[A Young Man's Dream]

So I couldn't help myself. I left the discussion last time I posted to go ponder my idea by myself without all the negative input, and lo and behold, I stumbled across these 2 gems:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/Sturmgewehre?blend=4&ob=5#p/search/0/LDqkgAMfBog

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/Sturmgewehre?blend=4&ob=5#p/search/1/GhAcUNjBrNE

 

What's in these videos, you might ask? In the first video, you get a sneak peak at the works of the AK Master himself- Marc Krebs. He's built an accurized version of the Kalashnikov platform in 6.5 Grendel. What features does it have that lend themselves over to its accuracy? It's got a free floated Shilen heavy barrel, no front or rear sight block, a milled receiver, a modified crown and flash hider, an extremely secure scope mount, and most importantly, a modified gas system. Interestingly enough, what precisely were the modifications I was proposing while a few of you suggested I had no experience with the AK and didn't know what I was talking about? All of the above, with the exception of the scope mount being replaced with an aperture rear and a front sight a la AK103 attached to the gas block, in addition to a caliber change.

 

In the second video, you get a more extensive view of the accurized AK platform in not only the 6.5 Grendel version, but in 2 other proof of concept rifles in 7.62 NATO and 5.56X45. They've both got all of the modifications of the original rifle, except they use milspec barrels and standard Saiga receivers. However, both films most importantly stress the gains made in accuracy by modifying the gas system. The clips don't do it justice, but the new design sort of copies the Galil and has got a retaining tube that limits the movement of the piston as a means of alleviating the irregular harmonics placed upon the barrel. The result? Greater accuracy without great sacrifices in reliability.

 

In closing, I'd just like to advocate a little bit more accpetance of people wanting to bounce around ideas. It seems some of you have got your emotional identities tied up in this system,and are forgetting that it is nothing more than a tool that is capable of being changed to fit the user's desires. If you've got a problem with the proposal of modification, perhaps you should return to the days of the slingshot as the original projectile dispenser, lest you become too progressive in your search for improved usability. Resorting to ad hominem attacks or unnecessarily critiquing someone's writing style does nothing but make you come across as FUDDS or "gun conservatives".

 

I can't wait to see what this rifle turns into when Kreb's Custom makes it a signature item!

[A Young Man's Dream]

I have a hard enough time with sarcasm in person, let alone over the internet.

 

Glad to hear that this personal focus has been resolved.

[A Young Man's Dream]

Dudethebagman,

I'm not trying to impress anyone- I just want help. I'm not trying to sound lofty-I just want help. In regards to my intentions; this is the internet. You have no idea who I am, and I have no idea who you are. The best we have is our word, and I'm not a liar, and never will be. You can take all of what I have said to the bank. If you find my way of communicating bothersome, and would like for me to better rephrase what I have said so that you can better answer my questions, please outrightly state so, because I would like to get past the focus on me.

 

 

Otherwise, can we stop critiquing me personally or trying to figure out who I am and just focus on the concept? If no one is willing to do so, I will go to a forum where I am welcome.

 

Do I already have an AK?

Yes.

 

Can we move on now?

[A Young Man's Dream]

Toshbar- I appreciate the advice, but it is not my intention to alienate or denigrate anyone through my writing style. I merely wish to articulate myself in a manner that best conveys my message, but if that means that someone does not understand my message through my usual means of communication, and would like to understand, I would be quite happy to rephrase my statement so that it is easier to comprehend.

 

As for my posting being over the heads of 95% of the readership that may stumble across it, I think that gives me a little too much credit. If anything, I post my ideas here because I am so ignorant of the mechanical procedures that would be necessary to construct my creation, and through my posting of said misgivings, I am appealing to those who possess such higher mechanical knowledge than myself. There are folks such as these that prowl this website, and it is to THEM that I think all credit should be given.

 

To everyone- I think I need to elaborate and say that I am not necessarily proposing complete, ground zero fabrication as much as I am discussing modifying an already existing design. The milled receiver, SAIGA 12 gas tube, adjustable gas block, tech sights, and threaded front trunnion already exist. I would just have to go about fitting all of these parts together into a coherent weapon, the same as anyone else does that goes about doing when they build a Kalashnikov from a kit.

 

However, I must admit that a bit of fabrication is going to exist around the barrel, and before I mention the details surrounding its creation, I have to address the notions of my personal technical/mechanical abilities. Without revealing too much about myself, I am on track to be educated in the use of the tools for metallurgy and fabrication, and have some experience in woodworking and will eventually be acquiring more. I do and will continue to have access to the majority of the necessaries for such an endeavor, and am only limited by time and money-currently. I would appreciate in future response if the answers would not so much worry about my own limitations, which can be overcome.

 

In continuance, the barrel is the most difficult. I know that it would have to be custom ordered,and then milled to my specifications (hopefully by me!). What I would like to know is the details surrounding such an endeavor. I could deal with the barrel being consistently .610 in diameter with no taper (meaning I could use an RPK barrel), as long as it was of high quality. The hand guard would not have to necessarily be free floated, because I would like to use standard AK furniture, which means that the diameter of the barrel would no longer be an issue (I'm not certain). I also do not know if the threaded trunnion accepting a threaded barrel vs a standard trunnion with a press pinned barrel would affect accuracy, and if anyone could offer any insight, I'd appreciate it!

 

If the clearances in a high quality milled receiver were what they were, meaning they were not improvable through any other means except complete fabrication, I wouldn't cry too hard .

 

I know that as Dudethebagman suggests, I could buy a VEPR or a SAIGA and pimp it out, but to me it just wouldn't be the same. Building it, knowing it, and being responsible for it are where most of the fun lies, and I've wanted to do this project for a long time. In other words, I have to try!

[A Young Man's Dream]

If they would just only build a SVD in 7.62X39 with a 16.5 inch barrel, standard furniture, and a aperture sight attached to the rear trunnion, this would not be a problem! I know, I know, buy a VEPR....

[A Young Man's Dream]

Warning: the musings to come in the following paragraphs are going against the grain of conventional Kalashnikov wisdom! I make no qualms about this! In other words, I am seeing the grain in a young sapling and missing the forest (Analogy courtesy MN .9130 ). THIS PROJECT IS NO LONGER A QUESTION OF SHOULD I GO ABOUT IT, BUT HOW!

 

 

Anyhow, I'd filed away this project into the deeper recesses of my mind as "finished"; a decision made through the wonderful input of you wonderful folks here on Forum Saiga. However, that creatively obstinate streak that seems to permeate people like us (which I've deemed "gun nuttery", and will continue to utilize this term throughout the rest of this post) has resurfaced in my dreams of a "better mousetrap", and I have succumbed, which is precisely what brings me back here! Besides the time I've spent doing this thing called "college" , I also have been doing more research into the details of the general outline of this project, and I was wondering if you guys would be so inclined to offer your experienced insight.

 

Before I begin in the elaboration of the previous parameters, I would like to address the post of Toshbar, because his message (and I am sure it was well-intentioned!) harbors the general attitude that implores me to continue working, and that attitude is this: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. To it, my response is this-what an absolute impediment to innovation and improvement! Please note that my response is not directed at Toshbar, but at the attitude in general. Imagine what would have happened if John Browning was told, if it ain't broke, don't fix it in regards to the creation of the centennial 1911? What if he was told that it was unnecessary to try to build a weapon that was infinitely too complex (I doubt these same people ever looked into the innards of a Mauser Broomhandle!) and fired a cartridge that just did not measure up against the venerable .45 Colt (not taking anything away from this wonderful round!) when the Colt SAA worked just fine? Thank goodness the military thought something of innovation, as this pistol has become the new standard by which all others are measured, but that does not mean that it will not be superseded. Why should the AK-47 be any different? The M16/AR15 variant that other firearm's enthusiasts like to pronounce as superior to the Kalashnikov didn't earn this title by staying stagnant(I don't think it necessarily has earned it either, but within the accuracy/precision dimension I generally hold it to be!) The current amalgamation is a long cry from the A1's fielded in Vietnam. As I hold this to be the case, in the spirit of capitalism (BESIDES the whole financial profit aspect), and therefore innovation, on the path to build a better mousetrap, I continue on my quest!

 

I will outrightly state from the get-go that I believe the contentious issue for the AK is one of precision, whether you believe the problem exists or not. Though generally being regarded as accurate, the platform in its average state (AKM47 type 4 with stamped receiver and 16 inch ~ length barrel) is not very precise, and shoots around 4 MOA (you guys are Saiga shooters, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with 3 MOA capability, due to Izhmash engineering) and leaves something to be desired. In this regard, I have to outrightly reject rare examples of weapons that shoot 7 inch groups at 500 yards with "shitty steel case ammo"(once again, no offense to Toshbar, he's just my most recent example ), on the grounds that they are just that-rare examples.The chances of me obtaining a normally configured, mass produced Kalashnikov that has such a construction as to be conducive to firing a constructed cartridge that does not lend itself to shot to shot to consistency due to inconsistency inherently in its configuration (Wolf steel case) is more improbable than I care to calculate (Those of you who would like to, go right ahead, but I'm not a Math major for a reason!).I don't want to come across as a pompous college kid and assume that the majority of you don't know what a bell curve is, but weapons such as the one previously mentioned would be outliers and do not constitute the average area under a Bell Curve. I know it's possible that I could attend an Appleseed event, apply its lessons, and learn to consistently hold to 1 MOA at 100 yards under most conditions, but if the weapon is drawn(or bought) from a random sample of AK's, then the probability of me obtaining a weapon that is up to par with my abilities is highly improbable. In other words, if I am capable of shooting 1 MOA groups, but the rifle is only capable of 3 MOA at best, and I want it to be capable of 1 MOA groups, it just isn't going to happen unless I modify the weapon to suit my needs (desires?). In hindsight, I do not make this statement to downplay the ability of the shooter, but only to have us realize that the two are intrinsically linked as far as optimization is concerned. We get to define optimization, so let the games begin!

 

So now that the justification (pep talk?) is over with, allow me to continue along in my design details. These are NOT in order of importance!

 

1. First, in relation to the gas tube extension and removal of the rear sight block done as cheaply but as effectively as possible, would the gas tube from a Saiga 12,20, or .410 work in most trunnions?

 

2. One of the monkey wrenches in my proverbial tires exists in the mass of the bolt carrier/piston assembly in motion upon firing.I do not think that modifying the bolt in its construction is a good idea, as this seems to threaten reliability more than we already will (more on that later). So, to solve this problem, I propose the adjustable gas block from DEZ arms be used(http://www.dezarms.c...GAS%20BLOCK.pdf). When tuned for the particular round, this would minimize the movement of the bolt as that which is only necessary for cycling and positive ejection, while also minimizing wear on internal parts do to less violent bolt movement. A buffer wouldn't even be necessary. I do understand that reliability could be sacrificed should foreign particles enter the weapon and cause it to jam. However, I am not betting my life on this rifle!

 

3. I believe that DudetheBagMan brings up a valid point with the lower hand guard. The Saiga in its standard (imported) form has the handguard barely in contact with the barrel, and we can not deny that such minimal contact points towards the potential for free floating. Would it be possible to attach the handguard retainer to the gas block or gas tube without it affecting the movement of the barrel?

 

4. Following this, I believe the biggest change to my previous design exists in the potential for a higher quality (Ordnance or Stainless), tapered barrel. I'd like a starting diameter of 1", but the attachment diameter of the adjustable gas block is .610, so this would be the limiting factor in how much taper I could achieve. Overall length would be around 16.5., and I would like for it to wear a target crown. Thoughts on how to go about achieving this, and whether or not such a beast exists?

 

5. In attempting to improve on the tolerances and appearance of the weapon, I have chosen to go with a milled receiver. I have read the arguments between stamped and milled, and I am of the position that a milled receiver offers less flex and more stable shooting platform. The internal dimensions of the milled receiver are also what lend themselves to achieving tighter internal tolerances due to higher quality machining in its construction, which is why the vz58 TENDS to be more accurate than the run of the mill AKM. However, because I want this 1 inch tapering barrel, would the front trunnion be able to accept such a barrel AND fit into the receiver? I'd also like the barrel to be able to attach to the front trunnion via threads, so that I could potentially switch barrels should I feel so inclined, which would require a female trunnion and a male barrel, so would this also conflict the problem?

 

Clause to 5- Improving and measuring internal tolerances. I know that a consistent bolt lock-up is crucial to accuracy and precision, so I would have to minimize some of the built in clearances of platform as to minimize unnecessary bolt movement, particularly laterally. How would I go about doing this?

 

6.I still want the front sight attached to the gas block, as I think this would an unnecessary hunk of metallurgical dampener from the barrel. I know that this would require welding, but what would be the simplest way to go about mating the adjustable gas block and front sight, all the while minimizing tooling marks? Remember that this front sight would have to work in tandem with a Tech Sight!

 

7. It does not make sense to do all of these things as a means to make the rifle more shooter friendly and the forget the trigger, so I have decided on the Red Star Arms adjustable trigger as being suitable for the weapon. Is there anything else that anyone can think of that would effect the precision of the weapon in terms of the person operating the trigger?

 

8. Finally, I would of course want to finish the wood to an attractive finish and coat the finished product in something that was not only durable and resistant, but also eye catching.

 

I may have forgotten something, so if there is anything else that you think would help in making this idea become a reality in the far future (I am only 21!), I've got time and I'm all ears! Remember, though I hate to repeat myself, the question is no longer "should" I build this, but "how" would I go about building it?

 

Thanks everyone!

 

 

 

I would also like to manufacture a stock that actually fits me (I'm 6'2 with long arms, and a powerlifter), and make the wood and overall finish of the weapon pleasing to the eye.

[A Young Man's Dream]

Well, I think you guys have about convinced me! Many thanks to you in particular MN.9130, and I very much appreciate the kind words! I also like the analogy, and I promise you it is not the first time that I have been accused of focusing too much on the details and missing the bigger picture (stinking artist streak gets me every time!).

 

I figure a converted Saiga with all of the bells and whistles mentioned in post #6, combined with quality hand loaded ammunition that adequately engages the rifling and a Tech Sight should fit my capabilities within the price range of my budget. I very much agree with you again MN. 9130 that if I take a rifle that is already plenty accurate and feed it quality ammunition while utilizing a familiar sight picture and accuracy prone trigger, I have done enough. However, and there always is when it comes to things that plague you while you sleep (I'm sure a bunch of you have been there!), if it doesn't perform to my specifications, you'll be the first person I notify when I begin doing the things that we've discussed in this forum .

 

Be on the look out in the next year or so for a picture of the weapon that I intend to construct!

 

Much obliged, gents!

[A Young Man's Dream]

I plan to use the rifle as a general self defense tool, but I'd to have it be as applicable to as many applications as possible(training, plinking, hunting, etc). I also really like to shoot little things, opposed to human sized silhouettes (not that I am always any good at it! ), which is why I have the accuracy expectations that I do. I've also gleaned a bit in my readings of combat and talking to friends who have gone to war that you generally don't get to shoot at fully exposed silhouettes, so it helps to be able to hit an exposed body part behind cover. I know that 5 MOA will hit a human head at 100 yards, but I'd like a bit more margin of error than that. I'd be pretty hopped up on adrenaline and fear as is, so I think 3 MOA or better will give me a bit of latitude. In my understanding of the 7.62X39's trajectory, I see that it generally drops about 15 inches at 300 yards, which is a yardage that I am training to be within my capabilities, so I would like my weapon to make hits out to that distance as easy as possible.

 

I prefer 7.62X39 mostly because everyone says that it is such an awful cartridge, but I think that it is capable of more than most give it credit for. I think a lot of the problems with it stem from the shitty steel cased ammunition and oversized bore as previously mentioned, and I would like to prove the naysayers wrong, which is why I aim to reload (pun intended). If I'm going to be completely nostalgic, I love the Kalashnikov design, and though I am bastardizing it a bit in my amalgamation, it was originally in 7.62X39 and I want it to stay in 7.62X39. I willingly admit that I my thread has origins to my future plans, because I do not own an AK yet, due to my being a poor college students that lives in the dorms (go figure). However, with new work coming up this summer, there is potential for me to add a new weapon to my small collection. I regularly fantasize about the guns I aspire to add to own, so with an M1A in .308 already listed, I really do not want another gun chambered in this cartridge just yet. I know that the .308 has higher quality ammunition readily available without having to reload, but I think the rationale already listed negates me going this route. Also, I like the original steel magazines, and do not know of any readily available 30 round mags in .308 Winchester or 7.62 NATO.

 

MN. 9130, I am really interested in hearing why I should not remove the barrel band underneath the rear sight block and weld the block itself to the receiver. I've been reading up on the AK-47 for the last couple of years, and though I am no expert, I always figured that the amount of stuff that hangs off the barrel severely affects barrel harmonics, and is one of the major foundational impediments that retards the weapon's full accuracy potential. I very much enjoy doing small projects (they grow in size as my education allows), so I think it would be really interesting to see what happens when the rear sight block no longer adds pressure to the barrel. If the accuracy of the KTR-03 is any predictor (and I know there are a number of other structural differences between the KTR-03 and run of the mill AK that can contribute to the variety, but work with me here! ), then there might be some potential for improved accuracy. However, I very much understand that if I screw up in welding the rear sight block to the receiver and removing the pins that attach it to the barrel, and end up with a faulty weapon or even worse, a less accurate gun, then I could take a financial hit. However, in the name of research, I'd be willing to take this hit (though it'd be grand if someone else would just do the experiment for me!). I very much appreciate your comments on doing a conversion, and with my love of the original weapon, it's hard to resist a real Russian AK-47. In keeping with having as little hanging off the barrel as possible, if I were to use a Saiga rifle as my foundation, does anyone know where I can acquire a gas tube with the front sight attached to it like I have mentioned (similar to the front sight on the AK-104)?

[A Young Man's Dream]

I really appreciate all of the wonderful insight, but I must admit I feel a bit thick for forgetting that the top cover attaches to the rear sight block

 

Anyhow, though I have access to a machine shop over at a buddy's house, I am not the most mechanically inclined person in the world (though I am aiming to change that!), so I think you guys have adequately convinced me that totally removing the rear sight block is out the picture. However, i am wondering if it would be possible to remove the band under the rear sight block that attaches to barrel, and have the rear sight block just be solidly attached/welded to the receiver. That would seem to mitigate having to remove it entirely and replacing the gas tube with a newly manufactured piece, while also giving me the potential accuracy benefit of not having the rear sight block apply pressure on the barrel. I think that this attachment to the receiver combined with the force of the gas tube would adequately hold it in place, but I am not certain, so I could use some input here.

 

If the above-mentioned paragraph is possible, then one of the other main difficulties would be in free floating the lower handguard. I know that it is attached to the barrel via a forearm retainer, but I can not think of a way to go about free floating it without running an attachment rail from the receiver to the piston attachment site, as is the case in the KTR-03, but this could be mechanically and financially difficult. If the forearm retainer was the only attachment sight to the barrel, I think I would be able to live with it, particularly if this was the only way possible to have the wood handguards I desire, but if you can offer me an economically feasible solution, I'm all ears!

 

In continuing with the possibly of what I have already mentioned in the first full paragraph, I do not think that adding the Tech Sight would provide any real difficulty. It attaches to the t-slot in the rear trunnion and to the rear sight block, so I don't have to worry about it keeping zero. I'd like the all of the metal parts of the rifle to have the same finish, including any aftermarket accessories, so if all of the things I have mentioned are possible, after the gun was assembled it would be shipped to receive at least a reparkerizing in Black Manganese, preferably with a coat of Moly Resin on top of the park job. I'd like a nice chrome bolt carrier (or I could potentially just strip the finish off of the existing bolt carrier), and I would refinish whatever wood I put on it with a nice walnut stain to bring out the grain.

 

As for the accuracy, I think that if all of the things we have determined to this point are possible, a lot would be riding on the barrel and ammunition. I know that a lot of the accuracy woes you here about with the Kalashnikovs are based off of the shitty steel cased ammunition typically used in conjugation with an oversized bore, so I would definitely slug the bore and load bullets that best engage the rifling for maximum accuracy. I'd like to also add a nice target crown (within reason here ) along with an AK-74 muzzle brake, but I am worried about the brake potentially affecting accuracy, so I could use some more insight here as well.

 

It seems as if the most qualified base gun for my deal here is the STG-2000 for around $490 from Royal Tiger imports(yes, I know, they are nothing but WASRs under a different name), as this has the front sight already attached to the gas tube, but I am wondering about whether or not it can accept wood furniture. It seems a bit longer in the forearm than the traditional AK-47, but I am capable of doing minor fitting if necessary. Inter Ordnance also claims that they use high quality barrels built by Mossberg on their weapons, but I do not think it is terribly important as long as the rifling is consistent and not shot out.

 

As always, I hope to hear more commentary on the plausibility of my project within the proposed parameters! You guys have been real helpful !

[A Young Man's Dream]

So, I've been lurking here and other Kalashnikov based forums a fair bit, because I've been looking for the Holy Grail of AK-47's, but I've reached a point that I have to appeal to higher knowledge

 

I'm after a semi auto AK-47 variant in 7.62X39 with a full set of wood furniture, an adjustable aperture sight as close to the eye as possible (preferable with target knobs for windage and elevation), no rear sight block (more on that later), the front sight sitting atop the gas tube ( think AK-104), a semi free floated16 inch barrel, refinished with Moly-Resin over parkerizing, 2-3 MOA capable without compromising reliability, and preferably under $1000. Basically a KTR-03 on the cheap.

 

So now that you know what it is that I want, allow me to share the impediments to achieving my goal. First, in removing the rear sight block, a longer gas tube would have to be added. However, as I do not have access to an AK-47, I am not certain if it is so easy as adding a longer gas tube, so can someone fill me in on if I have missed anything? As for the tubes themselves, in avoiding have to do complete fabrication, I am wondering if a modified PSL or Golani gas tube would work, and how much fitting would be necessary?

 

In trying to free float the barrel as much as possible while still having wood hand guards, I am thinking that the closest I can get is something like a Yugo M92, which does not have a rear sight block pinned to the barrel, but is still capable of accepting wood hand guards. It appears that the M92 has a forearm retainer that contacts the barrel, so barrel harmonics are a bit disturbed, but if that is the one necessary evil besides the piston attachment site, then so be it. As for the rear sight, I have settled on the TS2000 Tech Sight. To better flow with the aesthetics of the rifle, I would modify an existing top cover to fit the Tech Sight as opposed to work with the provided cover,due to the hideous gaps and bumps they had to machine so that the cover would fit different variants of rifle.

 

I am quite aware that I have basically built a Galil or Valmet, but if I am trying to keep this under $1000 and have the gun chambered in 7.62X39, both of them are out of the question. I also am not interested in an AR, so please don't suggest it. I think a Saiga would be a pretty good base gun, but if I could find a Krinkov look alike to the M92 that did not cost an arm and a leg I would also be satisfied.

 

Any additional insight is very much appreciated, and sorry if I rambled there for a bit (It's exam week, and I haven't slept much)!