Century RAS vs. C39

[Archangel14]

Gents:

I went to my sports store today, not to look at firearms but to buy some weightlifting equipment. But the owner grabbed me and pulled me over to his new "stock" to show me a few AK examples. Now, I've never been an AK guy, but he had two Century models: the C39 and the "RAS". He kept referring to the C39 as the "milled AK" and the RAS as the "stamped AK". I shouldered both and was pleasantly surprised at the feel and ergos. Also, both seemed to be very well made, good fit, nice finish, sites were aligned and tight. Really nice. The C39 was priced about $100 higher. Is it worth it for the milled receiver to pay the extra $100, or am I just throwing money away? It's my understanding that the AK was intended to be stamped?

Thanks.

 

[HOOfan_1]

The C39 is the old model with crappy proprietary sights and proprietary stock and fore end.

The C39v2 fixed that.

The RAS47 comes with a 4150 steel barrel and a scope mounting rail.

The C39v2 had a 4140 barrel and no scope mounting rail.

 

[Archangel14]

So it apears that despite the stamped receiver and lower price point, the RAS47 is a better buy?

 

[akv3g4n]

The milled receiver adds a little weight and regidity but isn't necessary for the platform. The furniture options are going to be a little slimmer going with the c39 because it is a milled rifle. It also has a 4140 barrel versus the 4150 barrel on the RAS47. Many say that the 4150 is a harder, better barrel. Neither have a bayo lug or cleaning rod but that's more astetics to most folks.

 

[Archangel14]

Are they quality firearms?

 

[HOOfan_1]

Also the original AK 47 was milled

 

[leadcounsel]

I'm about to buy one of those RAS47s myself. They get great online reviews and have some cool innovative features.

I have a new WASR with that RAK trigger group and I'm telling you it is the cats meow for AK triggers. It's as good as the Tapco trigger, maybe a little better.

For $600, I think that's the best money on a new AK now.

I wouldn't spend the extra for milled, but that's preference. It would be nice, but I'd rather have a stamped AK and 5-10 more mags or $100 in ammo for the same price.

Milled is marginally stronger - which is not necessary for an AK - and also adds some weight.

If money is tight, get the stamped. There will be no noticeable difference in performance or longevity.

 

[Fishbed77]

Also the original AK 47 was milled

...and the Russians transitioned to the stamped AKM because it was lighter, cheaper to manufacture and had a longer service life.

 

[DeepSouth]

...and the Russians transitioned to the stamped AKM because it was lighter, cheaper to manufacture and had a longer service life.

Longer service life as in over 60 years now, and many (if not most) are still churning out ammo.

The milled receivers are simply not necessary, at all.
I recently saw a Russian training video on YouTube where part of the training was for one solider to hold the end of the barrel, while another solider held the butt stock. Then a third solider would run up and jump with both feet on the reciver of the AK then the two holding would lift the rifle to help boost him over a tall wall.

My first thought was "lol, they should try that with an AR" my second thought was, "and they do that all day (in training) with a stamped receive" and it apparently still shoots.

 

[js8588]

http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223921

All you need to know is on page 1.

My ever so humble:
Milled? Arsenal SAM7SF
Stamped? Vepr

Of the Century builds go with the C39v2 and if you want to scope it (or put on a Reddot, put an Ultimak (or similar) on there.

 

[HOOfan_1]

The milled receivers are simply not necessary, at all.
I

I was just responding to the OP's statement "it is my understanding that AKs were intended to be stamped".

They have been milling as well as stamping them for years, so there certainly is nothing wrong with a milled receiver