Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > Firearms and Other Weapons Forum > Military Weapons Forum
Articles Chat Room Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files



Military Weapons Forum AR15, AK47, SKS, H&K, Galil, CETME, FN/FAL, Tanks, Ships, Jets, Helicopters....

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-18-2010, 12:00 PM
GoodOlFroathyOne's Avatar
GoodOlFroathyOne GoodOlFroathyOne is offline
11B20 - Status Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York
Age: 34
Posts: 5,033
Thanks: 3,497
Thanked 4,930 Times in 2,345 Posts
Default Let's Clear-up Some AK Myths!



Advertise Here

Just a few things that I notice keep getting posted about AKs around here and frankly I am tired of addressing them individually.

ACCURACY:
"AKs are inaccurate!"
This claim gets passed around the internet faster than a crotch shot of Brittany... I believe this is more Cold-War dogma that just keeps circulating because most people either accept it or they just don't know any better. Are AKs as accurate as a sniper rifle, no, of course not, are they as accurate as an M-16, they very well could be. M-16s are rated as a 2 MOA rifle, most quality AKs are also 2 MOA rifles. In addition to being about the same relative accuracy, AKs also have a longer effective range.

So can we please lay the accuracy myth to rest, please?


MILLED VERSUS STAMPED:
"The only AK worth owning is a milled one because they are better quality!"
Never in the history of firearms has a more untrue statement been made... The idea that a stamped AK is inferior to a milled is completely ignorant of the history and development of the firearm. The AK was not designed to be on a machined receiver, it was originally intended to be on a stamped receiver. The fact of the matter is that the Russian welding and pressing technology was unable to mass produce effectively a stamped AK when they were first made, so as a result in order to mass produce the first runs of AK were produced on a machined receiver. After applying technology from German factories the Russians were able to adapt the machinery to produce stamped AK receivers.

Americans have always viewed stamped receivers in a negative fashion. In fact, American engineers didn't even bother spending much time examining the Stg. 44 following the end of WWII as they viewed it as a 'last ditch' weapon and noted that it looked cheap as it was produced on a stamped receiver. This has been the case in US small arms designs and still is, as M16/4 receivers are forged. The fact is that there is absolutely NO science or evidence to prove that a weapon based on a stamped receiver is somehow less accurate, reliable, or in any other way inferior to a milled weapon. It just simply is not true...

So the nest time someone posts something about the milled receivers being better, you will KNOW better...


Now I know, there will be some out there that will disagree with the above, but I would suggest not getting your information (or at least your primary source) off of the internet as there is oodles of misinformation out there. I have learned more about firearms from books than I have ever from the net.

later-- gofo'
Old 01-18-2010, 12:22 PM
the gambler's Avatar
the gambler the gambler is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: nc and nv
Posts: 1,031
Thanks: 474
Thanked 1,112 Times in 443 Posts
Default

I'm glad you posted this. Let's be honest, any and all weapons can be a big pile of fecal matter. The fact of the matter is this, unless you buy quality, then your not getting anything good. I myself like the ar vs ak platform. As for the accuracy of the ak, well.... alot of ak's ARE inaccurate, I know, i've had more than a few, BUT this can be somewhat quickly resolved. All you need is the front sight aligned and then zero'd in. Alot of ak's that were put together with "parts kits" were done wrong.

IS an ak worth buying? Not at todays prices, but they are worth having and if you can find a good quality one for under $900, get it. Trust me, those $450 ones are junk. An ak is VERY reliable and Very user friendly, it was meant to be.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to the gambler For This Useful Post:
Old 01-18-2010, 12:32 PM
trouble's Avatar
trouble trouble is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: KS
Posts: 1,288
Thanks: 1,051
Thanked 1,568 Times in 637 Posts
Default

Excellent post but to many it'll just be ignored, for instance an idiot on another survival forum posted just yesterday that he carries an ar because it's a "good guys" wep, the ak is a "bad guy" wep. Is that not just the dumbest arsed thing you've ever heard? I have no place for ar's, I was shooting them before it was trendy to have them and frankly they do not impress me at all, the AK is a much more solid design provided you get a QUALITY AK not some century modded junk. And don't get me started on the almighty 223, I've seen it fail to kill a groundhog with 1 shot. In the end carry what you want but I believe in having every edge I can over a potential opponent, the x39 offers such an edge over ar worshippers and their 223. Alas that's another topic though.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to trouble For This Useful Post:
Old 01-18-2010, 12:53 PM
blue123's Avatar
blue123 blue123 is online now
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nevada
Posts: 8,379
Thanks: 4,413
Thanked 6,510 Times in 3,232 Posts
Awards Showcase
Outstanding Thread 
Total Awards: 1
Default

i was recently reminded that quality ammunition yeilds quality results,kalashnikovs basicly get fed the cheapest imported surplus ammo available and mass produced from plants that dont resemble anything we may have here...as an example:
many years ago when russian primers were first being imported i had the privlage to inspect an intire pallet of cases of boxed primers,to my astonishment every case had dead flies in them........

my point is that most of the reports of AK inaccuracy can be due to 20-30+ year old infantry grade soviet block combat ammunition......
__________________
''the court jester''
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to blue123 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-18-2010, 12:56 PM
Sidx's Avatar
Sidx Sidx is offline
I fix it
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 33
Thanks: 10
Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodOlFroathyOne View Post
Just a few things that I notice keep getting posted about AKs around here and frankly I am tired of addressing them individually.

ACCURACY:
"AKs are inaccurate!"
This claim gets passed around the internet faster than a crotch shot of Brittany... I believe this is more Cold-War dogma that just keeps circulating because most people either accept it or they just don't know any better. Are AKs as accurate as a sniper rifle, no, of course not, are they as accurate as an M-16, they very well could be. M-16s are rated as a 2 MOA rifle, most quality AKs are also 2 MOA rifles. In addition to being about the same relative accuracy, AKs also have a longer effective range.

So can we please lay the accuracy myth to rest, please?


MILLED VERSUS STAMPED:
"The only AK worth owning is a milled one because they are better quality!"
Never in the history of firearms has a more untrue statement been made... The idea that a stamped AK is inferior to a milled is completely ignorant of the history and development of the firearm. The AK was not designed to be on a machined receiver, it was originally intended to be on a stamped receiver. The fact of the matter is that the Russian welding and pressing technology was unable to mass produce effectively a stamped AK when they were first made, so as a result in order to mass produce the first runs of AK were produced on a machined receiver. After applying technology from German factories the Russians were able to adapt the machinery to produce stamped AK receivers.

Americans have always viewed stamped receivers in a negative fashion. In fact, American engineers didn't even bother spending much time examining the Stg. 44 following the end of WWII as they viewed it as a 'last ditch' weapon and noted that it looked cheap as it was produced on a stamped receiver. This has been the case in US small arms designs and still is, as M16/4 receivers are forged. The fact is that there is absolutely NO science or evidence to prove that a weapon based on a stamped receiver is somehow less accurate, reliable, or in any other way inferior to a milled weapon. It just simply is not true...

So the nest time someone posts something about the milled receivers being better, you will KNOW better...


Now I know, there will be some out there that will disagree with the above, but I would suggest not getting your information (or at least your primary source) off of the internet as there is oodles of misinformation out there. I have learned more about firearms from books than I have ever from the net.

later-- gofo'


+1000
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sidx For This Useful Post:
Old 01-18-2010, 01:12 PM
FrightenedWolfe FrightenedWolfe is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,256
Thanks: 11,726
Thanked 2,550 Times in 1,045 Posts
Default

Thanks for the post GoFo.

I'll link people to this thread if they ask any Q's about the AK family....
The Following User Says Thank You to FrightenedWolfe For This Useful Post:
Old 01-18-2010, 01:18 PM
Radman's Avatar
Radman Radman is offline
Prepared not crazy.
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: VA
Age: 46
Posts: 245
Thanks: 40
Thanked 263 Times in 124 Posts
Default

I heard that some Ak’s were made without any rifling in the barrel, is that true or just another internet rumor?
Old 01-18-2010, 01:20 PM
Grumpy's Avatar
Grumpy Grumpy is offline
Dangerous Old Man
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 996
Thanks: 9
Thanked 1,176 Times in 523 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radman View Post
I heard that some Aks were made without any rifling in the barrel, is that true or just another internet rumor?

If it was on the internet, it MUST be true
The Following User Says Thank You to Grumpy For This Useful Post:
Old 01-18-2010, 01:35 PM
CornCod CornCod is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 235
Thanks: 33
Thanked 165 Times in 92 Posts
Default

Of course, the AK series was built under a regime with a different tactical doctrine founded upon the Soviet experiences in the Second World War with sub-machine guns. The AK isn't a sub-gun, but it was meant to be used on full-auto a lot more than the AR series was. AR's were meant to be used on full auto only during "final protective fire."

Critics of the AK would do better to criticize old Soviet tactical doctrine. The AK series does what it was designed to do. People sometimes believe that the concept of the assault rifle or the concept of the GPMG or the concept of the Squad Automatic Weapon or sniper rifle is the same in all countries. That is a mistaken view. These doctrines change a lot. The current US Army adoption of the designated marksman concept, for example, is very similar to the Soviet/Russian practice of issuing a Dragunov to one man per squad. Judging a Dragunov as an American sniper rifle makes the Dragunov look pretty awful, but as a designated marksman's rifle its a much better tool.

In short, weapons can only normally be judged within the context of the tactical use for which they are employed.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CornCod For This Useful Post:
Old 01-18-2010, 02:18 PM
USAFCombatArms's Avatar
USAFCombatArms USAFCombatArms is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 67
Thanks: 14
Thanked 57 Times in 28 Posts
Default

Im a small arms instructor for the AF, hit my 18 year next month!

We are biased. At least my guys are.

While we shoot/instruct primarly only US small arms, the few experiances I/we have had with an AK arent that impressive.

experiance #1 buddy and fellow instructors MAK 90, at 100m you couldnt reliably keep the grouping inside a pie plate. Might have been the ammo--dunno. At 300m, we were lucky to hit a green E target with his precious MAK 90. While my STg 58 and M1A had beautiful groups. Infact the M80 ball I was shooting that day, my FAL was killing my M1A But the AK isnt one of these sexy rifles.

experaince # 2, AK-47 at Camp Guernsey Wy. Groupings were about the same as the experiance #1, and jammed constantly. Could have been a tired AK, with crud mags and a blown out barrel from to much auto fire, dunno. Wasnt impressed.

exp # 3, One of my instructors bought some 7.62 AK "new in box"...Shot meh at 25-100m, groups were a tad larger than what an M4 has. 5 of my instructors tried it out, results were all bout the same.

We are talking standard issue weapons, not some pimped out 1.5 or 2 moa AK with a match barrel, 11 degree target crown and hand loaded cartridges...right? I have NEVER shot one of these high dollor AK's with "good" ammo. I believe in you when you say its capable of 1 or 2 moa.

Instructors like me always compair accuracy of the AK when its brought up in class, and we naturally compair it to the M16 series. Yes we do say its inaccurate...Sorry, folks like me are probably to blame, going back years and years from when I first started instructing, and years and years before that. There are obvious reasons why we down play our enemies equipment. Why we have from day one said and must continue to say we absolutly have the best and most accurate rifle, the better: rifle, equipment, sidearms, MG's, rockets, bombs, aircraft, etc. Lots of smart guys and gals on these boards, Im sure you understand. Guys like me are to blame!

If you were to stack a normal issue AK with its normal issue ammo vrs a norm M16 series with is issue M855 or M193 even...Which is more accurate? Im pretty sure...No, Im positive it will be our sweet 16! If you get crazy and throw Mk262 in the mix in an M16A3/A4, it completly blows the furniture off the AK's. But we arent talking about the 16! And we still arent compairing...Im sorry, its imbedded deep in me You see!

But like I said, I only have 3 experiances with an AK type.

So the end result, when one of our shooters asks or proclaim the AK as this that or the other, becasue they watched that eposode on the history channel...We will give the the benifit of the doubt, for everything EXCEPT accuracy.

The best I can say, from my experiance across the board as with most service rifles, its accurate enough to do the job its entended for.

The AK is a mean looking rifle though...And scares the crap out of folks.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to USAFCombatArms For This Useful Post:
Old 01-18-2010, 02:33 PM
50calray's Avatar
50calray 50calray is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 675
Thanks: 156
Thanked 569 Times in 266 Posts
Default

Ya but we're dealing with American made AK47 clones and not real AK47s. American made receivers are about 1.2ml vs export AK47 stamped receivers (like Norinco/polytec) that are 1.5ml think. These thinker receivers don't flex as much as original stamped receivers. The same thing with milled AK47 receivers. Thicker stamped and milled receivers helps a lot in terms of accuracy.

Then another thing we have to contend with here in the States is quality. Anyone who has dealt with American clone AK47s knows that a good rifle is the result of a quality built receiver and properly assembled rifle. So not all clones are equal either.

And the effective range of the 7.62X39 is 400m while the .223/5.56 is around 600m.

Just an FYI: I own 3 different AK47s one milled while the others are stamped and 3 AR15s chambered in .223/5.56. I shoot both and love them equally.
The Following User Says Thank You to 50calray For This Useful Post:
Old 01-18-2010, 02:45 PM
USAFCombatArms's Avatar
USAFCombatArms USAFCombatArms is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 67
Thanks: 14
Thanked 57 Times in 28 Posts
Default

AKs have a max effective range of an M16A2 for a point target of 550m and area or 800m? M4s have max effective of 500m point and 600m area...Ak's are equal to that even?

I thought at best AK's had a max effective of less than that of an M16/M16A1, 468m.

Crazy the stuff they tell us and we pick up:P Damn those AF/Army FM's from the 1960/70's!

PS, I've been drinking, so Im a tad ornrey...And spell check is now off.

P.S P.S. I forgot to attatch a quote from the origional poster regarding ranges...Sorry not directed at above.
The Following User Says Thank You to USAFCombatArms For This Useful Post:
Old 01-18-2010, 02:49 PM
USAFCombatArms's Avatar
USAFCombatArms USAFCombatArms is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 67
Thanks: 14
Thanked 57 Times in 28 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 50calray View Post
Ya but we're dealing with American made AK47 clones and not real AK47s. American made receivers are about 1.2ml vs export AK47 stamped receivers (like Norinco/polytec) that are 1.5ml think. These thinker receivers don't flex as much as original stamped receivers. The same thing with milled AK47 receivers. Thicker stamped and milled receivers helps a lot in terms of accuracy.

Then another thing we have to contend with here in the States is quality. Anyone who has dealt with American clone AK47s knows that a good rifle is the result of a quality built receiver and properly assembled rifle. So not all clones are equal either.

And the effective range of the 7.62X39 is 400m while the .223/5.56 is around 600m.

Just an FYI: I own 3 different AK47s one milled while the others are stamped and 3 AR15s chambered in .223/5.56. I shoot both and love them equally.
And I concur with you, if it goes bang I love it. Shoot straight bud!

So in my 3 tryouts, it could have been a combo of, make, reciever type and ammo, wear an tear=not so impressive experiance? I'd buy that for a dollar! Maybe i'll put my next tax return towards a quality AK and a normal AK and compair...It's only money.

New hobby, attempt to put the AK myth to rest!
Old 01-18-2010, 03:16 PM
trouble's Avatar
trouble trouble is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: KS
Posts: 1,288
Thanks: 1,051
Thanked 1,568 Times in 637 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 50calray View Post
Ya but we're dealing with American made AK47 clones and not real AK47s. American made receivers are about 1.2ml vs export AK47 stamped receivers (like Norinco/polytec) that are 1.5ml think. These thinker receivers don't flex as much as original stamped receivers. The same thing with milled AK47 receivers. Thicker stamped and milled receivers helps a lot in terms of accuracy.

Then another thing we have to contend with here in the States is quality. Anyone who has dealt with American clone AK47s knows that a good rifle is the result of a quality built receiver and properly assembled rifle. So not all clones are equal either.

And the effective range of the 7.62X39 is 400m while the .223/5.56 is around 600m.

Just an FYI: I own 3 different AK47s one milled while the others are stamped and 3 AR15s chambered in .223/5.56. I shoot both and love them equally.
My Arsenal is Bulgarian and I've got a Romy as well, anyone who knows anything about AK's stays away from AK's with American recievers, they're garbage. As for effective range you go right on believing that theres a 200m difference. Yeah I know it's been drilled into everyones head and its printed by the military but that doesn't necessarily make it so in the real world. In a SHTF situation the chances of shooting at anyone over 200yds are remote in the extreme unless you are suicidal. What kind of ammo do most folks stock up on? Good ole FMJ because it's cheap, if I'm merely punching a hole I want it to be a good sized hole not a pin pric, all of my "go" weps are .30. From my Garand to my AK's and SKS's, I've had lot's of contact with friends who've been or are currently in the sandbox and all of them dislike the 556 and respect the x39. 7-8 shots to keep an adversary down, come on. In the end it's our own arses if we've chosen wrong, I don't believe that I have.
Old 01-18-2010, 03:16 PM
50calray's Avatar
50calray 50calray is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 675
Thanks: 156
Thanked 569 Times in 266 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFCombatArms View Post
And I concur with you, if it goes bang I love it. Shoot straight bud!

So in my 3 tryouts, it could have been a combo of, make, reciever type and ammo, wear an tear=not so impressive experiance? I'd buy that for a dollar! Maybe i'll put my next tax return towards a quality AK and a normal AK and compair...It's only money.

New hobby, attempt to put the AK myth to rest!

Good luck trying to put this one to rest. It's an age old debate that will rage on long after we're gone lol

In the mean time as long as it goes bang I'm happy

PS: Congrats on the 18yrs
Old 01-18-2010, 03:21 PM
USAFCombatArms's Avatar
USAFCombatArms USAFCombatArms is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 67
Thanks: 14
Thanked 57 Times in 28 Posts
Default

TY! But what else will I do when I retire beside work for the post office or become a civillian instructor? LOL!
Old 01-18-2010, 03:57 PM
50calray's Avatar
50calray 50calray is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 675
Thanks: 156
Thanked 569 Times in 266 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFCombatArms View Post
TY! But what else will I do when I retire beside work for the post office or become a civillian instructor? LOL!
This is true, so you may as well have some fun
Old 01-18-2010, 04:11 PM
fragout's Avatar
fragout fragout is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,166
Thanks: 2,589
Thanked 2,501 Times in 1,438 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rifle man View Post
Thanks for the post GoFo.

I'll link people to this thread if they ask any Q's about the AK family....
I have a question based off of a WAR-10/63 that I recently picked up for the wife.
1st off, a little back ground info about me concerning the AK design.
I have always liked the simplicity of this type of rifle, and me and my clan used to use the Chicom versions as our primary shtf choice. ( Norinco AK47S, MAK90,MAK91,NHM90,NHM91) Note that back then, the Chicom models were very economical (along with Norinco 7.62x39mm steel core ammunition in the bright yellow 20rd boxes running at around 70 bucks per 1200rd wooden case)
Another neat little feature was the very economical SKS, which shared the same ammo, and allowed members of my group options concerning financial constraints at any one time, to " move up" into the AK if desired. The high dollar " best of the best" AK design back then was the Valmet family of rifles, along with the Galil. I could not afford any of the "higher echolon" AK types at the time, but a few group members could, so I did get the oppurtunity to handle/fire them all. While I considered them nice overall, they did not seem all that better in any way to the "cheap" Chicoms, and most were better off equiping thier immediate family's with the Chicom rifles instead. Longer range rifles were bolt action rifles/ motley horde of different calibers, but most chambered in 30-06. Our " poor man's DMR" back then was the longer,heavy bbl versions of the AK. (91 series)
Later in life after we had chosen to move into 7.62x51mm with the M14/M1A.... the internet was running along. ( While I find different opinions and "hands on" of others to be interesting, some of it seems to be based on half truths, hearsay, or somthing that has been said before... and just passed on without any 1st hand at all. ( All AK's are inaccurate, all AR's are unreliable, and all chicom M14 rifles have " soft" parts that are not close to org. specs...to name a few examples) The posts usually end right there. No explanations as to an actual diognosis as to why a specific rifle was unreliable other than the words "jammed alot". Inaccurate rifles that " cant seem to hit the side of a barn whilst standing in it" are not followed up by additional info such as specific loads used, shooting positions ( prone,kneeling,or use of a bench to take as much "shooter error" out of the equation as possible...etc...), and other varibles such as the abilitiy of the person shooting it, weather conditions at the time of the test...etc....
Example: All them former SF snipers out there. C'mon now. Ease up a little with the egos please I have respect for anyone who has served this country in military service, and I personally do not feel the need to.....exagerate. Just a "simple grunt" talkin here folks.

With that being said........ I currently own a WASR-10/63 (1963), sporting a Tapco side folder stock. I've only had it for a few days, and total rd count is a a whopping 140rds ( most of which was fired by my wife)...... and only thru the one specific magazine that sold with the rifle.....for the most part (Paid $275 bucks for it)
The both of us were able to hit a few milk jugs out to 100yds with this specific rifle from the prone/sitting position using Brown Bear FMJ, but a "true/formal" test of this specific rifle's potential has yet to be undertaken...so to speak. I feel that 140rds total aint near enough to give it the green light as a defensive rifle to stake anyone's life on, even though them 140rds went off as should with 0 mag/gun/ammo related issues. (Others milage may vary in this dept. but this one is still in the " better than nothing" train of thought for us at least.)
I picked it up mainly because the wife just plain liked the feel/balance of the rifle, and the price was negotiated to her/my satisfaction. The intent is for the wife to have a low cost, lightweight, compact, semiautomatic rifle that fires low cost, easy to find ammuntion using a detatchable magazine of 20rd capacity or more. Last but not least....if said rifle doeas not make the grade, it should be able to be sold/traded off at what was paid for it initially, or more, to include mags,ammo, etc.... This should make for an ideal truck/quad/horseback rifle for her once it is "proven" itself. ( She has her Rockola M1 Carbine in this role as of now, but the WASR should fill this role a tad bit better based on our requirements....once it is proven to be reliable.) Ths also left the current, higher $$ AK rifles like the Saiga.... off the list as I have not found any as of yet that meet the "low cost" requirement......YET It should not be a problem to sell/trade it off later, if the wife has a change of heart, either.

Which leads to a question regarding the "thinner" reciever as compared to the "thicker" Chicom models that I'm familar with. I your opinion (WASR users in paticular), does this amount to any issues to be concerned about in the long run?



11B
The Following User Says Thank You to fragout For This Useful Post:
Old 01-18-2010, 05:05 PM
bozar's Avatar
bozar bozar is offline
cowardly survivalist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 195
Thanks: 17
Thanked 174 Times in 75 Posts
Default

First off, I'll state that I owned a pre'ban AK variant (Maadi, Egyptian) from the late 80s through about 2002 when I finally traded it for an AR-15. I had a ton of fun playing with that thing, there is no doubt about that.

Now to my problem with AKs as your primary weapon in a SHTF scenarion... THEY ARE CONSIDERED BAD GUY GUNS... That sounds dumb I know, but its true and people don't always think right in a disaster (obviously)... Bubba sees bad guys on TV with them, sees videos of bad guys using them to kill Americans in Iraq. Doesn't seem to me such a smart idea to run around with one after a disaster, at least in "these here parts" of redneck Missouri ...

Guess what, you drive a Panzer tank around during WWII and Americans are gonna shoot at you, drive a Sherman and not so much so. Is it such a stretch to see that carrying a commie/terrorist gun might net you some trouble you could easily avoid by changing to a "good guy" weapon?

Everyone can disagree with me all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that rednecks here DO NOT LIKE PEOPLE WITH AKs...
Old 01-18-2010, 07:08 PM
GoodOlFroathyOne's Avatar
GoodOlFroathyOne GoodOlFroathyOne is offline
11B20 - Status Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York
Age: 34
Posts: 5,033
Thanks: 3,497
Thanked 4,930 Times in 2,345 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fragout View Post
Which leads to a question regarding the "thinner" reciever as compared to the "thicker" Chicom models that I'm familar with. I your opinion (WASR users in paticular), does this amount to any issues to be concerned about in the long run?
People equate the thicker, 1.5/1.6mm receivers with being better than the 1mm receivers. There is no evidence to back this claim up either. The thicker receivers were used on the RPK squad mg's and were designed to be put up to more abuse than the standard AK receiver. That said I don't think anyone is going to be putting their AK through an 800 round/minute torture test to find out if a thinner receiver would fail under the same conditions. Doesn't matter because it won't happen
The Following User Says Thank You to GoodOlFroathyOne For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
ak-47 for shtf, ak-47 prices, ak-47 value, ak47, best ak-47 for the money, gun prices, maadi, maadi ak-47, mak 90, mak 90 ak-47, mak-90, mak-90 ak-47, mak-90 prices, mak-90 value, norinco, norinco mak 90, norinco mak 90 ak-47, norinco mak 90 ak47, shtf survival rifle



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Kevin Felts 2006 - 2012,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net