Century Arms: any good?

**IMightBeWrong** · Posted On: 7/11/2010 10:48pm

Originally Posted by Knave

Greetings.

IMO...

I have a Saiga which I converted myself as well as a Bulgarian AK74 with original chrome lined barrel.

I would take any of my AR's over those guns any day of the week if I had to depend on it.

Neither the Saiga or Bulgy is anywhere close to being as accurate as any of my AR's. Not with irons, not with optics.

As I said, my experience has been different. I think what you're describing as the accuracy of the weapon would be more accurately described as your accuracy with the weapon. I have to admit, the AR-15 has possibly the nicest trigger of any modern rifle out there. Very crisp and easy to shoot. The AK has nothing on this. However, with more practice I think the AK is almost just as accurate, or at least it has been in my experience.

Similarly, one of the things that makes the 1911 such a great pistol is it's light trigger pull. That doesn't make the weapon accurate in itself, but it does allow for a shooter to handle it accurately more easily. On the other hand, many people call Glock pistols inaccurate, saying that they're only capable of 3" groups at 15 yards compared to 1 hole groups capable with hight end 1911s. But it isn't necessarily true, and many competitive shooters choose Glocks and even keep the triggers stock. It's actually a very accurate pistol, easily capable of 1" groups at 15 yards with enough practice.

Handguns and Rifles are two totally different things, don't get me wrong, but the same concept still applies. One weapon isn't necessarily more accurate in itself than another just because some shooters handle it better than the other.

**mad_malk** · Posted On: 7/11/2010 11:01pm

Originally Posted by Wounded Ronin

I wonder if they're in Henderson, NV. In that case I could probably just drop by their place one day.

that's precisely were there at. if your interested in dropping by let me know I'll hook you up with information. BTW they also do AK's so they can tell you solid info about both.

**mad_malk** · Posted On: 7/11/2010 11:07pm

Originally Posted by zaohu

I'm speaking from my own experience. The AR I had was made by DPMS with a stainless BBL. I couldn't take it apart without a flathead screwdriver and a significant amount of force because the take down pins in the receiver were tighter than a midget's anus. When I had my Romanian AK it came apart in seconds for cleaning with no tools required. I also found that the 7.62 bore snake I used ran through the barrel easier than my .223 did in the AR.

More reliable due to it's loose tolerances. Either weapon in my experience will function perfectly in ideal settings, but with my AR I would get some problems if the bolt got too hot and wasn't given time to cool down. Heat wasn't an issue with my WASR.

Also, what makes you think that today's ARs are more reliable than today's AKs? This is news to me. I agree that today's AR-15s are far more reliable than they were in the past, but to call them more reliable than an AK seems like a bit of a stretch IMO.

I don't know what your experience is with AKs, but I haven't been able to perform any better with an AR than with an AK at 50-100 yards or so. As I said above, this is all from my personal experience. I don't shoot rifles more than 3-4 times a year compared to handgun shooting which I get a lot more practice with (I enjoy it more).

So what it comes down to is you bought junk. then to top it off your a 5moa shooter and don't see any difference between a junk AR and a Junk AK. That Is a great testing bead to stake your life or another persons life on.

There is a world of difference between a Hobby gun and a combat gun. That's like talking about shooting clay pigeons with a remington 870 and calling it crap becasue you did jsut as well with a saiga 12ga semi auto.

**mad_malk** · Posted On: 7/11/2010 11:12pm

Originally Posted by zaohu

One weapon isn't necessarily more accurate in itself than another just because some shooters handle it better than the other.

while that is true it is also a misleading statement. Some weapons are inherently more accurate then others it's called engineering. it can be proven mathematically and proven regularly by bench-rest shooters.

It's why there is a thing called match grade. it is engineered to be more accurate. Most people can not shoot up to the level there weapons are capable. that does not mean put in the hands of an expert or in a bench rest the difference can't be shown.

**IMightBeWrong** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 10:09am

Originally Posted by mad_malk

while that is true it is also a misleading statement. Some weapons are inherently more accurate then others it's called engineering. it can be proven mathematically and proven regularly by bench-rest shooters.

It's why there is a thing called match grade. it is engineered to be more accurate. Most people can not shoot up to the level there weapons are capable. that does not mean put in the hands of an expert or in a bench rest the difference can't be shown.

That's why I used the term necessarily. I acknowledge that AR-15 platforms generally have better, heavier barrels than AKs and on a bench would be more accurate, but I highly doubt that the majority of shooters buy carbines like ARs and AKs in combat configurations for bench rest shooting. In terms of your average shooter, there should be no significant difference in groups with either weapon unless you just happen to be better with one than the other. I don't think anybody here is Todd Jarret.

**Wounded Ronin** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 12:15pm

Originally Posted by mad_malk

that's precisely were there at. if your interested in dropping by let me know I'll hook you up with information. BTW they also do AK's so they can tell you solid info about both.

Hell yeah I'm interested. It would be a great weekend trip for me, and maybe they can do something fun with my WASR 10!

I'd really appreciate it! :)

**mad_malk** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 12:35pm

Originally Posted by zaohu

That's why I used the term necessarily. I acknowledge that AR-15 platforms generally have better, heavier barrels than AKs and on a bench would be more accurate, but I highly doubt that the majority of shooters buy carbines like ARs and AKs in combat configurations for bench rest shooting. In terms of your average shooter, there should be no significant difference in groups with either weapon unless you just happen to be better with one than the other. I don't think anybody here is Todd Jarret.

actually the average person who is properly trained and has annual practice should be able to shoot 3-4 Moa. So a trained person would see a big difference especially if shooting out to 100 yards.

**Lord Skeletor** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 4:53pm

Century Arms has a long history of making "hit or miss" firearms projects. They'll build like 10,000 galil sporters from parts kits and like 1/2 of them will be fitted wrong, or have ill-fitting parts which requires reworking and re-tooling often. Be warned...I've got 2-3 of their guns and luckily, mine work okay.

**Knave** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 5:47pm

Also, what makes you think that today's ARs are more reliable than today's AKs? This is news to me. I agree that today's AR-15s are far more reliable than they were in the past, but to call them more reliable than an AK seems like a bit of a stretch IMO.

What are you defining as today's AKs? I can't compare AK-10X series guns as I have no access to them. By "today's AR's" I'm referring to the relatively standard quality control and construction found in virtually any gun the average consumer would find in a shop (or the parts the average consumer would use to put one together) as opposed to the general lack of standard quality control and quality construction found in the various imported parts kits (Romanian's, Maadi's, Bulgy's, etc etc), the lack thereof found in MANY guns assembled from those kits by various shops which comprise a large percentage of AK's available to the average consumer (I'm looking at you Century..), and even the lack thereof found in guns produced under the Saiga name by Izhevsk, which AFAIK is actually the main producer of the AK-10X series anyway.

Similarly, one of the things that makes the 1911 such a great pistol is it's light trigger pull. That doesn't make the weapon accurate in itself, but it does allow for a shooter to handle it accurately more easily. On the other hand, many people call Glock pistols inaccurate, saying that they're only capable of 3" groups at 15 yards compared to 1 hole groups capable with hight end 1911s. But it isn't necessarily true, and many competitive shooters choose Glocks and even keep the triggers stock. It's actually a very accurate pistol, easily capable of 1" groups at 15 yards with enough practice..

The Glock trigger is great as-is from the factory, disregarding the slight weakness of the trigger spring durability. Differences in mechanical accuracy from a Glock to a high dollar 1911 will likely have alot to do with custom fitting of the frame, slide, barrel, and bushing of the 1911. Triggers and sights and so forth are factors that let the shooter tap into that mechanical potential. Regardless, at short distances the differences are arguably negligible. I agree with you about the differences being arguably negligible for rifles at those distances as well.

However, I'm talking about differences in mechanical accuracy for rifles at medium or even long distance. If a given AR with a given ammo has a mechanical accuracy of 1MOA, and a given AK with given ammo has a mechanical accuracy of 4MOA, the difference is not at all negligible. At 100m making center of mass shots, sure, 1 inch vs. 4 inch is probably not going to make a helluva difference from a practical standpoint. But 2 inches vs. 8 inches at 200m makes a helluva difference, as does 3 inches vs. missing your point of aim by a whole foot at 300m.

Now, if I were put a 1MOA dot Eotech on that 1MOA rifle and shoot at 300m, I'd likely get better groups than if I put a 4MOA dot Aimpoint on it. But that's my problem, not the rifle's. If I put that 4MOA dot on a 4MOA AK and shoot at 100m, then put the 4MOA dot on a 1MOA AR and shoot at 100m, I might not notice a difference. But when I put that 1MOA dot on that 4MOA AK and shoot at 300m and miss my point of aim by a whole foot, that's the rifle.

Like you said though, the average owner of an AR or AK might never notice the difference based on their intended use (plinking, home defense, whatever). The average owner, possibly being the type that neglects cleaning and lubing, may in fact notice a difference in "reliability" (user-controlled reliability vs. actual reliability).

**IMightBeWrong** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 7:41pm

Not quoting to save scrolling. I think you and I may have differing opinions on the intended use of AR and AK type rifles. I personally consider both to be 100-200 meter weapons for their primary function. To shoot further I'd much rather have a .308 rifle, even though both the AR and AK are effective out to 400 or even 600 with the right loadings of .223. So in terms of what I personally consider a reasonable range for either weapon, the difference in accuracy to me is as I said, negligible, especially since I live in Northern Phoenix and it'd be tough to find an area to shoot around here that allowed for a decent backdrop and more than 200 meters of space to shoot.

As for a modern AK, I'm talking about Russian Made Saiga rifles and Arsenal AKs like I made mention to in an earlier post. From what little experience I have with Russian AK models owned by friends, I've found them to be very accurate.