My 10/63 was from around 2006 had all of the above, but sights were ok. Trigger was much better than the MISR. I heard PSA fixed their forging and heat treat issues?
I’ve had 3 PSA AKs: a 7” AK-P, a zukhov GF3, and a GF5. I only have the GF5 now, and it’s my favorite out of the bunch. The GF5 line is nice, as it has the ALG trigger and FN barrels. You can buy a no furniture kit and put exactly what you want on it too, PSA has plenty of furniture to choose from, there’s lots of other good places to buy whatever furniture you like as well. I personally really like the US Palm pistol grips, steel folding triangle stocks, and zenitco or Midwest industries rails. Buffer tubes and AR style stocks work really well, although they aren’t very “true” to the classic AK look in my opinion.
Honestly, bang for your buck, I feel like PSA is hard to beat. For me, any other AK purchases would be more expensive, like KUSA, FB Radom, arsenal, or Rifle Dynamics. Honestly I haven’t heard much about KUSA and haven’t heard anything about rifle dynamics since Jim fuller left.
Honestly, bang for your buck, I feel like PSA is hard to beat. For me, any other AK purchases would be more expensive, like KUSA, FB Radom, arsenal, or Rifle Dynamics. Honestly I haven’t heard much about KUSA and haven’t heard anything about rifle dynamics since Jim fuller left.
GF5 is a nice Rifle
Collect import ak's first, those dry up because of sanctions, laws, etc.
Buy domestic ak's as a last resort.
Kusa is a decent domestic ak manufacturer.
It'll get addicting, so watch your wallet.
Buy domestic ak's as a last resort.
Kusa is a decent domestic ak manufacturer.
It'll get addicting, so watch your wallet.
How are they hyped up? What are those reasons?
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2023
- Messages
- 810
- Reaction score
- 682
The only benefits to an ak-47 is ammo availability/price, durability, and reliability. After that they are ****.
The 7.62x39 has horrible range. Most AK’s flop around like crazy. I know the loose tolerances adds to the reliability but I think an expensive weapon shouldn’t be a rattle trap. They are heavy unless they are extensively modified. The price of most of them are just way too expensive. They are hyped up semi auto rifles. Nothing more.
The market is flooded with quality ar-15s. They are currently a better purchase.
(the following is my opinion)
1: x39 is averaging a few pennies higher for comparable quality/use, e.g. PMC Xtac 55gr vs Tula 122gr FMJ cost 38 cents per round vs 41 cents per round, respectively.
2: reliability between both platforms is a wash in my experience, I have had very few failures in either platform, although I don't shoot as much as I used to, maybe 1000-2000 rounds per year for each platform.
3: What AK's/AR's are you looking at? Most basic rifles have a weight difference of a pound plus or minus a few ounces. either way, they're both roughly 6-7lb rifles.
4: The AK was designed to shoot 4moa or better as a service rifle. The AR platform was initially designed to shoot 4moa or better to pass the US service rifle standards. So if we're talking about hitting an average size target, maybe a deer or a human torso, we're pretty neck and neck across the platforms considering that at 500 yards they're both hitting within a 20" circle. Past that both get dicey/not terribly effective. Luckily, most ethical shots while hunting according to statistics (may or may not be made up) are within 200 yards, and most combat firefights before Afghanistan were in the 100-300 yard range, Afghanistan is typically the exception to that, but like the rest of combat, its all very highly variable based upon the situation. By the time you have to worry about the ballistic trajectory advantage of either rifle you should be using a different platform.
5: AK's are cool, and the OP is wanting to buy one. He didn't ask for people to tell him he was wrong, they're crap, or that he should just buy an AR or an SKS.
1: x39 is averaging a few pennies higher for comparable quality/use, e.g. PMC Xtac 55gr vs Tula 122gr FMJ cost 38 cents per round vs 41 cents per round, respectively.
2: reliability between both platforms is a wash in my experience, I have had very few failures in either platform, although I don't shoot as much as I used to, maybe 1000-2000 rounds per year for each platform.
3: What AK's/AR's are you looking at? Most basic rifles have a weight difference of a pound plus or minus a few ounces. either way, they're both roughly 6-7lb rifles.
4: The AK was designed to shoot 4moa or better as a service rifle. The AR platform was initially designed to shoot 4moa or better to pass the US service rifle standards. So if we're talking about hitting an average size target, maybe a deer or a human torso, we're pretty neck and neck across the platforms considering that at 500 yards they're both hitting within a 20" circle. Past that both get dicey/not terribly effective. Luckily, most ethical shots while hunting according to statistics (may or may not be made up) are within 200 yards, and most combat firefights before Afghanistan were in the 100-300 yard range, Afghanistan is typically the exception to that, but like the rest of combat, its all very highly variable based upon the situation. By the time you have to worry about the ballistic trajectory advantage of either rifle you should be using a different platform.
5: AK's are cool, and the OP is wanting to buy one. He didn't ask for people to tell him he was wrong, they're crap, or that he should just buy an AR or an SKS.
There's very rare varieties that have trickled into the USA. Like a type 1 or 2 and any PLO. Crazy money like 10k. I've got a pretty rare variant the M21. But because it's Serbian it doesn't bring as much as a krink despite being more rare. Collectors drive the prices up especially on tula and izhmash. Many of them have trench art and battle worn finishes that people like the history of. It's not just something you pick up at the lgs. Built not bought.
Similar threads
