Stamped vs Milled AK-47

Dangerwing · January 3, 2009, 04:00 AM

With the posibility of dramatic anti-"assault" weapon bans in the near future, Im looking to buy an AK. I have a few questions.

It seems that the country of orrigin must be important since it is always mentioned. "Bulgarian AK for sale", "Yougoslavian AK parts" etc etc. Are there good countries or bad?

I also understand that there are two different production methods - stamping and milling. What's the difference? (And please don't tell me that one is stamped and one is milled) Does one production method have benefits the other doesn't have?

Thanks

HorseSoldier · January 3, 2009, 05:03 AM

On country of origin, you have a couple issues. First, in some cases parts are not 100% compatible between different nationalities, mostly having to do with furniture. Second, there is a pecking order with quality, though exactly where everything fits in is something people debate heavily (as a search on here will indicate). (And national origin pecking order can be further complicated here in the US by the question of what company here assembled the AK from kit form or did the 922r compliance parts, etc.)

On milling versus stamping -- the original design specs for the AK called for a stamped receiver, but Soviet manufacturing in that era could not manage quality control, and so the earliest production AKs used milled receivers. Once the Soviets figured out how to do stamped receivers, they switched over and used stamped ever since. Most AKs made elsewhere also used stamped, though there are some exceptions, notably including the Finnish AK clones and the Israeli Galil (which are considered by many to be the highest quality versions of the AK as far as actual service rifles goes).

Whether or not milling makes for any actual appreciable difference in accuracy, I personally don't think it does based on putting pretty good rounds counts through military issue Galils, 5.56mm Bulgarian ARM-1s (both milled), and East German AK-74 clones with stamped receivers. All are combat accurate, none are benchrest guns. Some people disagree and have other opinions on the issue, based on their own experiences.

What the milled receiver definitely does is make a weapon heavier and, here in the US, means your price tag for the rifle is going to be bumped up by a pretty big margin.

chris in va · January 3, 2009, 02:01 PM

My friend has milled and stamped Arsenals. The milled feels more solid but is considerably heavier. Costs a lot more too.

Many parts for the AK are meant for the stamped models. Keep that in mind.

On a side note my Saiga conversion feels just as solid as his Arsenal for half the price.

BTW HorseSoldier, had to look up those coordinates. Anchorage!

lee n. field · January 3, 2009, 05:26 PM

Quote:

stamping and milling. What's the difference?

Stamped --> sheet metal bent into a U and heat treated, with various bits riveted into place. The majority of AKs are stamped, and work just fine.

January 3, 2009, 04:00 AM	#1
Dangerwing Senior Member Join Date: April 9, 2007 Location: South Dakota Posts: 237	Stamped vs Milled AK-47 With the posibility of dramatic anti-"assault" weapon bans in the near future, Im looking to buy an AK. I have a few questions. It seems that the country of orrigin must be important since it is always mentioned. "Bulgarian AK for sale", "Yougoslavian AK parts" etc etc. Are there good countries or bad? I also understand that there are two different production methods - stamping and milling. What's the difference? (And please don't tell me that one is stamped and one is milled) Does one production method have benefits the other doesn't have? Thanks __________________ Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be an aisle at Wal-Mart, not a government agency! Only faithful men teach their wives to shoot.

January 3, 2009, 05:03 AM	#2
HorseSoldier Senior Member Join Date: February 27, 2006 Location: OCONUS 61°13′06″N 149°53′57″W Posts: 2,282	On country of origin, you have a couple issues. First, in some cases parts are not 100% compatible between different nationalities, mostly having to do with furniture. Second, there is a pecking order with quality, though exactly where everything fits in is something people debate heavily (as a search on here will indicate). (And national origin pecking order can be further complicated here in the US by the question of what company here assembled the AK from kit form or did the 922r compliance parts, etc.) On milling versus stamping -- the original design specs for the AK called for a stamped receiver, but Soviet manufacturing in that era could not manage quality control, and so the earliest production AKs used milled receivers. Once the Soviets figured out how to do stamped receivers, they switched over and used stamped ever since. Most AKs made elsewhere also used stamped, though there are some exceptions, notably including the Finnish AK clones and the Israeli Galil (which are considered by many to be the highest quality versions of the AK as far as actual service rifles goes). Whether or not milling makes for any actual appreciable difference in accuracy, I personally don't think it does based on putting pretty good rounds counts through military issue Galils, 5.56mm Bulgarian ARM-1s (both milled), and East German AK-74 clones with stamped receivers. All are combat accurate, none are benchrest guns. Some people disagree and have other opinions on the issue, based on their own experiences. What the milled receiver definitely does is make a weapon heavier and, here in the US, means your price tag for the rifle is going to be bumped up by a pretty big margin.

January 3, 2009, 02:01 PM	#3
chris in va Senior Member Join Date: December 26, 2004 Location: Louisville KY Posts: 13,806	My friend has milled and stamped Arsenals. The milled feels more solid but is considerably heavier. Costs a lot more too. Many parts for the AK are meant for the stamped models. Keep that in mind. On a side note my Saiga conversion feels just as solid as his Arsenal for half the price. BTW HorseSoldier, had to look up those coordinates. Anchorage!