Just want to know that I have nothing to fear before buying one.  Do I need an extra bolt and bcg like I have with my AR?  How have the WASRs served you guys?

The only malfunctions I've had with it was due to a bad magazine. No more malfunctions when I used another magazine.

Mine has been 100% reliable after about a 100 round brake-in.  

Bolts should not be regarded as interchangable without checking headspace.

100%

Very good X4.

In the 4000 plus rounds put through mine, it has fired every time I pulled the trigger.

Runs like a champ... I've sped up rates of fire until oil starts cooking off the return spring... Metal magazines are your only weak point, since they can be imperceptively distorted, bent, etc and do not reveal themselves as problems until you load it and use it,

I stick with Tapco mags. They may be alittle more expensive but when they are broken, you see it. No bent or squash tubes that feed poorly or jam the follower... Plus they come in colors.

I trust mine. A few bad ammo primers & no bang in 3K+ & that's it. Haven't cleaned it in 1K rounds.

Interesting viewpoint.

"...weak point..."?
Out of a hundred or so milsurp magazines I've used, exactly one  (a well used Yugoslavian that had literally been through the war) was dented enough that it would not work. That dent was obvious to the most casual inspection.
As a test, I loaded the magazine and tried it. As expected it failed. Five minutes work with a socket and a small pry bar removed the dent. It's worked 100% since then.
A plastic magazine subjected to the same amount of force would be reduced to junk.

i got mine in 2006 and it has been 100%since.

I find this statement to be very hard to believe

out of the 9 wasr's I have, all of them have fired every single time. I find that the people who gripe and bitch about wasr's are the same people that have never owned one. go figure...

I have 1 Waser 10/63 and a Sar-1 and they are vary reliable . The Sar-1 is my go to gun and I have a peep sight and a red dot on it and it does the Job . The Waser is a safe queen until SHTF. I BET MY LIFE ON BOTH

I've shot thousands of rounds thru my 10/63, very reliable after the first couple of hundred. There is another active thread about a round not firing, happens to me once in a great while with russian ammo.

It happens to me more on Wolf polymer

While not a WASR, I was shooting my Chinese AK the other day and I believe I experinced a bad primer because the rifle had shot perfectly fine before that and after the bad primer.

One of the strong points of the AK system is and has always been the very rugged, all steel, magazines, with their very beefy feed lips.  Combloc soldiers have been known to regularly use the mags to drive tent stakes and use the feed lips to open beer bottles.  I will use nothing but genuine steel, milsurp mags in mine and I have never had one fail me yet.  They are probably one of the, if not the, most reliable auto-feeding rifle magazine available.  Tapco's have, on the other hand, a rather spotty reputation.  Some people have reported good results, other have not.

Maybe you are thinking of the AR aluminum mags, that have coincidentaly been one of its weak points at times.

My Wasr has been 100% since I bought it new in November.

As for the metal mags, out of 30 metal mags, Ive never had a single problem.

I wouldnt consider Tapco mags for anything other than a paperweight.

I had one metal and one tapco issued with my rifle when I purchased.  The metal mag shows no signs of damge but the follower sticks at round 25... you can continue to feed rounds, should you wish, but the follower will not feed. It is a simple fact of life. Metal bends. And if the relatively rugged metal magazines are the WASR's only weak point, I would expect some measure of celebration. Unfortunately, metal bends and the tolerances of a debilitating bend are much smaller than the human eye can detect. Could I bend it out? sure, I suppose. But I happen to like the tapco mags... they fit tight. Further more, A plastic magazine would hardly require bending... its the whole point. If the mag is damaged, you can see such clearly.  Further more, I have done pushups using the rifle, just to see if the mag would hold. It does... So for practical purposes, the Tapco mag is little difference enough from the metal.



You paint all milsurp as spotless... Are we excluding the rusty crap that some people try pass as good mags? I have not said that the metal mags are crap and contrary to insinuations, respect the metal mags.. especially when you can test them for deformed tubes. Note I made no comment on the feed lips. Do you use the side of the mag tube to drive the tent stakes? What is your point anyway? I've driven tent stakes with magpul mags for my AR...  And probably could with the spare mag for my Ishapore (gasp, 1/4" steel) or 1911 mags... is this the all-passing test for magazines? Driving tent stakes?

I possess 7 Tapco mags... They perform flawlessly. They are sturdy and fit well. They also count for 922r parts, unlike the metal mags, for those of whom this may be a problem. I do not advise people away from metal mags (make sure you have enough 922r parts). Use them if you like. I do not care for the wobbling around metal mags are prone to in the WASR 10/63s... but it has not impacted performance.

My original statement stands. You want a WASR 10/63? Eye-ball the front post sight for straightness. Looks good? Run with it! Buy whatever mags you please. Ignore the foaming over magazine choice. If your rifle comes with metal mags (mine came with one, the wife's came with two tapcos), ask to see them loaded or a warranty that they function properly. Count your parts for 922(r). Especially if they sell you a rifle with one tapco and one metal. Mine lacked enough 922r parts, so it was sold with one Tapco mag so it would be. I've long since replaced the hand guards, stock, etc.

Mine's a later production one from 08 and it's been perfect and metal surplus mags lock up tighter than in my MAK90.

My WASR is well over 5000 rounds flawless. I couldnt be happier with it.

Once again, you give my words meaning I did not imply. My Original Statement in FULL

First of all, I made no statement that this was a problem or design flaw. You cut the rest of the statement. I simply did not like the wobble. Its a personal preference.
Second, I have not attempted to make the AK the AR. No desire to either. And contrary to your insinuation, I fully understand the life span of my plastic mags vs steel ak.
Finally, your constant down talk to me regarding my knowledge looks more like a sad attempt to cover yourself. I am fully aware of the ak's design and understand its function. But no amount of "talk" will prove one way or another what is actually my knowledge level.



Once again, your attacks against my person. Again, no way to "prove" the facts so i'm not going to bother. So I have taken pictures of the magazine in question, including, ofcourse, one picture showing the jammed rounds clearly.. so everyone can see I haven't taken a good mag and interposed it. Those can be seen at the end of this post.
Second, to my knowledge Tapco does not avertise the ability of their mags to be used in such a manner like the push ups. Your statements of the magazine's weakness, however, are shown to be atleast somewhat false. Such pushups should exert pressure on the rear lug. I am not, no matter the size of my engineering library, a materials engineer.. On the other hand, if you would like to suggest a reasonable test, since you seem to put forward a front of such great knowledge, I'm game. I'm sure you'll be just as willing to put forward some of your cash money in the form of metal and plastic magazines as I am.

As promised, pictures of the metal mag in question.






I still maintain that the WASR 10/63 is a fine reliable weapon; the perspective owner should test any mags for functionality. Your comments, however, reinforce my statement that metal mags are a potential source of problems. ESPECIALLY, since the original poster is coming from the AR and seems to have less experience with the AK platform. If your accusations are true for me, they would be even more so true for the OP, correct?

You seem to mistake personal preference for fact. I clearly stated that the wobble was a personal dislike. You apparently are retarded for being unable to distinguish the difference.




You seem to a derive a whole lot from my statements... as if I have never assembled a ak in my whole life. You would be wrong. On the other hand, you claim a alot.... either way, no way to prove. So keep your you personal opinions to yourself.

My statements stand more so with every post you make. You continue to claim greater and greater experience with each post and insights from each level. Yet the original poster apparently shows little to no experience in the AK platform... so your "great" experience in fixing magazines proves my point. In addition, nothing you have said, dispite your continued attacks, has disproven my initial statements. You have admitted the metal mags can be crushed and thus rendered inoperable. You have explicitly stated that is takes some sort of advanced knowledge to repair them (or atleast advanced experience). I dispute this explicitly but the fact is neither here nor there.

METAL MAGS ARE TO BE EXAMINED AND TESTED FOR FUNCTIONALITY. PLASTIC MAGS BREAK BEFORE DISTORTION THUS SHOW THEMSELVES TO BE BAD. THE WASR 10/63 IS A RELIABLE WEAPON.

Debate POLYTHENEPAM, on these concepts, if you will, from my original post in FULL AWARENESS OF THE OPs newness to the subject and material...

Otherwise, reveal yourself for the petty afcommer you apparently are and take your dissemenating BS for 4chan and leave me alone. Your crap is neither relevant nor material to the OP's question.

I note, for the record, that you seem to be unable to find any problem with the depicted magazine to explain its lack of function.... I'll take this as explicitly acceptance that a AK mag can fail to function without apparent reason for failure.

You need to take the mag apart and clean it . Mine did that now it runs good on the bottom of the mag you will see a squire button push it down with a punch or a bullet and slide the plate take every thing out and clean lightly put oil on the inside

I appreciate the honest review... but I already did take the mag apart and clean it... I then used it and saw no change (the residue you see is a combination of my prefered lube and some shot residue from my last session. I saw no change in performance.

No joke....the first batch of AK mags I bought were full of crap.  Everyone needs to clean the crap out of those things when they first get them.

A true statement of ANY equipment you buy used.

As an aside... silence is acceptance. Check you mags if you can before you buy...

My WASR-10/63 is as reliable as I could want.

CS

Mines been 100% from the beginning.

I bought it from a friend and he had it for 4 years before I bought it.

There's prob at least 3K out of it, I used nothing but steel AK mags.

Mine has never jammed or done anything squirrely.

Mine's been good.   Now.

For the first few hundred rounds it would NOT...feed from about 1/2 my magazines.   It loosened up a little and now it runs on anything (Except for junk magazines....friggin ATI POS).

ANyway. Other than that it's been good.  Sights/gast block straight, the scope accepted a mount easily and locked down solid, and I'm getting 3" groups with Wolf ammo (100 yards).

I know people bash Wasr's, they ain't pretty...but I think they work.    Overall, I'm happy with my $420 rifle and glad I didn't wait and buy a $750 AK....

myself and pam have bickered over several subjects. but this one is a no-brainer in pams favor and pretty much a settled subject. ak surplus steel mags made in a commy factory such as hungary, poland, romania, russia, china, etc. are solid as a rock. a 30 thirty year old used steel commy mag will outlast the tapco mag hands down. when buying surplus there a few things you need to do. take them apart, if gunked with cosmo, clean them. if rusty, brush them out with a metal brush and lube them. your mag appears very rusty inside. i'm not saying that is the problem but it could be. if it's the body being bent in i have repaired a few. out of over a hundred $5 rusty beat to shit mags from copes dist., i only had two that after cleaning needed some bending, one never would function and these mags saw some heavy duty abuse.



but the bottom line is that the steel ak mag is one of the ak's strongest points. i see no reason for anyone to ever spend $15 on a tapco polymer mag that has lugs and feed lips that are not steel reinforced. if you want to use a poly mag i suggest the bulgarian circle 10. twice the money but 10 times the reliability, or just spend $10 on a steel mag that will literally outlast you.

I don't mean to antagonize any of these OP's but the previous gentleman has said it best.  The reason the Kalashnikov is so reliable has many factors, but the most important one is the magazine, period.  Surplus Chinese, former Soviet Com-Bloc or any real STEEL SURPLUS magazine has proven for DECADES that they are a sound design and reliable, IF they work in your weapon.  Buy fifty brand-new or used AK mags, and at least forty-five will work flawlessly.  How much time and energy you want to spend on the five that don't/won't work is up to you.  The magazine is ALWAYS the weak-link in any firearm platform, be it a 9mm Glock or an AKM.  The only positive is you can usually find the problem magazines rather quickly and easily.  It isn't going to take much more than ten rounds or so for it to rear it's ugly head.  The rotten apple usually floats to the top.    

With even half-assed care, what's left will outlast you, me and any of our next two generations of offspring.  YMMV.  Just one more man's opinion.      

I have had many wasr ak's and have to say that they are battle worthy! take a pounding never clean it always works and accuracy is better than most imply but imo the plastic aftermarket mags are not for me i stick strictly with steel surplus "european" mags

Mine runs with no issues at all- never has and so does my sons... Bang every time and also accurate as well..

100% for it's first 2k+ rounds.  Came with Tapco mags, those have been flawless as well.  The finish wasn't the greatest, but that is nothing that Cerakote didn't fix......

Just wanted to comment.Chk out my you tube vid of my wasr in action.Reliable and very FUN

i love mine, i don't know the exact round count, probably a few thousand of whatever is the cheapest. most reliable gun i have. ya there are alot of people that will run you away from a wasr, but for the money i feel its worth it. i've had $1000 aks and my $350 ak shoots just as good.

First of all, as previously stated, I clean the mag and there is only rust at the floor plate edges... Also as previously stated, the material you see is a lubricant/protectant I applied post failure diagnosis. Just because the tube is deformed doesn't mean I'm throwing away the spring and follower. Please bother to read instead of making me answer stupid points over and over.

No brainer eh? So, what is the AK's weak point, if not the magazine? nevermind it... You say the magazine will out last me? I have one so far that isn't working and that's straight from the box. Further more, none of you can point the obvious defect... SO like every other metal magainze one the planet that holds more that ten rounds, deformation of the tube body can be undetectable and yet result in stoppages. END OF STORY.

Now, steel.. given some level of fore-thought and/or care, will outlast me. One that is not, will not. I work in, around and one steel ships for a living... steel is no more infaliable than plastic if you fail to take basic care. Second, I never claimed the Tapco mag would outlast the steel.... Again you people put words into my mouth because you can't debate me on the point at hand.


Now, lets review my original statement... just one more time... since it seems none of you thus far are able to string a sentence into a concept.


Now, using what little grammar I bothered to type, let's analyze my statement.
"Metal magazines are your only weak point"
hmm... so there is a possible problem with the design..

"since they can be imperceptively distorted, bent, etc"
a problem of all TUBE magazines... its a structural fact and no "its better than all the rest" arguement makes it go away... yes it is reliable, a fact I have not disputed, provided you prove to yourself it works in the first place... which brings us to part three...

"and do not reveal themselves as problems until you load it and use it,"
AHHHHH the solution... test the damn thing... gee.. and you people cry and scream like I said the ak was a jammomatic... If a bent or crushed tube is a weapon's only weak point... what does that say about the gun?

If you are arguing a fact of structural mechanics in an otherwise outstanding system... what does it say about you?

The fact that it's often purchased by people who don't understand that it's not an AR.

I have asked you to propose a test to show this immortal strength of the steel mag over tapco mag... You are silent. I post the magazine in question as an EXAMPLE of a tube magazine's failure, you can't point out those so called obvious dents you claim it would require. When I point out the tube magazine's weakness (its a square TUBE... and not even a thick one), you return with personal attacks instead of answers or rebuttals of fact or demostration.

Even when I spell it out in clear English (perhaps I should bold and underline next time?) that the AK is a outstanding platform of great reliability, you just can't take someone stating that your precious AK has the same weakness, to one degree or another, that EVERY MAGAZINE-FED WEAPON SYSTEM HAS IN THE WORLD... the Magazine. Note I didn't claim any of the popular problems others have... feed lips that bend, springs that don't cut it, attachment systems that bind easily or hardly at all, followers that tip like a drunk sailor... I could go at length about all the problems a magazine could have.

Perhaps the situation is the reverse... You're an AK snob... and any attack on your chosen platform is not to be tolerated. Well, guess what. I DON'T CARE. Any individual who asks a question, I strive to answer honestly. Lets go through some of my weapons that liter my home and enumerate a few of their problems, which may be mechanical/operational, user limiting, or simply personal perference (which is always stated clearly so as to differentiate from the first two).

AK- Nothing much except not terribly accurate past 200 yards with generic com-bloc, mass-stamped models. Being a carbine and bullet hose (in auto form) and chambered in a round that's not generally known for punching bowling pins at 600yds with surplus munitions, I'm sure no one is upset. Other than the gun, the magazine is a tough, but still box-shaped vertical tube which can suffer derformation that pinches the follower... Not unique to the system and its certainly not in the top 20 most prone to do so.

AR- Problems very by  type (carbine, full, mid lengths), gas system (DI or piston), intended use, and other factors. System's greatest weak point is the avg mag... being made of aluminum... current generation followers correct issues with tilting and replacements can be ordered for older surplus mags. BCG requires either a wet running condition or good dry film, depending on AO, use, and user preference. Barrel heats up fast, being pencil like in carbine type models. Carbine models in DI following M4 pattern are hard on the BCG and run hotter than full lengths. receiver overall is more susceptable to damage (made of AL) vs caparable steel weapons.

Mosin Nagant- Bolt is alittle more complicated than necessary (likely to get around patents, personal dislike) and tends, especially when new or fresh rebuild, to be difficult to open after firing untill worn in. Most models feature straight bolt handle, requiring changes to accomodate scopes in classic mount. Firing pin is adjustable, good if you perform the checks when you should... bad if you don't.

SMLE (2A/2A1) - 2A has same leaf sight as .303 models... not accurate if numbers read as yards (corrected with 2A1). AL butt plates are prone to break with hard impacts and so many come so from India. Magazines must be sometimes hand adjusted with feed lips to function correctly (especially if you had to order a replacement from numric or purchased another's original). Not to be used with .308... supposedly.. some seem to run fine.

PSL - Same mag feed problem as SMLE above reported as well as hang ups on bolt... Thin barrel means groups widen with increased ROF... AK action means all the Dragunov pattern rifle owners look down on you as a lesser (kinda like some AK and AR snobs... ok perhaps this really isn't a problem for some). Some rifles are reported to be less than great in accuracy (3 moa rather than the 1-1.5 avg, by informal observation).

Remington 7 - Its not a 700... not sure if this is bad or not... The action is alittle shorter so some handloads on the long side are a pain. Butt of rifle is less than pleasing on the shoulder under recoil (for me... something about it....), bigger scopes require higher rings or removal of rear iron.

I'm tired of typing, otherwise I would go on. I believe in truth and complete information. If the individual fails to fully educate themselves, that is their fault. However, those coming here asking questions are making the attempt and I will not lie or by omission, withold anything other than my honest assessment. Contrary to your belief, the bolt action rifle and pump shotgun are as likely to be what the average first time ak buyer knows as far as long guns as the AR. Your assumptions about others and open ridicule of AR owners does those who ask questions a great diservice.

Your actions are nothing less than a cover up of a blanket truth... Many owners thus far have admitted that some mags were bad. If it takes obvious distortion to undo the might AK mag, why did these individuals pick the mag up? I acknowledge some or many are bought sight unseen. But given the multitude of gun shows and mags for sale (and being sold), some of these defectives came from a show where they were seen and handled. I only (and have thus far) urge a critical eye and examination of these purchases where possible... Its your hard earned money (or perhaps not if you're still living on mom's allowances) worth it and what point is there in wasting it on mags that don't work if alittle effort and information can prevent some of it?

Any response lacking facts (I've shown my proof so show me yours), propositions for testing, or acknowledgement of whatever level of over-reaction to my statements you care to admit to is nothing more than blind fanaticism to the AK (which makes you no better than the AR snobs) or trolling, which makes you less than the various gun snobs which inhabit this forum. As before, debate me honestly or not at all.

You seem confused. AFAIK no one "accused" you of attacking anything.
You stand "accused" of lacking knowledge (and perhaps jumping to conclusions).
Perhaps that response reveals more than you intended.
Here's the test you asked for: You're performing a "dynamic entry" armed with an AK. Choose a steel magazine and insert it in the rifle. Enter the doorway at a run and bring the bottom end of the magazine into contact with the door frame.
After repairing the cosmetic damage to the door frame, repeat the test, this time using a plastic magazine without steel locking lugs.

Here's the good news: you won't have to repair cosmetic damage to the door frame after this test. All you'll have to do is unload the broken magazine and throw the pieces away.
Be sure to post pics.

Dude, you take the interwebs way too seriously...

I'll take it in parts


To answer in part, I will go through a few of your replies


Now.. on the surface, it appears you are trying to point out some perceived inexperience and I'm not insulted b/c you think so but because you did not read and diliberately twisted my words to say what I didn't in defense of my supposed attack on the AK system. Even after I point out that my words clearly said nothing of the kind, you did not recind your remarks or correct your statements or assessments but continue to try turn to other posts and twist my words again. In the realm of debate, your actions are clearly like that of someone trying to defend an attack that is not there or cover for an error of which the individual is unwilling to admit.

Now, after repeatedly stating the mag wobble was a personal thing that I didn't like (the quote hereafter shows the whole paragraph of my statement), you haven't recinded the accusation of inexperience nor the accusation that I intended to treat or pretend my AK was an AR (which curiously, if i wanted it so, why not just buy a 7.62x39 upper and be done? I don't buy my guns for looks).
Key sentence bolded so you can read it this time.


Short of bolding, which I have been forced to do at this point, I'm not sure how much more personal I can make the statement... Should I put some smilies around it? Perhaps my language was unclear? If so, and I definitively and plainly stated my intent, all you had to do was say "ok, I understand what you are sayin". And yet your response despite the very very clear statement

was still this


Now, I'm not sure how much more confused you can get since my assessment of the tube compression and the quoted statement above were not even in the same paragraph (and thus the group of sentences I am using to express an idea), much less the same post. I clearly stated in the very first post that


...specifically and SOLELY related to the crushing of the tube. Not mag wobble or its ability to put holes in door jams (I'll get to this later). You are, at best, mistaken in your accusation. You confused a personal preference in one post at its bottom defending the performance of plastic mags with a completely other post where I stated a problem about metal mag tubes. Yet again, you didn't have to apologise, but simply say, "I confused the two" or whatever to indicate you understood my words were not written to imply what you thought. But no.

You also state I lacked the experience to determine a compressed mag and a fix for it. You stated the tolerances were not thousandths of an inch, implying that I had said so by implication of my statement about the compression being invisible to the eye. And yet when I put forward my damaged steel mag, OBVIOUSLY jammed, you are quiet and have no apparent answer for the sticky follower... and it is sticky... Remove the floor plate and try pull it out and it still seezes at the same section. This time, you make an outright statement of incompetence... And then seem to drift away when the cards are out and not say any more on it. Again, all you had to say was "I've never seen that before. Its something to look out for..." or whatever you feel like to acknowledge the fact that at hand and evident for all to see.

Now, can you admit the evident truth of the matter in this case? Could you simply say you were confused or misread my statements and we all leave it at that as a simple honest error.. one that I make often enough? As of yet, apparently not. This is why I say you have, in all but bold faced words, accused me of attacking your beloved AK. Your actions shout "hubris" and "pride" not knowledge and humble one-time beginner you seem to imply.

Now lets turn to your "test"



First, I must point out that to do this test requires an akward hold of the AK, if I am understanding your design, considering most people carry either shouldered and pointed low port or raised and level to the eye in such events (translate low right for lefties, of course). To contact the mag in either case, I would have to run into the door frame dead on since the magazine lays front of my body... In the method of low port carry, the side of either mag type would gouge the door on the lead right hand side of the metal floor plates... In the level carry I would either hit the gun muzzle first or not at all.

Second, I call on you to give a reasonable test. This test isn't even a test at all. There is no controls or eliminations of possible sources of error... including the angle of carry at impact from vertical, the speed, angle of impact from the horizontal, stress from the previous test, repetition of results. Your "test" is a flippant reply and nothing more. Further more, it doesn't even test the key point at the heart of the whole matter... the tube and its ability to resist crushing. Your last two lines are revealing most of all about your predetermined conclusions... The floor plate of a tapco mag is metal. Catching that on the door jam, no matter the outcome for the mag, will tear the wood up. As I said, flippant.

I said your reply, lacking anything substantial (and your test is not substantial in any serious way, you lacked any new facts, and refuse to recind your exaggerations of my statements) means you're not here to have an honest discussion. I even asked you to name one part of the AK which is mechanically weaker so as to make it a more likely fail point than the mag, which I listed as an only point of likely failure. You are silent. Even on the finest length of chain, there is always a weak link. That weak link might still hold 5x max working load and be within all requirements and even exceed them... but its still the weaker than the rest. Have fun with your fellow snobs or trolls... whichever it may be.

I have two. Both are 100% free of problems. About 2K through each. Wolf ammo. One purchased in 2007, and the other in 2009. 2009 has no canted sights and furniture replaced with Bulgy poly set from KVAR. 2007 model has refinished wood and has a canted front sight which was corrected with little trouble.

WHY THE FUCK DO GD CHILDREN CONTINUE TO RUIN TECH THREADS?

Knock it the F off the both of you and take it elsewhere. Both of you strayed off topic and are disrespecting the OP.


Mods, lock this friggin shit.

mine runs 1 billion% since 2004