Do you watch "AK Operators Union" on Youtube?

[Laufer]

"Rob-Ski" is a veteran of the Polish Army, and he shows Internal wear/stress after 1,000, sometimes 3,500 or 5,000 rds.
Comparisons of internal wear between the new Century RAS, the Zastava NPAP, Polish (from Atlantic Arms) and new WASR 10 have elicited many comments.

The internal wear on bolt lugs, the channels and at the front trunnions seem totally Separate from the external 'drop' and push-up tests.

Do some of you find any of the internal results interesting, or a bit surprising after only 1,000 rds.?

[dwcopple]

No

[Hodgie]

Rob is currently in the US National Guard as well. Regarding the RAS it's absoutly no surprise and now there is further testing being done on that exact rifle by another member of the AK files. He is looking testing all metal parts for their hardness and also shows what most likely is the reason for the headspacing opening up as much as it did from 3500-5000 rounds.

Century sucks at everything other then importing firearms.

[Meshuggah12]

I watch.  Im actually surprised how crappy the Arsenal slr107 that he is testing is doing.

[Hodgie]

Just goes to show you the more people do more talking about their riflles then shooting their rifles.

[tlow777]

I thought "The Union" was pretty positive about C39v2 initial tests? Has there been any updates on that rifle? Mine has preformed flawlessly so far.
Including 210 rounds last weekend, bringing total @ 1900-2000. Did complete disassemble/clean and I can not detect any abnormal wear at all...

[Laufer]

tlow777;
Thanks for the wear description, especially when combined with the round count. The internal components must consist of stronger steel than what Rob-Ski had in his RAS.

I now might consider a 39 along with a newer WASR to add to the Saigas and "ARM" Maadi. Retiring next winter/spring and now focused on maybe "just one more" (wink, wink).

[OathKeeperDruid]

"Rob-Ski" is a veteran of the Polish Army, and he shows Internal wear/stress after 1,000, sometimes 3,500 or 5,000 rds.
Comparisons of internal wear between the new Century RAS, the Zastava NPAP, Polish (from Atlantic Arms) and new WASR 10 have elicited many comments.

The internal wear on bolt lugs, the channels and at the front trunnions seem totally Separate from the external 'drop' and push-up tests.

Do some of you find any of the internal results interesting, or a bit surprising after only 1,000 rds.?

I've made several 'good faith effort' attempts to like that program...I really did. There's a lot of useful information on that channel but there are a few things that keep me away...

1. as hard as I try to ignore it, his accent just drives me insane. There's nothing he or I can do about it, I just can't stand to listen to it for more than 5-10 minutes at a time. It reminds me of Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale cartoon from my youth...which I could not stand either.
2. 1,000/5,000/10,000 and 15,000 round tests? Fantastic. I like to see that a purpose-built battle rifle is going to make those round counts. I like how he shows on 'new company builds,' common wear of metal-on-metal engagement areas as well as uncommon wear because of faulty component metal. In this regard, I have no complaints whatsoever. However, comparing AKM sheet metal receivers to milled receivers rifles is a bit ridiculous. Milled will always be more robust [if heat treated properly] but the intent was to make a cheaper version using sheet steel.
3. Some of the "other testing" he does is, completely in my opinion, wholeheartedly unnecessary. Some is beyond the point of 'normal' "wartime use" and into the realm of "absolutely intended abuse." It's my opinion he's trying to purposely destroy the rifles and after market products he tests and for what reason, I cannot fathom. I'm of the opinion he's either a "closet iron sight purist" or his sponsors are trying to eliminate product competition. Take the Texas Weapon Systems Dog Leg rail for instance. Pushups on the rifle? Realy? Dropped from waist and then above head? Improbable but possible...but then again I'm reminded of this video which yielded greatly different results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFl2bce22PE

Anyway.....I find about 1/3 of his videos/information useful to me and for that I'll begrudgingly watch the channel.

[Meshuggah12]

"Rob-Ski" is a veteran of the Polish Army, and he shows Internal wear/stress after 1,000, sometimes 3,500 or 5,000 rds.
Comparisons of internal wear between the new Century RAS, the Zastava NPAP, Polish (from Atlantic Arms) and new WASR 10 have elicited many comments.

The internal wear on bolt lugs, the channels and at the front trunnions seem totally Separate from the external 'drop' and push-up tests.

Do some of you find any of the internal results interesting, or a bit surprising after only 1,000 rds.?

I've made several 'good faith effort' attempts to like that program...I really did. There's a lot of useful information on that channel but there are a few things that keep me away...

1. as hard as I try to ignore it, his accent just drives me insane. There's nothing he or I can do about it, I just can't stand to listen to it for more than 5-10 minutes at a time. It reminds me of Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale cartoon from my youth...which I could not stand either.
2. 1,000/5,000/10,000 and 15,000 round tests? Fantastic. I like to see that a purpose-built battle rifle is going to make those round counts. I like how he shows on 'new company builds,' common wear of metal-on-metal engagement areas as well as uncommon wear because of faulty component metal. In this regard, I have no complaints whatsoever. However, comparing AKM sheet metal receivers to milled receivers rifles is a bit ridiculous. Milled will always be more robust [if heat treated properly] but the intent was to make a cheaper version using sheet steel.
3. Some of the "other testing" he does is, completely in my opinion, wholeheartedly unnecessary. Some is beyond the point of 'normal' "wartime use" and into the realm of "absolutely intended abuse." It's my opinion he's trying to purposely destroy the rifles and after market products he tests and for what reason, I cannot fathom. I'm of the opinion he's either a "closet iron sight purist" or his sponsors are trying to eliminate product competition. Take the Texas Weapon Systems Dog Leg rail for instance. Pushups on the rifle? Realy? Dropped from waist and then above head? Improbable but possible...but then again I'm reminded of this video which yielded greatly different results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFl2bce22PE

Anyway.....I find about 1/3 of his videos/information useful to me and for that I'll begrudgingly watch the channel.

I just want to point out the video you linked looks pretty fake.  From plenty of CGI to not being able to actually see the drops and impacts.  Pretty lame...

I've never used the TWS rail so I dont have any real input about it.

Rob Skis videos look genuine.  No edited footage or CGI.


I do agree with you about the push up test.  That seems hard on any rifle or rail... But dropped rifles happen all the time when just handling at the home or range, Im sure twice as much in combat situations.

[OathKeeperDruid]

I just want to point out the video you linked looks pretty fake.  From plenty of CGI to not being able to actually see the drops and impacts.  Pretty lame...

I've never used the TWS rail so I dont have any real input about it.

Rob Skis videos look genuine.  No edited footage or CGI.

I do agree with you about the push up test.  That seems hard on any rifle or rail... But dropped rifles happen all the time when just handling at the home or range, Im sure twice as much in combat situations.

Let me start by saying that I do not own, use of have any vested interest in Texas Weapons Systems or their products. That said, please view the following post as not an attack on you but an opinion on a concept:


Regardless of how "fake" it looks to you, the simple fact is the folks over at AKOPS do some crazy **** to a rifle and it's accessories and then expect it to function at 100%. That in itself is BS. They play the "what if....?" game a little too much and way to hard. Genuine? Sure....genuinely abusive to a guaranteed point of failure....and then blame the manufacturer [of whatever else] for the problem.

And I agree rifle drops happen but for crying out loud, AKOPS acts like everyone is just throwing their guns around like lawn darts. AKOPS also acts like everyone treats their firearms like we are all going to war tomorrow.....all the while, picturing combat scenes like we watched in "Enemy at the Gates" and in our down-time, using the weapon's sight hoods as beer bottle openers.

And really....if any person viewing the TWS video thinks those impacts on concrete or dragged across the lot were somehow "faked" then perhaps they should reevaluate their trust in the motives of people and companies.

AKOPS "tests" rifles and products to the point of failure. TWS sells items and will defend their product when it's abused to failure. I get it...you tend to side with the "testers" because you want a product to last forever. But what a lot of people tend to forget is AKOPS is a "YouTuber" channel and are in the business of selling themselves for YT click-profits. So, who actually has "more to lose?" If no one watches AKOPS then their channel goes down the tube [pardon the pun]...which means they'll have to get a full or part time job instead of screwing around on video hoping for clickable-cash. Texas Weapons Systems? Still making and selling forearms products on the say-so of previous customers...

What I find "faked" is the channel using an  ex[?]-Polish army grunt with the accompanying "Russian-like" accent to sell the idea that he's some kind of "AK expert" - on a YouTube channel. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the people over at the MAC Channel have considerable more experience in the arena of "expertise."

I also find it ironic that in the argument of AKOPS vs TWS, no one had publicly announced any type of "problem" with the TWS rail until AKOPS wanted to trash it. You could hear the disapproval in his voice when he first looked at it...and then he trashed it. What I have also found ironic is that the part that connects the rail/cover to the sight block was the part intended / designed to fail to prevent damage to the sight block that is all but impossible to change in the field. During AKOPS' "testing" it did. Big surprise, since it was designed to do exactly what it did.

All rifles and products are mechanical devices that are guaranteed to fail at some point....nothing will last forever and especially when it's abused in the AKOPS fashion. Just because a product can be broken, doesn't mean it's necessarily "crap." The AK47 was only ever designed to have an expected service life of approximately 6,000 to 15,000 rounds and operated by the least educated conscriptees on the planet. Any aftermarket product for that rifle should expect a similar life span. If you beat on aluminum, it's going to ding, dent, bend and snap if provided enough abuse. Hell, a buddy and I were running drills and he bent the rear trunion and sheet steel receiver [where the wood stock inserts] on his AK when he dove to the ground.

I guess all in all I don't buy into the hype of that particular channel. As entertaining as it might be [and only to a point], there are better channels out there with greater information.

[Onepoint]

The problem I had with the TWS failure thing of theirs was they purposefully did it so it would fail, have the thing swung open then drop it, well no kidding its probably going to break, it was never designed for that.  Its like leaving anything loose and then bang on it, what do you expect will happen?  Try that with any part, like a wood butt stock, have it hang out nearly off, attached half way with one screw  and then butt stroke it until it breaks or comes off, 'Oh look AKs are a POS' then.     It passed all the 'tests' they ran it through until they stopped using it as it was designed. 

 And lets face it, if you are holding it and meet enough force that will have the cover come open by itself, you probably have more to worry about than your rifle from then on.

[Meshuggah12]

And really....if any person viewing the TWS video thinks those impacts on concrete or dragged across the lot were somehow "faked" then perhaps they should reevaluate their trust in the motives of people and companies.

First of all trust is earned and is not a given. The only trust I have in companies is I trust the fact they are trying to make money.

Second, I'm no expert in video editing but I can clearly see CGI, artificial image blur, sloppy editing, green screen, and many many change of angles in the TWS systems video.  I tend to trust video evidence more when its unedited.  A drop to the ground and picking up the rifle for inspection in one continuous video shot without the rifle leaving the camera view and without the use of CGI is much more worthy of trust and more compelling to the point being made.


Like I said before I have never owned the TWS rail but wouldn't mind trying one out.  I'm not bashing the product only their video.


MAC is way better of a channel to watch than AKOPS.

[OathKeeperDruid]

The problem I had with the TWS failure thing of theirs was they purposefully did it so it would fail, have the thing swung open then drop it, well no kidding its probably going to break, it was never designed for that.  Its like leaving anything loose and then bang on it, what do you expect will happen?  Try that with any part, like a wood butt stock, have it hang out nearly off, attached half way with one screw  and then butt stroke it until it breaks or comes off, 'Oh look AKs are a POS' then.     It passed all the 'tests' they ran it through until they stopped using it as it was designed. 

 And lets face it, if you are holding it and meet enough force that will have the cover come open by itself, you probably have more to worry about than your rifle from then on.

I completely agree, ^^ that's pretty much my point. The one part that would fail because it was designed to, did so because the cover was open when they decided to "drop test" it. Outside of that, I've seen plenty of videos not produced by TWS showing the the cover functioning as designed, opened and closed a dozen times, locked up tightly, held zero over and over again.

But the AKOPS channel in general [not just the TWS videos] is a bit hyped up IMO. I mean really.....there's not much a person needs to "learn" about AK47s....not enough IMO to dedicate an entire channel to its content for any length of time. Is there a 'learning curve' to AKs? sure....but it's not that big of a curve. If after reading the manual that comes with it, firing off a thousand rounds, strip it down and clean it/reassemble it - and you still "don't get it"? Perhaps that person should rely on their cell phone for help.

With the exception to 'dedicated' constructs like rails and furniture, most accessories are "generic" anyway. Optics, magnifiers, vertical grips, lights, lasers, whatever. Most 'generic' accessories will work equally well [or equally poorly] if swapped out to an AR10, AR15, G3 or M14. You just have to know the limitations on certain 'generic' products....such as "AR15-specific optics" will very likely 'jump' or "not hold zero" if put on a rifle with heavier recoil......or optics calibrated for AR15 ballistics [that might be robust enough to handle the recoil] but the mildots aren't properly 'tuned' to AK ballistics....that's not the fault of an optic manufacturer, that's the end-user's failure to read 'the fine print' before buying it.

I dunno.....I just find that particular channel "meh" in comparison to what else is out there. For instance....as much as he's 'disliked' on the internet, Nutnfancy does a much better job at 'reviewing' firearms and products than AKOPS. Sure he's annoying and often tooting his own horn.....but his tabletop reviews while rolling in footage of actual use, IMO is much more informative. The reason I mention him is that yes, he uses the products but no, he doesn't [necessarily] abuse them. He runs his 'courses' in a manner consistent with "expected usage" and agree with him or not, gives a no-holds-barred opinion about it. One example is his review on UTG bipods. Cheap bipods by pretty much every standard and yet, he happened to like the one he tested.

[Laufer]

Well gentlemen, your observations are always educational for this very late-bloomer with guns.
With fairly rare exceptions, people are able to disagree on SKSboards and tolerate differences of opinion and interpretation as Adults. This website really beats THR in that regard.

I bought a local Mak 90 two weeks ago, as I could not find any WASR 10 near Memphis except at the newly inflated retail prices (Romanian exports to the US dried up). This Mak had one stovepipe jam, but maybe the cause was the new Korean metal 20-rd. mag. That mag. has been perfect with approx. 100 rds. (total) in the Maadi "ARM". But who knows...

[BatBoy2 75]

Let's revive an thread from a couple of months ago.

I like the AK Operators Union. If only for their 1k,2k, 3k & 5k round tests. I laughed myself silly when they got a radical arms budget $500.00 AR15 to go 4,300 rounds before a cam pin broke. At the price point I would have though the gas block set screws would have come loose or the bolt would have lost a lug or two. That was a big nice turd in the punch bowl for the 2k AR guys.

Yes, most people will never put 2k in rounds down the pipe of their AR15, but it's nice someone is answering the questions you have never had the time or money to test. Even if you were to use steel cases ammo, 5k in rounds in 1k in dollars.

Same for the guys at Lucky gunner that put 10k plus in steel case ammo through an AR15 a couple of years back. Their AR15 kept firing and firing. A lot of AK47 guys were really quiet about that video. That video put a lot of AR myths to bed and also raised some other questions about bimetallic bullets.