Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   AK & SKS Discussion (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f19/)
-   -   In the market for an AK (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f19/market-ak-91585/)

ccase39 06-01-2013 03:27 AM

In the market for an AK
 
Since I got the SKS the wheels have been turning to get an AK. I really really like the accuracy and durability of the SKS so far and just like the overall feel of the way that caliber shoots.
I have an AR as well, and I have to say the SKS is just as fun to shoot.
I would like to get an AK that is pretty basic but quality. I don't think I will have much interest in changing it up very much. I can tac out my AR so I plan to keep the AK pretty basic.
What do I need to know before buying? I jumped the gun on my AR and got a Bushmaster without shopping around. I have since found out that the BM is at the lower end of quality at that price point although I have put about 1000 steel rounds through it without a problem at all.
Do they break down as easily as the SKS for cleaning?
How much should I spend?

Anna_Purna 06-01-2013 03:33 AM

Easier to clean, less parts, only one bolt

Anna_Purna 06-01-2013 03:34 AM

I would stay away from the century arms international guns, but the Veprs, Saigas and any of the old bulgarian, hungarian, yougoslavian, egyptians are all good

ccase39 06-01-2013 04:30 AM

It sounds to me from my limited knowledge that the AK is more durable, easier to maintain, packs more of a punch than an AR. I know the AR is a bit more accurate arguably. Why did the US not try to make a similar issue weapon for the Army instead of the AR. An AR to me is considerably harder to break down and clean that my SKS or an AK as you describe. Yea I can get the bolt and charger handle out easily but the trigger and gas rod and all are a different story.

DrumJunkie 06-01-2013 07:16 AM

I have one of the Yugo M70's form Century. Been fine over thousands of rounds..That reminds me..I have not cleaned it in a long time.

dreadknot65 06-02-2013 03:09 AM

I have a Century International Arms Wasr 10/63 AK. I don't know why everyone has a thing against them. Mine is accurate as my friends Yugo and my Arsenal. Granted, it does not look as good or have the best looking parts, but for $400 what do you expect? I bought it about 13 days before Sandy Hook as a price reference.

Anna_Purna 06-02-2013 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreadknot65 (Post 1265080)
I have a Century International Arms Wasr 10/63 AK. I don't know why everyone has a thing against them. Mine is accurate as my friends Yugo and my Arsenal. Granted, it does not look as good or have the best looking parts, but for $400 what do you expect? I bought it about 13 days before Sandy Hook as a price reference.

if it functions fully and doesnt have feeding issues, then you have a fine rifle. Many others have problems with theirs. Aks are 'supposed' to work everytime. Enjoy it and feel no shame. :)

kbd512 06-02-2013 06:56 AM

What kind of AK do you really want?

All AK's that haven't been tricked out are "basic" rifles.

If you want a heavy AK, get a milled receiver carbine.

If you want a light AK, get a stamped receiver carbine.

If you want a more accurate AK capable of covering the same distances that a typical AR can, get a AK-74. Magazines are a little more expensive, but the ammunition is cheaper.

Irrespective of which AK you select, get quality steel Com-bloc magazines or Bulgarian waffle pattern steel-reinforced polymer magazines.

Apart from custom builds, like Krebs or Rifle Dynamics, there's no notable accuracy or durability difference except for the AK-74's which are a little more accurate and capable of accuracy at distance with a reasonable expectation of hitting the target with standard iron sights.

A properly built AK of either variety should function as intended every time, as Anna pointed out, and is more economical to own and operate than an AR pattern carbine typically is. High quality AK's, like Arsenal, are about the same price as a quality AR, like Colt or BCM or DD, is now. Bulgarian AK magazines are considerably more expensive than MagPul PMAG's, but prices for brass cased 556 are so much more than steel cased Russian 762 or 545 that it doesn't take much shooting for the cost of the Bulgarian AK and Bulgarian magazines to get covered.

kbd512 06-02-2013 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccase39 (Post 1264105)
It sounds to me from my limited knowledge that the AK is more durable, easier to maintain, packs more of a punch than an AR. I know the AR is a bit more accurate arguably. Why did the US not try to make a similar issue weapon for the Army instead of the AR. An AR to me is considerably harder to break down and clean that my SKS or an AK as you describe. Yea I can get the bolt and charger handle out easily but the trigger and gas rod and all are a different story.

The accuracy standard for a Bulgarian or Russian AK carbine is 4 MOA at 100 meters.

The accuracy standard for a Colt M4 carbine is 4 MOA at 100 yards.

Yes, AR's are typically more accurate than AK's. That has more to do with triggers, ergonomics, and sighting mechanism. The primary difference is the sighting mechanism. If you put an Aimpoint on either weapon and use decent ammunition, accuracy differences are negligible.

For most people, the post and peep or ghost ring are easier to achieve a given level of accuracy with than a post and notch.

US Army ordnance, or more specifically the head of the review board, didn't want the AR. Like any new weapon, the rifle had some teething troubles and the General in charge of the board, Maxwell Taylor I think but can't recall now, was a traditionalist and just didn't like it. An early model AR barrel failed in testing and the bullet exited the barrel. Not a good thing for any rifle. An Air Force General named Curtis LeMay wanted the rifle for Air Force Security after some informal testing. Incidentally, SECDEF McNamara ordered that the AR-15, AK-47, and M-14 rifles all be tested by the Army.

McNamara ordered the US Army to field the rifle based on "scientific" analysis by the Wiz Kids and rejected the results of US Army testing that found the AR-15 and AK-47 unsuitable for service. McNamara was a bean counter. He noted that the cost of fielding the M14 did not seem to provide a good trade-off, given the number of cartridges fired to achieve a "kill".

Even though the AR-15 turned out to be a good idea, McNamara also rejected some of the changes that the Army wanted, on grounds of cost. Not chrome lining the bore and chamber turned out to be a bad idea. McNamara eventually lost that decision and M-16 barrels and chambers are chrome lined.

After the AR-15 (M-16) was fielded and the dumb weapon and ammunition cost cutting measures were nixed that caused problems with the rifle, it was well-liked by the military and it's been around ever since.

Many tens of millions of dollars have been wasted to replace the AR-15 and the military has rejected every attempt to do so. An order hasn't been issued to field a new rifle or carbine, so it's still the primary individual weapon in all services even though newer/faster/better/more reliable weapons have also been fielded. The newer/faster/better/more reliable weapons have also been proprietary design/more expensive/heavier without a great deal of demonstrable improvement in any area except reliability.

Are there more reliable weapons than the AR? Sure, but it's mostly a question of operator training and maintenance. If you maintain the weapon, use working magazines, and use quality ammunition it is very reliable. If you don't, expect problems. Damaged or poor quality magazines, springs, and ammo can screw up any weapon and are a major factor in weapon reliability.

Our weapons were designed to be used by trained riflemen who take care of their equipment. Our enemies' weapons were designed to be used by conscripts who can read or write their own names in their own language.

Western individual weapon design philosophy has always centered around accuracy, ergonomics, and reduced cost. The most accurate and least costly rifle probably won't be the most reliable.

Eastern individual weapon design philosophy has always centered around reliability and durability, although Eastern individual weapons are plenty accurate for the intended use. The most reliable and most durable rifle probably won't be the most accurate or ergonomic.

The AK can run without lubrication. The AR requires lubrication or it won't run. If you lubricate it properly, it will continue to function reliably until parts start breaking.

The cheap stainless steel springs that military weapons and magazines have in them cause problems. The chrome silicon springs that you can purchase on the aftermarket will continue to function long after you have to replace the barrel several times. Apart from properly lubricating the weapon, the chrome silicon springs are the greatest reliability upgrade that you can make on an AR.

BTW, I've never seen anyone but an armorer start tearing a rifle down in the Navy. I can't say what the Army or Marine Corps would find acceptable for an infantry soldier to do to his rifle, but playing with the trigger mechanism is probably not permitted. For that matter, I'd bet any comparable activity in a Communist army would be the preserve of a unit armorer.

If your rifle is messed up, you turn it in and get issued a new one. If an armorer can fix it, it will be re-issued. If not, the military buys a new rifle.

PanBaccha 06-02-2013 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccase39 (Post 1264017)
Since I got the SKS the wheels have been turning to get an AK. I really really like the accuracy and durability of the SKS so far and just like the overall feel of the way that caliber shoots.
I have an AR as well, and I have to say the SKS is just as fun to shoot.
I would like to get an AK that is pretty basic but quality. I don't think I will have much interest in changing it up very much. I can tac out my AR so I plan to keep the AK pretty basic.
What do I need to know before buying? I jumped the gun on my AR and got a Bushmaster without shopping around. I have since found out that the BM is at the lower end of quality at that price point although I have put about 1000 steel rounds through it without a problem at all.
Do they break down as easily as the SKS for cleaning?
How much should I spend?

I, too, possess the SKS Chinese rifle. As for the AK-47 I had patiently searched (eight months) for the right moment to purchase one. Then one day after an exhaustive perusing at a gun show I was about to go home empty-handed when I decided to turn into another chamber of vendors, however reluctantly, and saw staring at me from a pile of rifles neatly lay out on a table a 1967 Romanian WASR 10/63 AK-47 with matching serial numbers for only $529.00. I took it home, striped it bare, cleaned it, then went off to shoot it. Wow! Did my patience paid off! Since then I had put through nearly 3000 rds through it. It is indeed a great find; and in a SHTF scenario a great street-sweeper would it be. :)


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:27 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.