milled or stamped reciever?

Bert24b · 12-22-2002, 12:11 PM

In researching a future purchase of an AK-style rifle, I have to say I'm a bit mystified concerning the differences between the guns with milled and stamped recievers. I would naturally assume that a milled reciever is far superior, and the stamped guns are only made because they're cheaper and easier to manufacture. I've read though that stamped recievers are in some ways better because they aren't as vulnerable to metal fatigue, and I even read one report that they're more accurate! Does anybody have any insight to share on the real differences between the two, or does it not even really matter? Thanks a lot for the help.

-Bert

tommy · 12-22-2002, 05:10 PM

to me personaly it doesn't matter what the reciever is .an ak is an ak .i have never heard of any body haveing any problems with the stamped reciever.it all depends on how much you are willing to spend. some say that the milled reciever is stonger but to be honest i never heard of anyone wearing out a stamped reciever.

if you ever have any problems it will probably be with the internal parts wearing out not the reciever wearing out. but still it would take alot and i mean alot of shooting and punishment to have those problems. the ak is a good stong and reliable gun and it will always be . just my two cents .

go with the stamped it's cheaper and it will do the job just as good as a milled one but without the cost of a milled one.

tommy · 12-22-2002, 05:12 PM

take a look back into history at two great guns . the .45 cal liberator. and the grease gun both have stamped recievers. and both are great guns.

grizzly · 12-22-2002, 08:27 PM

I've heard that the milled are more accurate and the stamped are more reliable...I tend to go along with that due to the flexability of the stamped and the tolerances of the milled...For what it's worth...I've heard bad things about the Maadi but mine is reliable as well as accurate...No trigger slap either...My wife says, "go with what you know"

Calvin · 12-22-2002, 10:23 PM

When it comes to an AK, it could be made out of cardboard and it would function flawlessly. The difference between the receivers is a matter of personal choice. If you want milled, get a milled one. If you want a stamped one, get a stamped one. If you want it to function no matter what, get an AK. Not much left to be said about this.....

tommy · 12-22-2002, 11:39 PM

that's what i was trying to say Calvin. an ak is an ak to me.i have a sar1 and it'does the job just fine never had a malfunction what so ever.

FEG · 12-22-2002, 11:48 PM

Seriously, the only major difference is the weight. A stamped receiver AKM is lighter than an M-16A2; a milled receiver AKM is heavier.

polarisgod · 12-23-2002, 04:47 AM

Actually,if you want to get technical about it,milled receivers are supposed to be stronger.However No one on earth could appreciate the difference! They are all that good!

Bert24b · 12-24-2002, 05:48 PM

Thanks for the info, guys... I am getting the distinct impression that it really doesn't matter, so I think I'll just put the question out of my mind and turn my attention to things that matter more, like, say, caliber. One more question, if I may be indulged:

Is there any reason at all to get 5.45x39 instead of 5.56x45 (.223)? It seems like the American round has it all over the Soviet one, more accurate, heavier projectile, higher velocity, better availability, and (most importantly) easier to get magazines for. Are there any advantages to the 5.45mm round?

-Bert

FEG · 12-25-2002, 11:59 AM

5.45x39 magazines are plentiful, cheap as dirt, and actually work. You are looking for mags in the wrong places, if you are not seing bakelite mags all over the place for about $6-$7. Some of the .223 mags are less than stellar, and the good ones aren't always cheap.

If you can get the right deals, you can occaisionally find 5.45x39 steel-cased ammo for OBSCENELY cheap prices (such as @$60 per case of 800). When these kind of deals dry up, you will be left out in the cold, of course. 5.45x39 could become a "reloading only" proposition at any moment, should the BATF get drunk on their own power (yet again).

Ballistically, the Soviet round is supposed to shoot even more flatly than .223, but that is kind of moot. That is, they're both much flatter than 7.62x39. I wouldn't worry about terminal ballistics so much as availability.

polarisgod · 12-25-2002, 05:29 PM

I was hesitant about the 5.45x39 untill I went out and got to play with one! They are a bit different than the .223 AK's,but the differences are minor(you might think I'm crazy,but the 5.45x39 seems to have more of an energy blast that you can feel when standing beside it being fired).
As FEG stated,the mags are DIRT CHEAP(I like the black polymor Bulgarian 30rd-they go nice with my black furniture)even the steel mags I now see for under $20. The ammo is also dirt cheap and PLENTIFULL. At the time I got into the 5.45x39 AK's,the .223 variaties were very hard to come by with pretty much only Chinese offerings,and the mags were very high also, so the 5.45x39's were (and still are) bargins for someone who wanted AK's in different calibers. If you are hard-core,like I am,you buy one or two in every caliber!! But if not,.....flip a coin!:assult: :assult: Oh yes,as far as mags go,I've heard of problems with the .223 mags not working with different countries guns(like norinco .223 mags not fitting in Romanian rifles and vice versa). BUT I don't know this for a fact.

FALPhil · 12-25-2002, 07:46 PM

Tommy, you are joking, right?

How many Liberators have you shot? For that matter, how many people do you know have even seen one in person?

The M3 and M3A1 do not have stamped receivers, they have seamless DOM tube receivers. The trigger housing is stamped, not the receiver.

As far as AKs go, I do not own a real AK (yet), but I have at least 100 friends and acquaintences who do. I do own a Galil, which has a milled receiver and it is an AK design. Sheet metal AK receivers are fine as long as they are correctly heat treated. It is the ones that are not heat treated that will give you problems.

Quote:

Originally posted by tommy
take a look back into history at two great guns . the .45 cal liberator. and the grease gun both have stamped recievers. and both are great guns.

tommy · 12-25-2002, 10:04 PM

i watch alot of gun shows and to me the liberator done it's job fine. there are not to many of them out there any more but the ones that are are probably worth alot of money it's got history .

and as for as the grease gun the ones i seen they said it was made with a stamped reciever. i could be wrong or should i say mis informed. the piont about the two guns is they are made very cheaply but they do there job . i was trying to compare other guns to the ak sinse alot of people think that the stamped reciever ak's are cheap guns. and that they won't last .

FALPhil · 12-26-2002, 08:49 AM

Well, the Liberators were a "fire and forget" weapon. If there had been such things as blister packs back when they were manufactured, they would have delivered them in packages of three. They were disposable weapons of dubious value, created to cause concern among the Nazis, drawing away valuable military resources to police the general population. Sure, they worked under a variety of conditions, but for my nickel, I'd use it for one shot, take the Nazi's gun and leave the Liberator behind.

The guy who told you the "grease gun" was built on a stamped receiver, if he was talking about the M3 or M3A1 was as wrong as the DNC's platform.

It is incredibly hard and expensive to turn sheet metal into a perfectly round tube - so nobody does it. Seamless DOM tubing is incredibly easyand cheap to make, and it has the added bonus of being stronger.

There are many fine guns built with sheet metal receivers, AKs among them. I ran across a relatively rare sheet metal gun at a gun show a couple of weeks ago. It was similar to an AR-18 and used M16 mags and was built in Australia. A very simple and robust design - looked much more reliable than the AR15/M16 mechanism. The AR18/180 has a sheet metal receiver, as does the Daewoo 2000. So your point about sheet metal receivers is well taken. I just didn't think you gave good examples, that's all.

Quote:

Originally posted by tommy
i watch alot of gun shows and to me the liberator done it's job fine. there are not to many of them out there any more but the ones that are are probably worth alot of money it's got history .

and as for as the grease gun the ones i seen they said it was made with a stamped reciever. i could be wrong or should i say mis informed. the piont about the two guns is they are made very cheaply but they do there job . i was trying to compare other guns to the ak sinse alot of people think that the stamped reciever ak's are cheap guns. and that they won't last .

tommy · 12-26-2002, 03:31 PM

ok point takin maybe he was refering to the parts of the gun where the trigger mechanisim and the pistol grip are.

12-22-2002, 12:11 PM	#1
Bert24b Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Hampden, Maine Posts: 144	milled or stamped reciever? In researching a future purchase of an AK-style rifle, I have to say I'm a bit mystified concerning the differences between the guns with milled and stamped recievers. I would naturally assume that a milled reciever is far superior, and the stamped guns are only made because they're cheaper and easier to manufacture. I've read though that stamped recievers are in some ways better because they aren't as vulnerable to metal fatigue, and I even read one report that they're more accurate! Does anybody have any insight to share on the real differences between the two, or does it not even really matter? Thanks a lot for the help. -Bert

12-22-2002, 05:10 PM	#2
tommy Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: schriever la Posts: 4,014 Images: 6	to me personaly it doesn't matter what the reciever is .an ak is an ak .i have never heard of any body haveing any problems with the stamped reciever.it all depends on how much you are willing to spend. some say that the milled reciever is stonger but to be honest i never heard of anyone wearing out a stamped reciever. if you ever have any problems it will probably be with the internal parts wearing out not the reciever wearing out. but still it would take alot and i mean alot of shooting and punishment to have those problems. the ak is a good stong and reliable gun and it will always be . just my two cents . go with the stamped it's cheaper and it will do the job just as good as a milled one but without the cost of a milled one. Last edited by tommy; 12-22-2002 at 05:13 PM.

12-22-2002, 08:27 PM	#4
grizzly Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: PDR of IL Posts: 653	I've heard that the milled are more accurate and the stamped are more reliable...I tend to go along with that due to the flexability of the stamped and the tolerances of the milled...For what it's worth...I've heard bad things about the Maadi but mine is reliable as well as accurate...No trigger slap either...My wife says, "go with what you know" __________________ When white man found this land, Indians were running it. No Taxes... No Debt... Plenty Buffalo... Plenty beaver! Women did most of the work. Medicine Man free! Indian men hunted and fished all the time! White man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that. "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

12-22-2002, 10:23 PM	#5
Calvin Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 1,996	When it comes to an AK, it could be made out of cardboard and it would function flawlessly. The difference between the receivers is a matter of personal choice. If you want milled, get a milled one. If you want a stamped one, get a stamped one. If you want it to function no matter what, get an AK. Not much left to be said about this..... __________________ I've gone to look for myself. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait.

12-22-2002, 11:48 PM	#7
FEG Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Behind the Iron Curtain Posts: 517	Seriously, the only major difference is the weight. A stamped receiver AKM is lighter than an M-16A2; a milled receiver AKM is heavier. __________________ WARNING: CZs MAY BE HABIT-FORMING (Consult a doctor if nursing or pregnant).

12-22-2002, 05:12 PM	#3
tommy Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: schriever la Posts: 4,014 Images: 6	take a look back into history at two great guns . the .45 cal liberator. and the grease gun both have stamped recievers. and both are great guns.

12-22-2002, 11:39 PM	#6
tommy Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: schriever la Posts: 4,014 Images: 6	that's what i was trying to say Calvin. an ak is an ak to me.i have a sar1 and it'does the job just fine never had a malfunction what so ever.

12-23-2002, 04:47 AM	#8
polarisgod Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lincoln,NE Posts: 144	Actually,if you want to get technical about it,milled receivers are supposed to be stronger.However No one on earth could appreciate the difference! They are all that good! __________________ "It is always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" Unknown "Peace sells....but who's buying" Megadeath

12-24-2002, 05:48 PM	#9
Bert24b Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Hampden, Maine Posts: 144	Thanks! Thanks for the info, guys... I am getting the distinct impression that it really doesn't matter, so I think I'll just put the question out of my mind and turn my attention to things that matter more, like, say, caliber. One more question, if I may be indulged: Is there any reason at all to get 5.45x39 instead of 5.56x45 (.223)? It seems like the American round has it all over the Soviet one, more accurate, heavier projectile, higher velocity, better availability, and (most importantly) easier to get magazines for. Are there any advantages to the 5.45mm round? -Bert

12-25-2002, 11:59 AM	#10
FEG Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Behind the Iron Curtain Posts: 517	5.45x39 magazines are plentiful, cheap as dirt, and actually work. You are looking for mags in the wrong places, if you are not seing bakelite mags all over the place for about $6-$7. Some of the .223 mags are less than stellar, and the good ones aren't always cheap. If you can get the right deals, you can occaisionally find 5.45x39 steel-cased ammo for OBSCENELY cheap prices (such as @$60 per case of 800). When these kind of deals dry up, you will be left out in the cold, of course. 5.45x39 could become a "reloading only" proposition at any moment, should the BATF get drunk on their own power (yet again). Ballistically, the Soviet round is supposed to shoot even more flatly than .223, but that is kind of moot. That is, they're both much flatter than 7.62x39. I wouldn't worry about terminal ballistics so much as availability. __________________ WARNING: CZs MAY BE HABIT-FORMING (Consult a doctor if nursing or pregnant).

12-25-2002, 05:29 PM	#11
polarisgod Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lincoln,NE Posts: 144	I was hesitant about the 5.45x39 untill I went out and got to play with one! They are a bit different than the .223 AK's,but the differences are minor(you might think I'm crazy,but the 5.45x39 seems to have more of an energy blast that you can feel when standing beside it being fired). As FEG stated,the mags are DIRT CHEAP(I like the black polymor Bulgarian 30rd-they go nice with my black furniture)even the steel mags I now see for under $20. The ammo is also dirt cheap and PLENTIFULL. At the time I got into the 5.45x39 AK's,the .223 variaties were very hard to come by with pretty much only Chinese offerings,and the mags were very high also, so the 5.45x39's were (and still are) bargins for someone who wanted AK's in different calibers. If you are hard-core,like I am,you buy one or two in every caliber!! But if not,.....flip a coin!:assult: :assult: Oh yes,as far as mags go,I've heard of problems with the .223 mags not working with different countries guns(like norinco .223 mags not fitting in Romanian rifles and vice versa). BUT I don't know this for a fact. __________________ "It is always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" Unknown "Peace sells....but who's buying" Megadeath Last edited by polarisgod; 12-25-2002 at 05:33 PM.

12-25-2002, 10:04 PM	#13
tommy Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: schriever la Posts: 4,014 Images: 6	i watch alot of gun shows and to me the liberator done it's job fine. there are not to many of them out there any more but the ones that are are probably worth alot of money it's got history . and as for as the grease gun the ones i seen they said it was made with a stamped reciever. i could be wrong or should i say mis informed. the piont about the two guns is they are made very cheaply but they do there job . i was trying to compare other guns to the ak sinse alot of people think that the stamped reciever ak's are cheap guns. and that they won't last .

12-26-2002, 03:31 PM	#15
tommy Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: schriever la Posts: 4,014 Images: 6	ok point takin maybe he was refering to the parts of the gun where the trigger mechanisim and the pistol grip are.