russian akm rifles?
are the russian akm rifles(not saiga) any good, i would imagine them to be, however unfortunately have not had the opportunity to see one.
who are the good quality manufacturers to go with and where is the russian akm rated amongst akm and ak47 rifles?
concerning ak receiver strength imo really would only matter if the person would be using it for maybe engine lifting or something otherwise its a moot point, imo, as an alternative philosophy for comparison the ar receiver is made of aluminum and is very strong although no one is concerned about that; so being that the akm receiver is stamped steel it would be fine as its steel.
who are the good quality manufacturers to go with and where is the russian akm rated amongst akm and ak47 rifles?
concerning ak receiver strength imo really would only matter if the person would be using it for maybe engine lifting or something otherwise its a moot point, imo, as an alternative philosophy for comparison the ar receiver is made of aluminum and is very strong although no one is concerned about that; so being that the akm receiver is stamped steel it would be fine as its steel.
0
-
auto,
Please don't quote me on this, but there used to be a company called, I believe AK-101, or 104. They were the latest and greatest of the Russian goodies. I seen a couple down at the Knob Creek shoot about 5 years ago. You might also want to look for a Vepr or VeprII. I believe they are Russian made, and I should say very well made. The last they were imported was by Robinson Armament. They even had one in 7.62x51 NATO. There are a couple Vepr's on the auctionside now! They are made on the RPK reinforced trunion, 1.5mm thick reciever. They are all spendy, but you get what you pay for.
I do know what you are saying about the aluminum vs. steel in the AR/AK argument but it is the hardness of the finish that counts. That is hard anodized aluminum, and the hardness of the anodizing treatment(it is not just a finnish), is harder than the steel in the bolt carrier, hence the bolt carrier will wear first. Same goes for hardened steel, against a lessor hardened steel...the lessor hardened will wear first...that was some of the problem on some of the Poly Tech stamped recievers. The rails were not hardened properly or hardened enough, and the harder bolt carrier ate them up.
I have seen hard chromed 1911's in 45 ACP, and 38 Super where the frame was hard chromed and the slide not, that ate the slide rails. Its a lot to do with the hardness of the finish, and the replacable parts are not nearly as hard as the ones that are not replacable....usually.
Best
EDIT 1
Yes they are actually made in Russia. They take all the parts internally that an AKM does. Some AKM's are single hook, vs. double hook fcg's. I believe that most Romak's are single hook, and a double hook fcg will not work without some mods to the reciever in the trigger area. I don't believe they have the flash hider or bayonet lug. It is nice to be authentic, but if I had that in my hands, no one would be getting close enough for me to need a bayonet. Those Vepr's are made on a stamped RPK reciever, where as mentioned before is like an AKM with a reinforced front trunion area.
One thing you have to remember, to be HR922 legal, if they imported after may of 1994, they have to have a number of US made parts in them...even after the ban sunsetted. They can be in any configuration in most states, but must have a number of US made parts.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
auto,
Please don't quote me on this, but there used to be a company called, I believe AK-101, or 104. They were the latest and greatest of the Russian goodies. I seen a couple down at the Knob Creek shoot about 5 years ago. You might also want to look for a Vepr or VeprII. I believe they are Russian made, and I should say very well made. The last they were imported was by Robinson Armament. They even had one in 7.62x51 NATO. There are a couple Vepr's on the auctionside now! They are made on the RPK reinforced trunion, 1.5mm thick reciever. They are all spendy, but you get what you pay for.
I do know what you are saying about the aluminum vs. steel in the AR/AK argument but it is the hardness of the finish that counts. That is hard anodized aluminum, and the hardness of the anodizing treatment(it is not just a finnish), is harder than the steel in the bolt carrier, hence the bolt carrier will wear first. Same goes for hardened steel, against a lessor hardened steel...the lessor hardened will wear first...that was some of the problem on some of the Poly Tech stamped recievers. The rails were not hardened properly or hardened enough, and the harder bolt carrier ate them up.
I have seen hard chromed 1911's in 45 ACP, and 38 Super where the frame was hard chromed and the slide not, that ate the slide rails. Its a lot to do with the hardness of the finish, and the replacable parts are not nearly as hard as the ones that are not replacable....usually.
Best
yeah, now that vepr sounds really nice indeed, so are they actually made in russia and are a duplicate of the russian akm with interchangeable parts or are they more like the saiga rifle using some non akm parts?
do vepr akm's have the akm bayonet lug as well?
do they take any ak double stack magazine or drum too?
are veprs stamped steel like the akm rifles?
right i understand about the finish hardness factor, was just making an analogy is all as most of know just how structurally strong the ar receiver is and they are actually quite strong, so from their was just showing how much stronger structurally that that the stamped steel receiver akm would be is all as it is steel, but most definitely the hardness of the finish is also important.0 -
Really the only 2 choices in Russian AK's is Robinson Armament's Vepr and Saiga.
I believe the AK-101's Tsr mentioned were one of the above or, now that I think about it, used a Russian kit and a US receiver.
The Vepr took standard AK mags. The Saiga needs to be modified to take std ak mags.
Not sure if they are still importing Veprs. I haven't seen a new one in a year or more.
Tip for you buy a Saiga 12ga, buy 2 if you can. They will only go up in value.
Also if you want an AK that will hold its value or go up in value. Find a Krebs Custom stamped AK. Marc worked on Veprs, Saigas, Arsenals, and various chinese AK's. Get something with his stamp on it and you will be good to go.
I had my Sar1 completely redone by Krebs back when they were still doing custom work. Had it threaded, refinished, and a trigger job done. No Krebs Custom stamp but I have the paperwork.0 -
If you are looking for a really good AK, you have to get a slightly used one that was made in the early 50's. The one you are looking for is a milled reciever, and I believe it was a ChiCom made one. There were very few of them that I have seen being only two, that the barrels were threaded into the reciever. They are much more solid than anything else I have seen.
Best0 -
quote:Originally posted by auto436658
are the russian akm rifles(not saiga) any good, i would imagine them to be, however unfortunately have not had the opportunity to see one.
who are the good quality manufacturers to go with and where is the russian akm rated amongst akm and ak47 rifles?
concerning ak receiver strength imo really would only matter if the person would be using it for maybe engine lifting or something otherwise its a moot point, imo, as an alternative philosophy for comparison the ar receiver is made of aluminum and is very strong although no one is concerned about that; so being that the akm receiver is stamped steel it would be fine as its steel.
Your post is interesting. With respect, it also contains many errors of assumptions.
AK receiver's are made from a vast array of steels and processes.
The best receiver are the 4130 steel variant for the milled ones.
http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=e1ccebe90cf94502b35c2a4745f63593
However;the assumption of an AR 15 and a AK47 receiver being somehow equal in assessment is a mistake.
The stresses of firing the weapon are delivered in very different ways. The AK system is an inline one piece system. The AR 15 is a two piece offset system.
The AR15 system is typically manufactured out of 7075 aluminum hardened to T6.
http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=4f19a42be94546b686bbf43f79c51b7d&ckck=1
T6 hardening is the standard, however, there are other grades that are better, but more expensive. I have two receivers made to a different standard of my own design that are far stronger.
That said, the biggest problem with the T6 process is as follows:
The hardening process is performed shortly after the part is cast. In doing so, it relieves the casting stresses creates a more uniform metallurgical structure. The T6 hardening process involves heating the casting to 1000F for about 6 hours and then quenching the part in water for a few seconds. Next the part is immediately 'aged' in an oven at about 320F for approximately 5 hours and allowed to cool to ambient temperature. The result is a part that has a Rockwell hardness on the B scale of around 84-88 and a dense, uniform, grain structure. While thats all well and good, the first time the part gets above 320F it loses it's hardness. Repeated heating above 320F will break down the aforementioned tight grain structure and cause it to become brittle and prone to embrittlement fracture/cracking.
That's the down side, the upside is the thermal conductivity is 900 BTU-in/hr-ft?-?F verses 209 BTU-in/hr-ft?-?F for the 4130 steel.
In short, while it may heat up faster, it also dissipates that heat equally as fast. The figures for the steel means it's going to retain that heat much much longer. When it comes to firearms that can cook off rounds, that is a very very important consideration.
Over all, the AR15 platform may be weaker in outright strength, it's a much more efficient system than the AK47 and does not need the brute strength of the AK design. Putting apples to apples of applied stresses, the AR design is stronger.
As for the specific question of Russian made AK receivers, it really depends on where the metal was first made and when.
You need to have one made after 1951 and before 1979, or made after 1993 and ideally made this year (2009).
Steel made in the USSR was not exactly the best in the interim years I've mentioned. Most of the SKS and AK's made in particular have some recorded problems during the U.S. Vietnam era except for the Chinese variants which had a stronger steel.
With all that said, in 2008 the Russian companies Evraz group and TMK steel purchased a large portion of Swedish SSAB steel and the first results of that purchase are hitting the streets now. Their steel has noticeably improved in quality with that purchase.
People can say what they want about the Russian SKS's and AK's but I personally will not own those that I can date between the problem dates listed above. Russia was suffering economically, and a hell of a lot of corners were cut in everything of those years. Once they got back on their feet, no more problems at least as far as the steel is concerned.
This becomes important because the AKM variant receiver was supposed to be a lower cost alternative to the AK47 receiver.
The AKM is by default a cheaper variant, and was in fact designed to be so.
Some futher information
http://www.ak-47.us/Russia.php
Getting back to the steel, any carbon steel is going to be hardenable. It's also going to be subject to numerous problems not associated with an austenitic grain structure (aluminum)
The transformation temperature of carbon steel in general is going to be 1,333F.
http://steel.keytometals.com/Articles/Art17.htm
It's the particulars of heat treating steels that make me cringe when someone is talking about making their own receiver, or welding something to it.
You have to have some expertise or a lot of training before you attempt this one. Time held at temperatures above the lower transformation temperature is critical, as is the atmosphere it's held in.
At these temperatures you can get carbon insituation which can be a catalyst for martensitic grain structure growth. (a brittle grain structure). The more carbon you have, the lower the temperature required to initiate martensite growth.
http://www.engr.ku.edu/~rhale/ae510/heattreat/sld018.htm
This also gets back to the economic problems in Russia before and after the fall of the USSR and the corners they cut to save money and resources. Some of those short cuts included overly rapid quench times. (refer to above link)
Over all, the AK design was deliberately made to be stupid proof.
However, there is no such thing as stupid proof. As with any piece of machinery, going cheap usually creates problems.
The information above is the root reason why a milled AK receiver is always going to be better than a stamped one. Even when a lot of other corner cutting has taken place, the extra steel coupled with the robust design of the AK system will allow a much larger error factor.
Summary;
With all that said, don't knock the AR Design, it's a lot stronger than some give it credit for.
If your going to go with the AK platform, go with the milled receiver, the money you save by going with a stamped receiver may not in the end be a very good choice when compared against over all performance and strength.
My opinion for what it's worth.0 -
This is a 1955 TypeIII Russian kit that I had built by POH in Tucson. It's built on a Firing Line special run milled reciever and I have around $2500 in it. I went this way because I figured this was as close as I could come to the real thing. 
Here is the project before I sent it to Mario.
Different lighting makes the furniture appear different colors in some of the pics, it looks like pictures four, five, and six with the naked eye(orange-red).0 -
cwi555,
That is a very good analogy. I have always looked at the milled reciever's being superrior by far over any stamped reciever. The folks who try to fool themselves into thinking that the stamped ones are as good as the milled are just handicapping themselves. Not to say that there are not some good stamped recievers out there, but most of them are like the VEPR, and built on the RPK reciever.
GUTSS,
That is a very handsome piece of work you have there. Have you shot it yet, and how does it shoot if you have?
Best0 -
Gutts, thats a very nice rifle. 0 -
I don't know why, but I can't bring myself to shoot it. I have a milled Bulgarian that I shoot so at least I know what a milled rifle shoots like. Thanks for the compliments. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
cwi555,
That is a very good analogy. I have always looked at the milled reciever's being superrior by far over any stamped reciever. The folks who try to fool themselves into thinking that the stamped ones are as good as the milled are just handicapping themselves. Not to say that there are not some good stamped recievers out there, but most of them are like the VEPR, and built on the RPK reciever.
GUTSS,
That is a very handsome piece of work you have there. Have you shot it yet, and how does it shoot if you have?
Best
quote:Originally posted by cwi555
quote:Originally posted by auto436658
are the russian akm rifles(not saiga) any good, i would imagine them to be, however unfortunately have not had the opportunity to see one.
who are the good quality manufacturers to go with and where is the russian akm rated amongst akm and ak47 rifles?
concerning ak receiver strength imo really would only matter if the person would be using it for maybe engine lifting or something otherwise its a moot point, imo, as an alternative philosophy for comparison the ar receiver is made of aluminum and is very strong although no one is concerned about that; so being that the akm receiver is stamped steel it would be fine as its steel.
Your post is interesting. With respect, it also contains many errors of assumptions.
AK receiver's are made from a vast array of steels and processes.
The best receiver are the 4130 steel variant for the milled ones.
http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=e1ccebe90cf94502b35c2a4745f63593
However;the assumption of an AR 15 and a AK47 receiver being somehow equal in assessment is a mistake.
The stresses of firing the weapon are delivered in very different ways. The AK system is an inline one piece system. The AR 15 is a two piece offset system.
The AR15 system is typically manufactured out of 7075 aluminum hardened to T6.
http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=4f19a42be94546b686bbf43f79c51b7d&ckck=1
T6 hardening is the standard, however, there are other grades that are better, but more expensive. I have two receivers made to a different standard of my own design that are far stronger.
That said, the biggest problem with the T6 process is as follows:
The hardening process is performed shortly after the part is cast. In doing so, it relieves the casting stresses creates a more uniform metallurgical structure. The T6 hardening process involves heating the casting to 1000F for about 6 hours and then quenching the part in water for a few seconds. Next the part is immediately 'aged' in an oven at about 320F for approximately 5 hours and allowed to cool to ambient temperature. The result is a part that has a Rockwell hardness on the B scale of around 84-88 and a dense, uniform, grain structure. While thats all well and good, the first time the part gets above 320F it loses it's hardness. Repeated heating above 320F will break down the aforementioned tight grain structure and cause it to become brittle and prone to embrittlement fracture/cracking.
That's the down side, the upside is the thermal conductivity is 900 BTU-in/hr-ft?-?F verses 209 BTU-in/hr-ft?-?F for the 4130 steel.
In short, while it may heat up faster, it also dissipates that heat equally as fast. The figures for the steel means it's going to retain that heat much much longer. When it comes to firearms that can cook off rounds, that is a very very important consideration.
Over all, the AR15 platform may be weaker in outright strength, it's a much more efficient system than the AK47 and does not need the brute strength of the AK design. Putting apples to apples of applied stresses, the AR design is stronger.
As for the specific question of Russian made AK receivers, it really depends on where the metal was first made and when.
You need to have one made after 1951 and before 1979, or made after 1993 and ideally made this year (2009).
Steel made in the USSR was not exactly the best in the interim years I've mentioned. Most of the SKS and AK's made in particular have some recorded problems during the U.S. Vietnam era except for the Chinese variants which had a stronger steel.
With all that said, in 2008 the Russian companies Evraz group and TMK steel purchased a large portion of Swedish SSAB steel and the first results of that purchase are hitting the streets now. Their steel has noticeably improved in quality with that purchase.
People can say what they want about the Russian SKS's and AK's but I personally will not own those that I can date between the problem dates listed above. Russia was suffering economically, and a hell of a lot of corners were cut in everything of those years. Once they got back on their feet, no more problems at least as far as the steel is concerned.
This becomes important because the AKM variant receiver was supposed to be a lower cost alternative to the AK47 receiver.
The AKM is by default a cheaper variant, and was in fact designed to be so.
Some futher information
http://www.ak-47.us/Russia.php
Getting back to the steel, any carbon steel is going to be hardenable. It's also going to be subject to numerous problems not associated with an austenitic grain structure (aluminum)
The transformation temperature of carbon steel in general is going to be 1,333F.
http://steel.keytometals.com/Articles/Art17.htm
It's the particulars of heat treating steels that make me cringe when someone is talking about making their own receiver, or welding something to it.
You have to have some expertise or a lot of training before you attempt this one. Time held at temperatures above the lower transformation temperature is critical, as is the atmosphere it's held in.
At these temperatures you can get carbon insituation which can be a catalyst for martensitic grain structure growth. (a brittle grain structure). The more carbon you have, the lower the temperature required to initiate martensite growth.
http://www.engr.ku.edu/~rhale/ae510/heattreat/sld018.htm
This also gets back to the economic problems in Russia before and after the fall of the USSR and the corners they cut to save money and resources. Some of those short cuts included overly rapid quench times. (refer to above link)
Over all, the AK design was deliberately made to be stupid proof.
However, there is no such thing as stupid proof. As with any piece of machinery, going cheap usually creates problems.
The information above is the root reason why a milled AK receiver is always going to be better than a stamped one. Even when a lot of other corner cutting has taken place, the extra steel coupled with the robust design of the AK system will allow a much larger error factor.
Summary;
With all that said, don't knock the AR Design, it's a lot stronger than some give it credit for.
If your going to go with the AK platform, go with the milled receiver, the money you save by going with a stamped receiver may not in the end be a very good choice when compared against over all performance and strength.
My opinion for what it's worth.
i wouldn't say far superior unless you are using them as cherry pickers to lift engines or something, as they both perform their function equally well
no errors and never said that an ak was equal to an ar or the other way around either, you need to reread the post and obviously missed the point, which was a generalized point concerning aluminum and steel strength which i am already familiar with and its history and the history of both rifles and no one knocked any design either.
instead of these off topic rants would rather keep the subject on topic thanks.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GUTSS
This is a 1955 TypeIII Russian kit that I had built by POH in Tucson. It's built on a Firing Line special run milled reciever and I have around $2500 in it. I went this way because I figured this was as close as I could come to the real thing.
Here is the project before I sent it to Mario.
Different lighting makes the furniture appear different colors in some of the pics, it looks like pictures four, five, and six with the naked eye(orange-red).
very nice rifle btw, please let us know how it does on the range when you get a chance.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments