Dedicated Hi-cap mag receiver...tried and failed?

[ForGreatJustice 1]

You'll forgive me if this idea has been beat to death already. But what kind of thought/experimentation has gone into making a dedicated receiver to accomodate an unmodified FAL, M14, or Galil magazine?

 

Some questions to ask first:

1) How much farther forward would the trunion have to be moved before a FAL mag would fit without alteration to the trunion?

 

2) What is the length of long-action Kalashnikov receivers design for major calibers? I'm thinking specifically of the FPK/PSL/ROMAK III, or the Yugo .308 RPK, Valmet .308 hunter, Galil .308, and NDM-86. (wait...is the NDM-86 a Dragunov, actually?)

 

Basically, the problem boils down to not having enough space between the rear cross post and the front trunion to cram a .308 mag in, right? Moving the mag backwards, a-la BRG3's conversion seems to necessitate mods to the mag itself, which is kinda something to avoid (though if I already had a Saiga .308, I'd probably buy the G3 conversion).

 

So what if we took an FPK receiver blank or some such, and did normal AK build procedures on it by marking all appropriate holes. But when we cut the mag catch, we extend the length forward enough to accomodate an M14/FAL/Galil mag. Then, with the mag inserted, and a standard mag catch installed, we place the Saiga-308 trunion and mark the holes.

 

We now have two options. We either:

1) locate the rear trunion using the stock dust cover, and modify it such that it does not interfere with the trigger group (maybe use ACE components to restore structural integrity). End up with an AK that has a mutant ass.

 

2) Locate the rear trunion approximately using the FCG holes as a guide. Either extend the stock dust cover, or replace with a longer (Dragunov?) dust cover.

 

Once that's done, the bolt will still close farther forward relative to the FCG and the recoil spring than it normall would. The recoil spring may not be a problem. If it is, we might have to replace it with a stronger one. The hammer geometry will be a problem. At best case, it must be altered to strike the rear of the bolt square (a la SAR-3 mods). At worst case, an entirely new and longer hammer must be fabricated.

 

But at the end of the day, you'd have a long-action kalashnikov capable of accomodateing a long .308 hi cap magazine. Whether you'll have spent enough at this point to buy a Galil, or Valmet at this point is anyone's guess.

 

 

Bottom line: The world needs an affordable .308 Kalashnikov BATTLE RIFLE. FALs, G3s, M14s and AR10s are great, but none of them are AKs!

[BattleRifleG3 16]

Here's the problem - The bolt is only so long. You can only move the magazine so far rearward before you hit the FCG.

 

I have been sort of tossing around an idea of a Mark III G3 mag conversion that uses unmodified mags and moves them even farther rearward. Problem - it would require a partially or totally new FCG.

 

I have thought this through thoroughly and will probably continue to do so. Eventually, you'll learn enough about firearms design in the process that you say "Aww shucks, I think I'll just design a new rifle."

Edited November 22, 2005 by BattleRifleG3

[ForGreatJustice 1]

Uh, yeah....but moving the mag rearward isn't what I'm proposing. I mean to move the trunion FORWARD. There would be more space between the FCG and the forward trunion.

 

It would be a totally new rifle, essentially. Just the parts would be cheap.

[okie shooter 0]

On the topic of needing a longer receiver, Will the new rifles come in 30-06 , if so there is the longer receiver. I am not sure but beleive you could always trim and reset the barrel or rebarrel the action to get back to .308

[G O B 3,516]

From the pix of the .30-06 Saiga (not Saiga100) it looks like a Tigr.

 

G O B

[grizzlybigbore 0]

what brg3 is saying is that if you move the trunion forward, the bolt, being too short, will not be able to meet up with the chamber anymore.

[ForGreatJustice 1]

Wouldn't the entire bolt carrier simply be pushed farther forward in the receiver along with the bolt? Or is there something other than the trunion/barrel/lugs stopping the bolt from coming forward and locking up?

 

 

what brg3 is saying is that if you move the trunion forward, the bolt, being too short, will not be able to meet up with the chamber anymore.

[grizzlybigbore 0]

the gas block and the piston length determine part of that, as do the rails that the bolt slide on. also, if the bolt is moved too far foreward, there is an issue of whether or not the hammer will strike the firing pin. that issue would not simply be able to be fixed by a longer hammer, because then there is the issue of the hammer having to fall past the center reciever support rivet.

[BattleRifleG3 16]

Trunion moving forward, FCG moving backward, same thing, point is they can't move apart and still work. You'd need a longer bolt. On the Saiga 100s, I'm not sure they use a longer receiver, as believe it or not, I believe it would be possible to fit the 30-06 in the S-308 action using my method of buying rearward space for the mag while using the S-308's method of buying space in the front with a very special design of mag.

 

One would need a new FCG to make more space. Such a thing is of course on my mind. But yes, that would basically involve a new receiver and more.

[ForGreatJustice 1]

I see what you're saying. The hammer won't hit the rear of the bolt when its all the way forward. You'd need a longer bolt/bolt carrier.

 

If you're going to redesign the rear half of the gun, you might as well come up with an ambi thumb safety and upgraded trigger parts while you're at it. Fab it up into a new receiver and...oh, wait, a Saiga 100.

 

 

I wonder....when the .30-06 Saiga's come out, will that extra space allow a conversion to .308 hi-cap feed?

[LeadMonkey 0]

http://rhinelandarms.com/fal9/9mmpics/9mmp2.jpg

[BattleRifleG3 16]

It will be interesting to see what exactly the Saiga-100s are. I hope very much to get one in 30-06.