after market AK-47 receivers

[sewerman]

i'm trying to educate myself on th advantage of the after market receivers.
thickness ranges from 1.0-1.6mm. with heat treating. the manufacturner's seem to stress that their products are heat treated. i suppose this is stated to inform the buyer of after market receivers that their parts are equal to the mil-surp?

i'm just wondering if it is worth the cost of purchasing an entry level AK,
then replacing the receiver for the sole purpose of having a stronger weapon?

the VEPR is advertised as having a 1.5mm receiver normally used for the RPK.
wouldn't the purchase of a VEPR be more cost effective?, since not only is the receiver stronger, but the barrel can be 4" longer if desired plus there are several stock options available.

any advice is appreciated

thanks

 

[Destructo6]

Replacing the receiver on an already built gun would be a huge waste of money. It would be better to buy a bare receiver and build up what you want from there.

Either way, you're paying a smith to do a complete build.

 

[rgitzlaff]

I don't see any advantages. You don't hear of any AK's breaking thier recievers. I doubt it would add any accuracy... if you want accuracy you wouldn't be getting an AK. If having a thicker reciever gives you the warm and fuzzies and you feel you have a better weapon for it, by all means get it. There are lots of redundant things like this done to weapons to make them beefier when essentially there is no real need.

 

[CGSteve8718]

You don't necessarily have to replace anything if you want an after market US receiver as many AKs offered are already built using them like Global Trades, Ewbanks, etc.

And yeah, they do advertise that the thicker receivers will stand up better but that is irrelevant for casual shooting. I think the benefits of having a thicker receiver would only be seen under combat situations where repeated long term firing (esp. under full auto) may cause the receiver to bulge or warp. I've never been in combat with an AK but that seems to be the general premise about the thicker receivers.

 

[Hedley]

i'm just wondering if it is worth the cost of purchasing an entry level AK,
then replacing the receiver for the sole purpose of having a stronger weapon?

In short, no.

The cost and time of drilling trunnions and re-setting new rivets with custom jigs and tooling is only worthwhile on a ground-up kit build.

I've never heard anyone complain of a "weak" receiver.

And all stamped receivers (should be anyways) are heat treated.

 

[shaggy]

If you really want a stronger receiver, save yourself the time and trouble and just buy an AK with a milled receiver. It may cost a little bit more than buying a stamped AK, another (thicker) stamped receiver, and the rivits or screws to put it together, but it'll be miles ahead in terms of quality.

 

[Dfariswheel]

In AK receivers, the choices are 1mm stamped, 1.6mm stamped, and milled.

The only real advantage the thicker stamped and milled receivers have is that they are stiffer and have less flex under recoil.
This extra stiffness is more conducive to a more accurate rifle, but NOT a guarantee of better accuracy.
The 1.6mm receiver was developed for the RPK squad light machine gun where a little more accuracy was desired.

The down side to a thicker receiver is a more expensive rifle, and a heavier rifle.

As for heat treating, the cheaper receivers are spot hardened around the pin holes, but the rest of the receiver is left soft.
Better stamped and milled receivers are hardened all over and are better quality, longer lasting receivers.

An entry level AK, like the inexpensive WASR rifles from Romania, UNLESS defective, will shoot with near 100% reliability, and will hit a man-sized target at 300 meters.
This is precisely what the AK was designed to do.

Better rifles will "possibly" shoot a little more accurately and will have a nicer, smoother finish.
Changing out the receiver on any AK to get a "better" rifle is a waste of money.