Kalashnikov USA going under...

Yendor357 said:

I have never, and will never own an AK, or an SKS.

I refuse to support any entity that produces arms for a communist country.

And yes, they are junk. They make noise. That’s about it.

Click to expand...

I kinda understand your logic, and agree with it to a certain point, but when I am watching videos of Middle Eastern terrorists on the news, almost all of them have M-16’s.
I personally think the US and NATO should have adopted the 7.62X39 round and RPG a long time ago. Both are combat-proven, and the R & D has already been done. We could use captured stocks as well.

David Sinko said:

Many like to berate the AK as cheap junk but it's amazing how nobody in this country can produce a good one....

Click to expand...

I’ve often wondered about this too. I don’t get it, you’re talking about one of the simplest designs out there (which is part of the genius of the design IMHO). FWIW, I don’t like wasting money so my AK’s were made in either Russia or Bulgaria.

David Sinko said:

Many like to berate the AK as cheap junk but it's amazing how nobody in this country can produce a good one. Hammer forged chrome lined barrels and well made parts with proper heat treat are beyond the abilities of domestic manufacturers, at least in regard to doing this at a competitive price.

Click to expand...

This is the crux of the matter. The costs of the AR-15 platform in most intermediate calibers are long since amortized, unlike US engineered parts for the AK. I recall reading of a US built, AK prototype in 6.5 Grendel. It performed very well, but to my knowledge it never made it into production.

David Sinko said:

Many like to berate the AK as cheap junk but it's amazing how nobody in this country can produce a good one. Hammer forged chrome lined barrels and well made parts with proper heat treat are beyond the abilities of domestic manufacturers, at least in regard to doing this at a competitive price.

Click to expand...

Palmetto State Armory had some issues with their AK's when they first started making them, but I hear they have it all sorted out.

Their still in the $800+ range. You can find deals on their AR's a lot of times for just under $400.

ladder13 said:

AR’s are chambered for 7.62x39

Click to expand...

I bought an used Colt R6830 Lightweight 7.62x39 Carbine about a dozen years ago. The previous owner had installed a collapsible stock but I wanted to restore it. I reinstalled the full stock, put an extended firing pin in it, and bought mags for it. The larger the mag, the less reliable it is. It will NEVER be as reliable as my SGL-21, SLR-101s, or SLR-107. Newer 7.62x39 AR’s might be more reliable but this AR will never be more than a range toy.

No offense, but I could bet my life with the reliability of my AK’s. I’ll stick with 5.56x45 or 7.62x51 in my AR’s.

stansdds said:

Exactly. AR's are plentiful and many are less expensive than the AK's produced by Kalashnikov USA. Cheap 5.56 ammo is plentiful, but cheap 7.62x39 is usually imported and the Feds can prohibit importation, making 7.62x39 expensive.

Click to expand...

ARs also cost as much or more than AKs....

What you all miss and what others who are more knowledgeable have already pointed out is that ONLY bottom of the barrel entry level AR15s are inexpensive. When you get into factory, piston driven, and/or cold hammer forged chrome lined AR15s, they are NOT less expensive. Plus, the AKs that were/are available were typically battle tested, go to war, and durable rifles that were manufactured in facilities by companies who have been making them for several decades. Some of these plants have been around for over a century. Next, the $400-$500 AR15 is not equal to and will not out last most of the imported AKs.

Last but not least, imported AKs almost always go up in value, whereas AR15s instantly lose value. I have several AR15s that are worth much less than when I purchased them years ago, but I have several AKs that I purchased for $400-$800 that have double in price in the last few years. I have other AKs that I paid $1100 for in 2017 that are now worth over $3000 and still rising in value. In the grand scheme of things you loose money buying a $400 AR15 and you make a profit with an imported AK.

AK aren't currently as popular be Democrats, the Trump administration, and the ATF made an effort to ban affordable AKs and ammo from Russia and China, ban parts kits, and to make it extremely costly and difficult to import AKs into the country. That said, there are still some good and affordable AK options available on the market that cost about as much or less than factory AR15s, and 7.62x39 ammo is around the same price as .223/5.56.

CAJUNLAWYER said:

Where?
Asking for a friend.

Click to expand...

Asking for a friend? I was unaware that lawyers had friends. LOL! Sorry, could not resist the opportunity.

Echo40 said:

Let's face it, the AK wasn't popular because it was a sophisticated modern design with exceptional precision, it was popular because it was a dirt cheap yet extremely reliable rifle.
People didn't care that it wasn't up-to-date, easily customized, modified, tuned, or outfitted with all the latest gadgets because it was inexpensive, low maintenance, and effective.

Unfortunately, all of the things that the AK had going for it are no longer valid. The AK is no longer cheap and domestically produced AKs lack the same rugged reliability as those produced by the old Soviet Union or even modern Eastern European examples, so all that leaves us with are its downsides/disadvantages over the more modern AR.

Nowadays, there's just no compelling reason for the average person to purchase an AK over an AR, so it has become a hard sell in the current market.

Click to expand...

The imported SKS and the imported AK clones were very popular in the 1990s when you could buy two sardine cans of 7.62x39 ammo in the wooden case for $79. That was $0.06 per round, which would be equivalent to $0.14 per round today. The cheapest I can find today is $0.42 per round, three times as expensive in terms of current buying power.

That dirt cheap ammunition is why Ruger created the Mini 30 in the first place, although they could not compete on price for the rifle itself.

$79 was also the going rate for a never issued SKS. That’s equivalent in buying power to $188 today. AKs were running around $275 for very nice examples, equivalent to $657 today.

So…now you have AKs that even corrected for inflation cost almost twice as much as they should, and 7.62x39 ammunition that costs fully 3 times what it should.

That’s not a recipe for success.

——

The AR-180 way back in the day was designed along stamped receiver AK lines in terms of being able to be produced by lower tech countries and being similarly inexpensive to mass produce. At the time, they were about 2/3rds the cost of a Colt SP1.

Plain old “back in the day” the idea was revived with the AR-180B, which was actually an even better rifle that used un modified AR-15 magazines and had a lot more stock options. But it was a little too soon as it was still competing with the low cost AKs as well as with bottom tier AR-15s that could be had for the same cost at around $400, but had greater modularity.

The only “AK” I currently own is a Galil in .223. It’s heavy by AR-15 standards but very rugged and reliable. And they were never what you’d call inexpensive.

The AK was made by peasants for peasants.

Thom_44 said:

Top of the line AR are getting the piston the AK has had since day one... the cost of the AK has never been a reliable point of good or bad.

Click to expand...

In my honest opinion, Eugene Stoner got the design right to begin with. This is further evidenced by the fact that Eugene Stoner only made his later AR-18 design piston-driven because he couldn't freely use the then patented DI derivative design of the AR-15.

Piston ARs are merely the latest in a futile effort to improve upon a design which has already been perfected.

The soviet production was done regardless of cost. It was literally "you will build this item, or we will put you in front of a wall and shoot you with one made yesterday. And promote good working behavior from your co workers"

Click to expand...

Yep, and just look at how well it worked out for them... The Soviet Union collapsed, Russia became irrelevant, and the only reason why anyone pays any attention to them anymore is because their dying leader instigated attempted to invade a smaller nation just so that he could feel like a bigshot and see his silly name in the papers one more time before he breathes his last.

Unfortunately, not even that went as planned because his army's advance was quickly halted and the war has become a stalemate, thus proving to the world that Russia is no longer a world power, that Communism is a fundamentally flawed, easily manipulated, financially unsustainable system, and that Putin's military prowess lives up to his name by amounting to little more than a fart inside of an elevator.

Y'all can say what you want about the AK.

It's been in service since around 1949, and still is in a lot of countries.

I bet it's been used to kill more people than any rifle made.

Thom_44 said:

piston AR is better design, more reliable, runs better, etc, etc.

Click to expand...

In his desire to make the bolt operating forces coincident with the barrel axis, Stoner created a system vulnerable to dirt and fouling from the wrong powder. I don't even consider his design true, simple, direct impingement. Anybody who has looked at a Ljungman, Hakim, or a MAS49 and its progeny will know why I say this.

Many criticize the long-stroke piston system of the AK saying this operating system causes any weapon to be inherently inaccurate because of the reciprocating mass. Strange that I've never read that the long-stroke Beretta 70/90 suffers from poor accuracy.

It's natural lifecycle stuff. I say this as a proud owner of ARs and AKs.

Go back to the sunset of the AWB. Every firearms enthusiast went out and bought an AR or three. Then, as is human nature, they started to explore outward. HK91 clones, FALs, and yes AKs, the gangster garbage gun of the late 80s/early 90s. Remember circa 2010, the height of the 'Obama is coming for your guns,' when all these outfits cropped up to improve existing AKs and/or assemble them from parts kits, with the promise that they'd be far better than the WASRs and other "basic" models? Heck, remember Red Jacket and all the artificial buzz around their guns?

People paid their money, but word got around that the platform simply wasn't capable of high accuracy (especially with 7.62x39) and efforts to do so were largely wasted. Reliable and with great magazines, sure, but it just doesn't fit well with the whole American civilian rifleman concept of hitting point targets at long ranges vs. the Soviet/Russian military doctrine of fire superiority and pinning down your enemy so you can drop mortar bombs and artillery shells on his noggin (which we do too, we just prefer to use belted MGs).

So it was always going to be second fiddle to the AR/Stoner platform, which shines as an easy to use and ergonomic semi-automatic rifle, but has a long and well-documented history of not being a great sustained full-auto bullet hose like the AK, which will burn its handguards to charcoal long before it fails in this respect. Working on AKs, I always feel they're more akin to a magazine fed light machinegun than a traditional rifle with close tolerances and tight fitting parts to deliver that all-important point accuracy.

The Russian ammo ban is a contributing factor, sure, but if the design was so great, 5.56mm and other chamberings would abound. And, sure, they are out there, but sales and interest will always be limited by those problems above. Even if the price of the rifle was the same, most shooters will choose the more accurate, lighter, and easier to use AR.

Thom_44 said:

piston AR is better design, more reliable, runs better, etc, etc.

If the AR was such a great thing, why did it get so many of our men killed in nam

Click to expand...

The improper use of cheaper, but much dirtier, ball powder ammunition in a rifle specifically designed for stick powder, and the government allowed the omittion of the design specified chrome lined chamber and bore, as well as the lack of issuing cleaning kits; all to cut costs.

Now you know.

Echo40 said:

In my honest opinion, Eugene Stoner got the design right to begin with. This is further evidenced by the fact that Eugene Stoner only made his later AR-18 design piston-driven because he couldn't freely use the then patented DI derivative design of the AR-15.

...

Click to expand...

Art Miller was the lead designer of the AR-18, along with Eugene Stoner, George Sullivan, and Charles Dorchester. The AR-18 was designed for east of production with an eye toward indigenous manufacture under license by less developed countries.

The AR-15/M16 required fairly complex forging processes and machining operations to very close tolerances and wasn’t suitable for production in lower tech nations.

In contrast the AR-18 could be made with light metal stamping equipment and minimal machining to much looser tolerances. It was very similar to the AKM in that regard.

The use of a gas piston rather than Stoner’s gas expansion chamber variant on direct impingement was a much simpler design to produce.

Oldsalt66 said:

The improper use of cheaper, but much dirtier, ball powder ammunition in a rifle specifically designed for stick powder, and the government allowed the omittion of the design specified chrome lined chamber and bore, as well as the lack of issuing cleaning kits; all to cut costs.

Now you know.

Click to expand...

It was a combination of several things. Remington, contracted to develop M193 ammunition, changed the bullet from the longer, higher BC bullet designed jointly by Stoner Sierra bullet to a shorter, lower BC bullet that better stabilized in the early 1:14” twist barrels. (Which the US Army changed to 1:12” twist anyway after Arctic testing.)

However, the lower BC bullet lost velocity faster and created problems with a 500 yard 10 gauge steel penetration requirement. Consequently, it needed to be launched about 150 fps faster, which created problems in terms of suitable powders that could achieve the velocity within the required pressure limit.

Both Olin and the US Ordinance officials wanted to use a cheap and easy to produce colloidal all powder, which could be made much faster and with greater safety as it was a wet process. WC846 was chosen, and eventually one of end of the rather wide burn rate specification for WC846 that worked well in M193 was Re designated WC844. But it still required waivers for a higher maximum average pressure and an increase in the acceptable cyclic rate in the M16 - as well as a reduction in the penetration range requirement.

The colloidal ball powders at the time were often made from recycled surplus naval cannon powders, and a calcium carbonate was used as a stabilizer. However, the amount used was about 8 times more than was required and it’s this excess calcium carbonate that caused fouling in the M16 gas tube.

Colt was also at fault as it’s marketing department was making optimistic claims to appeal to McNamara’s whiz kids in the defense department to secure contracts, claiming among other things that the new M16 didn’t require cleaning. As such, it was initially not issued with a cleaning kit.

A chrome lined chamber and bore wasn’t specifically required, but in South East Asia it did help reduce the potential for corrosion in the bore. The chrome lined chamber also meant that any powder residue stuck to the brass case, rather than the chamber and did help keep the chamber cleaner.

Eventually after some contentious congressional hearings, the problems with the powder got sorted out and the M16A1 was issued with a cleaning kit and the famous comic book user manual.

It was eventually a very reliable rifle when kept clean and well lubricated.

The Russian Govt' gave the specs and in many cases the tooling to build those guns to anyone who wanted to set up a factory and believed in the cause, or had hard cash. On top of that, they don't concentrate on quality. I seem to recall reading the best AKs were the Czech versions, not the Russian ones.

Kind of reminds me of Colt and the 1911 back in the '90s.

FWIW, Czechoslovakia built their own 7.62x39 rifle, the VZ58 (which is different from the AK47/AKM). I’ve never touched one although they have a very good reputation for quality.

I am no fan of Russia but Russian-made AK’s are of good quality, as are the Bulgarian’s. The main reason I never bought a VZ58 is due to its incompatibility with AK magazines.

I would bet that the old Polish Radom factory knew how to build nice AK-47s. Their Mosin carbines were beautifully made and smooth operating.

There’s been a bit of thread drift but good information. Let’s keep the discussion civil…