorments. There are many urban legends regarding AK type rifles, they are great rifles, but they are not jam proof, they do need to be cleaned, and parts do wear out. comparing a rifle that is used only for target shooting in a range enviorment to a rifle used on a battle field is comparing apples and oranges. A weapon with a beautiful finish is going to look like crap after six months of being dragged around by a grunt, My four year old SAR1 still looks pretty much the way it did when I bought it, it is worth a little extra for me to buy a rifle with a nice finish but makes no sense in a military weapon..

Who is doing the conversions on the WASR-10s? My friend has a ROMAK-991 that is an extremely nice conversion done by OOW.

Quoted:  Maybe I am missing something but the only difference seems to be the lack of the mag dimples in the receiver and the rails welded inside.   Other than this, they are beautiful rifles.

Rick, Whats the difference with the rails?Are they more prone to receiver flex?I'm considering buying one but I was'nt aware of any structural differences.

I was referring to the extra rails they have to weld into the bottom of the receiver to keep the mag from wobbleing around since it has no dimples.  The lack of dimples just looks kinda strange to me on a stamped receiver.

If nothing else, the extra rails probably adds strength to the structure.

Thanks for the clarification Rick,the lack of dimples has been the only thing keeping me from getting one Myself.