View Full Version : Arsenal AK-47 questions...
I would like to add an AK-47 7.62x39 to my collection.
The two I have narrowed things down to are:
http://www.arsenalinc.com/usa/product.php?productid=21&cat=20&page=1
and
http://www.arsenalinc.com/usa/product.php?productid=1&cat=8&page=1
I like the idea of "milled", better, but I have questions...
How does Arsenal get that barrel into the US made SAM-7 receiver? Who makes that barrel (Bulgaria or Russia?)? Is it better or worse than the SAIGA barrel on the SGL?
I have read that all the part serial numbers match on SGL's, and they are made from un-issued, brand-new parts. What about the SAM-7? Who makes the guts for it, and are they all numbers-matching and brand-new, as well?
Do they both have the same finish on them, and what finish is on the SAM-7 receiver? Is it parkerized at any point?
Is there any reason to get a milled receiver over the stamped given the two examples I gave? Will the milled one last longer (both will out-last the barrel, yes?) and will the milled give smoother function or more accuracy?
I highly doubt this, but is the 1mm stamped receiver prone to any kind of warpage/damage that the milled one would alleviate?
Sorry, I am new to the AK world, but want the "Noveske" of AK's and to do it right the first time. Thank-you!
I would like to add an AK-47 7.62x39 to my collection.
The two I have narrowed things down to are:
http://www.arsenalinc.com/usa/product.php?productid=21&cat=20&page=1
and
http://www.arsenalinc.com/usa/product.php?productid=1&cat=8&page=1
I like the idea of "milled", better, but I have questions...
I've had a few Arsenal AKs in the past, I'll try to answer a few of your questions but please realize I'm no expert on this. Hopefully some more qualified members will be along.
How does Arsenal get that barrel into the US made SAM-7 receiver? Who makes that barrel (Bulgaria or Russia?)? Is it better or worse than the SAIGA barrel on the SGL?
I belive the barrel screws in on a milled receiver, again I'm not positive, hopefully some else can answer this.
I have read that all the part serial numbers match on SGL's, and they are made from un-issued, brand-new parts. What about the SAM-7? Who makes the guts for it, and are they all numbers-matching and brand-new, as well?
I belive you may be correct on the SGL, I seem to remember that mine had the serial number on a few different locations. I'm not sure of the current situation, but I had been told that Arsenal brought several of their manufactoring processes to the US from Bulgaria to make a "US made" AK.
Do they both have the same finish on them, and what finish is on the SAM-7 receiver? Is it parkerized at any point?
I think they both have a baked enamel over phosphate finish, again, I think.
Is there any reason to get a milled receiver over the stamped given the two examples I gave? Will the milled one last longer (both will out-last the barrel, yes?) and will the milled give smoother function or more accuracy?
I used to be a milled type of guy. I've owned 4 milled Arsenal AKs, two of which were their Classic model, my last AK was a SGL 21. I will say up front that I felt the SGL 21 was by far the best AK that I had ever owned. My prior experience led me to believe that milled AKs were more accurate than stamped AKs. However the SGL 21 change my mind, the SGL 21 was easily the most accurate AK that I had ever owned. It may come with a little luck, but I think that a correctly built stamped AK can be a very good weapon. Three reasons the SGL became my favorite AK were;
Weight, the stamped receiver made for a lighter, easier to carry weapon.
Recoil, the AK74 type muzzle brake made the SGL feel like I was shooting a M4. I felt the SGL had less felt recoil than a milled AK with no brake.
Accuracy, the SGL I had blew me away with the accuracy it displayed.
I highly doubt this, but is the 1mm stamped receiver prone to any kind of warpage/damage that the milled one would alleviate?
I did not test this aspect but I think either would give a long service life.
I miss my SGL, I wish I had never sold it. It is currently the only AK that I would like to re-aquire.
Again, understand that I am no expert and that my SGL was an example of one. Some of my feelings may not be accurate and some of the information I have related may have changed or be incorrect but these are my impressions and opinions. FWIW.
Sorry, I am new to the AK world, but want the "Noveske" of AK's and to do it right the first time. Thank-you!
I hope this helps.
I hope this helps.
IT does, thanks!
Do you think that recoil may have played a role in the accuracy difference that you observed? Being accurate with a .22 is easier than with a .308, being my logic?
What kind of accuracy did you see with both platforms?
I have heard people say the milled guns shoot "smoother". True?
Does the SA-7R have "current 100-series" internals like the SLG's, or is it the older style guts/are they internally new?
IT does, thanks!
Do you think that recoil may have played a role in the accuracy difference that you observed? Being accurate with a .22 is easier than with a .308, being my logic?
I really don't think so. All the milled AKs I have owned were more accurate than all the stamped AKs I had owned before. The SGL was an unexpected suprise. I don't have any data to support it, but I feel the Russian made barrel/receiver was a large part of the accuracy.
What kind of accuracy did you see with both platforms?
It has been several years since I have owned the milled AKs and probably close to three years since the SGL. I did not measure group size nor did I use brass cased US made ammo either. I normally used nothing but Wolf in the AKs. I hate to give an accuracy statement on group sizes but I seem to remember getting groups that were capable of head shot at 200yds. I have a pic somewhere of a group I fired at 200 with the SGL, if your'e interested I'll see if I can get it tranfered and post it for you.
I have heard people say the milled guns shoot "smoother". True?
From memory the milled guns may "feel" a little smoother when hand cycling the action but I do not recall it being any smoother when firing.
Does the SA-7R have "current 100-series" internals like the SLG's, or is it the older style guts/are they internally new?
I belive milled guns have milled fcg componets and stamped guns have stamped componets, if that makes any sense. Due to the designs I don't think you can use stamped fcg parts in a milled gun. Again, I think. I could be wrong though. If memory serves I belive Arsenal uses new parts in their guns, produced in the US. Torrock seems to be the resident AK expert, I haven't seem him post in awhile but maybe he'll show up.
I'll try to get a pic or two transfered from our older computer tomorrow.
I'll try to get a pic or two transfered from our older computer tomorrow.
Thanks!
From what I understand, and have read/seen online, Wolf is second to the "Bear" ammunitions, and I have seen the same gun tested by another user here group 200% worse using Wolf vs. the Bear stuff.
A sample-size of 1 is really tough to measure, but from what I understand, the stamped guns have Russian barrels, and the Milled guns have Bulgarian barrels. Don't know which is "better". I do know that Walker English CLAIMS that across the board, the milled guns are more accurate, but, and not not to discredit him--he DOES sell them and they DO cost more.
Thanks!
From what I understand, and have read/seen online, Wolf is second to the "Bear" ammunitions, and I have seen the same gun tested by another user here group 200% worse using Wolf vs. the Bear stuff.
A sample-size of 1 is really tough to measure, but from what I understand, the stamped guns have Russian barrels, and the Milled guns have Bulgarian barrels. Don't know which is "better". I do know that Walker English CLAIMS that across the board, the milled guns are more accurate, but, and not not to discredit him--he DOES sell them and they DO cost more.
That had been my experience as well, milled guns would shoot better than stamped. However all my prior stamped guns were Romanian and Egyptian, the SGL was my first Russian AK. I had heard before that the Russians knew how to make a stamped AK, if my SGL is any indication, that may be true. Again sample of 1.
Although the Saiga AK's are nice, I would take a milled AK over a stamped any time. I had one of the original Arsenal milled AK's back in the mid 90's and it was a solid shooter.
Although the Saiga AK's are nice, I would take a milled AK over a stamped any time. I had one of the original Arsenal milled AK's back in the mid 90's and it was a solid shooter.
I have been looking for an SA M7 13, and CANNOT! find one.
Found a SA-M7-01 and ordered it. Basically the same as the SA-M7 R, just no rail. I didn't want a rail on the receiver, so that works fine for me. Hope I made a good choice for my first AK.
Although the Saiga AK's are nice, I would take a milled AK over a stamped any time. I had one of the original Arsenal milled AK's back in the mid 90's and it was a solid shooter.
For the most part I agree, with the SGL being the only exception. Again the SGL won me over with it lighter weight, reduced recoil (thanks to the '74 brake) and it's accuracy. Here is the pic I promised;
http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p427/jhs1969/DSC00921.jpg
Note the top left of each target, my 50yd target is on the left and the 200yd target on the right. Again this was with Wolf ammo. It may not be impressive in comparison with todays modern AR systems but I was very satisfied with these results using the AK's standard sighting system. A milled Arsenal AK is a very sweet weapon and I can't imagine you would be disappointed, however if I get another AK I will look for another SGL. In fact you have given me the bug again, now my wife is mad.:suicide:
technician
03-30-12, 15:47
If anyone doubts the strength of the stamped receivers, quality cobalt drill bits are recommended in a Saiga conversion for a reason.
For the most part I agree, with the SGL being the only exception. Again the SGL won me over with it lighter weight, reduced recoil (thanks to the '74 brake) and it's accuracy. Here is the pic I promised;
http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p427/jhs1969/DSC00921.jpg
Note the top left of each target, my 50yd target is on the left and the 200yd target on the right. Again this was with Wolf ammo. It may not be impressive in comparison with todays modern AR systems but I was very satisfied with these results using the AK's standard sighting system. A milled Arsenal AK is a very sweet weapon and I can't imagine you would be disappointed, however if I get another AK I will look for another SGL. In fact you have given me the bug again, now my wife is mad.:suicide:
Good shooting!
Do you recall if your SGL was correctly sighted in from Arsenal, or did you need the sight-pusher?
Good shooting!
Do you recall if your SGL was correctly sighted in from Arsenal, or did you need the sight-pusher?
If memory serves I only had to make a small correction to fine tune it, I've got an AK front sight tool from all the AKs I had years ago. It comes new with the factory's sight in target, the target they fired with mine produced a very good group. Although I think it was a 25m target. I think I zeroed it at 50yd but its been awhile. When I got it the SGL's were just becoming available, I believe I paid around 1k for it. I see now they are about $800. Mine was a good rifle, I certainly miss it.
Although the Saiga AK's are nice, I would take a milled AK over a stamped any time. I had one of the original Arsenal milled AK's back in the mid 90's and it was a solid shooter.
I'd say the exact oposite. ;)
I'll send you any milled ones if you'll send me the stamped ones.
I own a good number of AK's from all over. The milled vs stamped thing is really a non-issue. Ammunition, barrel quality, and general build quality are far more important factors. Assuming both are built properly, milled and stamped receivers will far out last the rifle barrel and the owner. AK's are not tack driving rifles. There's really no way to compare the accuracy of the milled vs stamped receivers because all the other factors are not equal. For example, milled receiver AK's tend to have thicker barrels. The thicker barrels are what contribute to accuracy, not milled receiver. Don't get me wrong. I own a milled receiver Arsenal SLR-95MB, a milled receiver Chinese MAK-90, and a milled receiver Galil. All are nice, but not because of the receivers. If the SHTF and I had the choice of only one AK, I'd opt for the lighter weight of a stamped receiver.
BTW, keep in mind that the front and rear trunnions in a stamped AK receiver assembly are milled. So only part of the receiver assembly is stamped. The front trunnion that the barrel presses in to is milled. Also, Chinese, most Yugo, and the Russian Vepr rifles have 60% thicker stamped receivers. These weigh significantly more than regular AKM's, pretty much on par with milled receiver AK's.
I personally don't think there is any really good reason to get a milled receiver versus a stamped one. The AK was designed to have a stamped receiver, the only reason the milled versions ever existed in the first place was because the USSR didn't have the stamping technology to make them in the huge numbers required. The stamped receiver is very, very strong. The important parts of the receiver are machined steel, the less important parts are stamped. Probably 95% of the AKs in the world have stamped receivers. That should say it all.
The AK is not a precision rifle, it's an assault rifle. I could see people getting hung up on the accuracy of a Zastava M76 or PSL, but not an a intermediate/small caliber Kalashnikov. Any good AK will be within 3MOA at 300m. Is it effective past 300m? I'd say it absolutely is, but it's definitely not the easiest rifle to shoot at long distances, especially in 7.62x39. However, it can be done.
If you really want the "Noveske of AKs" buy an Arsenal SGL-21-94 (or 31-94) and send it off to Jim Fuller.
Alaskapopo
04-01-12, 03:31
I personally don't think there is any really good reason to get a milled receiver versus a stamped one. The AK was designed to have a stamped receiver, the only reason the milled versions ever existed in the first place was because the USSR didn't have the stamping technology to make them in the huge numbers required. The stamped receiver is very, very strong. The important parts of the receiver are machined steel, the less important parts are stamped. Probably 95% of the AKs in the world have stamped receivers. That should say it all.
The AK is not a precision rifle, it's an assault rifle. I could see people getting hung up on the accuracy of a Zastava M76 or PSL, but not an a intermediate/small caliber Kalashnikov. Any good AK will be within 3MOA at 300m. Is it effective past 300m? I'd say it absolutely is, but it's definitely not the easiest rifle to shoot at long distances, especially in 7.62x39. However, it can be done.
If you really want the "Noveske of AKs" buy an Arsenal SGL-21-94 (or 31-94) and send it off to Jim Fuller.
I guess I was wrong I thought the original AK's were forged and then they went to stamped ones to cut costs and save weight. And like I said before I have yet to see a 3 MOA AK and I have owned a lot. I like AK's but the best I have gotten from them is 4MOA. (All my experience is with 7.62x39 the 5.45x39 is better I know)
Pat
The original AK receivers (Type 1) were a combination of a stamping and millings. The trunnion was milled as was the buttstock insert. After several iterations and changes (Type 1, 2 and 3) they finally decided on the milled receiver versions. The technology at the time did not allow for a consistently produced product.
I have seen milled AK's in Iraq survive a kaboom that tweaked the standard stamped receivers. I have also seen receivers tweaked over time by improper handling and treatment. The milled AK's did not suffer the same problems.
I personally don't think there is any really good reason to get a milled receiver versus a stamped one. The AK was designed to have a stamped receiver, the only reason the milled versions ever existed in the first place was because the USSR didn't have the stamping technology to make them in the huge numbers required. The stamped receiver is very, very strong. The important parts of the receiver are machined steel, the less important parts are stamped. Probably 95% of the AKs in the world have stamped receivers. That should say it all.
The AK is not a precision rifle, it's an assault rifle. I could see people getting hung up on the accuracy of a Zastava M76 or PSL, but not an a intermediate/small caliber Kalashnikov. Any good AK will be within 3MOA at 300m. Is it effective past 300m? I'd say it absolutely is, but it's definitely not the easiest rifle to shoot at long distances, especially in 7.62x39. However, it can be done.
If you really want the "Noveske of AKs" buy an Arsenal SGL-21-94 (or 31-94) and send it off to Jim Fuller.
The original AK receivers (Type 1) were a combination of a stamping and millings. The trunnion was milled as was the buttstock insert. After several iterations and changes (Type 1, 2 and 3) they finally decided on the milled receiver versions. The technology at the time did not allow for a consistently produced product.
I have seen milled AK's in Iraq survive a kaboom that tweaked the standard stamped receivers. I have also seen receivers tweaked over time by improper handling and treatment. The milled AK's did not suffer the same problems.
IG - so you're a milled guy - is that because of the strength of the milled receiver or some other reason?
I had all stamped guns until I bought a couple milled ones. I honestly can't tell much of a difference except the milled are slightly heavier and feel more solid.
I'll see if I can find the pics of my stamped receiver RPK type AK that was bent. It was a bad Gunbroker purchase built by a monkey somewhere and they bent the whole receiver. If you laid it on a bench you could see daylight between the receiver and bench.
Spooky
Spooky,
Yeah I like 'em because they are more solid and though they are slightly heavier I feel that they are the way to go. Not saying I wouldn't have a stamped one, but if milled was around I would snatch it.
IG - so you're a milled guy - is that because of the strength of the milled receiver or some other reason?
I had all stamped guns until I bought a couple milled ones. I honestly can't tell much of a difference except the milled are slightly heavier and feel more solid.
I'll see if I can find the pics of my stamped receiver RPK type AK that was bent. It was a bad Gunbroker purchase built by a monkey somewhere and they bent the whole receiver. If you laid it on a bench you could see daylight between the receiver and bench.
Spooky
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.