AK-47 question?

[JHansenAK47]

The barrel is often used as one of the US made compliance parts, but they are not chrome lined.

They only started using the barrel as a compliance part because the ATF stopped the importation of barrels with parts kits. So rifles built before that were pretty much almost always built with foreign barrels.

The majority of US made barrels aren't chromelined, but not the sum total. You can get chromelined US made AK barrels if you look around hard enough.
http://www.gmriflebarrel.com/catalog.aspx?catid=ak47 assault rifle replacement barrels

OK, then mine probably was put together from a complete Polish kit, as the barrel was chromed.

If you bought it in 99-00 timeframe it probably was an original polish barrel.

I have examined the 1.5mm receiver, 1.6mm receiver and 1mm receiver guns side by side - all I'm saying is that a number of the 1mm receiver AK's I saw looked pretty rickety compared to the 1.5 and 1.6mm receiver guns.

Sounds to me like you should be looking at RPKs instead of AKs.

 

[Catfishman]

Quote:
Look into a 223 golieo rifle on gunbroker. I may of spelled it wrong but its close. They sell for around $500. They are a copy of the jewish gallil military rifle. They are way more accuret than the ak-47 but have the same look.
-
This is pure BS, the Galil rifle is a copy of the AK platform. It has just the same advantages and disadvantages. Now you're saying that a copy of a copy (it's named Golani btw) is more accurate then an Izhmash AK?

I think "pure BS" is inaccurate and pretty rude. The idea that a Galil is more accurate is based on the fact that it has a longer sight radius. So, all else being equal, a Galil copy has better pratical accuracy than a regular AK.

Are you aware that Izhmash makes awesome barrels and that their AK-74M shoots pretty much the same groups as a GI M16?

That is surprising.

 

[JHansenAK47]

I think "pure BS" is inaccurate and pretty rude. The idea that a Galil is more accurate is based on the fact that it has a longer sight radius. So, all else being equal, a Galil copy has better pratical accuracy than a regular AK.

The Galil has a flip rear sight aperture with settings for 300M and 500M. Using the iron sights you have to do some kentucky windage holdover adjustments just like Kalashnikov sights. Except that Kalashnikov sights are in increments of 100. Practical shooting is not necessarily at any set range.

Are you aware that Izhmash makes awesome barrels and that their AK-74M shoots pretty much the same groups as a GI M16?

That is surprising.

My SGL31 will shoot that good. The 223/556 and 545 rifles are usually more accurate than their 762x39 brothers. Still won't outshoot an accurized AR15 though.

 

[Hairbag]

Arsenal AK 47 are the best yeah, they also have the milled recievers for $500 more, but from what I UNDERSTAND the milled recievers were made to handle the granade launchers so unless you gonna launch granades from your AK the milled receiver is just adding more weight. The stamped reciever will last you a lifetime the milled will last you 2 lifetimes.,

 

[9-ball]

The idea that a Galil is more accurate is based on the fact that it has a longer sight radius. So, all else being equal, a Galil copy has better pratical accuracy than a regular AK.

Consider the sight design too. A longer sight radius on a handgun usually means easier to aim, because the rear sight of each handgun is at the same distance from your eye. However, a peep sight and leaf sight are not on the same distance from your eye, making the maximum angle in which you can still see the front sight greater, I can give you a mathematical explanation if you don't understand this.

Still won't outshoot an accurized AR15 though.

That's why I mentioned general issue I know AR-15's can make awesome target rifles.

 

[RC20]

ts also a rather compact rifle even in non folder hard stocks..and has the power of a .30-30 winchester. with hunting softpoints its up for hog or whitetail hunting . It would be far from the worst gun you could find yourself with as a Bushpilot, having to survive after a landing mishap (yes, I have seen the films of poachers killing grown elephants with AK's, and FN FAL's, while it wasnt pretty..it does work) So I have no doubt if you had to face a black or brown bear you could kill it (eskimos use .30-30 for that anyway...not .300 win mags). The fact they are tough and reliable even when neglected would be a +

Hmmm, not sure someone from Texas should be commenting on Eskimos. As an almost life long Alaskan, I have to tell you there are 4 different ethic groupings of indigenous peoples up here. Klingket (which includes various groups of South East Alaska native peoples such as Eyak), Athabaskans (probably as close to plains type indigenous), Aleuts and the So called Eskimos (Yupik is most broadly used but like the Klinkets, there are breakdowns in various tribal groups within that analogous to the various Sioux groupings).

And they do not use 30-30s. Pretty much the spread, though 30-06 is probably the most popular. 30-30 are rare in Alaskan. Not nearly big enough to reliably take down Moose or Caribous, and definitely not what you want to deal with a bear. I think I have seen one 30-30 up here, and it was part of a collection and NOT used.

 

[RC20]

I'm gonna take a sharp left-turn here since no one has yet. You're looking for a solid, reliable AK? A Chinese Norinko Mak-90 with a milled receiver is the way to go. Standard AK mags, rugged as all get-out, and accurate enough that clay pigeons on a 200yd. berm don't stand a chance. I really don't remember the last time I cleaned it--I think it actually runs better with a little grime. I reload and cast for it--yes, you read it right--I fire cast lead through it. I have a hard-hitting 170gr. cast lead bullet worked up that it simply loves.

I will add to this that it does not have to be a milled receiver, the MAK-90 stamped receiver is the heaviest one out there by a lot and takes no back seat to the milled.

Also, the barrel is chrome lined and the bolt and piston are chromed. You can shoot the corrosive ammo without having to get into all the cleaning regimen of ammonia in water and dipping you have to keep it going long term (Hopes 9 and some attention to the piton tube bore as it is not chromed.

Not sure how overall accurate it is, mine seems to be so so, but its a true died the wool AK heritage, all the functionally you could want. If desired, you can convert it to the full AK look with Deadwood stocks (just be sure to get a US magazine to make sure it complies with the US parts request for a modified gun of that type (forget the reg number - supposedly if caught in public you could loose it, my take is do what you want but use a US magazine at the range).

 

[JHansenAK47]

Consider the sight design too. A longer sight radius on a handgun usually means easier to aim, because the rear sight of each handgun is at the same distance from your eye. However, a peep sight and leaf sight are not on the same distance from your eye, making the maximum angle in which you can still see the front sight greater, I can give you a mathematical explanation if you don't understand this.

I consider peep sights to be a more precise aiming system than leaf sights.(mojos not included in my statement the rear sight needs to be close to the eye IMO) Both are capable of accuracy but a peep can get you pinpoint. However when you have only two positions and no adjustment I don't see that surpassing leaf sights in practical application.

but from what I UNDERSTAND the milled recievers were made to handle the granade launchers so unless you gonna launch granades from your AK the milled receiver is just adding more weight.

Not really the yugo M70s are stamped and have rifle grenade launchers and then there are the underslung grenade launchers like the GP-25 and GP-30. Being milled has nothing to do with launching grenades.
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rus/gp-25-and-gp-30-e.html

 

[9-ball]

I consider peep sights to be a more precise aiming system than leaf sights.

Neither of them is per se more or less accurate, because the actual sight radius (as in maximum parallax) is the same. Most people just shoot better with the hardware they are used to, I've always shot with leaf sights, and I'm more accurate with them, your results may vary.

 

[JHansenAK47]

I consider peep sights to be a more precise aiming system than leaf sights.

On leaf sights the front sight is in focus and you align it to the rear sight which is out of focus. Being out of focus it can be difficult to get your sights lined up perfectly. Perfect alignment would indicate to me a high level of familiarity with the sighting system.
Aperture sights on the other hand have always been fairly easy for me to line up. Just put the frontsight in the middle of the ring.
Both are accurate in that they will put you on target, but I get a little bit of drift while using leaf sights that I don't do with aperture sights. Kind of like aiming for 10. With leaf sights I could be anywhere from 9.75 to 10.25 but with the aperture I would be anywhere from 9.85 to 10.15. I shoot them better. Shooting is about consistency. I can consistently line my sights up better with apertures.

 

[Ignition Override]

Eghad: The reason my first rifle in x39 was an SKS is because I find the ergonomics of the duller metal edges more comfortable to operate.

Two other reasons:
1)The seller only wanted $200 for this gun in April '08, excellent condition.

2) If I had bought an AK with the larger mags, the ammo would have been used up much quicker than with the SKS.

Has the OP considered a Czech VZ-58, even though they only operate with 58 magazines? Many former AK owners say that they don't "go back".