Does AK reliability really come from "loose tolerances" ?

[The Heretic]

aimpoint vs eotech ?

I have neither.

Burris vs. Leupold?

I have both of those - I prefer Leupold.

Would I prefer milled over stamped?

Yes, but I have not seen where that made any difference with regards to reliability.

I *have* seen certain parts of a stamped receiver wear out due to where a pin/rivet went through the receiver, the pin/rivet getting loose due to rough use, but most of us don't abuse our guns like those in tribal warfare in Africa do.

 

[oli700]

I have neither.

Burris vs. Leupold?

I have both of those - I prefer Leupold.

Would I prefer milled over stamped?

Yes, but I have not seen where that made any difference with regards to reliability.

I *have* seen certain parts of a stamped receiver wear out due to where a pin/rivet went through the receiver, the pin/rivet getting loose due to rough use, but most of us don't abuse our guns like those in tribal warfare in Africa do.

yup, big Leupold fan here on all my huntn rifles

Milled or stamped? I prefer forged/milled......I'm the weirdo that like SKS's better than AK.....Type M

 

[Sam Kinard]

9mm vs 45acp ?

I'll see you at High Noon at 75 paces for that offense.

But yeah, a Glock 17 has a lot of firepower and today's projectiles even the field, but I still carry a 1911. Point is, they both work and if anyone believes that "no one fires one shot", "Kel-Tec's suck" and "9mm won't kill a bunny" should talk to George Zimmerman.

I have had success with milled and stamped AK's. I have never owned a WASR, only fired a few. For my money the MAK-90 is the absolute tops in 7.62x39 AK's that are regularly available to us reg'lar folk.

As far as the 74 goes, my older Bulgarian's on Nodak receivers are the shizz. As far as "newer" 74's, I would take a Saiga over a Waffen most any day.

As usual, YMMV applies here. That's my experience and I have a buddy that wouldn't trade his WASR for a MAK any day of the year.

 

[Gator Monroe]

UNMOLESTED Milled Type 56 "Spiker" FTMFW

 

[IronMonster]

I had to do a Google search to learn what a "FTMFW" was

evidently I dont spend enough of my time on the interwebs.

 

[Sam Kinard]

yup, big Leupold fan here on all my huntn rifles

Milled or stamped? I prefer forged/milled......I'm the weirdo that like SKS's better than AK.....Type M

I believe SKS' to be far superior to AK's in the accuracy department GENERALLY. I prefer the Norinco SKS to the Yugo's that I have personally encountered. The 10-round mag makes reloads easy with stripper clips and simplifies prone shooting. SKS barrels are also generally thicker than AK barrels and I have fired some absolute lights-out SKS'.

Leupold over Burris(though from a price point I would take Redfield over Leupold)
Aimpoint over Eotech, only because they are "tougher", Eotech seems to have better reticles at the expense of lessened battery life

And even though I have had great success with both milled/forged and stamped rifles, I would have to give it to the milled on this one. In my opinion, the Chinese truly did it best. I would love to have a 5.45 Norinco.

 

[IronMonster]

I have a friend who is a member of the Leupold family, I have stayed in the founders cabin at Trillium Lake. Just knowing the history and devotion of the Leupold family makes a good case for them as a company. They are the kind of company that we should encourage in the US.

As an aside Sam Leupold owns Redfield so you are still supporting them even if you choose the low budget variant.

 

[Sam Kinard]

I have a friend who is a member of the Leupold family, I have stayed in the founders cabin at Trillium Lake. Just knowing the history and devotion of the Leupold family makes a good case for them as a company. They are the kind of company that we should encourage in the US.

As an aside Sam Leupold owns Redfield so you are still supporting them even if you choose the low budget variant.

My old company delivered and installed a lot of their office fixtures over the years. The reason I mentioned Redfield is because in many cases the quality is as good as the Leupold, but with a lower price. I am in no way saying that Leupold simply re-brands the same thing and sells it at a higher price, just that when the production facility is the same place, overlapping will happen.

I completely agree and support the stance that Leupold is a product you can get behind. Your assessment of them is spot on in my experience, which is a strictly professional one from the perspective of an end user and someone that did business with them. They expect the same service and product that they produce and sell. Integrity matters and they prove it.

 

[IronMonster]

On the contrary I am sure they are not just re-branded, Redfield existed as a stand alone company up until maybe 6 or 7 years ago when Leupold purchased them. They may have items they manufacture that get used in both lines but I have no doubt that the Leupold products get held to a higher standard.

 

[The Heretic]

Up until I gave it to a friend a few years ago, I had a Redfield Widefield 2x7 I bought about 40 years ago. That scope has been mounted on multiple rifles over the years, been knocked about the woods all that time, and I've never had any problems with it.

I also have a Leupold 3x9 that has been on my fathers elk hunting rifle for even longer, that has been in the woods and knocked about even more, with no problems either.

I also have a Burris 2x7 pistol scope I have used as a Scout Scope for over a decade, and it has seen the woods too, up and down a few mountains. No problems there either.

Most name brand scopes are and have been fairly good quality for decades.

My son-in-law worked at Leupold for a couple of years on their production line and from what he has said, yes, both brands are good. I am sure that you could see the Leupold branded scopes have some nicer features, but it all depends on what you want and how much you are willing to pay (I sure wish Leupold or Burris would make a pistol scope that starts at 1X and goes up to about 4X).

I would think Redfield probably has had their quality improved since being taken into Leupold. Leupold doesn't hide the fact that they now make Redfield, so I am sure they don't want the market to get the impression that Redfield quality is crap.

 

[oli700]

I'll see you at High Noon at 75 paces for that offense.

But yeah, a Glock 17 has a lot of firepower and today's projectiles even the field, but I still carry a 1911. Point is, they both work and if anyone believes that "no one fires one shot", "Kel-Tec's suck" and "9mm won't kill a bunny" should talk to George Zimmerman.

Lol, yeah I never have a dog in that fight really my go to battle pistol is a CZ and my conceal carry is a 10mm Auto

 

[raftman]

Without the original machining/stamping/clearance specifications from Kalashnikov, we have no way to know whether it is a matter of loose "tolerances" or loose "clearances."

Without the original specs, we can't say for sure how loose the tolerances were intended/allowed to be, but my point was that this isn't even very relevant.

But the fact that manufacturing one starts with a stamping, as opposed to the machining of a billet, or a forging should be the first clue.
Stampings will never be as precise as a finish-machined billet. That's just not possible.

The AK-47 was originally designed and made with a milled receiver, the now-more-common stamped incarnation was not introduced until a while later. The basic design was simply such that it lent itself relatively well to stamping, which made it cheaper, faster, easier to produce without compromising reliability. Again more to do with the clearances than tolerances.

Ever see soviet era buildings like apartment-multi-family housing?

You bet I have, in fact I've lived in such buildings for many years! This is kind of a faulty comparison as there was clear distinction between military equipment and anything intended for civilian use. Soviet apartment housing, cars, appliances mostly all sucked because there was no free market/competition. Why bother making cars or appliances as good as American ones when no one had the option of buying American anyways? However since the Soviets did want a military advantage over foreign rivals, military equipment did have to compete with foreign analogs. Two separate sets of standards.

So, were AK clearances "loose" by design and specification, yet required a high degree of precision in the machining/stamping/fitting processes?
I doubt it.

Yeah... No one said that.

Loose tolerances were the order of the day. But the genius of the design, is that it's still a functional and lethal weapon when manufactured under those conditions, by those workers, using those tolerances.

That's kind of the point... Loose tolerances or not the design's clearances are what allow for function. This is becomes obviously true when you look at the fact that one could build an AK with relative precision (as was the case the Valmet or Galil) and still end up with something as reliable as a sloppy WASR-10. At the same time you can take another design and build it to very loose tolerances and not end up with something reliable as seen with something like Tec-9.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I think there's a mix up in your understanding of what clearances vs tolerances means.
If two parts are engineered to fit together with .007" clearance there will also be a tolerance figure given, say .004".
So it will be written on the spec sheet as a .007" gap, +/- .002". In practice, the QC sheet will say the gap (clearance) must be between .005" and .009". All three ways of expressing it say the same thing.

An example of tight tolerances is the "blueprinted" version of something. Take an engine for example. The main bearing clearances may be specified as .002". And when you blueprint that engine it will be. But the factory tolerances probably called for a clearance specification of .001"-.003."
Such is the nature of mass production.
Now, I can take that same engine to a race engine builder that will free up a few HP by opening up the clearances, but maintain the tight tolerances of a blueprinted engine.
So he wants .003" clearance on the main bearings, and all will be exactly that, with zero (0) tolerance. No +/- figure given, and none expected.

But that doesn't mean the factory built engine is junk. It's very serviceable for what it is. But holding the machinists and assemblers to that level of precision would drive the cost of that engine (and therefore the car) through the roof, along with the time it takes to produce it.
When you want to mass produce something, there is no way to spec tight tolerances on the cheap, That's the reality of mass production. And when one is talking about sliding parts that must function in broad or extreme temperature swings, with minimal maintenance, trying to maintain tight clearances will almost always result in failure.
The looser the design clearances, the looser the tolerances required.
Loose tolerances don't work with tight clearances. But the inverse situation will still allow functionality.

So, as I make this comparison/analogy, it strikes me that the AK may be the small-block Chevy of the rifle world!

 

[The Heretic]

Agreed, it is similar to the difference between accuracy and precision; accuracy being able to hit where you aim, precision being the size of the group, even if it isn't hitting where you aim.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Agreed, it is similar to the difference between accuracy and precision; accuracy being able to hit where you aim, precision being the size of the group, even if it isn't hitting where you aim.

Precisely.

Oh wait!

 

[Sam Kinard]

On the contrary I am sure they are not just re-branded, Redfield existed as a stand alone company up until maybe 6 or 7 years ago when Leupold purchased them. They may have items they manufacture that get used in both lines but I have no doubt that the Leupold products get held to a higher standard.

I am also quite sure that they are not re-branded. I was only saying that Leupold purchasing Redfield made Redfield the absolute best scope for the money in the world. "overlapping" was the term I used to describe the items manufactured that are used in both lines. Leupold is an absolute top-notch manufacturer and their acquisition of Redfield only made Redfield better.

If somehow my comment came across as derogatory, it was meant to be the exact opposite. Redfield's quality and reputation had gone down by the time they closed up in the late '90's(I think they closed, anyway.) and it was instantly restored once the first one rolled off the line in Beaverton.

A Leupold VX-2 2-7x33 is all the hunting scope I'll ever need, but the VX-6 2-12x42 makes my mouth water. The Redfield Revolution 2-7x33 is in my opinion the greatest scope out there for less than $250.

 

[Sam Kinard]

There is a big difference between "loose" and "sloppy". A tuned, tight 1911 may win competitions, but one built a little more "loosely" will most likely feed more ammo types and in theory should be less likely to malfunction due to being dirty.

It seems to be another example of not being able to have it both ways. Theoretically, you can have "tight" precision or "loose" reliability.

 

[IronMonster]

I would really like to give an example of "Loose and Reliable" but since this is a family forum I'll hold my tongue

 

[Sam Kinard]

I think an example of "tight precision" could be just as offensive.

 

[mancat]

The AK was NOT originally designed with a milled receiver. The Type-1 AK and the AK-46 prototypes both used stamped receivers. There were QC/production problems with the first stamped design, and the engineers quickly substituted a milled receiver which could be easily produced on a similar tooling and process to the SKS.

The milled receiver variants do actually have reliability issues. Cracking of the locking lugs and ejector wear were common, I believe most of these failures were due to an improper heat treat process, as countries that still produce the milled receiver seem to have resolved those issues, but they have been reported by some who have experience with the Type 2/3 receivers.

As for tolerances/clearances of milled vs. stamped, they are actually the same in all critical areas. A "milspec" AKM receiver has:

- "stepped" upper rails and ejector, where the stamping is slightly stepped to increase the total surface thickness to accommodate rail surfaces in the bolt and carrier
- dimpled axis pin holes which have the approximate wall thickness of a milled receiver
- lower receiver rail and mag well dimples mimic the wall thickness of a milled receiver in the magazine well area.

These attributes make the stamped and milled receivers identical in critical areas. As a result both receiver types can share the same bolt and carrier, axis pins, trigger group, receiver cover, etc.

Additionally the AK does have strict tolerances where one should expect - headspacing, disconnector adjustment, selector stop/mag latch assy, etc. These are adjusted by hand on an individual basis from the factory and even a small deviation from acceptable tolerances will get you non functioning rifle or a kaboom in the face.

I would go on but I hate typing all this on a phone