scattergun10 125 Posted May 15, 2015 Report Share Posted May 15, 2015 (edited) Hey Darth, Have you been following the whole NPAP / Rob Ski controversy lately? There are a lot of people worried about the heat treat on these rifles now. Apparently his review pissed off Century who demanded he send back all of their T&E guns immediately. Hopefully it's overblown or if not, maybe it just affects a particular batch of receivers. From what I've been hearing/reading, it's not the heat treat of the receiver. Some of them are coming in with recoil springs that are too light, causing the carrier to batter the rear trunnion. In some cases, this is causing the receiver to crack. Also,the ridges on the G2 hammer face are causing peening on the nub on the rear of the carrier. Alot of people are installing XP recoil springs,and reprofiling the G2 hammer (like they do for Saiga/Vepr conversions) as a solution. I would probably install a recoil buffer too for good measure. I read this on the AK forum. It's a rather lengthy thread but it's got some pretty good info. http://www.theakforum.net/forums/30-yugoslavian.1777384-yugo-paps-made-garbage-metal.html Hmm,for some reason that link doesn't go to the specific thread I was referring to. It's the thread titled "Are Yugo PAPS made from garbage metal?" Edited May 15, 2015 by scattergun10 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vance665 225 Posted May 15, 2015 Report Share Posted May 15, 2015 If you converted your S12 you should get a Saiga 7.62x39 or Vepr and convert that. Or just get a WASR or SAR1. Another nice option would be a Draco then welding on a muzzle device to bring the barrel to 16". Then tap two holes in the back and add a folding triangle stock. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JoeAK 337 Posted May 15, 2015 Report Share Posted May 15, 2015 Hey Darth, Have you been following the whole NPAP / Rob Ski controversy lately? There are a lot of people worried about the heat treat on these rifles now. Apparently his review pissed off Century who demanded he send back all of their T&E guns immediately. Hopefully it's overblown or if not, maybe it just affects a particular batch of receivers. From what I've been hearing/reading, it's not the heat treat of the receiver. Some of them are coming in with recoil springs that are too light, causing the carrier to batter the rear trunnion. In some cases, this is causing the receiver to crack. Also,the ridges on the G2 hammer face are causing peening on the nub on the rear of the carrier. I think he's talking about the recent torture test where the receiver bent when they ran it over with the SUV, none of the others have done that yet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDeko 792 Posted May 16, 2015 Report Share Posted May 16, 2015 I really like these "torture test" videos but I'd never do such things with my Saiga 12 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scattergun10 125 Posted May 16, 2015 Report Share Posted May 16, 2015 Hey Darth, Have you been following the whole NPAP / Rob Ski controversy lately? There are a lot of people worried about the heat treat on these rifles now. Apparently his review pissed off Century who demanded he send back all of their T&E guns immediately. Hopefully it's overblown or if not, maybe it just affects a particular batch of receivers. From what I've been hearing/reading, it's not the heat treat of the receiver. Some of them are coming in with recoil springs that are too light, causing the carrier to batter the rear trunnion. In some cases, this is causing the receiver to crack. Also,the ridges on the G2 hammer face are causing peening on the nub on the rear of the carrier. I think he's talking about the recent torture test where the receiver bent when they ran it over with the SUV, none of the others have done that yet. Whoa! I hadn't seen that yet.Thanks for posting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mancat 2,368 Posted May 16, 2015 Report Share Posted May 16, 2015 Thread popped up over on ar15.com from Henderson Defense. They run a pretty heavy usage range with a number of AKs, most converted to full auto. HD posted some photos and info on the most common high round count failures. Interesting that most of the stamped AKs fail in the same spot - trunnion locking lugs crack or deform, but he's talking 80,000-100,000 rounds. The surprising comments were that the Romanian WASRs have been the most reliable of all the AKs on the line, especially concerning barrel wear. Henderson says the Romanian barrels just refuse to wear out, and continue to work just fine even after failed trunnions have been replaced, bolts replaced (due to locking lug wear), or stamped receiver cracks TIG welded back up. The newer Century C93 wear out barrels, lose headspace and start keyholing quickly, but the receivers held up fine. Unfortunately the last few comments from Henderson address the N-PAP issue. They had some converted to full-auto that self-destructed in short order from vertical receiver cracks in the mag well area. Henderson also suspects the receiver heat treating was the issue. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_4_64/159106_AK_abuse.html 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XD45 7,124 Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 Well that does shine a different light on the NPAP vs WASR. When somebody talks about a "torture test" it's usually some silly bullshit but when you have many AKs running constantly in FA you will find the failure point. Guess I won't be recommending it any more. Now I'm wondering about the M92 PAPs also. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LuPiN8oR 333 Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 ^^that was the first thing that came to my mind. Ill be watching the receiver on my m92 like a hawk from now on, or until someone can confirm they do not suffer from the same faults as the other paps. I however do not think they would treat the receivers any differently for the pap pistols vs rifles...doesnt make any sense for them to. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XD45 7,124 Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 I think I'll throw buffers in my N-PAP and the Pit Bull. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DLT 1,646 Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 It could be a bad batch of recievers. I wonder if Robski is willing to share a general serial number range? Also, how could someone go about testing their recievers for structural weakness? Do we have any metallurgists here? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gunfun 3,931 Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 Even with that, none of us will ever likely reach the round counts where this matters. Really, get one you can afford, shoot it and that will inform your purchase of the next one. Odds are its value will hold about constant, so if you don't like it, you can trade out for something different. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XD45 7,124 Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) Even with that, none of us will ever likely reach the round counts where this matters. Maybe. Hopefully. But we don't know the round count to failure on the N-PAPs. Just that they failed quickly by his standards. And the WASRs just wear out in a predictable way at a very high round count. That's enough for me to say "get a WASR" to the op question. And enough that I won't be getting another PAP. Should I "need" another AK. Edited May 17, 2015 by Darth Saigus Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gunfun 3,931 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 The post above said the new century ones were wearing out barrels quickly... relative to the other guns. I'd want to know if those were from 4 years ago or 1 year ago or so. Century switched out to US made chrome lined barrels around that time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mancat 2,368 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Sorry, the post on Ar15.com said they were the older C93 non-chrome barrels. They have no experience with the nitride barrels. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gunfun 3,931 Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 That was a subtle correction. Nitride. Not chrome. I should have caught my own mistake, since chrome is now a crazy expensive disappearing thing due to ROHS and other similar restrictions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VR762Shooter 838 Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) I'm just glad we have a thread where the WASR isn't being completely crapped on. It's a bare bones AK but if you want cheap and working it'll do it. I never got into them due to the price in MA being several hundred over what I think is appropriate, but they get a lot of crap in some circles that they really don't deserve Edited May 19, 2015 by VR6Shooter 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vance665 225 Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 It could be a bad batch of recievers. I wonder if Robski is willing to share a general serial number range? Also, how could someone go about testing their recievers for structural weakness? Do we have any metallurgists here? Rob posted the serial number in a thread on akfiles. 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.