tyep 0 Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 Anyone know if there is any quality difference in the older like 1993 B West Saiga's VS. a little newer one like a 2003 EEA? The newer one seems to look cheaper quality wise, stamping, maybe I'm wrong but holding both of them and looking them over kind of seems that way. Anyone have any insight of this or to the contrary as well? The newer does have the BHO and newer barrel, parts, whereas the older one does not but that's about it from what I can tell. Trying to make a decision on which one to keep if my better half makes me part with one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kresk 10,063 Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 I know of a guy with a B West AK who sent it to a gunsmith to have the receiver replaced with a Nodak Spud one, so I'd think a better quality receiver, or rifle using a better receiver like an EAA or RAAC gun might be of higher quality. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tyep 0 Posted March 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 Thanks for the insight and response! One thing cosmetic I don't like on the newer receivers, I know it's petty is the "Read Owners Manual Before Use" engraving on the side of the receiver. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RobRez 1,895 Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 Thanks for the insight and response! One thing cosmetic I don't like on the newer receivers, I know it's petty is the "Read Owners Manual Before Use" engraving on the side of the receiver. Not sure about the engraving there, but I must say, I do not think that it is petty. I won't buy another gun with all of that crap engraved on it!! I hate that shit! It is a GUN, I know it is Effin dangerous!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tyep 0 Posted March 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 Glad to hear someone feels the same!! To engrave a whole sentence or paragraph on the receiver looks like garbage. Yes if you don't know common safety with/around firearms then you have a class or two to take! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 LOL, if you wanted all that shit written on the gun, you'dve bought a Ruger, am'I right? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
my762buzz 141 Posted March 20, 2011 Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 I know of a guy with a B West AK who sent it to a gunsmith to have the receiver replaced with a Nodak Spud one, so I'd think a better quality receiver, or rifle using a better receiver like an EAA or RAAC gun might be of higher quality. Bwest had a famous problem back in the early 1990's with some Chinese AK rifles they rebuilt onto US made unheat-treated receivers before the 10 parts rule came into play. The rifles fell apart within a few thousand rounds. The Saiga rifles should have never been anything but original Russian receivers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
my762buzz 141 Posted March 20, 2011 Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 Anyone know if there is any quality difference in the older like 1993 B West Saiga's VS. a little newer one like a 2003 EEA? The newer one seems to look cheaper quality wise, stamping, maybe I'm wrong but holding both of them and looking them over kind of seems that way. Anyone have any insight of this or to the contrary as well? The newer does have the BHO and newer barrel, parts, whereas the older one does not but that's about it from what I can tell. Trying to make a decision on which one to keep if my better half makes me part with one. Unless they used to be 1.5mm receivers, I wouldn't think they are any stronger. I wish someone would measure how wide the Bwest Saiga barrels were at the gas block just to compare. 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.