Armory Sponsor
Posted: 4/22/2025 4:08:08 PM EDT
|
AK-47 So what is the issue with this thing? There was another one listed yesterday that sold for $42k in a few hours. This one has been lingering. I'm interested in buying one and just saw this one because it was bumped from a listing back in December. Is it because it was a caliber conversion? |
Sometimes reasonable men must do unreasonable things.
|
That would be my guess. The 5.56 and 5.45 trunions are smaller than the 7.62 ones, IIRC. Receivers are thinner in overall width too. So it’s probably not going to last as long or be as durable as a 7.62 original. I’m not a FA AK guy, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn before and own a couple AK’s semi-auto. |
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Make it "Idiot Proof", along comes a better idiot.
Official Site Nickname, given by NorCal - "Smack"
Make it "Idiot Proof", along comes a better idiot.
Official Site Nickname, given by NorCal - "Smack"
|
Originally Posted By CA_TX-Cop: That would be my guess. The 5.56 and 5.45 trunions are smaller than the 7.62 ones, IIRC. Receivers are thinner in overall width too. So it’s probably not going to last as long or be as durable as a 7.62 original. I’m not a FA AK guy, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn before and own a couple AK’s semi-auto. 556/545 receivers are generally the same as 7.62x39 receivers except magwell. The RPK receiver is 1.5mm vs the standard 1mm thick. Non RPK use the same fixtures and jigs to hold them for drilling operations. I use all the same fixtures and jigs for 47s and 74s for receiver work including bending. I build AKs. The one in the link looks a little rough. Weird and uneven cuts on the rails and such. The 7.62 conversion will mostly be trunnion, barrel, magwell, bolt. I would have left it 223. |
|
Originally Posted By Deerhurst: 556/545 receivers are generally the same as 7.62x39 receivers except magwell. The RPK receiver is 1.5mm vs the standard 1mm thick. Non RPK use the same fixtures and jigs to hold them for drilling operations. I use all the same fixtures and jigs for 47s and 74s for receiver work including bending. I build AKs. The one in the link looks a little rough. Weird and uneven cuts on the rails and such. The 7.62 conversion will mostly be trunnion, barrel, magwell, bolt. I would have left it 223. Thanks for the corrections. I know my 5.45 and 5.56 mag wells are thinner, I thought that also translates to all parts . |
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Make it "Idiot Proof", along comes a better idiot.
Official Site Nickname, given by NorCal - "Smack"
Make it "Idiot Proof", along comes a better idiot.
Official Site Nickname, given by NorCal - "Smack"
|
Originally Posted By Deerhurst: 556/545 receivers are generally the same as 7.62x39 receivers except magwell. The RPK receiver is 1.5mm vs the standard 1mm thick. Non RPK use the same fixtures and jigs to hold them for drilling operations. I use all the same fixtures and jigs for 47s and 74s for receiver work including bending. I build AKs. The one in the link looks a little rough. Weird and uneven cuts on the rails and such. The 7.62 conversion will mostly be trunnion, barrel, magwell, bolt. I would have left it 223. |
Sometimes reasonable men must do unreasonable things.
Joined:
Nov 2022
Posts:
378
EE: 100% (16)
SD, USA
|
If Andrewski had his mitts on it, it’s going to work based on his reputation. Sturm is kinda fukt up, in that, it’s like a reverse auction. Most everything gets posted high and sells for less. Occasionally something goes up at a good price and is gone in minutes. This is one that is converted and the purists won’t touch it and it’s too much for the commoner with a mortgage, two car payments and a card’s deck amount of credit cards. Funny the purists are avoiding it, as a small number of AK’s will be pre-68 or amnesty registered. The prices are kinda on hold now. It’s a good time to dicker with prices if you’re in the market. |
|
Originally Posted By Deerhurst: 556/545 receivers are generally the same as 7.62x39 receivers except magwell. The RPK receiver is 1.5mm vs the standard 1mm thick. Non RPK use the same fixtures and jigs to hold them for drilling operations. I use all the same fixtures and jigs for 47s and 74s for receiver work including bending. I build AKs. The one in the link looks a little rough. Weird and uneven cuts on the rails and such. The 7.62 conversion will mostly be trunnion, barrel, magwell, bolt. I would have left it 223. A lot of the older Chinese guns have the serial number on the trunnion. They may have turned down the 7.62 barrel. |
RIP Jeff Reed. Tennessee Squire, Ga. Carry member, NRA,Non-puking 72 ounce drinker 2 of 6 Norcal call sign, Forgotten.
|
While it might have made sense when 7.62x39 was cheap now I would just as soon have it in .223. That being said, and I own a transferable Valmet M78 in 7.62x39, the underfolder AK May look cool and be more practical confined spaces in reality it sucks. Cheek weld is horrible! Honestly would want a fixed stock gun in either .223 or 7.62 but probably 7.62 just for spare parts perspective. But for that money I would buy a factory Colt M16 or 2 SP1 conversions |
|
The Chinese 56S (7.62x39)/84S (.223/5.56mm) guns are completely different from the European 5.56/5.45 AK's, regarding bolts, trunnions, bolt carriers, and barrels. A 56S/84S is essentially a milled AK-47, but with a proprietary 1.5 mm stamped receiver. Parts-wise, all that is needed to convert a Chinese Type 84S from .223 to 7.62x39 is a barrel and bolt. Both calibers use the same 19mm barrel journal, and have the same bolt lug & stem thickness/dimensions. Both use the same trunnion. The bolt carriers are also the same. The .223 ejector would most likely need to be trimmed a bit, in order to clear the 7.62mm bolt. The magazine well is a good question. I've never heard of a .223 84S having its magazine well enlarged for a 7.62mm conversion. Does anybody here have a .223 84S and a 7.62x39mm AK magazine? I would be surprised if the 7.62 magazine didn't fit the .223 rifle. It's likely the same as how a 7.62 AK magazine fits perfectly into a .223 Galil. |
|
@Stahlgewehr762 The Chinese 56S (7.62x39)/84S (.223/5.56mm) guns are completely different from the European 5.56/5.45 AK's, regarding bolts, trunnions, bolt carriers, and barrels. A 56S/84S is essentially a milled AK-47, but with a proprietary 1.5 mm stamped receiver. Parts-wise, all that is needed to convert a Chinese Type 84S from .223 to 7.62x39 is a barrel and bolt. Both calibers use the same 19mm barrel journal, and have the same bolt lug & stem thickness/dimensions. Both use the same trunnion. The bolt carriers are also the same. The .223 ejector would most likely need to be trimmed a bit, in order to clear the 7.62mm bolt. The magazine well is a good question. I've never heard of a .223 84S having its magazine well enlarged for a 7.62mm conversion. Does anybody here have a .223 84S and a 7.62x39mm AK magazine? I would be surprised if the 7.62 magazine didn't fit the .223 rifle. It's likely the same as how a 7.62 AK magazine fits perfectly into a .223 Galil. It is still for sale...! Question; Why can't the can't the ejector just be switched? |
Sometimes reasonable men must do unreasonable things.
|
Originally Posted By MHeemeyer: It is still for sale...! Question; Why can't the can't the ejector just be switched? Ejector is part of the rail welded into the receiver. It can be just replaced but that will be possible receiver damage, more welding and a refinished receiver. |
|
A .223 ejector which has been trimmed to function with a 7.62x39 bolt wouldn't be a deal-breaker by itself. It's a simple clearance cut. If the ejector isn't dragging on the bolt (not trimmed enough = easily fixed), and it isn't peening or causing failure to eject malfunctions (over trimmed = not as easily fixed), it would be just as good as a factory 7.62x39 ejector. A peened or over trimmed ejector can either be welded and reshaped, or the ejector rail can be replaced. If welding, the weld must be hard metal. Typical "soft" welds won't survive the impacts of steel cases carried by the fast moving AK bolt/carrier. Replacing the ejector rail would be fairly significant receiver surgery, as mentioned above. If Andrewski did the caliber conversion, I would be fairly confident that the ejector was properly trimmed for 7.62x39. |
I had a Polytech 223 and the one thing it did was have primers get stuck in the bolt/firing pin pocket as the firing pins were not spring loaded - it would happen often enough I literally gave it away to a buddy who still has it - Had I known what Chinese AKs would have gone for I would have stashed it. But I was infatuated with the cheap Euro kits coming in (with barrels) at the time for under $100!!! and didn't seem to think I wanted a Chinese AK then. I am also thinking the front trunnion on polytechs were made dimensionally similar to 7.62 specs and why they required the special polytechnic 223 mags that were hard to get even when they were imported - only had the three that came with it. and I think for Chinese collectors they were not so popular as the Norinco 84 223 guns. Reminds me - My wife found and promptly threw out the box when I moved to Georgia She saved the manual said did I want it??? It smelled like Chinese cosmoline /AK oil and possibly a tear ran down my face like that Indian crying in that Pollution TV commercial of the 70s. My hunch is that the gun being re-configured has lost some of the Chi-com allure that people prize in them. |
|
These are probably the three things that make this AK somewhat less desirable: 1) It's an underfolder 2) It's an SWD conversion 3) It's a caliber-conversion SWD (Yes, the M11/9mm and Streetsweeper company) was known for notching the RH bolt rail for the auto sear, rather than the preferred/difficult method of slotting the rail. This rifle might have had the rail repaired; it kind of looks like a "bridge" piece was welded in. It's hard to tell on my phone... The SWD method of shortening the rifle's selector stop and adding the new selector detent to the receiver was also less than ideal, but those are cosmetic issues which could be fixed, if so desired. SWD seemingly converted a lot of AK's. They aren't the prettiest conversions, but they are transferable and are completely functional. It would be very beneficial for a potential buyer to know how much of the SWD "stuff" Mr. Andrewski fixed on this AK, if any. @cherenkov: I had always heard the Polytech .223 AKS rifles were known to be problematic. Of course, their 7.62x39 AKS rifles were top-tier. It's probably one of the reasons so many of the NFA .223 versions were converted to 7.62x39. |
Armory Sponsor