Milled vs. Stamped Receiver durability - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 60
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: Milled vs. Stamped Receiver durability

  1. #16
    Senior Member

    Member #
    27577
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    NorCal the red part
    Posts
    2,033
    Liked
    5432 times
    There’s variables even in this topic.
    The first AK47 may of been stamped but they are just as thick as milled T2s and T3s.
    Chinese and Yugoslavian stamped are also as thick as milled .... yeah yeah yeah I know super anal experts , they aren’t exactly the same thickness but you know they’re close so don’t start.

    The AKM was designed to be lighter and they probably didn’t care if it lasted as long as milled

    As far as we’re concerned in semiautomatic land it all matters not for durability and as far as consistent groups? .... go get a bolt gun and stop saying “accuracy”

  2. #17
    Senior Member

    Member #
    14100
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    428
    Liked
    49 times
    So I guess with the general consensus here being that the milled is the more durable version then, can someone wager a guess at what the statement of "milled receivers being more prone to metal fatigue under heavy usage" could be about. I don't know exactly what to make of that, but I've run into it a few times while reading up on this, and like you guys say, milled makes more sense to be the more durable type, yet at the same time "being more prone to metal fatigue" seems to fly in the face of that thought.

    Btw. interesting to know that the original Type 1 stamped receiver was as thick as the Yugo/Chinese ones. I thought with there being issues manufacturing the type 1 receivers, that the problem was more because I anticipated them to have started out with the same thickness of receiver as the later AKM's. Also, I'm a little surprised that the walls of the 1.5mm receivers are of the same thickness as the milled ones. I've only handled a few milled ones, but for some reason I thought they were still somewhat thicker, though it's not like it's exactly easy just to eyeball them in comparison to a stamped receiver.
    Last edited by Haris122; 01-07-2020 at 01:13 AM.

  3. #18
    Senior Member

    Member #
    61625
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    486
    Liked
    612 times
    The Chinese ones were 1.6mm thick. Mo' betta.
    scottyb and 43m1garand like this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    TheAKForum.net
    Advertisements
     

  5. #19
    Senior Member

    Member #
    27577
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    NorCal the red part
    Posts
    2,033
    Liked
    5432 times
    Because Iv never seen a for sure factual historical statement, it’s my opinion there was nothing really wrong with the T1 except for it took longer to make and constancy of quality from unit to unit probably varied to much because of all the hand work.
    So in midstream the T2 was stared and built at the same time as the T1 ... sharing most of the same parts in the beginning.
    A T1 has 11 countersunk rivets that were metal finished flush .... the other 4 in the magwell are finished flush on the inside.

    Once I started building milled and a T1 I noticed something I don’t think most people realize.
    If you look at a AKM receiver you realize it’s designed to except all the parts of it’s thicker forefathers.
    The stepped top rails - X & Y stamps are all there to thicken the 1.0 shell to work with the old parts dimensions.
    None of that is done on 1.5 stamped shells you might also notice.
    And they abandoned the flush rivets most certainly to speed production.

    All that being said, anything made in one piece is going to be superior to something made in three pieces and riveted together in my mind.

  6. #20
    Senior Member

    Member #
    14100
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    428
    Liked
    49 times
    The ground flush rivets on the T1 is another thing I never understood.I know I'm not well versed in all the in's and out's of riveting, but despite the rivet expanding inside the channel it's put in and holding things in place that way, it would seem to me like grinding the rivet heads down, then in turn just weakens the whole thing again, by not having something wider on both ends of the rivet, keeping this together as well.

  7. #21
    Senior Member

    Member #
    4781
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,898
    Liked
    3188 times
    Milled would be preferable....if you need to use your AK as a club.

  8. #22
    Super Moderator
    Supporting Member

    Member #
    21201
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    13,399
    Liked
    8722 times
    I think people are forgetting (or aren’t aware) of the main advantage of the milled rifles. Not the one piece receiver, but the thicker barrel. I can see that being more of a accuracy standpoint than a milled receiver as people claim. Also more sustainable to automatic fire. The stamped Yugos and chinese also have the thick barrels along with some Bulgarian rifles. I see the thicker barrel being more of a advantage than a milled receiver.

    I can see the milled receiver being more structurally stronger than a stamped but the difference is so minute that its not like there is a better winner between the two IMO. Having many of both, my milled gets shot about 5% of the time and are mainly for historical purposes.
    Mr Nobody likes this.

  9. #23
    Senior Member

    Member #
    14100
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    428
    Liked
    49 times
    Quote Originally Posted by 22many View Post
    I think people are forgetting (or aren’t aware) of the main advantage of the milled rifles. Not the one piece receiver, but the thicker barrel. I can see that being more of a accuracy standpoint than a milled receiver as people claim. Also more sustainable to automatic fire. The stamped Yugos and chinese also have the thick barrels along with some Bulgarian rifles. I see the thicker barrel being more of a advantage than a milled receiver.

    I can see the milled receiver being more structurally stronger than a stamped but the difference is so minute that its not like there is a better winner between the two IMO. Having many of both, my milled gets shot about 5% of the time and are mainly for historical purposes.
    You know I never really knew if there was a real dimensional difference in yugo barrels compared to those of other akm’s, but I distinctly remember several relatives and family friends mentioning to me how the yugo ak’s seemed to handle frequent firing, especially in auto, better than the other types. Maybe they didn’t come across many other specimens that also had the thicker barrels, so maybe that greater barrel thickness made enough difference for that to be an actually valid observation and not just a myth.

  10. #24
    Technical Advisor

    Member #
    2371
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    14,917
    Liked
    3531 times
    Here is a good video on the history and chronology of the AK47 production. Details on the type 1 etc.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFagaHLuekQ
    Mr Nobody likes this.

  11. #25
    Super Moderator
    Supporting Member

    Member #
    21201
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    13,399
    Liked
    8722 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Haris122 View Post
    You know I never really knew if there was a real dimensional difference in yugo barrels compared to those of other akm’s, but I distinctly remember several relatives and family friends mentioning to me how the yugo ak’s seemed to handle frequent firing, especially in auto, better than the other types. Maybe they didn’t come across many other specimens that also had the thicker barrels, so maybe that greater barrel thickness made enough difference for that to be an actually valid observation and not just a myth.
    The thicker barrels do make a difference. Look at the RPK. A squad weapon designed for heavy rapid fire with nice thick barrels and in some cases, cooling fins. Shooting 15 rounds through a AKM and the same through a milled profile barrel, the heat differance is noticeable.

    The AK (or any other light weapon) was never designed for constant automatic fire so the thinner AKM barrels are fine for their intended use. Ad the fact that we use our weapons with more precision and semiauto fire it makes the heavy profile barrel nothing but more weight...which is minimal also.

    As far as accuracy between the two, Ive never did a comparison between the two to tell.

  12. #26
    Senior Member

    Member #
    27577
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    NorCal the red part
    Posts
    2,033
    Liked
    5432 times
    Quote Originally Posted by AKBLUE View Post
    Here is a good video on the history and chronology of the AK47 production. Details on the type 1 etc.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFagaHLuekQ
    Iv seen that before
    He needs to revisit the T1 topic - research and make a new video.

  13. #27
    Supporting Member
    Supporting Member

    Member #
    52154
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,982
    Liked
    1328 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Haris122 View Post
    So I guess with the general consensus here being that the milled is the more durable version then, can someone wager a guess at what the statement of "milled receivers being more prone to metal fatigue under heavy usage" could be about. I don't know exactly what to make of that, but I've run into it a few times while reading up on this, and like you guys say, milled makes more sense to be the more durable type, yet at the same time "being more prone to metal fatigue" seems to fly in the face of that thought.

    Btw. interesting to know that the original Type 1 stamped receiver was as thick as the Yugo/Chinese ones. I thought with there being issues manufacturing the type 1 receivers, that the problem was more because I anticipated them to have started out with the same thickness of receiver as the later AKM's. Also, I'm a little surprised that the walls of the 1.5mm receivers are of the same thickness as the milled ones. I've only handled a few milled ones, but for some reason I thought they were still somewhat thicker, though it's not like it's exactly easy just to eyeball them in comparison to a stamped receiver.
    in regard to the thicker versions of the stamped receivers (Chinese and Yugo), I have found that the metal isn't near as hard as the stamped receivers used in other countries. Just an observation and my personal opinion. Not looking to start a debate or an argument.

  14. #28
    Senior Member

    Member #
    61625
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    486
    Liked
    612 times
    Quote Originally Posted by 22many View Post
    The thicker barrels do make a difference. Look at the RPK. A squad weapon designed for heavy rapid fire with nice thick barrels and in some cases, cooling fins. Shooting 15 rounds through a AKM and the same through a milled profile barrel, the heat differance is noticeable.

    The AK (or any other light weapon) was never designed for constant automatic fire so the thinner AKM barrels are fine for their intended use. Ad the fact that we use our weapons with more precision and semiauto fire it makes the heavy profile barrel nothing but more weight...which is minimal also.

    As far as accuracy between the two, Ive never did a comparison between the two to tell.

    It's funny you mentioned this.
    For some time I thought about a shorter barrel RPK as a better compromise between the AKM and RPK. Somewhere around 18" - 19" long barrel.

  15. #29
    Senior Member

    Member #
    61625
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    486
    Liked
    612 times
    Quote Originally Posted by corpsman5 View Post
    in regard to the thicker versions of the stamped receivers (Chinese and Yugo), I have found that the metal isn't near as hard as the stamped receivers used in other countries. Just an observation and my personal opinion. Not looking to start a debate or an argument.
    Maybe lack of heat treatment?
    corpsman5 likes this.

  16. #30
    Supporting Member
    Supporting Member

    Member #
    52154
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,982
    Liked
    1328 times
    Quote Originally Posted by dixy2k View Post
    Maybe lack of heat treatment?
    yeah, maybe not complete lack of, but definitely an inferior heat treating process.

 

 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Home | Forum | Active Topics | What's New

Sponsors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.