AK Rifles banner

Inherited Norinco 5.56

1173 Views 32 Replies 11 Participants Last post by  The Most
So my uncle gave me a rifle and said I can keep it or sell it and to be honest I know a little about them but not a lot. It’s a Norinco Mak 90 in 5.56.

Now I always hear things like”pre-ban” and I know values change but I honestly lack the knowledge about the value of this rifle and how I would even label it if I was to sell it.

attached are some pics if anyone can give me a better understanding of the history of this rifle and value I would appreciate it.

btw it is straightcut receiver and the homemade wine is not for sale.


See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 3
1 - 6 of 33 Posts
What you have is a transitional MAK-90 - it was a CSI import Type 84S when it arrived. It will be costly to put it back to original if that is the path that you want to go down. You will need an 84S birdcage flash hider and Chinese stock set in either wood or phenolic at a minimum. Right now you can find the SDM stock sets for around $350-450 depending on your luck.

If you decide to sell, I’d be interested. I’ve got all the spare parts to put it back.
  • Like
Reactions: 3
Interesting, your Uncle gave you the rifle, as in you didn't pay for it, and you complain about spending $100 for a mag to make it useful?

You have a very nice very early post-Bush1-ban rifle and most collectors would be thrilled to have that in their collection.

Personally as a collector, I recommend not changing a thing, keep that stock set as I believe it was made by Choate and specified by the importer. Very rare setup!
Negative ghost rider - that stock set was a replacement item. Please see the attached link to an NIB KSI Mak-90 .

  • Like
Reactions: 2
The .223 cal Chinese type 84 was never intended for any military use.
China never even used the .223 round, in anything for themselves.
The 84s was specifically made for what the Chinese called "commercial export" for U.S. consumers, thus they realized there was zero need to chrome line the barrels - at some point.

As far I recall it all, (I could be wrong, I almost always post from near 60yrs of stored firearms memory, not search to find the 1 internet post to support my stance)
That all of the Pre-ban barrels in .223 and many of the post bans had chrome lined barrels, but some of the late post bans absolutely did not, for the above reasons.

Op rifle may have it, or it may not. Pics would confirm either way. My current 84s (still a kit) also has a chrome lined barrel, but its a pre-ban.
I stated that because it does look like a late ban model to me.
Forgive me if I assumed so in my initial reply and if the above recollection is actually proven to be incorrect, then I will retract my statement - for the record - and of course for the forums fact checkers...( no reference to you Indykid - we're good! (y))
There is a lot of misconception here regarding "late ban models" and "commercial only". The Type 84 series has been exported to the Sudan and is in use by their police forces and thus is not a commercial only item. Sure, the 84S was limited to semi-auto only, but just like the 7.62 Type 56 rifles these were built to military specification. All featured chrome lined, hammer forged barrels and if one escaped from the factory without its lining, this would be an anomaly - not the rule. (I am not aware of a Chinese small arm from this era that did not feature chrome lining). Even after they switched to the BWK-92 model, the bores remained chromed - it would make no sense to change their entire barrel making process for a commercial run.

Five of five of my 84S series including MAK-90 variants have chrome bores. Aside from that, the OPs rifle is a pre-ban that was caught in customs and revised to MAK-90 designation, that would put its production date at 1989. It absolutely should have a chrome lined barrel.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 3
It would make sense that pre-Bush1-ban 84 series went through the standard chrome lining, but post-Bush1 .223 MAK-90s did not. They obviously were never intended for anything other than commercial sales in the land of shall not be infringed. Don't have a .223 MAK-90 but have to agree that what you said Yoda makes a lot of sense.
I do have a .223 MAK-90 as well as several loose .223 barrels and what Yoda says is incorrect. Flukes may exist but the general rule is that the .223 barrels were lined just like the 7.62 barrels.
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Notice I said “of that era”, the era being the late 1980s.

The Type 53 was derived from the M44, which in Russian service never featured a chrome lined barrel - it was not designed with one in mind. Not to mention the last Type 53 rifles left Jianshe Arsenal in 1961, a full 28 years before the rifle in question. Apples to Oranges.

The reason this point was brought up was because you made an incorrect blanket statement. If we do not make correction, false information begins to spread and people get misled. If you can produce pictures or some kind of evidence that is not totally anecdotal, I will be happy to retract my statement.

The Type 84 series was produced at one factory - that being Factory/Arsenal 66, which unequivocally used chrome lining in their barrels.
First, If you had bothered to read beyond the apparent flash point my initial post, I actually offered to retract my statement of memory, in a follow up post as well, IF real proof that each & every barrel coming from China was chrome lined. There is plenty of proof they all were not. My memory is that the 84s was no exception.

You want proof from me?
Where's your 100% factual proof that they were?? Yes, I can ask the same of you.
Perhaps we can both admit, chances of either one of us providing that absolute verification, is pretty slim at this point in history. All we have is reference. References from a country who often mixed things all up, for no known reason, to us. Coming along decades later.

I do have news for you though, as politely as I can put it at this late hour.
I have always treated you with respect and valued your input on this forum. However you do seem to pop up and directly and deliberately refute what I post for some odd reason. I've almost come to expect it. Shit you not.
You are very well informed on this subject, there are many others that are as well. But, you are not now, nor ever will be the absolute definitive & final authority on all things Kalashnikov that you apparently believe yourself to be. No such person exist that is living today.
Just because you state it, write it or think it, doesn't make it biblical text.

In fact, there have been at least a couple of times my friend, that you've written things on this forum - that were absolutely 100% incorrect. To the point, one time I got up, left the computer, went out to the shop (that holds literally hundreds of gun, parts & parts kits from nearly every country & era) located and held in my hands the very proof that was opposite to what you stated "as a fact".
Yet I did not come back and publicly tie you down and pick apart the post you made and every post by you, to then ever follow, under the guise, of course, of historical correctness.
"Internet-Faktenpolizei" I am not. Respect for you & the little known concept that you can be wrong, was another.

People can be wrong. I can be wrong. Have admitted as much more than once. I'm a student of life, contributing to this forum (and about a dozen others) in an effort (for the most part) to learn & maybe help others and pass along my years of knowledge & skill, to those who may benefit from it. My post reflect that. A beacon of all knowledge I will never claim to be, even in subject matters that I am actually officially recognized and even designated, as such.
AFAIK, no one out there on the internet however, is using this forum to write their master degree thesis to which all their life's work is to be based on. I read that Abraham Lincoln stated that once.
I suspect has nothing to do with "correctness" (the leftist favorite word BTW) however, but more of one of maturity.
Either way, I'll agree to disagree here and move on with my life. Some how. Some way...
Have a good nite.
If you have proof beyond anecdotal evidence that China built non-chrome bored .223 AK pattern rifles, then PLEASE post the evidence so that we can all learn.

"In fact, there have been at least a couple of times my friend, that you've written things on this forum - that were absolutely 100% incorrect. To the point, one time I got up, left the computer, went out to the shop (that holds literally hundreds of gun, parts & parts kits from nearly every country & era) located and held in my hands the very proof that was opposite to what you stated "as a fact"." - Once again, show me what you are talking about and stop with your anecdotal BS.
1 - 6 of 33 Posts