ak47 akm milled and stamped rifle receivers
ak47 akm milled and stamped rifle receivers while an interesting subject and after researching the subject and owning both types, there doesn't seem to be a shred of evidence supporting the notion that the milled ak47 receiver is any more accurate, durable or reliable than the stamped akm receiver and is just hearsay at best, as both seem to be equally accurate, durable and reliable, it would seem that the ak47 milled receiver is overkill?
another point i could make is that while being obviously different but notably accurate, durable and reliable the ar15 m16 rifle receiver being cast or forged aluminum is not nearly as strong as a milled or stamped ak47 akm steel receiver yet most people swear by them, just an analogy.
any other thoughts...
another point i could make is that while being obviously different but notably accurate, durable and reliable the ar15 m16 rifle receiver being cast or forged aluminum is not nearly as strong as a milled or stamped ak47 akm steel receiver yet most people swear by them, just an analogy.
any other thoughts...
0
-
The original design for the AK-47 (not the AKM) called for a stamped receiver but post war Soviet stamping technology was not up to the task so in 1951 (give or take) the design switched to the milled receiver. Milling is a much more time consuming process, but unlike stamping equipment, milling machines were plentiful in the Soviet Union and there were plenty of machinists available and working at very low pay. This is why industrialized nations with free market economies loved the idea of stampings; sure the start up costs of the machines was considerable but once you eliminated highly paid machinists from the production line your over all costs dropped off in a hurry. It was not until around 1960 that the Soviets introduced the new AKM design which featured the stamped receiver. 0 -
Talk of the AR15/m16 receiver strength is irrelevant in discussions of receiver durability as the receiver is actually the steel barrel nut threaded onto the barrel end that the bolt locks up to which contains forces of the explosion.
The upper just holds the parts together in alignment.
Similarly in the AK, the "trunnion" is the actual receiver. It contains the lugs that the bolt locks into.
In the AKM stamped receivers, the trunnion is riveted in and can be replaced when worn. In the milled receiver it is integral and the receiver is junk when the lugs are worn out of spec.
In endurance testing, it is these lugs or trunnion that wear out.
I believe I read about 15,000 rds will do it.
Loose trunnions in AKM stamped receivers can be reriveted if they loosen.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mark christian
The original design for the AK-47 (not the AKM) called for a stamped receiver but post war Soviet stamping technology was not up to the task so in 1951 (give or take) the design switched to the milled receiver. Milling is a much more time consuming process, but unlike stamping equipment, milling machines were plentiful in the Soviet Union and there were plenty of machinists available and working at very low pay. This is why industrialized nations with free market economies loved the idea of stampings; sure the start up costs of the machines was considerable but once you eliminated highly paid machinists from the production line your over all costs dropped off in a hurry. It was not until around 1960 that the Soviets introduced the new AKM design which featured the stamped receiver.
yeah, i am aware of the history of the ak47 and akm rifles.
quote:Originally posted by v35
Talk of the AR15/m16 receiver strength is irrelevant in discussions of receiver durability as the receiver is actually the steel barrel nut threaded onto the barrel end that the bolt locks up to which contains forces of the explosion.
The upper just holds the parts together in alignment.
Similarly in the AK, the "trunnion" is the actual receiver. It contains the lugs that the bolt locks into.
In the AKM stamped receivers, the trunnion is riveted in and can be replaced when worn. In the milled receiver it is integral and the receiver is junk when the lugs are worn out of spec.
In endurance testing, it is these lugs or trunnion that wear out.
I believe I read about 15,000 rds will do it.
Loose trunnions in AKM stamped receivers can be reriveted if they loosen.
i don't believe it to be irrelevant, the point was that the argument over milled and stamped ak receivers, of which i have had many arguments, is generally over the ridiculous notion that the milled receiver is more accurate, durable and reliable than the stamped receiver simply because it is milled as opposed to being stamped? and like i said there is just no evidence of this. the mention of the ar receiver was an analogy because it also has a light receiver being aluminum and being lighter than any ak receiver yet the weapon is very accurate, durable and reliable and never a complaint that it is built too light and therefore isn't accurate, durable and reliable that's all, its really more of engineering and mechanics than being milled or stamped, imo actually thought it was a good point, oh well.0 -
The milled poly's are much more collectible.[:p] I shoot the stamped and hold the milled. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by cartod
The milled poly's are much more collectible.[:p] I shoot the stamped and hold the milled.
yeah, being that the milled ak47 rifles are more rare than the stamped akm rifles i suppose that they would be more collectible, although to me imo they are the same except the milled is slightly heavier than the stamped, other than that...0 -
quote:Originally posted by auto436658
ak47 akm milled and stamped rifle receivers while an interesting subject and after researching the subject and owning both types, there doesn't seem to be a shred of evidence supporting the notion that the milled ak47 receiver is any more accurate, durable or reliable than the stamped akm receiver and is just hearsay at best, as both seem to be equally accurate, durable and reliable, it would seem that the ak47 milled receiver is overkill?
In terms of accuracy, I can's see how there would be any difference so long as the stamped receiver weren't stamped out of a tin can. Accuracy is going to depend mostly on the quality of the parts and build, not the specific thickness or hardness of the receiver.
In terms of reliability, same thing. So long as its been properly heat-treated/hardened, the receiver isn't a part likely to compromise reliability.
In terms of durability, that's the only place where maybe you MIGHT see a difference. Again, some of this is going to depend on the metal used in the receiver and how its been treated. In general AKs are pretty durable. Also if the stamped receivers didn't quite hold up as long, the lower initial cost and more ready availability for replacement probably offsets that.
That bit about the trunions being replaceable in stamped receiver guns is interesting. That would seem to be an advantage to the stamped guns, though in practice, most shooters probably don't put through tens of thousands of rounds through their guns.
All this aside, even if there isn't any functional difference with a milled receiver whatsoever, that doesn't mean all else being equal, its not better to have one.
In *general* milled parts are stronger, and more costly to manufacture. Why wouldn't you want a gun with better or more costly parts if you could have it? In this case, the milled receiver guns are scarcer and a bit more desirable from a collector's standpoint, and again, why not if you can?0 -
There is more appeal to gun guys of finely machined and finished firearms.
But there is also a beauty in a well engineered gun that has found a way around expensive features, achieving or maybe bettering the same goal of functionality and accuracy.
One shouldn't compare apples with oranges though. A well machined AK is a freak as it has unnecessary manufacturing operations where cost was a primary criterion.
Look at the Ruger 22 semi auto handguns. Ruger made a frame of two stampings, welded together with a receiver made of round tube stock.
They sold for $37.50 for the basic model to $57.50 for the MK1 Target.
His guns put Colt and HiStandard out of the 22 target auto business.
The AR and AKM receivers are not receivers, they are just frames that contain separate receivers or breeches and hold all other parts in alignment.
They could be made of almost anything because they are lightly stressed parts.
The milled AK receiver is an actual receiver as the breech is inseparable from the frame.
In general, milled parts are NOT superior to stamped parts.
A forged separate AK trunnion is superior to one machined into the wall of a machined AK frame.
Parts advertized today as being machined from billet is meaningless and not an advantage as they are just machined from ordinary bar stock
Grain flow is critical in stressed metal parts that is optimized in a properly heat treated, forged part.
I would expect the breech locking lugs in fully machined AKs to wear
or fail in bearing stress before the riveted in trunnion of the AKM.
BUT, I wouldn't be surprised to hear riveted trunnions loosening up.
Being a more rigid precision assembly,and all other things being equal, I'd expect a little more accuracy out of the fully machined AK receiver.0 -
quote:Originally posted by beantownshootah
quote:Originally posted by auto436658
ak47 akm milled and stamped rifle receivers while an interesting subject and after researching the subject and owning both types, there doesn't seem to be a shred of evidence supporting the notion that the milled ak47 receiver is any more accurate, durable or reliable than the stamped akm receiver and is just hearsay at best, as both seem to be equally accurate, durable and reliable, it would seem that the ak47 milled receiver is overkill?
In terms of accuracy, I can's see how there would be any difference so long as the stamped receiver weren't stamped out of a tin can. Accuracy is going to depend mostly on the quality of the parts and build, not the specific thickness or hardness of the receiver.
In terms of reliability, same thing. So long as its been properly heat-treated/hardened, the receiver isn't a part likely to compromise reliability.
In terms of durability, that's the only place where maybe you MIGHT see a difference. Again, some of this is going to depend on the metal used in the receiver and how its been treated. In general AKs are pretty durable. Also if the stamped receivers didn't quite hold up as long, the lower initial cost and more ready availability for replacement probably offsets that.
That bit about the trunions being replaceable in stamped receiver guns is interesting. That would seem to be an advantage to the stamped guns, though in practice, most shooters probably don't put through tens of thousands of rounds through their guns.
All this aside, even if there isn't any functional difference with a milled receiver whatsoever, that doesn't mean all else being equal, its not better to have one.
In *general* milled parts are stronger, and more costly to manufacture. Why wouldn't you want a gun with better or more costly parts if you could have it? In this case, the milled receiver guns are scarcer and a bit more desirable from a collector's standpoint, and again, why not if you can?
yeah, if you can find or afford one i suppose so.
quote:Originally posted by v35
There is more appeal to gun guys of finely machined and finished firearms.
But there is also a beauty in a well engineered gun that has found a way around expensive features, achieving or maybe bettering the same goal of functionality and accuracy.
One shouldn't compare apples with oranges though. A well machined AK is a freak as it has unnecessary manufacturing operations where cost was a primary criterion.
Look at the Ruger 22 semi auto handguns. Ruger made a frame of two stampings, welded together with a receiver made of round tube stock.
They sold for $37.50 for the basic model to $57.50 for the MK1 Target.
His guns put Colt and HiStandard out of the 22 target auto business.
The AR and AKM receivers are not receivers, they are just frames that contain separate receivers or breeches and hold all other parts in alignment.
They could be made of almost anything because they are lightly stressed parts.
The milled AK receiver is an actual receiver as the breech is inseparable from the frame.
In general, milled parts are NOT superior to stamped parts.
A forged separate AK trunnion is superior to one machined into the wall of a machined AK frame.
Parts advertized today as being machined from billet is meaningless and not an advantage as they are just machined from ordinary bar stock
Grain flow is critical in stressed metal parts that is optimized in a properly heat treated, forged part.
I would expect the breech locking lugs in fully machined AKs to wear
or fail in bearing stress before the riveted in trunnion of the AKM.
BUT, I wouldn't be surprised to hear riveted trunnions loosening up.
Being a more rigid precision assembly,and all other things being equal, I'd expect a little more accuracy out of the fully machined AK receiver.
yeah, they are definitely different although that is the general argument between the two stamped vs. milled ak groups of one being better than the other and like i said i don't see much difference except for a slight weight difference.
The dictionary definition of a firearm receiver is the basic metal unit housing the action and to which the barrel and other components are attached, so it qualifies as a receiver, but you could call it a frame too if you like as it serves that purpose as well.
The dictionary definition of a firearm trunnion is the barrel is sometimes mounted in a trunnion (a pin or gudgeon), which in turn is mounted to the receiver.
in terms of a milled piece of steel being somewhat stronger than a stamped piece of steel that is a given but only from the point of stress testing such as from prying, lifting etc and not for small arms usage as there shouldn't be any noticeable difference being that it is steel, in consideration of the thickness in comparison to the energy contained there in and considering that the heat-treating / hardening process was performed correctly.
judging by the overall history of the stamped ak rifle i would definitely state that it is an outstanding weapon that has more than proven itself to be accurate, durable and reliable.0 -
A lot of these statements in my mind are people trying to justify saying that they got just as much out of a stamped AK for less money. For ANYONE who has extensively shot both to the point of FAILURE, they know it is BS.
A lot of it also depends upon who built the stamped recievers, ands who the final assembler was. I have seen some of the STAMPED Poly Techs have improperly hardened rails that break...never seen that happen with a milled reciever. Also...with the stamped reciever, you have the chance of the rails being welded in out of alignment...not a big chance, but still a chance. Statistically...the Milled recievers are more robust...realistically...if you ever get the chance to shoot a Poly Tech Legend, do it, then reply back...I am sure with your statements you have not done that yet.
Best0 -
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
A lot of these statements in my mind are people trying to justify saying that they got just as much out of a stamped AK for less money. For ANYONE who has extensively shot both to the point of FAILURE, they know it is BS.
A lot of it also depends upon who built the stamped recievers, ands who the final assembler was. I have seen some of the STAMPED Poly Techs have improperly hardened rails that break...never seen that happen with a milled reciever. Also...with the stamped reciever, you have the chance of the rails being welded in out of alignment...not a big chance, but still a chance. Statistically...the Milled recievers are more robust...realistically...if you ever get the chance to shoot a Poly Tech Legend, do it, then reply back...I am sure with your statements you have not done that yet.
Best
Wow, you really think very highly of yourself as most people seem to on these internet expert boards and its amazing that you know so much about people whom you have never met, let alone have any idea of their backgrounds or much less know of anything of what they happen to own or not.
fwiw, i happen to have several firearms including polytech legends, arsenal and other types and have fired them extensively and also know several others that do as well one being the editor of a well known firearms magazine whom i am sure has out shot most here, besides his mouth.0 -
quote:Originally posted by auto436658
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
A lot of these statements in my mind are people trying to justify saying that they got just as much out of a stamped AK for less money. For ANYONE who has extensively shot both to the point of FAILURE, they know it is BS.
A lot of it also depends upon who built the stamped recievers, ands who the final assembler was. I have seen some of the STAMPED Poly Techs have improperly hardened rails that break...never seen that happen with a milled reciever. Also...with the stamped reciever, you have the chance of the rails being welded in out of alignment...not a big chance, but still a chance. Statistically...the Milled recievers are more robust...realistically...if you ever get the chance to shoot a Poly Tech Legend, do it, then reply back...I am sure with your statements you have not done that yet.
Best
Wow, you really think very highly of yourself as most people seem to on these internet expert boards and its amazing that you know so much about people whom you have never met, let alone have any idea of their backgrounds or much less know of anything of what they happen to own or not.
fwiw, i happen to have several firearms including polytech legends, arsenal and other types and have fired them extensively and also know several others that do as well one being the editor of a well known firearms magazine whom i am sure has out shot most here, besides his mouth.
I am speaking from experience. Experince that that has come from my own budget...not the budget of someone else who wishes for me to write something nice about their product and pays me well to do so. You seem smart enough, to bad you don't take things from an analitacal standpoint , and be objective about it. You were the one who was opinionated in your first post on this subject, and asked for opinions, and I obliged. Looks like you afre looking for someone to justify yourself as being an expert, of obviously remains to be seen. It would be my suggestions that you do not troll the boards making trouble...read the guidelines.
Hope your evening goes well
Best0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments