Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,903 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It is just as hard for me as anyone else to admit when I am wrong.

I have been a critic of a lot of folks deriding the C39 series, because based on my experience my V1 has been superb, at 11 thousand plus rounds has a bit of wear, but hey, 11 thousand rounds.

Based on the following video, and the two guys who made it being far and away two of the most knowledgeable firearms guys out there, and Rob Ski being the AK guru, have ordered a no go and field gauge to check mine out.

I have inspected mine after watching the video, and see none of the failure they have, so suspect I am OK.

However, it is just not worth ignoring a problem that might result in a possible injury if I can make everyone else aware.

So I'm grabbing the hot sauce and some coleslaw, and dishing up a heaping plate of crow.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,167 Posts
You got very lucky, far too many problems due to soft metal parts used in the Century RAS and CV39 series. Hopefully no one gets hurt due to Century's profit before safety manufacturing methods. That video should be a real wake up call to members.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,903 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
You got very lucky, far too many problems due to soft metal parts used in the Century RAS and CV39 series. Hopefully no one gets hurt due to Century's profit before safety manufacturing methods. That video should be a real wake up call to members.
So far, have seen none of it. I do have some shiny metal, but just like most of the rest of my guns. Or at least the ones that get shot a lot.

I suspect the original C39 was a bit pricey to make, as none of the danger zone wear spots and grooves they show have happened, and perhaps the V2 was an effort to make a cheaper, therefore more affordable AK.

What perplexes me is the inherent design of the AK is such, that some bedouin can hammer one out of stamped parts in a cave in the 'Stan, yet we can't seem to build a good one here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,167 Posts
So far, have seen none of it. I do have some shiny metal, but just like most of the rest of my guns. Or at least the ones that get shot a lot.

I suspect the original C39 was a bit pricey to make, as none of the danger zone wear spots and grooves they show have happened, and perhaps the V2 was an effort to make a cheaper, therefore more affordable AK.

What perplexes me is the inherent design of the AK is such, that some bedouin can hammer one out of stamped parts in a cave in the 'Stan, yet we can't seem to build a good one here?

Good point it appears American made AK's like Century, IO, PSA and others seem to be plagued by the same problems "soft steel or castings". On first appearance the CV series appear beautiful and I being old school almost bought one. Notice I said old school not expert, as experts are like "*holes" every has one. I started doing research on many forums and magically the same bad theme appeared with century's builds, again builds NOT imports. No AK or AKM is perfect but it seems century builds or contracted builds like the RAS and CV series suffer the most self destruct problems.

Food for thought, the average buyer would buy these century guns fire 200 rounds then it would sit in the closet, under the bed, in the safe whatever. And the problems would never surface. The buyer that fires thousands or rounds per year are the one who will be graced by the self- destruction peening and chipping that Rob, Tim and other experience.

Its a shame but century puts profits above quality obviously. If your CV continue to works great, I am happy for you. I would definitely get a set of go-no-go headspace gauges and test the headspace every so often and inspect the bolt, carrier and receiver occasionally for adverse wear.
If for no other reason than your personal safety.

Just my 2 cents worth.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,943 Posts
Don't feel bad. I've been bragging about the success I've had using the ETS 12 rnd mag as a backup for my G43.

Other folks, like yep380, argue "stock mags only for carry", while I've been saying it's fine if you test your aftermarket mags first and they work.

Well, on previous tests, mine did work fine. Guess what happened this week when shooting from my ETS mag? Yep, yep380's advice was reasonable. Not just one failure, but multiples. ☹

I guess it will be two stock mags in my pocket for backup, not one oversized aftermarket one.

Thanks for posting the video. I don't have one of those, but I have considered them.
 

·
Cuhootnified Roamer
Joined
·
10,402 Posts
I saw that yesterday. Pretty scary given the AK's reputation for reliability. Over-confidence can kill or maim.
I have a Vz2008 that seems fine. But not sure now, given it's also a Century build.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
65,070 Posts
What perplexes me is the inherent design of the AK is such, that some bedouin can hammer one out of stamped parts in a cave in the 'Stan, yet we can't seem to build a good one here?
Bedouins are Arabs.

Also, Afghani gunsmiths don't build AK or any guns knockoffs to last 5000-rounds either. And if the guns were to self-destruct, I doubt that anybody is going to want their money back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,167 Posts
Just remember there is a big difference between Century builds and Century imports.
There are some folks in forums saying they CV93 V1 receiver was made differently than the CV93 V2 so that could account for the ops good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,642 Posts
Just remember there is a big difference between Century builds and Century imports.
There are some folks in forums saying they CV93 V1 receiver was made differently than the CV93 V2 so that could account for the ops good luck.
I'm really, really banking on that.
Bought a Zastava M77 .308 Winchester imported by Century.
My understanding is it's 100% Serbian Goodness :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,903 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Just remember there is a big difference between Century builds and Century imports.
There are some folks in forums saying they CV93 V1 receiver was made differently than the CV93 V2 so that could account for the ops good luck.
That is my experience. Mine is a V1, and is absolutely stand up all the way around. I shot 2000 rounds, before I cleaned it the first time, because I wanted to break it in properly. Yes, there were some shiny bits, but that just told me where I needed to put grease, as opposed to lube.

I'm in for over 11 thousand rounds, and nothing is even close to needing replacement. My field-no go gauges came in yesterday, and it passed with flying colors. The no go hung up as soon as the bolt was pushed forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACE31

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,746 Posts
Why is it that the folks who made the Yugo "auto" can make a far better rifle than USA Americans???
I would suspect labor costs and maybe some material costs contribute a lot into that equation trying to keep price point down. Wouldn't you? (not to mention, we need to define "far better" and agree on a definition, but I know we're talking about Kalashnikovs so, moot point on my part)

Cheap Commie Guns mfg by the State, not private business, are two vast differences as one can be subsidized, the other, financed or out of pocket.

If Krebs or Fuller are any indicators, good American Made (or tweaked) AKs, ain't cheap.

The Yugoslavians, under Tito, did their AK thing without Moscow approval - bought one and reverse engineered it, making it better in their minds, which accounts for the differences in Zastava's and the rest of the worlds AKs. So it is "they" have been building them since the 50/60's.

And now, I understand the Serbs are going to the 6.5 Grendel? (but I digress)

And while I hope MAC and Rob don't get hurt if one does KaBOOM, at least we can all say, "That rifle sure looked good as it self destructed... didn't it?" (live fast, die young and leave a clean corpse)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
It’s a little unfortunate, but unsurprising, that an American built AK was subpar. I believe these American rifles generally use cast instead of forged bolts.

Plus the cost to manufacture a relatively small batch of American AKs must be higher than it would be for a company jumping into ARs nowadays. Think cost to make steel revolvers vs polymer pistols. Materials plus (lack of) demand plus cost to make in the US. Hard to keep a quality made US AK at a competitive price.

In all fairness, I used to own a C39v2. It was never awful and never got as bad as the one in the video, but you could see the bolt wearing oddly and was sold soon. I still own a Yugo Zastava O-PAP (Century) and a Russian Molot Vepr FM. Both are holding up much better than the C39v2 after way more rounds.

To each their own, just my opinion.
 

·
Build the Wall
Joined
·
10,322 Posts
I'm really, really banking on that.
Bought a Zastava M77 .308 Winchester imported by Century.
My understanding is it's 100% Serbian Goodness :cool:
Not possible.

As an imported rifle it MUST HAVE at least five (5) U.S. compliance parts.

S&W
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,642 Posts
Not possible.

As an imported rifle it MUST HAVE at least five (5) U.S. compliance parts.

S&W
Zastava M77 PS is imported as a sporting rife and as such 922r does not apply.
It's 100% Zastava with ZERO U.S. parts.

It's complicated and I had to learn about it the hard way.
Gun came with a thumb hole stock and a cap welded over the the threaded barrel. Replace the stock with a folder/pistol grip and it's not a sporting rifle anymore.
Even just knocking off the cap to use the threaded barrel and it's no longer a sporting rifle.
When it's no longer a sporting rifle - then 922r takes effect.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top