AK recievers, forged?

[StraightOuttaAmmo]

So I know the typical low end AKs have a stamped receiver, and are of lower quality than the higher end, expensive AKs with milled receivers. It can be more costly to mill out the metal, so they fetch a prettier penny. And the stamping of the metal doesn't cost much at all, but can cause problems with the seating of the magazine. So why aren't there any (as far as I am aware of) forged recievers? If someone were to make it forged, it wouldn't cost as much as milling, and should eliminate the mag wobble just as the milled. It would be kinda like AR receivers, there are the forged that do the job just fine and don't cost your wallet. And then there are the milled that weigh a little less, look nicer, and may function a little bit better than forged. But they cost (in some cases) 4x the price of forged. (When I compare the prices I am talking about the stripped recievers, not the whole gun.) So back to the question, Why doesn't someone make a forged AK reciever? And if someone does, please correct me and send a link of where at

[Gunplummer]

The difference is: One is steel and one is aluminum. It would cost a fortune for something that was designed to spray a lot of ammo in a "Close enough" pattern. Who would bother to pay the end cost?

[drobs]

When it comes to AK's, a stamped receiver doesn't = lesser quality, reliability, or accuracy compared to a milled receiver.

They pretty much all shoot the same.

[TXAZ]

And, the stamped AK's are battlefield proven, as "accurate enough".

[DPris]

I'm not understanding where you're at.
Forged ARE milled.
You don't forge to final dimensions, forgings require at least some degree of milling/machining.

And a stamped receiver is not an automatic designator of "lower quality" at all.
Denis

[StraightOuttaAmmo]

From what I have heard from my AK shooting friends, you want a milled reciever because they are more sturdy and have less mag wobble. And I have heard a lot of people say milled is higher quality, so that does mean that stamped is lower quality. The main reason for milled is to reduce mag wobble. And many people don't just want "accurate enough". Have you never seen an arsenal AK before?

[carguychris]

^^^^ Although I can't speak for DPris, my understanding of the "automatic designator" statement is merely that a well-built stamped-receiver AK can be better than a badly-built milled-receiver AK.

The gun world is overflowing with spurious and facile "it has [feature X] so it's obviously better/worse" statements. This issue is an example. (Perhaps the most commonplace example is MIM, but I digress. )

[StraightOuttaAmmo]

I am not sure why you are saying that if a gun has a certain feature it is bad. I don't see how it can be bad for more guns out there to have different features.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by StraightOuttaAmmo

I am not sure why you are saying that if a gun has a certain feature it is bad.

I'm not saying that.

I'm writing hypothetically about the tendency of many in the gun community to assert that a certain feature, material, or construction method automatically makes a certain gun model overwhelmingly superior to another model that lacks it.

Such generalizations are often incorrect even if they have some factual basis. The specifics matter.

[ronl]

If there were real problems with stamped receivers, the Russians wouldn't be still using them. I've owned many AK's over the years, including a milled Arsenal, but they all shot just about the same, and the only thing I can say about the milled receivers; they're heavier. You'd probably have to go through 2 or 3 barrels, maybe more to wear out an AK stamped receiver. That's a whole lot more rounds than I plan to ever shoot out of one of my AK's.

[peggysue]

Machined AK receivers make them heavier.

[dogtown tom]

StraightOuttaAmmo From what I have heard from my AK shooting friends, you want a milled reciever because they are more sturdy and have less mag wobble....

Stop listening to those "friends".

[Indawind]

^^^
Yep

I have no dog in this fight, I don't own an AK but there is a point here. The AK is probably the most prolific firearm on the planet. It was designed and built to fire, period. It does that very well in all kinds of conditions that FAR exceed anything the gravel pit crowd can "torture test" it with.

So the question begs to be asked. Does all the FULL AUTO fire the AK puts down around the world, In all the $h.t holes they fight in, seem to be affected by a bit of "mag wobble"? I can't say for sure but I would bet a mag full of non Tula 39 that it means nothing. Maybe it does to the guy with nothing better to do than prop himself up and talk how great his $300 AK is, but the guy in sandles, living by the AK I would doubt has an issue with it.

/shrug Gotta get my Sigs ready for the range.

EDIT
Per Wiki

As of 2004..."Of the estimated 500 million firearms worldwide, approximately 100 million belong to the Kalashnikov family, three-quarters of which are AK-47s"

[DPris]

Straight,
No offense, but you show a notable lack of knowledge about AKs.

Early military AKs were milled, largely because that's what the technology of the times used & was familiar with.
Later on, the Soviets found that stamped receivers were faster, easier to produce, lighter to carry, functioned every bit as well on the whole in a military context, and were cheaper to produce.

You'll see literally millions of stamped military AK receivers around the globe for every single milled receiver in the military forces of nations who adopted the AK.

Milled receivers add weight, add complexity in the production process, and add expense, all to gain very little.
The garden variety AK is not a precision shooting machine.
It was never intended to be.

You see people today griping about how expensive AKs have gotten, milled receivers would drive prices higher & you'd see more griping.
While 99% of the AK market still bought up all the good stamped AKs they could find.

Stamped is in no relevant way less durable than milled.
It's the guts & barrel that wear out, not the receiver.
You won't shoot either version enough to notice any appreciable difference between the two.

You didn't understand that forged & milled are the same thing.
A forging can, depending on design, process, and size, take a part anywhere from 20% finished to 60% finished broadly speaking, and the rest involves machining (milling) to final form & dimensions.

No AK receiver EVER came out of forging dies completely finished & ready to go into a gun.

"Mag wobble", as your friends put it, has nothing to do with anything, when it comes to deciding between milled or stamped AK receivers, or in determining quality BETWEEN MILLED & STAMPED.

A well-cut stamped receiver can (and does) have its mag well slot dimensioned to hold a mag as tightly as it needs to be held.
I have a stamped Armory AK with a mag just as tight as any of my ARs.
Have a locally-built Polish AK on an Elk receiver, same.

Even if they had a slight amount of mag wobble, they'd still function & the only problem would be in your head in not dealing well with it.

Your friends don't know what they're talking about.

If you come here asking a question, be prepared to live with answers you don't want to hear.

Stamped or milled has nothing to do with quality.
You don't see more milled because of the reasons given.

Mag wobble is only an issue in certain stamped AKs imported in single-stack form & later converted to double-stack mag compatibility by grinding out the mag well to accommodate a "standard" mag.
In some cases, those were overly done (as in excessively ground too far & too big), allowing a looser mag fit.
Mags still lock & load & function, they just wiggle a bit.

When you talk "quality" & "mag wiggle", it's more a function of quality within two levels of stamped, not stamped & milled.

Stamped receivers created for double stack military mags from the git-go are usually a good mag fit.
Conversions may or may not be.

And finally, I'll use your own words.
When it comes to receivers, "I'm not sure why you are saying that if a gun has a certain feature [milled receiver] it is good [or automatically better]."
Denis

[Aguila Blanca]

DPris has explained it very well. A forged receiver is nowhere near ready to use as a finished part.

For example, this is a photo taken in the Colt factory in West Hartford, CT, of the raw forging that will become the receiver of a Colt 1911:



Investment castings come closer to being a finished product, but they still require machining.

[TXAZ]

I've had both milled and stamped Norinco AK's. Both are solid weapons, both shoot very well and other than a slight difference in weight, both are deadly accurate out to a few hundred yards for more rounds than anyone here is likely to fire through a single weapon. Either could be the most reliable weapon every produced in large volume.

[kozak6]

Stamped AK receivers aren't necessarily inferior, but that's a whole other thread. Stamped receivers are a whole pound lighter, any durability difference is mostly theoretical, the cost savings are very real, and any accuracy difference isn't that much. Some stamped AK's are also very accurate.

There's not that much difference between milled and forged AK receivers. The big thing is that forging knocks the receiver into the rough outline of the product, and that it aligns the metal grains for a stronger product or some metallurgical thing I don't care enough to google.

It still needs lots of milling and machining to get to a finished product.

Forging equipment is expensive, and especially compared to CNC machines that you or your contractors already have.

Oh yeah, DDI makes a forged AK receiver.

Here's one:
http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/comp....html?Itemid=0

[DPris]

And look at the price- $400 for the receiver alone.
Not too long ago we used to get an entire stamped gun for that money.
Denis

[benEzra]

I suspect that one reason milled AK's have a reputation for better accuracy is that milled AK's are pretty much always higher-end AK's, and therefore tend to come with higher-end barrels. It is the barrel that makes the difference, IMO. Likewise, magazine wobble in a stamped receiver is a function of how carefully the magazine well is constructed, so I would expect that a high end stamped AK shouldn't have wobbly magazines. With lower-end stamped AK's, it can be hit or miss, especially with some of the earlier Century imports, but I had a 2003 SAR-1 (inexpensive Romanian 7.62x39mm AK) imported by Century and magazines locked up tight in that one.

Milled receivers will have a nicer fit and finish, though, because the stamping process does not produce the crisp lines that a milled one does. So it comes down to personal preference, and how you prioritize the aesthetics of a milled receiver vs. the lighter weight of a stamped one.

For myself, if I were going to buy another AK and price were no object, it would be a 1mm stamped receiver, because to me the lighter weight makes the gun a lot more pleasant to carry and shoot. The milled receivers are great guns too, though. Some of the nicest AK's on the market have stamped receivers, like the excellent Russian AK's made by Izhmash and imported by K-Var, or some of the high-end Bulgarians (which are also available milled).

[T. O'Heir]

Forged receivers cost more to make. The AK was designed to be manufactured as cheaply and quickly as possibly. There is no demand for an expensive forged AK receiver.
No such thing as a "high end" AK. Geezuz.

[Gunplummer]

You want a junk AK, buy Chinese. The receivers WILL wear out. The blocks were not even heat treated and the bolts start to mushroom the block. You want accuracy, buy an AR style rifle, but the receivers do wear out too.

[DPris]

That'd illustrate the difference between a low-quality STAMPED AK vs a better-quality STAMPED AK more than the difference between stamped vs milled as a rule.

You're talking more about overall quality than specifically receivers, and even there the Chinese have put out some very good stamped AKs over the years.
Denis

[benEzra]

No such thing as a "high end" AK. Geezuz.

The Russian Izmash AK's are very nice guns, and are available in 5.56mm if that's what floats your boat. And on the spectrum of inexpensive Romanian parts kit guns to $1500+ craftsman-fitted, creased-and-squared-away build quality, they do define the high end.

Even the lower end AK's are reliable, functional guns, though. Before I got into the AR world, I owned a 188-series stainless Ruger Ranch Rifle and a low-end Romanian AK, and the AK was by far the better gun in every way except fit and finish.

[Gunplummer]

I had a Valmet in the late 60's and it was pretty nice, but I can't say I saw any difference in function between that and a Russian or Yugo. They are what they are.

[drobs]

Started with a Romanian SAR-1 and followed that with a milled Bulgarian SLR95MB. Both rifles were equally accurate.

Only difference was the milled receiver was heavier than the stamped SAR-1.
IIRC I sold the Bulgarian to a fellow at Gunplumber's old hangout - FAL Files.