Back in 2006 I bought a plain Jane Arsenal AK. I don't remember the exact model, but it was one of the stamped Bulgarian receiver guns that Arsenal was making before they started doing the Saiga rebuilds. It featured all new parts, a new, chrome-lined barrel, the plum polymer furniture etc. The only modifications I made to it was to replace the short stock with a Tapco adjustable stock and replace the pistol grip with a Tapco SAW style grip.
I sold it about a year after I bought it. I think I was expecting more from what all the internet gurus said was going to be AK nirvana. But, in the end, I found it to be, well, just an AK. Perhaps it was a high quality AK, but it was still just an AK. So I sold it and moved on. Silly me.
Fast forward to June of 2011. The Bush/Obama depression has put a serious hurtn' on my finances and on my gun collection. Over the past 3 years, I've sold off all but one handgun, one hunting rifle, and one shotgun. Many of these sales were done simply to pay an electric bill, help make payroll etc. Additionally, my daughter, who was born along the way, also changed my priorities.
Yet, I still wanted a semi-auto, magazine-fed rifle to complement my hunting rifle, shotgun and handgun. Call me paranoid, but in an uncertain world, I knew I would sleep a little better knowing I had an effective, semi automatic defensive rifle sitting in the gun safe. I considered a Stag M4 clone, a Mini 14, and yes, an AK clone. Because I had owned two SKSs, a Mini-30 and the aforementioned Arsenal AK, I was comfortable with the 7.62x39 cartridge. I knew it was still relatively cheap to buy in bulk, certainly effective on hogs (and thus probably a good defensive caliber), and accurate enough for plinking and self defense. Although I liked the feel and accuracy of the AR, I wanted a rifle that I did not have to baby and would not care if it got knocked around. And, oh yea, ARs are way over priced right now! The mini 14 is also over priced for what it is. In short, I wanted a rugged tool, not an expensive show piece that I had to worry about too much. Thus, an AK clone was the obvious choice. Note: an SKS would have worked just as well, but I wanted a detachable mag and I hated the triggers on the Yugo and Norinco ones that I owned in the past.
So, taking into account of the above-mentioned financial limitations and personal experiences, I starting looking at the WASR 10/63s that were common in all my local gun shops. I had read bad things about the WASRs, but I wanted to check them out for myself. After my own inspections, I found the 10/63s to be decent AK clones. Not pretty. Not precision machines, just loose, rattly, stamped weapons that were capable of launching high volumes of lead reliably and without a whole lot of drama. I also appreciated the Tapco trigger groups (very sweet AK triggers, btw).
So, once I talked the wife into letting me buy another gun (even though we certainly could not afford one--she can be cool about these things from time to time), I picked out the best WASR I could find. This one had a perfectly straight front sight post (no cant), the gas tube was lined up perfectly, it had a Tapco trigger group, all the parts seemed to fit pretty well etc. Just for reference, the one I picked out has the triangle stamp on the front trunnion, it says "1973" followed by the serial number, it is designated as the WASR 10/63, and says "MADE BY ROMARM SA/CUGIR IN ROMANIA" on the side of the right side of the receiver (just forward of the safety lever). It has a chrome-lined bore with decent looking lands, and the fit and finish are very good--no rough edges, smooth action etc. This rifle also came with two Tapco polymer mags, which fit very snug, but are not so tight that they are hard to insert into the magwell. Like all WASRs, it lacks the dimples, but it also seems to have a metal piece riveted into the receiver (just forward of the magwell) that serves to seat and secure the magazine. Of course, it is a Century Arms gun. Oh yea, it has no muzzle break (a nut is threaded on and welded so you can't take it off), and it has the standard grease-soaked wooden furniture.
After spraying down the gun with gun scrubber, snaking the bore, and re-oiling, I took it to the range and ran about 250 rounds through it. The only problem it had was one of the golden tiger rounds (out of about 200) seemed to have a bad primer. Good primer strike (twice), but no bang bang. Hardly the gun's fault. The WASR was accurate enough at 50 yards with irons, although I had a heck of a time adjusting the windage as the front sight was really stuck in there. Even with the C tool, I had to bang on the thing until it lined up. But, after that little annoyance, it shot straight enough.
After the first session, I took the WASR home, cleaned it (a little better this time) and bought two more of the Tapco mags. I also bought some of that Tula ammo you can get in the spam cans. I went back to the range and had no problems with the gun or ammo over about 300 rounds. The Tapco trigger is sweeeeet and the gun performs as advertized: reliable, accurate enough, rugged etc. It's definitely an AK, but I wanted what the AK had to offer and I was aware of its limitations this time around.
The only modification I plan on making is to replace the stubby "Warsaw" stock with a "NATO" polymer stock made by Arsenal. I'm not a big guy (I'm about 5'6ish and fatter than I will admit on the internet), but that little nub stock did not work for me when I had the Arsenal, and it does not work for me with the WASR. I live in Florida and will probably never wear one of those heavy winter coats allegedly contemplated by the Russian designers who invented the "Warsaw" stock. Plus, my shotgun and hunting rifle have about a 14 inch LOP--it's what I'm used to. I guess I'm too much of an American shooter to live with the Warsaw nub. So, I'm going with the "NATO" stock whether it looks weird or not. Note: I wanted a fixed stock because I don't get a good cheek weld from a collapsible stock. So, the fixed NATO was the best choice.
Now, onto my impressions about the WASR 10/63 as it compares to the Arsenal I used to own. But, before I say any more, let me say this: my Arsenal was a great AK. Don't start yelling at me because you think I am dogging on Arsenal products. I'm not. However, it was just an AK. The heavens did not open up when I fired it. It was not a display piece. It was the rifle equivalent of a good old work truck: rough, reliable, ugly, and infinitely functional.
Based on all the recent internet trolling I've done on AK clones, I have divided my thoughts into several categories that seem to come up time and again.
Fit and Finish.
Surprise. I did not notice much difference between the Arsenal and the WASR 10/63. Everyone says the WASRs are rougher. But, these are AKs we're talking about here. Both seemed rough to my American sensibilities. I'm used to computerized, highly precise manufacturing in the products I own. So, of course the WASR seemed rough. All AKs seem rough when viewed from my perspective. The Arsenal was no exception. I'd give a very slight edge to the Arsenal. But not enough to prevent me from buying the WASR.
There is one caveat to the above opinion: my WASR came with a perfectly straight sight post. On the other hand, my Arsenal came with a canted front sight post. It was so bad that I had to buy a surplus sight post and replace the one from the factory. No big deal, but so much for Arsenal's better quality control!
Trigger.
I've read about the infamous trigger slap on WASRs. Not anymore. The Tapco trigger is awesome. I don't have any stats on weight etc. Just personal impressions. It breaks cleanly, it is very crisp, and it has no slap. It is certainly better than the stock triggers on my shotgun and hunting rifle. The Arsenal was also good. Of course it had no trigger slap. It was perfectly functional and comfortable. But, it did not make me say "wow that's a great trigger" after I shot it. The Tapco has the wow factor. The edge goes to the WASR Tapco trigger!
Mag Wabble.
As I mentioned above, I only have Tapco polymer mags for the WASR. These mags fit the WASR better than any mag fit my Arsenal! No mag wabble. snug but not too tight. Perfect.
My Arsenal was shipped with two milsurp metal mags (probably Bulgarian) and I bought a bunch more milsurp metal mags and two Pro Mag polymers after I bought the gun. All the metal mags had significant mag wabble, although they all functioned perfectly. One of the pro mag polymers fit very well, probably comparable to the Tapcos in the WASR. However, the other was so tight that I did not even use it. It functioned fine. But it was such a PITA to get seated that it wasn't worth the trouble.
It's hard to say which rifle wins this category because I haven't tried milsurp metal mags with the WASR (and I will probably never buy another pro mag). My WASR was obviously designed to accept the Tapco mags. I probably won't ever buy any milsurps unless the polymer Tapcos start crapping out on me.
Accuracy.
So far the edge goes to the Arsenal. The WASR is okay. It is certainly acceptable for what I want it to do. But the Arsenal was an absolute tack driver. I did not use optics on either rifle, so the comparison is apples to apples. However, I want to install the "NATO" stock on my WASR and go back to the range before I write off the WARS's accuracy potential. That little Warsaw nub really makes it hard to get a good sight picture. I had the collapsible stock on the Arsenal set to the proper LOP when I was shooting ragged holes in the paper.
Furniture.
The wood furniture on the WASR sucks. No two ways about it. It's soaked with grease, unfinished as far as I can tell, and pretty rough. That being said, the Arsenal was nothing to jump up and down about either. The plain Jane plum polymer was boring and felt flimsy. Not enough heft for my taste. That being said, both had the awful Warsaw nub, which was promptly replaced on both guns. At this point, I plan on keeping the wood forend and handguard on the WASR because I don't want to spend too much money on this rifle. Last thing I want to be is the gun owner equivalent of those guys you see on the road making thousands of dollars worth of aftermarket modifications to a rusted out, ten-year-old Honda Civic. The WASR is about function, not cool.
Reliability.
I'd say the WASR and the Arsenal are tied. In my experience, both function flawlessly. However, in fairness, I had more rounds through the Arsenal before I sold it. I'll keep shooting the WASR and evaluating its reliability.
Durability.
The jury is still out. I did not own the Arsenal long enough to comment on its long term durability. And, I've only had the WASR for a couple of weeks. But, both rifles are AKs. They will probably both go to hell and back and still ask for more abuse.
In theory, the edge would have to go to the Arsenal in this category because it is purported to have all new parts and a new barrel versus the WASR's Romanian surplus barrel, receiver, gas block etc. New parts = longer life etc. That being said, the WASR has a new trigger group, gas piston and some other compliance parts that I don't really understand.
I guess time will tell how the WASR holds up.
One final note. I am comparing a 2006 Bulgarian Arsenal to a 2011 WASR 10/63. I have no experience with the new Saiga-based rifles that Arsenal is selling. Perhaps a 2006 WASR 10 would not have held up so well to a head to head comparison with a 2006 Bulgarian Arsenal. And, perhaps a 2011 Arsenal Saiga rebuild would kick the 10/66's a*s. I don't know. Moreover, the Arsenal I bought cost me about $650 (in 2006 dollars) before tax. The WASR cost me $510 (in 2011 dollars) before tax. So, it's not like I am comparing a $300 parts kit AK to a brand new, $1,000 Arsenal.
I wrote this post so that people in the market for an AK in 2011 would get a first-hand perspective of someone who has owned an Arsenal and a WASR 10/63. Many people will say, "why take the chance with a WASR, when you know what you're getting from Arsenal for a few hundred dollars more?" That is a perfectly legitimate point.
However, I have been very impressed so far with my WASR 10/63. It compares very well with the 2006 Bulgarian Arsenal that I used to own. In some ways, it is better for me. Besides, the Stag M4 clone I was looking at was $860 before tax. I did not want to spend $800 + on a lead launcher. I needed a gun to meet my needs at the lowest possible price, and I found it in the WASR 10/63.
I hope others in the market for an AK will read this post and at least give a newer WASR a look before listening the internet know-it-alls who say "Arsenal is the best and WASRs are crap" etc. And of course, there are other AKs out there besides Arsenals and WASRs. But, in the end, no AK will leave you all hot and bothered. AKs are what they are, and, for me anyway, the WASR 10/63 has been a good representative of this kind of rifle.
I sold it about a year after I bought it. I think I was expecting more from what all the internet gurus said was going to be AK nirvana. But, in the end, I found it to be, well, just an AK. Perhaps it was a high quality AK, but it was still just an AK. So I sold it and moved on. Silly me.
Fast forward to June of 2011. The Bush/Obama depression has put a serious hurtn' on my finances and on my gun collection. Over the past 3 years, I've sold off all but one handgun, one hunting rifle, and one shotgun. Many of these sales were done simply to pay an electric bill, help make payroll etc. Additionally, my daughter, who was born along the way, also changed my priorities.
Yet, I still wanted a semi-auto, magazine-fed rifle to complement my hunting rifle, shotgun and handgun. Call me paranoid, but in an uncertain world, I knew I would sleep a little better knowing I had an effective, semi automatic defensive rifle sitting in the gun safe. I considered a Stag M4 clone, a Mini 14, and yes, an AK clone. Because I had owned two SKSs, a Mini-30 and the aforementioned Arsenal AK, I was comfortable with the 7.62x39 cartridge. I knew it was still relatively cheap to buy in bulk, certainly effective on hogs (and thus probably a good defensive caliber), and accurate enough for plinking and self defense. Although I liked the feel and accuracy of the AR, I wanted a rifle that I did not have to baby and would not care if it got knocked around. And, oh yea, ARs are way over priced right now! The mini 14 is also over priced for what it is. In short, I wanted a rugged tool, not an expensive show piece that I had to worry about too much. Thus, an AK clone was the obvious choice. Note: an SKS would have worked just as well, but I wanted a detachable mag and I hated the triggers on the Yugo and Norinco ones that I owned in the past.
So, taking into account of the above-mentioned financial limitations and personal experiences, I starting looking at the WASR 10/63s that were common in all my local gun shops. I had read bad things about the WASRs, but I wanted to check them out for myself. After my own inspections, I found the 10/63s to be decent AK clones. Not pretty. Not precision machines, just loose, rattly, stamped weapons that were capable of launching high volumes of lead reliably and without a whole lot of drama. I also appreciated the Tapco trigger groups (very sweet AK triggers, btw).
So, once I talked the wife into letting me buy another gun (even though we certainly could not afford one--she can be cool about these things from time to time), I picked out the best WASR I could find. This one had a perfectly straight front sight post (no cant), the gas tube was lined up perfectly, it had a Tapco trigger group, all the parts seemed to fit pretty well etc. Just for reference, the one I picked out has the triangle stamp on the front trunnion, it says "1973" followed by the serial number, it is designated as the WASR 10/63, and says "MADE BY ROMARM SA/CUGIR IN ROMANIA" on the side of the right side of the receiver (just forward of the safety lever). It has a chrome-lined bore with decent looking lands, and the fit and finish are very good--no rough edges, smooth action etc. This rifle also came with two Tapco polymer mags, which fit very snug, but are not so tight that they are hard to insert into the magwell. Like all WASRs, it lacks the dimples, but it also seems to have a metal piece riveted into the receiver (just forward of the magwell) that serves to seat and secure the magazine. Of course, it is a Century Arms gun. Oh yea, it has no muzzle break (a nut is threaded on and welded so you can't take it off), and it has the standard grease-soaked wooden furniture.
After spraying down the gun with gun scrubber, snaking the bore, and re-oiling, I took it to the range and ran about 250 rounds through it. The only problem it had was one of the golden tiger rounds (out of about 200) seemed to have a bad primer. Good primer strike (twice), but no bang bang. Hardly the gun's fault. The WASR was accurate enough at 50 yards with irons, although I had a heck of a time adjusting the windage as the front sight was really stuck in there. Even with the C tool, I had to bang on the thing until it lined up. But, after that little annoyance, it shot straight enough.
After the first session, I took the WASR home, cleaned it (a little better this time) and bought two more of the Tapco mags. I also bought some of that Tula ammo you can get in the spam cans. I went back to the range and had no problems with the gun or ammo over about 300 rounds. The Tapco trigger is sweeeeet and the gun performs as advertized: reliable, accurate enough, rugged etc. It's definitely an AK, but I wanted what the AK had to offer and I was aware of its limitations this time around.
The only modification I plan on making is to replace the stubby "Warsaw" stock with a "NATO" polymer stock made by Arsenal. I'm not a big guy (I'm about 5'6ish and fatter than I will admit on the internet), but that little nub stock did not work for me when I had the Arsenal, and it does not work for me with the WASR. I live in Florida and will probably never wear one of those heavy winter coats allegedly contemplated by the Russian designers who invented the "Warsaw" stock. Plus, my shotgun and hunting rifle have about a 14 inch LOP--it's what I'm used to. I guess I'm too much of an American shooter to live with the Warsaw nub. So, I'm going with the "NATO" stock whether it looks weird or not. Note: I wanted a fixed stock because I don't get a good cheek weld from a collapsible stock. So, the fixed NATO was the best choice.
Now, onto my impressions about the WASR 10/63 as it compares to the Arsenal I used to own. But, before I say any more, let me say this: my Arsenal was a great AK. Don't start yelling at me because you think I am dogging on Arsenal products. I'm not. However, it was just an AK. The heavens did not open up when I fired it. It was not a display piece. It was the rifle equivalent of a good old work truck: rough, reliable, ugly, and infinitely functional.
Based on all the recent internet trolling I've done on AK clones, I have divided my thoughts into several categories that seem to come up time and again.
Fit and Finish.
Surprise. I did not notice much difference between the Arsenal and the WASR 10/63. Everyone says the WASRs are rougher. But, these are AKs we're talking about here. Both seemed rough to my American sensibilities. I'm used to computerized, highly precise manufacturing in the products I own. So, of course the WASR seemed rough. All AKs seem rough when viewed from my perspective. The Arsenal was no exception. I'd give a very slight edge to the Arsenal. But not enough to prevent me from buying the WASR.
There is one caveat to the above opinion: my WASR came with a perfectly straight sight post. On the other hand, my Arsenal came with a canted front sight post. It was so bad that I had to buy a surplus sight post and replace the one from the factory. No big deal, but so much for Arsenal's better quality control!
Trigger.
I've read about the infamous trigger slap on WASRs. Not anymore. The Tapco trigger is awesome. I don't have any stats on weight etc. Just personal impressions. It breaks cleanly, it is very crisp, and it has no slap. It is certainly better than the stock triggers on my shotgun and hunting rifle. The Arsenal was also good. Of course it had no trigger slap. It was perfectly functional and comfortable. But, it did not make me say "wow that's a great trigger" after I shot it. The Tapco has the wow factor. The edge goes to the WASR Tapco trigger!
Mag Wabble.
As I mentioned above, I only have Tapco polymer mags for the WASR. These mags fit the WASR better than any mag fit my Arsenal! No mag wabble. snug but not too tight. Perfect.
My Arsenal was shipped with two milsurp metal mags (probably Bulgarian) and I bought a bunch more milsurp metal mags and two Pro Mag polymers after I bought the gun. All the metal mags had significant mag wabble, although they all functioned perfectly. One of the pro mag polymers fit very well, probably comparable to the Tapcos in the WASR. However, the other was so tight that I did not even use it. It functioned fine. But it was such a PITA to get seated that it wasn't worth the trouble.
It's hard to say which rifle wins this category because I haven't tried milsurp metal mags with the WASR (and I will probably never buy another pro mag). My WASR was obviously designed to accept the Tapco mags. I probably won't ever buy any milsurps unless the polymer Tapcos start crapping out on me.
Accuracy.
So far the edge goes to the Arsenal. The WASR is okay. It is certainly acceptable for what I want it to do. But the Arsenal was an absolute tack driver. I did not use optics on either rifle, so the comparison is apples to apples. However, I want to install the "NATO" stock on my WASR and go back to the range before I write off the WARS's accuracy potential. That little Warsaw nub really makes it hard to get a good sight picture. I had the collapsible stock on the Arsenal set to the proper LOP when I was shooting ragged holes in the paper.
Furniture.
The wood furniture on the WASR sucks. No two ways about it. It's soaked with grease, unfinished as far as I can tell, and pretty rough. That being said, the Arsenal was nothing to jump up and down about either. The plain Jane plum polymer was boring and felt flimsy. Not enough heft for my taste. That being said, both had the awful Warsaw nub, which was promptly replaced on both guns. At this point, I plan on keeping the wood forend and handguard on the WASR because I don't want to spend too much money on this rifle. Last thing I want to be is the gun owner equivalent of those guys you see on the road making thousands of dollars worth of aftermarket modifications to a rusted out, ten-year-old Honda Civic. The WASR is about function, not cool.
Reliability.
I'd say the WASR and the Arsenal are tied. In my experience, both function flawlessly. However, in fairness, I had more rounds through the Arsenal before I sold it. I'll keep shooting the WASR and evaluating its reliability.
Durability.
The jury is still out. I did not own the Arsenal long enough to comment on its long term durability. And, I've only had the WASR for a couple of weeks. But, both rifles are AKs. They will probably both go to hell and back and still ask for more abuse.
In theory, the edge would have to go to the Arsenal in this category because it is purported to have all new parts and a new barrel versus the WASR's Romanian surplus barrel, receiver, gas block etc. New parts = longer life etc. That being said, the WASR has a new trigger group, gas piston and some other compliance parts that I don't really understand.
I guess time will tell how the WASR holds up.
One final note. I am comparing a 2006 Bulgarian Arsenal to a 2011 WASR 10/63. I have no experience with the new Saiga-based rifles that Arsenal is selling. Perhaps a 2006 WASR 10 would not have held up so well to a head to head comparison with a 2006 Bulgarian Arsenal. And, perhaps a 2011 Arsenal Saiga rebuild would kick the 10/66's a*s. I don't know. Moreover, the Arsenal I bought cost me about $650 (in 2006 dollars) before tax. The WASR cost me $510 (in 2011 dollars) before tax. So, it's not like I am comparing a $300 parts kit AK to a brand new, $1,000 Arsenal.
I wrote this post so that people in the market for an AK in 2011 would get a first-hand perspective of someone who has owned an Arsenal and a WASR 10/63. Many people will say, "why take the chance with a WASR, when you know what you're getting from Arsenal for a few hundred dollars more?" That is a perfectly legitimate point.
However, I have been very impressed so far with my WASR 10/63. It compares very well with the 2006 Bulgarian Arsenal that I used to own. In some ways, it is better for me. Besides, the Stag M4 clone I was looking at was $860 before tax. I did not want to spend $800 + on a lead launcher. I needed a gun to meet my needs at the lowest possible price, and I found it in the WASR 10/63.
I hope others in the market for an AK will read this post and at least give a newer WASR a look before listening the internet know-it-alls who say "Arsenal is the best and WASRs are crap" etc. And of course, there are other AKs out there besides Arsenals and WASRs. But, in the end, no AK will leave you all hot and bothered. AKs are what they are, and, for me anyway, the WASR 10/63 has been a good representative of this kind of rifle.
Last edited: