Thinking About AK Top Cover / Rail Solutions...

[SteyrAUG]

Why not a left hinged side flip top cover?

Sorta like a Krink but flipping to the side. Would that result in a top cover stable enough for a picatinny rail?

The only hurdle would be the front of the cover which goes under the front sight.

[jamesavery22]

Could grind off the top lip of the rear sight block. So the side hinged cover ends up ontop of the remaining bottom lip.

All rusky optics mount solely to the receiver. Hard to argue that it won't work.

Replace the side mount with a big ass hinge.

You'd need some kind of very secure latch on the other side though. Having to work around the safety area is the first thing that poses a challenge in my head.

Didn't Larue make a railed HG that has a top rail that's hinged to the bottom rail for the l85a1? How does that latch down?

[maddawg5777]

Could grind off the top lip of the rear sight block. So the side hinged cover ends up ontop of the remaining bottom lip.

All rusky optics mount solely to the receiver. Hard to argue that it won't work.

Replace the side mount with a big ass hinge.

You'd need some kind of very secure latch on the other side though. Having to work around the safety area is the first thing that poses a challenge in my head.

Didn't Larue make a railed HG that has a top rail that's hinged to the bottom rail for the l85a1? How does that latch down?

That's what I was running through my head earlier. The only way it would work that I can see is if it was to the rear of the receiver. Either the safety would be in the way or the bolt handle would hit it. I think something simple like a small "safety" type lever that pivots from the top cover and "locks" into a divot on the rear of the receiver would possibly work. Not sure how secure it would leave the front of the dust cover. Another thought would be some sort of pressure mechanism on the hinge side that presses against the dust cover and blocks it from being able to open. I have nothing off the top of my head that would work but just throwing out some ideas.

[SteyrAUG]

That's what I was running through my head earlier. The only way it would work that I can see is if it was to the rear of the receiver. Either the safety would be in the way or the bolt handle would hit it. I think something simple like a small "safety" type lever that pivots from the top cover and "locks" into a divot on the rear of the receiver would possibly work. Not sure how secure it would leave the front of the dust cover. Another thought would be some sort of pressure mechanism on the hinge side that presses against the dust cover and blocks it from being able to open. I have nothing off the top of my head that would work but just throwing out some ideas.

I'm thinking along the lines of replacing the stamped top cover with a one piece milled top cover with rail. It could hinge on the left side and the right side of the receiver could have latch tabs which go into the upper receiver and lock it into place. You could have small spring loaded buttons (similar to the ones used on a hinge stock setup) on the right side of the top cover that disengage the tabs. Or it could be as simple as the spring hook design that retains a folded stock and you simply have two cuts in the right side of the top cover.

Probably make lining up the rear recoil spring latch a bit more aggravating but I think it could be done.

If you had a deep U channel running the length of the picatinny and it was slightly elevated you might be able to achieve a see thru mount as well for using the irons.

The idea might also require a milled receiver for more structural stability in the hinge area and the locking tabs.

[Aries144]

As an AK user, the main reason I'm interested in optic mounts other than the side rail is a desire for lighter weight. Having a rear peep sight that can work with the standard front sight and cowitness with a low mounted red dot is also a huge plus.

The Ultimak works, holds zero well, and cowitnesses, but mounting even a micro Aimpoint there makes the already front-biased weight of an AK-74 noticeably worse and I also prefer a red dot mounted as far rearward as possible.

The TWS topcover replacement is what I'm working with now, but it seems to be having issues returning to zero when the cover is opened and then closed again. I'm testing now to get an accurate estimate of the typical and maximum MOA shift.

The latest side mounts for mini Aimpoints from RS look great, but still add 5 oz to the weapon (versus +2oz for the Ultimak and about +0.5 oz for the standard, non .308, version of the TWS with rear peep sight)

I honestly wish someone would make something like the TWS that still works on a folding stock AK variant and locks up with throw levers or something equally repeatable. Or just a throw lever lockup system for the TWS.

[Magic_Salad0892]

I think (not to sink your ship or anything Steyr, because it IS a good approach) that the idea of flipping the rear sight for a rear sight/M1913 combo is more intuitive, and am glad that SOMEBODY finally figured it out.

[96 SS]

I have played with the idea a bunch.

But ultimately I feel like messing with one of the best things about the AK is like just dumb. It is legendarily reliable, why introduce parts to areas of the rifle that are critical to this reliability?

Add to that the supreme differences of multiple types and shapes of top covers, safety slots etc and you have a massive headache.




It is true mounts like mine add weight. But weight added to the neutral point of the rifle is essentially non-existent. Our new Gen 2 mounts will begin shipping soon and the total combined weight of adding a T1 is less than 8 ounces total. That is less than the weight of an Aimpoint M3 with cover. Then you would have to add a ring mount.

The weight savings of having an integrated mount is very real, and why we decided to stay with it for Gen 2.


I love the idea in theory- but have yet to find a good way to execute it.

[SteyrAUG]

I think (not to sink your ship or anything Steyr, because it IS a good approach) that the idea of flipping the rear sight for a rear sight/M1913 combo is more intuitive, and am glad that SOMEBODY finally figured it out.


I'm trying to come up with a solution where optics aren't so far forward.

[96 SS]

Like this?

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/14370_455356954501361_285135621_n.jpg

[SteyrAUG]

Like this?

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/14370_455356954501361_285135621_n.jpg

Isn't that just a "cant" mount?

Just to better clarify, I'm looking for a M4 solution. This probably means abandoning a stamped top cover for a milled one.

Perhaps the Krink approach is the best but with a sturdier milled top cover and a rear locking method with less play.

I was also thinking about a 1911 slide approach where the top cover rides on rails on the receiver like a 1911 slide rides on the frame. Secure locking tabs should be pretty easy to come up with.

[96 SS]

Yes and no.

Yes it is on the side rail. This has been proven time and time again to be one of the parts of an AK that doesn't move when firing. The Russians weren't dumb when they move the optics to this location.


If you make the top cover too rigid, you risk a lot by tying two components together that in an AK aren't meant to be rigidly tied together. This will break one of the pieces, usually the milled AL piece.

The only way around this would be to create a new receiver, or cantilever a mount off the front of the rifle.

Basically use a Krebs rail or a side rail if you want the optic towards the rear, or a handguard mount like the ultimak up front.


I LOVE the idea - and have been chewing on it for nearly 3 years, but I cant find anything better than the side rail. Everything has too many shortcomings compared to side rails. The only downside of side rails is that you cannot lock a side folding stock and that not all AK's have one.

A better solution is definitely out there somewhere - I know I haven't found "ideal" yet.

[calvin118]

I too have given this a lot of thought, and have come to the conclusion that there is not going to be a perfect option on an AK.

Ultimak rail? Makes an already front heavy rifle too heavy to be worth the hassle.

Ultimak gas tube? Gets very hot (although this can be mitigated with heat tape) and shifts the balance slightly to the front. Doesn't allow me to get my hand out as far as I would like either.

Side mount? Prevents side-folding and leaves you needing another solution for a light.

MI extended rail? Choose between co-witness or quick detach, and according to some reports it adversely affects accuracy.

TWS dogleg? Apparently suffers from POI shifts after detachment and leaves you needing another solution for a light

TWS rail? Does not co-witness, gets extremely hot, and does not have options available for heat shielding or mounting strips.

I personally prefer the Ultimak gas tube, as imperfect as it is. I am not bothered by the balance of having a micro over the hand guard, and mitigate the heat issue with grip tape over automotive tape covering the sides of tube. On my AK74 which shoots corrosive ammo, I use a side rail because I consider the Ultimak contraindicated due to the enhanced cleaning requirements. I am throwing around the idea of trying a MI rail, but am not sure whether I like the idea of having to take the rail apart to remove the optic- or the possible potential for decreased accuracy.

[JoshNC]

How about a redesign with a top cover fully integral to the receiver, fire control group that removes from the bottom, stock and rear trunion held in place by two pushpins ala HK, and bolt group with removable charging handle with bolt group that removes from the rear of the receiver.. Oh wait that is essentially a SIG 55x or FNC. :)

Personally if I want an optic capable AK, I will just grab my 551, 552, or 553. And if it has to run in auto, I'll grab my FNC.

But in all seriousness and without further thread drift, Steyr I like the idea of a top cover that attaches via rigid rails. That is an interesting idea.