Shellshock1918 1 Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 The Russians only used a milled receiver because their metallurgy at the time did not allow them to go with the stamped receiver originally designed for the AK. You sure that the AK was originally designed to have a stamped receiver? Yep, generation 1 production AK-47s had a stamped receiver - as it was part of the original design, ease of manufacture. Hmm, I never knew that. Thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
justinmcmillion 77 Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 (edited) The Russians only used a milled receiver because their metallurgy at the time did not allow them to go with the stamped receiver originally designed for the AK. You sure that the AK was originally designed to have a stamped receiver? Yep, generation 1 production AK-47s had a stamped receiver - as it was part of the original design, ease of manufacture. Hmm, I never knew that. Thanks. Yes I believe it was due to the fact that the welding technology wasn't par with the design? someone correct me if I'm wrong but the ak was never designed to be milled, quite frankly it goes against the principle of an ak.. cheap quick lightweight reliable. I think there were over 130 some milling operations in the first milled guns, very time consuming. There's a pretty good documentary that the history channel did and it explains it all anyone that owns a kalashnikova should watch it, very interesting Edited June 3, 2009 by justinmcmillion Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Afrikaner 2 Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 I've shot a friends Golani - was not impressed at all. I shot an R4 in South Africa quite often and was very impressed. It's got some heft to it, but it hands down the most accurate and reliable AK I've shot. That being said, the .223 Saiga's are no slouches either. With the amount of aftermarket parts available, I'd say go for a Saiga. You can't get a real Galil or R4 here, so the Saiga would be your best bet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TheRex 0 Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Everything funnelcake said Plus 1 million. Against my better judgement I bought a Golani, (with the "new" caspian reciever). It was trash. The bullet guide was too low, the barrel was "flat" with no extractor relief, and as another poster said, it's a used gun with a new receiver and barrel. Not worth near what Century is trying to get out of them, especially when you can convert a S223 for much less. I actually had someone pull the rounds that my Golani mauled out of the dud box and ask me what the hell I was doing to them. The rounds would strike the side of the chamber with such force the bullet would go "cockeyed" in the case, but even if they chambered just fine, the bolt would mangle the case of the next round in the magazine as it ran over it. (Although this was probably a mag problem, but still...) I cannot stress this enough: If you are looking for a Kalashnikov chambered in .223 do not buy the Golani. Yes, there is a possibility that yours will be "ok". But the S223 is a worlds better rifle, and for less money. DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE I DID. Also note: An IMI Galil is totally tits, which is why I was persuaded to finally buy the Golani. "How bad could it be?" I asked myself. Trust me: Bad. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bad Bob 0 Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Here's my question how does the Galil stack up against a fully converted S223? I can handle buying the S223 and then piece all the goodies together as it comes along but I can't handle plunking it all down at once for a Galil. Basically, its can I mod and build an S223 to be better than a stock Galil with some modest effort? Or am I just better off buying the Galil? The bottom line is this: would you rather have an AK with the critical components (barrel, bolt, receiver, etc.) manufactured, assembled & tested at IZHMASH (an established Russian AK factory)? Or an AK made of miscellaneous used parts unpacked, assembled & (presumably) tested at Century (whose workers have been referred to as "angry beavers" at the FAL Files forum)? Your choice... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
avnate 335 Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Both platforms have their pros and cons. If you want a good (best IMO) Galil build, contact Jeff at HillbillyFirearms. He is one of if not the best Galil builder in the states..... lifetime as long as he is ticking warranty. I am having him do mine when I get the time. If you are looking at a true IMI hands down a better platform. good solid platform, pricey Century builds......... Yes they are or can be problematic their build quality varies from rifle to rifle (uses surplus SA kits), all you need do is visit other forums and you can read the stories. Accuracy issues with worn barrels and feed issues with IMI surplus mags varies from rifle to rifle. Newer ones on the new "Caspian" receiver seem to be way less problematic. Saiga .223 as if I need to touch that one. It's a given tried and true inexpensive lead thrower....... Accuracy varies from rifle to rifle. Check your build sheet. Good rifle to build up. For those with the positive MSA adapter comments, thanks. I tried my best to develop both the Galil adapter and the Saiga adapter to feed as good if not better than factory. The general consensus on the Century Golani with the MSA adapter has been it works better than the mag that the rifle came with and fixed FTF and FTE issues the users was experiencing before. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steelin' Ducks 1 Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 How can you tell if they have the "Caspian" receiver? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
avnate 335 Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 "Caspians" have a recessed square on the left side and the serial number starts with GLN Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.