cd228
Member
Having been shot at with both, I'm glad we didn't. I'll take the M4 and Goose any day.
Now the PKM, chamber that in 7.62mm NATO and add some 1913 rails and you've got something.
Kalashnikov USA going under...
- Thread starter Hawg Rider
- Start date
Now the PKM, chamber that in 7.62mm NATO and add some 1913 rails and you've got something.
AJ
US Veteran
Back to the original question..........Are they? Or aren't they?
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 27,660
- Reaction score
- 21,285
No notice posted on the company website except not accepting online orders and nothing on an Internet search. So who knows?
AJ
US Veteran
Not a fan of the AK or SKS (have been on the wrong end of them many years ago). Don't want to see any legitimate gun related business go out of business though.........
cd228
Member
I'm betting that the sanctions might have impacted KUSA's ability to get parts at affordable prices.
Interestingly enough the Poles gave the Iraqis a bunch of their 5.56 AKs. I found a batch of them in an Iraqi arms room in 07-08. They where good looking rifles.
Interestingly enough the Poles gave the Iraqis a bunch of their 5.56 AKs. I found a batch of them in an Iraqi arms room in 07-08. They where good looking rifles.
Oldsalt66
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 747
- Reaction score
- 1,225
Poor quality control as of late, poor customer service, and the exhorbitant cost of 7.62x39 ammunition due to sanctions are what did the company in.
Most true AK aficionados prefer rifles imported from traditional factories in Eastern Europe, and those casual buyers who don't care are buying PSA for cheap.
That leaves PSA, Riley Defense, and a few boutique builders to satisfy demand for domestic built AKs.
It's unfortunate because KUSA produced some good rifle and shotgun offerings.
Most true AK aficionados prefer rifles imported from traditional factories in Eastern Europe, and those casual buyers who don't care are buying PSA for cheap.
That leaves PSA, Riley Defense, and a few boutique builders to satisfy demand for domestic built AKs.
It's unfortunate because KUSA produced some good rifle and shotgun offerings.
Last edited:
What are we seeing in the PSA AK platform that is problematic, or sub-standard?
Just want to know as i was looking and they seem to work as good as any?
How about those "cheap" Norinco MAC=90's?
Last edited:
PSA AK's are good to go now. They had a few problems in the start.
There are no cheap Norinco's these days. Even the Mak 90's with their shaved bayonet lug, and un threaded barrels are bringing a premium price.
MJFlores
Member
The AK rifle has fought more communist dictatorships than any AR/ M4/16/ M14. Poland is a prime example of excellent quality AK rifles, and how they were used to rid Poland of communist socialism. Put away the movies and read actual history.
BB57 referred to a problem with the powder used in the 5.56 mm cartridge. There were at least two parts to that issue. One was that Remington won the design for the cartridge itself and produced the initial ammunition stocks for the Light Rifle competition. At the time, Remington had an incestuous relationship with Dupont and I expect all the initial ammo production used some version of an IMR stick type powder. Typically, suitable powders in this calibre burn very cleanly. If that was all you'd been shooting, minimal cleaning is about right-but not if you're betting your life on it. Logistics and not using the usual procurement system & troop trials also contributed to the lack of cleaning gear and proper emphasis on cleaning.
Moving on, McNamara decides that the 5.56 is going to be our new service cartridge and the ammunition production transfers to ammo plants owned by the government and run under contract by someone else. Someone else decides to use ball powder, and, as noted it doesn't burn as cleanly.
Plus, there was another fly in the ointment. A flash suppressant was added to the powder to reduce muzzle flash. Somewhere I've got the results of Congressional hearings with the details on what happened. Short version is that while X amount was sufficient to reduce flash, about 2X amount was added to the powder. This caused malfunctions all by itself.
Moving on, McNamara decides that the 5.56 is going to be our new service cartridge and the ammunition production transfers to ammo plants owned by the government and run under contract by someone else. Someone else decides to use ball powder, and, as noted it doesn't burn as cleanly.
Plus, there was another fly in the ointment. A flash suppressant was added to the powder to reduce muzzle flash. Somewhere I've got the results of Congressional hearings with the details on what happened. Short version is that while X amount was sufficient to reduce flash, about 2X amount was added to the powder. This caused malfunctions all by itself.
Last edited:
