Differences between Ak47 and AK103?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's like that imaginary DOD memo instructing all pilots of B-52's to fly them to Nevada to be turned to scrap, then noting that pilots are to await pickup by B-52.
 
Since the AK-47 is banned by name, they had to call it something else.

Functionally speaking,no difference.
 
ak-103 has nothing to do with getting around the ban, because they don't sell them in the usa anyway. to me, it looks like a plastic stock and muzzle brake.
 
To the average grunt, next to zero difference. Muzzle brake is about it. I'm willing to bet the AK-103 costs an extra hundred or two anyways.
 
I believe Max Popeneker is the best guy to answer this, but here goes.

The AK47 was the original gun. Using a machined reciever. The design was changed for ease of manufacture and changed to a stamped receiver (AKM), the Russians then switched to 5.45 and the AK47 was no longer manufactured. Now there is a need again for 7.62 weapons and they are producing the AK-103 (there are also 101s, and I believe the 105 and 106 have a drastically redesigned recoil reducing gas system). I believe that the 103 has a 74 style muzzle brake, plastic furniture, and though it can't be seen in the picture I would be sure that it has a side rail for mounting optics.

As for costing a couple hundred dollers extra, I would not bet on it. The original AK47 is no longer produced. So even in theory if both guns could be bought off of the shelf here in America then the 47 would cost way way more. Since the only people getting actual 103s in Russia are working for some branch of their government or security forces, it is kind of a moot point.
 
Oops...I thought this was another one of those $900 AK's produced by whatever friggin US company it is that manages to sucker people into paying as much for an AK as a decent FAL will cost ya.
 
Oops...I thought this was another one of those $900 AK's produced by whatever friggin US company it is that manages to sucker people into paying as much for an AK as a decent FAL will cost ya.
A "decent" FAL will cost you WAY more than a good AK. :) If I had back all the time, money, aggravation I spent on those trashy FAL's, I could have bought two or three more of thsoe $700 AK's. Hell, my lowly SAR1 would out shoot any of the three FAL's I used to own!
 
You must have bought Century guns.

Of the 3 that I own, only one cost anywhere near $800, and thats only because of the FSE folding charging handle and FCG, and the DSA furniture.

The other two are right around $500 and $600, respectively. And they will outshoot any AK I've ever owned, or seen, any day of the week. Not to say that I dont like my AK's...dont ever think that. AK's are one of those rifles you can never have too many of.
 
Where are they sellin them for 5-600 and what kind of ammo and groups do you get at 100Yards or more???

A buddy of mine built one, and I had a smith build the other.

I only shoot surplus, since its cheap. Last time I looked at groups I think it was a little under 2" or so, I think. But since I rarely shoot for groups (about the only time is when I first sight in a rifle), just to hit things like clay pigeon or soda can, or the human-shaped targets we use in our FAL/3-gun Run N Shoot matches, I would have to shoot again and get back to you, if you are really that interested.
 
Oops...I thought this was another one of those $900 AK's produced by whatever friggin US company it is that manages to sucker people into paying as much for an AK as a decent FAL will cost ya.

Somewhere along the line people have become convinced that AR-15 clones are worth $800 to $1200, too...
 
Oops...I thought this was another one of those $900 AK's produced by whatever friggin US company it is that manages to sucker people into paying as much for an AK as a decent FAL will cost ya.


May not be worth it to YOU.....but it's worth it to many others. Quality made guns cost money. AK's are NO different.

People buying $900 AK's aren't "suckers", they simply want a quality built rifle that doesn't have many of the problems associated with $300 CAI imports. :rolleyes:
 
$900 for an AK is a bit extreme. dont good milled receiver rifles go for $600 range.

my saiga rifles were made in the country AK's were invented cost me $200-$250 each. conversion to pistol grip and hicaps cost less than a additional $100 if you do the work not to hard. send the rifle out for work would run $200 parts included. end result beats the heck out of a romanian knockoff for same if not little more price wise. better accuracy with the saiga's. no ak handguard unless you want to spend alot more to get it done or can do it yourself via press or welding.
 
Oops...I thought this was another one of those $900 AK's produced by whatever friggin US company it is that manages to sucker people into paying as much for an AK as a decent FAL will cost ya.

What if they want an AK-47 and not an FAL?
 
I've heard before, can't remember where, that the original AK-47 was milled not because the design called for it to be milled, but because the Russian's stamping process just wasn't up to par at the time. They were, however, very good at milling out hunks of metal much faster so they just did it that way until they got better stamping processes worked out.
 
People buying $900 AK's aren't "suckers", they simply want a quality built rifle that doesn't have many of the problems associated with $300 CAI imports.

Theres this neat little thing you can do, called building one. AK receivers are pretty inexpensive, and the kits from demilled, brand new rifles are what, $160-$175 from places such as FAC. Total cost still less than $400. Thats IF you dont know someone who can build an AK, and have to send it to a smith. So, $500 difference you can spend on mags, ammo, more ammo, etc.

The only problem I had with any of my Century SAR's was a canted front sight on the SAR-2. Easily fixed with a big vise, a big wrench, and a towel.

GigaBuist, you probably saw that on Tales of the Gun on the History Channel. I saw that episode about the AK so many times, but I still watch it every time it comes on (same with the German WWII weapons episode, and American WWII weapons episode).

Nate, then get an AK. I just dont see the point in paying as much for an AK as a good FAL, nor will I pay that much. I wouldnt pay as much for a FAL as for a Barrett M82A1, either, but some people do.
 
I guess where the confusion is coming in is what you consider a "good" FAL. The only FAL's that I have seen that shoot what I consider decent, didnt cost $5-600, more like $1500 and up. Two of my FAL's were early kit guns, but not made by Century, I dont know who put them together, but at the time, I just had to have them as I thought they were the scheisse, but I'm VERY happy they are gone now. They cost me $500 each then and I dumped a ton of time and money into them trying to get them to work right. They never did, and forget about any kind of groups when they did get through a mag. I also had a FN rifle, that worked flawlessly, but it too would not shoot a group to save its arsch. They all "strung" their rounds, especially when the gun got hot. I did like the FAL's ergonomics, but compared to the AK's and AR's, they are heavy, and slow and really dont shoot all that much better when they do shoot. As for AK accuracy, I have a Krebs AK103K($700) that will shoot around 2" at 100 yards on a regular basis. My WASR10($360) will shoot 3-4". Thats better than even my FN would do. Will a $700 AK shoot as well as a $700 FAL? I'd be willing to bet they are pretty close. If your going to compare things, compare apples to apples.

Building a gun can be fun and save you some money, but dont think its going to work or shoot great the first time out. If it does, I'd say it was a miracle. They can also EXTREMELY frustrating and consume lots of your time, ammo, and money. If I was to get one put together, I would most certainly get a gunsmith with a GOOD rep for that type gun to do it, but I'll guarantee you, it wont cost you $5-600 for the total gun. When it comes to getting a gun that you want, your going to pay for it, one way or another.

If and when things are lifted, I will either get, or have someone like Krebs put as true an AK103 as possible together for me. I think the Russian rifles are probably the best, and at the very least, a barreled Russian receiver, made and assembled there is the best place to start. I like the full, solid polymer folding stock that these rifles come with over the others available on some of the other guns. The AK74 type brake works very well and you can tell the difference right away between guns that have one and guns that dont.
 
Theres this neat little thing you can do, called building one.

And if I could build one as nice as one of the high end AK builders out there, I would.


The only problem I had with any of my Century SAR's was a canted front sight on the SAR-2. Easily fixed with a big vise, a big wrench, and a towel.

Thats not quite the only problem CAI guns have. I own one myself.....they are OK for the money, but not even in the same category as a quality built AK.
 
In Kalashnikov Arms published in Moscow (1999) and compiled by Alexie Nedelin, here is how the 100+ numbers run :

Starting with the M receiver,

AK-101 : 5.56 mm, full length barrel, AK-74 muzzle brake, plastic furniture, folding (to the left) buttstock, scope mount attachment on left side of receiver.

AK-102 : Same as above except barrel length cut from 415 mm to 314 mm, front sight integral with gas block, Krinkov muzzle brake.

AK-103 : Same as AK-101 except chambered for 7.62 mm.

AK-104 : Same as AK-102 except chambered for 7.62 mm.

AK-105 : Same as AK-102 except chambered for 5.45 mm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top