Survivalist Forum banner
61 - 71 of 71 Posts

· Registered
29 Posts
AK's falling apart

What the ...? Me thinks you are full of ****

...but if you're being honest, you have managed to buy 3 AK47s assembled by total retards. I highly doubt the AK47 just inherently falls apart. Mine sure haven't.
Well, I am being honest.

The 1st AK I bought was a Century GP 1975. Apparently it was just a lemon, since its replacement has worked very well, with only about 3 jams in the last 2,000 rounds.

But on one pair of the front trunnion rivets, the under-surface of the rivet heads is not completely flush with the outside of the receiver. It may not be a problem at all. It may have been like that to begin with. I didn't really look at it closely until noticing on my other AK--an IO Inc CASAR--that the rear trunnion rivets had loosened and/or bent. The riveting was apparently a terminal problem with my IO CASAR.

Initially, the bolt carrier on the IO CASAR was jamming open intermittently--but only on rare occasions. But the bolt carrier jamming became progressively more frequent as I fired the rifle more. Ultimately, the bolt carrier jammed open badly enough to where I could not push it back forward without taking the rifle apart, which prevented the rifle from firing at all.

It was at this point that I noticed how badly bent the rear trunnion rivets were. There was also a slight, but noticeable rearward shift of the rear trunnion from receiver. This would seemingly increase the inside receiver distance, and would allow the bolt carrier to travel rearward too far. I think this was the cause of the bolt carrier jamming open.

I don't think the AK generally just falls apart. But I do think IO Inc CASAR AK's are poorly riveted. Several people on the Calguns forum have reported similar problems with IO CASARs.

The real selling point for IO Inc CASARs is that they are legal in California, and are actually available at some major sporting goods stores, like Turner's and Big 5. This means if the rifle malfunctions, you can take it directly back to the store, instead of having to ship it out of state to the retailer. Also, the rifle comes with a railed forward hand-guard, that allows you to attach a front vertical grip.

Unfortunately, those are about the only selling points for the IO Inc CASAR. They come without a pistol grip (and no magazine lock). So, as per California law, if you're going to attach a pistol grip, you have to first put on a magazine lock (a device that makes it necessary to use a tool to remove the magazine). So this adds another $20-$50 to the cost.

In contrast, however, I think the Century GP 1975 is generally a good rifle--especially considering it's CA-legal price of only around $450. It has a chrome-lined barrel, and a US made receiver.

· المتخلف&
5,508 Posts
Where are you getting 5.45 ammo for $119-$130 per 1,080?

I've never seen it for less than $200/1,000 rounds.
$119 per K if you buy 2, $129 otherwise;

$149 per K, $144 if you buy 2;,-ak-74-ammo-/cPath/12_37/products_id/2940

$169 w/ free shipping;

$189 w/free shipping;

I've found it locally here and there under $150, so I don't really intend to buy except bulk from AIM.

Yea, as far as the GP and Wasr, honestly you usually get what you pay for. Unless you can carefully inspect it before the purchase, there's a good chance you might be getting a sloppy gun. (I will NEVER buy a used kit built or century gun online without an inspection period!)

Most Aks on the U.S. market are much less reliable than the real thing, it's a shame because AR yuppies with video cameras can take a $300 wasr out and compare it to a $1,200 AR and "prove" that the Ak is unreliable. :rolleyes: The shotty assembly of the rifle is the culprit.

I have a wasr, but it rarely sees the light of day anymore and I'm seriously considering selling it off to get another AK74. It was AWFUL when I got it, but I learned all I know on the AK from fixing it on my own. I can't recommend cheap AKs without inspection. Century, TGI, IO inc, etc, etc, on down the list occasionally fudges the simplest of things, that any respectable manufacturer would take pride in keeping correct. Simple crap, like having straight sight posts, properly installed shepherd hooks, proper rivets, straight trunnions, proper mag wells...etc, etc...

I keep reading century has gotten better, and my new AK74 seems to be a good example. Not a single thing wrong with it. Nothing. I hope to get another much the same if I do indeed part with my very first AK.

· Livin' off the land
309 Posts
Most people prefer milled receivers, but I personally don't see that big of a difference to spend $300 on a milled AK.

· Registered
827 Posts
I think the original AK was designed to be a stamped receiver but because of a lack of stamping plants they milled them. Some adjustments to the rate of fire was required for the milled receivers. Once they tooled up they started stamping them which was the original design. It wasn't just the gun that made it so successful but also the manufacturing process. They were easy and cheap to manufacture. I read that in a book called guns of the world which I would have to look for but I still have. That being said I have read some stuff online about the differences in stamped receivers which didn't just pertain to thickness. I like the stamped and have a SAR-1 which supposedly has a military receiver which got the importers in some hot water when the Feds found out. Enjoy whichever you get.

· Registered
214 Posts
This rifle was designed to be cheaply mass produced and not intended to have a long lifespan.
I think i read that they cost less than $45 to build. They are adequate for disposable weapons to arm those who cannot afford better.
That being said, i would look at an american built milled receiver with an american barrel. These are both enhancements that will take the design light years ahead of where the designers ever dreamt it could go. They will not fix the locking design of the action. It is what it is.
Weak lock combined with a barrel pop riveted into a thin sheet metal receiver is why the ammo is low velocity and low pressure.
Will it kill people? You betcha. Is it super reliable? No more so than anything else.

· -
1,494 Posts
Low production costs do not necessarily equate to inferior design or performance.
Those who "cannot afford better" are frequently very skilled and determined fighters regardless of their economics.
"Disposable" weapons are good in that they can be cheaply manufactured and mass produced and rushed to the front lines. Again, not really a bad thing as history has shown.
That rifle was also meant to arm primarily uneducated peoples - it was their non-education rather than their class (which of course went hand in hand) that motivated the design - simplicity in design and operation was key for such an end user.
That rifle is internationally recognized as reliable in adverse physical conditions and in the hands of uneducated "brutes". Reliability comes in various concepts. That is the AK's known and proven reliability concept - the brute user and the effect of the elements. For example, long range accuracy is a reliability concept - the AK lacks it - and it wasn't designed for it.

Some U.S. makers are putting out good products.
There are also still very fine products coming from MOLOT in Vyatskie Polyany, which I've personally had the fortune of test shooting.
61 - 71 of 71 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.