Jump to content

Why is one conversion better than the other?


Recommended Posts

Hi to all,

 

This is my first post and I am a definate Newbie to this sight and to Saiga rifles. I bought a .223 Saiga at a gun show last year as an investment since they were on the new "Assualt Weapons" list that was being kicked around in Congress. It is still new in the box & unfired. I did not like the plain look of the gun so I bought the Tapsco colapseable stock & pistol grip, along with the gas piston & a couple of sp[rings so that I am 922r compliant. I will attach a couple of photos to show you the finished product. My question is why wouldn't this be the conversion of choice. It took maybe an hour at most and about $100.00. The other one requires drilling & grinding on what, in my case is a brand new gun. Is it the desire to make the weapon look more like what it really is, an AK47. The other conversion does allow you to get away from the somewhat exspensive proprietory Saiga magazines? Is that why most people think that the "major" conversion is better? I would like to open this discussion to get some other peoples opinions!

 

Thank You!

 

BADCO6354

 

Manage Current Attachments (2)

post-17403-1238763942_thumb.jpg

post-17403-1238763969_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of a newb myself and this is what I know so far. First, nothing wrong with your conversion, some people might actually like it better that way with the trigger moved back, etc.. Don't know til you try it right. Doing the full conversion you get a few benefits I think. Changing out the whole FCG = even more compliance parts. Plus once you move and replace the FCG, I think it feels a lot better, the trigger that is. I think the consensus on the factory triggers is they suck. Plus with it moved forward and the shorter stock, most will probably like the feel of that weapon a little better.

 

Second yes it does make it "look" better as well I think. Have even gone ahead and welded/grinded my old rivet holes, just adds more work. But the hole plugs work just as well. To each his own. As far as the mags go, the 7.62 with bullet guide to use regular AK mags is a big benefit. I don't know that you get the same options doing other calibers, someone else would have to answer that I don't have a .223.

 

Plus diving head first in to grinding, drilling, welding, even on a new gun, has been a lot of fun and quite the learning experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi to all,

 

This is my first post and I am a definate Newbie to this sight and to Saiga rifles. I bought a .223 Saiga at a gun show last year as an investment since they were on the new "Assualt Weapons" list that was being kicked around in Congress. It is still new in the box & unfired. I did not like the plain look of the gun so I bought the Tapsco colapseable stock & pistol grip, along with the gas piston & a couple of sp[rings so that I am 922r compliant. I will attach a couple of photos to show you the finished product. My question is why wouldn't this be the conversion of choice. It took maybe an hour at most and about $100.00. The other one requires drilling & grinding on what, in my case is a brand new gun. Is it the desire to make the weapon look more like what it really is, an AK47. The other conversion does allow you to get away from the somewhat exspensive proprietory Saiga magazines? Is that why most people think that the "major" conversion is better? I would like to open this discussion to get some other peoples opinions!

 

Thank You!

 

BADCO6354

 

Manage Current Attachments (2)

Link to post
Share on other sites
My question is why wouldn't this be the conversion of choice. It took maybe an hour at most and about $100.00.

 

Unscrewing three screws and replacing a piece of furniture is not a "conversion".

 

 

 

Removing the Rube Goldberg 47-piece trigger and replacing it with a standard Kalashnikov fire control group and installing a pistol grip in the spot designed for it IS a conversion.

 

The above is desirable, even if you don't make the modifications to use inexpensive milsurp magazines, as it returns the original ergonomics to the rifle and GREATLY improves the trigger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much concur with nalioth, bolt-on is not the same as a conversion. If you're happy with your rifle, that's cool, I have no problem with what anyone does with their firearms. Many people, like myself prefer to do an actual conversion on the weapon. I'd rather have the option of being able to use almost any AK-style furniture available, rather than the few options of the few companies who have created "easy" add-ons for Saiga firearms. The 922r laws are also a concern, doing a basic FCG conversion is a good way to reduce the foreign part count by 3.

 

Another thought is value, doing an actual conversion of the firearm increases its value considerably; I'm not interested in selling my S12 now, but in the future, who knows. The little work that it took to do the FCG modification should bring a significantly better price, if I NEED to sell it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It took maybe an hour at most and about $100.00

 

I could actually do a FULL conversion for about that... in that time frame... and to be honest... have probably done a half dozen such...

 

 

Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with your modification... Regardless of the higher capacity magazine issue... It just doesnt allow you to achieve the best ergonomics the firearm is designed to have.

 

 

 

 

:smoke:

Link to post
Share on other sites
... Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with your modification... Regardless of the higher capacity magazine issue... It just doesnt allow you to achieve the best ergonomics the firearm is designed to have. :smoke:

IndyArms is being polite and Nalioth is telling you the truth. Yours is what is known as a "Fricked Up" "Conversion." After its major supporter, Frick.

 

You are not the first guy to march in here and start trying to tell people that bolting a bunch of junk on your firearm is better then restoring it to the original design. The board and the methods discussed here have been the work of a LOT of man hours and research and frankly I think that some time reading what has been posted here would be far more beneficial then walking in and telling us that you have reinvented the wheel and asking everyone else to justify their actions.

 

Don't get me wrong, I applaud your enthusiasm, but this not self-esteem class in some new think grade school where "we can all be right."

 

However you proceed, best of luck with your firearm!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard Saiga factory trigger is good for hunting. It's a long, smooth pull with a crisp release, and you can't really bump fire it. It's bad for an assault rifle, however, as you want a shorter trigger. This also allows it to be bump fired. This can be good or bad, depending on your perspective.

 

I've converted my Saiga .223, and I've noticed one rather ugly side effect is that if you do a "target pull" on the trigger (easing it back until it releases), the gun will almost invariably bump fire if using an extended bipod from a seated position (my tests had been with all the legs at minimum length, not extended, so I didn't discover this sooner). I discovered this during my hunting trip, unfortunately. I still got my game, but I wasted a few shots when the gun doubled. I still want to use it as a hunting rifle, though, and I'm now left with 2 prospects that are both going dent my wallet: (1) buy a Red Star Arms adjustable trigger (kind of like mounting a diamond in a turd, putting an expensive trigger in an AK), or (2) have a muzzle brake installed to kill the recoil. I'm going to go for option #2 and have my front sight block replaced with one that lets me use a full-size 24mm-threaded AK-74 style brake.

 

Am I at all sorry I converted it? No. I feel the conversion was absolutely necessary for its usability. First, this was a Saiga .223, and the barrel is an underbored 7.62 barrel (very heavy). Second, it's the 20" version, which makes it even worse. Converting it brought the gun's mass in closer, giving it better balance and stability. I absolutely could not hold my Saiga .223 steady while standing prior to conversion. After conversion, I do all right. Admittedly, I'm not a big guy, only 5'8" and 165 pounds, but I'm fairly strong. The problem was a matter of weight distribution, though, as I don't weigh enough or have enough physical size to counterbalance the heavy 20" barrel, making it not just an arm steadiness problem but also legs and torso. To further alleviate this problem, I opted to use foreign furniture with the Romanian Dragunov stock, and rely on US-made mags. This brought it in even closer. So, in the end, I got my rifle set up exactly how I wanted it.

 

My opinions after lots of experience with this platform:

 

(1) The .223 Saiga should almost always be converted due to its additional barrel weight. That extra mass out front can seriously throw off your stability.

 

(2) The 20" .223 Saiga should always be converted. You'd have to be a fairly big dude to be able to use an unconverted 20" .223 as an effective hunting rifle from a standing position.

 

(3) The 7.62 Saiga is optional. While it could benefit from conversion, its weight distribution is not so horrible as to make it necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
..... I bought the Tapsco colapseable stock & pistol grip, along with the gas piston & a couple of sp[rings so that I am 922r compliant.

 

You are NOT 922r compliant if you are using a factory mag. You only have 3 countable parts there. The stock, PG and piston each count as one. There are no countable springs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My question is why wouldn't this be the conversion of choice. It took maybe an hour at most and about $100.00. The other one requires drilling & grinding on what, in my case is a brand new gun. Is it the desire to make the weapon look more like what it really is, an AK47. The other conversion does allow you to get away from the somewhat exspensive proprietory Saiga magazines? Is that why most people think that the "major" conversion is better? I would like to open this discussion to get some other peoples opinions!

 

Well besides the fact that there is no comparison as far as looks go, it's all about the ergonomics. If you handle one that has been reverted back to it's original configuration, you'd understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
..... I bought the Tapsco colapseable stock & pistol grip, along with the gas piston & a couple of sp[rings so that I am 922r compliant.

 

You are NOT 922r compliant if you are using a factory mag. You only have 3 countable parts there. The stock, PG and piston each count as one. There are no countable springs.

Yes, he is.

 

The factory mag is not "non-sporting".

 

Many imported sporting rifles arrive with "protruding pistol grips". It's the "EVIL HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE!!! OMGZORS!!" that puts it into "must comply with 922r land".

Link to post
Share on other sites
... Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with your modification... Regardless of the higher capacity magazine issue... It just doesnt allow you to achieve the best ergonomics the firearm is designed to have. :smoke:

IndyArms is being polite and Nalioth is telling you the truth. Yours is what is known as a "Fricked Up" "Conversion." After its major supporter, Frick.

 

You are not the first guy to march in here and start trying to tell people that bolting a bunch of junk on your firearm is better then restoring it to the original design. The board and the methods discussed here have been the work of a LOT of man hours and research and frankly I think that some time reading what has been posted here would be far more beneficial then walking in and telling us that you have reinvented the wheel and asking everyone else to justify their actions.

 

Don't get me wrong, I applaud your enthusiasm, but this not self-esteem class in some new think grade school where "we can all be right."

 

However you proceed, best of luck with your firearm!

 

Woa there Azrial!

 

I did not march in anywhere and tell anyone how to do nothing!!! I took a couple of pictures and ask for some opinions ( and advice) of why one was better then the other. Thanks to all of you who explained to me why! I understand now! I am new to the Gun and new to this site! Thanks for the warm welcome there Azrial!! I am sure you are an officer on the welcome commitiee. And to 7.62 x 39, I am aware that the magazine has to be made in USA to meet 922r. Thanks for watching my back! Thanks to all that explained to me the bennifits of the simple conversion. As I said, I have not even fired the weapon. I will send photos after I FIX my screwed up 223!

 

Respectfully,

 

BADCO6354

Link to post
Share on other sites
..........And to 7.62 x 39, I am aware that the magazine has to be made in USA to meet 922r.....

 

You can use a U.S. manufactured magazine towards achieving 922R compliance, but most prefer not to, because otherwise the rifle is only ever just a magazine change away from breaking compliance. Another big advantage to not using the magazine to achieve 922R compliance, particularly for Saiga rifles chambered in 7.62 x 39mm, is it then allows foreign made milsurp AK mags to be used, which are inexpensive, extremely durable, and widely available (though a Saiga rifle must be modified in order to be able work with standard AK magazines).

Edited by Frogfoot
Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that why most people think that the "major" conversion is better?

 

 

the reason a real conversion is better is because the Tapco stuff you have has been known to literally fall apart.. there was a post in the .223 section a while back where the Tapco stuff just literally fell apart on someone..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not one to knock someone else's firearm. It's yours to do with as you please. That said....

 

I concur that the Tapco grip/stock is just plain ugly. I've always thought so, and it's just my personal opinion, so take it for what it's worth (shouldn't be worth much to anybody else). I'm in the middle of converting my 7.62x39 to make it a more functional gun. The shorter stock fits me much better, and the pistol grip and ability to use standard AK magazines aren't too bad either. I just finished making a handguard retainer and notching my barrel to keep it in place so I can use regular AK handguards. Necessary? No. But it sure makes a lot more aesthetically pleasing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just fyi, I converted my S12 today using the Tapco folding AK stock. Not the one you have, but the one that works with a normal AK.

 

It broke within 5 minutes. This is not stuff you'd want on a real weapon indended to remain durable when the SHTF. I'm pissed I wasted $50 on it. I was tryin to save money on the conversion.

 

Now I gotta buy the right stuff anyway, and I'm down $50. I hate when that happens. I should have known better, but didn't think the Crapco was THAT bad....until it broke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I did the exact same thing on my S-12. It was cheap, and relatively easy because I didn't have to drill, grind, or cut anything. I've gone all the way on my x39, but I just didn't feel like doing it again, and I'm quite satisfied with my choice. The only drawback I find is that the stock trigger is far spongier than a normal one, but it's a shotgun, so I don't care about having a nice trigger.

 

If it suits you fine, then gg.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...