There is something to be said about that level of engineering.
For what it's worth, the "AR family" of rifles (AR-15, M-16, M-4, etc.) actually surpass AKs in terms of field reliability and use in hostile conditions. They're built to tighter tolerances, but with the dust cover closed there isn't really any way for sand/mud/dirt to get into the action, so they continue to work.
The AK takes the opposite approach - looser tolerances and plenty of room in the action to allow foreign debris to stay out of the way and let it continue to function. You can take the dust cover off an AK, turn it upside down, and smack it a few times to knock all the junk out of the action.
AKs tend to work better with no/minimal maintenance, and are much easier to field strip and restore to operable condition. ARs require more maintenance but are easier to make (and keep) accurate, and require a bit more in terms of training and tooling to maintain under use.
I've always found it interesting that AKs are relatively easy to manufacture in rough conditions, but that ARs are easier to manufacture in the US. I can build a working AR lower receiver in the US with tools I have laying around my home (drill press, rotary tool, etc). I can't do the same for an AK because I don't have a spot welder to attach the rails. The fact that what qualifies as "easy to make" is so different depending on the environment.
Worse than that: AK receivers have to be stamped, rails welded on, then heat treated. A soft AK receiver will run for a while but eventually waller out all the pin holes. The gun will get more and more rattly until it can't completely chamber a round, at which point it will blow up.
The heyday of the stamped sheet metal gun was, of course, WW2. The Sten, MP 36, M3, and postwar AKM, CETME, G3, etc etc. The central planners were staring down the barrel of total war. They were thinking they would have to arm every single man, woman and child in the country. The Brits made four million Stens, at about $150 each.
For that, you want as few machining operations as possible, but you can spend on the tools themselves, since they'll be amortized over huge production runs. Therefore you see heavy industrial processes with specialized tools: 100 ton presses stamping out 20 receivers at a time, specialized heat treat ovens to make up for the downsides of metal stamping, complex assembly jigs, etc.
The AR pattern rifle is unattractive for super-mass production. Milled receivers with curved surfaces and finicky blind holes. But it's not a stressed component, so you can make the damn thing out of plastic if you want, and none of the dimensions are safety critical, since the barrel is self headspaced with bolt lugs built in. (The US could put complex features into the barrel because they could trust their subcontractors to build interchangeable parts-- the Sten had magazine feed problems the entire war because of contractors going off spec and the Soviets had innumerable problems with QA. If you can't trust outside firms then you have to build everything in house)
This means when you shoot out the barrel in an AR, your unit's armorer can put in a new one. If you wear out the barrel in an AK, you throw away the gun-- headspacing is a factory operation, and the Red Army isn't going to waste time transporting trash. Official doctrine on the US M3 was to provide no replacement parts. The whole gun was welded and riveted together. You could clean it, but otherwise it was a disposable unit. Heavy industrial processes are cheap, but not amendable to field repair.
Another good thing to point out, is that both the sten and especially soviet weapons were being produced in rapid numbers by mainly unskilled workers in semi finished factories behind the ural (in the soviet's case) or in small workshops by local machinists (in the sten's case).
AR-15 lower receivers are forged and then milled. Of course, referring to mass produced ones for the military. Forged parts are typically stronger than purely machined parts of the same material.
Looking at that section again, I totally forgot to actually complete my thought there. Large stamping presses have the attractive quality of sublinear scaling: a press that can punch out twice as many parts per cycle is not twice the price.
But if you want to double the production of milled parts, you have to buy twice as many milling machines. Worse yet, you need twice as many machinists, who are going to be in desperately short supply in wartime!
But the US was not at war in 1956, and making the tradeoff of increased modularity against ease of manufacture has self-evidently paid off for the AR weapons family.
Most of the forming is done using a forging press at high temperature (hot forging). The only machining that needs to happen is for holes/threads/bosses/flanges and for cleanup. Forging strength remains as is, since milling is an operation that only affects the newly milled surface atoms, not the internal grain boundries.
> Large stamping presses have the attractive quality of sublinear scaling: a press that can punch out twice as many parts per cycle is not twice the price.
Interesting, I bet.
> But if you want to double the production of milled parts, you have to buy twice as many milling machines.
Yes, milling from casted or extruded material is not the best in terms of part strength as well as cost. Usually, forging + milling is very expensive for small volumes; but it is the best way to strengthen the part (Up to 2.5x yield strength!) for a given material. Aluminum forging is often equivalent to mild steel parts in terms of strength.
$11 each, at the time :)
They'll still run without the recoil spring, although probably not great for the bolt carrier/rear trunnion
That dust cover is a big gotcha. You have to remember to close it after firing, and sometimes the spring wears out and it doesn't even stay closed anyway. Another problem is the carbon buildup from the direct gas impingement system if you don't clean it enough, and there are some tough to get spots.
> I can build a working AR lower receiver in the US with tools I have laying around my home (drill press, rotary tool, etc). I can't do the same for an AK because I don't have a spot welder to attach the rails.
Interesting. I'm familiar with the process of building up an 80% AR style rifle, and a 1911 handgun. I know there are 80% AK-47 blanks available but I never looked into what it would take to build one.
You actually don't (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU&t=110s).
The trick is that the bolt carrier itself seals the action so mud doesn't get into it; most other modern rifles eschew the dust cover entirely and just rely on this. It seems to work pretty well since they keep doing it.
* riveting tools to mount the trunnions to the receiver, * welding tools to attach the rails to the receiver, * a bunch of jigs to place various holes in the right places in the receiver, * ...and a 12(?)-ton press: you'll be pressing the barrel into the front trunnion, and you may be using the press (and an appropriate jig) to press a steel flat into the proper shape for a receiver.
There are at least a couple companies out there that offer AK build classes that will walk you through all this, and then transfer the results of your work to your local FFL.
I’ve thought about making one from an old transformer (or was it a microwave oven?), but didn’t pursue it. I only had a few AKs, and have mostly abandoned the platform since the dirt cheap ammo for it has dried up. It’s easier and more practical for me to reload for NATO cartridges.
You can actually see this in the AK itself - you don't even need to compare it to the AR. The original AK was always intended to be stamped metal construction, but they couldn't get that working reliably, so they used milled receivers for basically a decade until the AKM model was released.
The days of stamped steel and milled/forged aluminum firearms may soon be behind us. A Growing number of modern weapons rely heavily on polymer lowers.
It's a far inferior model to taking completed weapons with you. You can build a million units in a factory on another continent and hand them out in safety. They can be built to whatever tolerances are appropriate using whatever exotic materials you want. They won't be limited to materials that can be 3D printed. Your ammo used also won't be limited to ammo that can be safely used in 3D printed parts.
Mostly, yes - but I could see a place for it in an insurgency, where having a weapon is a liability an individual wouldn’t want, unless it’s in active use at the time.
Things are changing quickly, though:
> You can't 3D print your ammo.
True - but there are active projects out there to address this, and they’re getting better all the time. I think you’ll see viable 3D-printed cartridges soon, with chemical components made from accessible ingredients.
> There's also a lot of stuff like springs you can't 3D print.
You can print forms and jigs that make creating springs of the correct dimensions much easier, though. Spring steel wire isn’t in short supply anywhere.
Good insurgencies don't keep weapons at home. They stash them at drop points and pick them up when they need to use them. 3D printers have the same problems as weapons. If an occupying force finds out you've got a 3D printer they're going to confiscate it if you're lucky and jail/kill you if you're not.
I'd also suggest that anymore insurgencies are more interested in IEDs than small arms. An insurgent doesn't need to be around when an IED goes off. An IED can do a lot more damage to even moderately armored vehicles than 3D printed or scratch built small arms.
What you’d gain in “mission-fit” you’d lose in muscle memory.
It's stupid simple to do, and the people who have tried it have gotten results comparable to factory barrels. So probably won't win a shooting competition, but definitely good enough.
I played with when it was first published, and successfully made a rifled barrel blank. I’ll probably do it again at some point, to comply with the NFA for some other projects I have in my backlog - smoothbore pistols are considered “Any Other Weapons”, but even rudimentary rifling is enough to make it “just a pistol”.
Somewhere on the internet is a forum post where someone took a shovel and made all the necessary parts for a functional AK. The receiver and rails were cut up from the metal shovel part, the handle was used as a stock. He used the trunnion, barrel, and trigger group from an existing AK. The later of which could easily be CNCed or even 3D printed at this point.
I was “there” for that thread, but don’t have a link handy. The title was “shit shovel AK”, I think. Here’s a link showing it:
https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2012/11/27/shit-shovel-ak-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbjpIP5ShH0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-kE_wbGLhE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxvrhb7ayW8
And pretty much any of the stress tests that Rob Ski does.
Harbor freight sells the simplest possible welders for like $150. Would that be sufficient?
Most AK home builders use HF spot welders, or the somehow even cheaper Amazon clones.
https://garage.eastwood.com/tech-articles/perfect-rosette-or...
Edit: got a 110v arc welder open box this spring for like $90 and it’s been amazing
I wouldn’t have an issue picking up a HF welder if I only had one or two things to use it on. Any more than that and I’d be watching pawn shops and Facebook Marketplace for a used, better-quality version.
The average person that says “I need a chainsaw” will likely be well served by renting one from a home store, or buying a cheap one from Harbor Freight. They’ll probably use it a dozen times at most.
Is your cheap chainsaw going to hold up as well as the Husqvarna my dad has been using since the late 80s? Absolutely not. Do you live on a 70 acre orchard? No, so a consumer grade tool will do.
Just buy the cheap chainsaw at Home Depot, it costs like $10 more.
I love Harbor Freight but you'll never find me using one of their chainsaws.
Or simplicity. Keep it simple and make it work reliably.