Stamped or Milled Construction

Stamped Or Milled?

  • Stamped

    Votes: 3 30.0%

  • Milled

    Votes: 3 30.0%

  • Stamped in Conjuction with Polymers

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • Milled in Conjuction with Polmers

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • Total voters
    10
Yossarian

Yossarian

Forum Resistance Leader
For small arms and small arms components, you can often see stamped and milled versions of the same weapons, or parts of weapons.

So this thread is simple, do you prefer or lean more towards stamped components or milled components or construction in terms of military small arms?

What are also the pros and cons of each method?

And how do you feel about snythetic plastic and advanced polymers in conjuction with stamped steel or milled components?
 
Last edited:
I think anybody would go for milled over stamped.

Stamped: Generaly thin pieces of steel smashed together to create low dollar mass produced parts.

Milled: A solid pieace of metal that has material stripped away. Milled is going to have a more solid and quality feel to it.

Cost is the main question. How much are you willing to pay for milled brand names?
 
That's one thing I have noticed in stamped versus milled, looking at weapons that have been mass produced or produced on the fly, like the PPsh during the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the thing was put together with stamped metal construction or even cobbled together in backyards, same with some models of the Kalashnikov series.

If a manufacturer is tasked with arming at lot of people all at once, and speed and cost is the issue stamp seems to way to go.

If quality is your game, take the extra rubies and buy a milled weapon.

Each one seems to have it's uses and cons.
 
Milled Receivers are strong, will not twist, and should last for many years of shooting. They also cost more, and are heavy. They have fewer stock options and few parts kits are available for the milled receivers.

Stamped Receivers are much more common. Are easy to build on and make yourself. Can be very strong. They can twist and warp with stress. Rivets, welds and screws can work loose.

But if we take the AK-47 as an example. I've never heard of anyone breaking the stamped receiver on an AK-47 and regardless to how rugged the receiver the AK still manages to function flawlessly. So is the milled receiver really worth the extra money? Probably not. The Russian's switched to a stamped receiver permanently because they were cheaper and easier to produce plus they actually reduced felt recoil because they allow for some flex.

Personally I want a weapon that will work under all conditions that you might encounter during combat. It means less to me if it is milled or stamped. It should just work no matter what it is exposed to.
 
Don't care.... I own milled, stamped, and cast receivers. Depends on the design and quality. Ruger doesn't mill their guns, they cast them yet their revolvers are some of the strongest out there. H&K uses stamping for their MP5 and G3 series. Fine machine work.... same with the majority of Soviet built AKMs. My M1 Garand is milled from a solid forging of steel.

Hell.... my AUG is metal castings with polymer parts and stocks. Works great....

Good welds, good machine, good quality... doesn't matter how it's made as long as it's good.
 
That seems to be the idea with almost any product produced, quality via different approaches and methods, can overlap into various forms of construction.

Slight advantages withstanding, you can have one organization produce terrible weapons using the same method as another organization producing the same weapon with the same method.

As for types of firearms, some types of construction seem more predominate than others depending on the genre of weapon.

For say, automatic weapons compared to traditional rifles.
 
As long as I'm not buying the thing myself for hunting, I'd go for the stamped construction.
It has proven reliable and effective so far, and that's more important than having a solid piece of steel to add weight to the load you allready have to haul around on your back.

That's my opinion at least.
 
Uses of the weapon seem to be impacted by types of construction as well.

Automatic weapons seem to favor stamped, hunting rifles milled or even cast.

Also autmatic handguns have seemed to be revolutionized with the introduction of polymers and plastics.
 
Take a look at the MG34 and the MG42, it's an excellent example for this discussion.

While the MG34 was an excellent weapon, reliable, accurate, and quite handy, the later MG42 was almost as good in many ways, and even better in some ways, plus the fact that production speed increased and costs dropped.

Most MG34's kept in operable condition is just as good today as they were 70 years ago, due to high quality milled action and high grade steel.
While the MG42 (MG3) is still in production today.

The most serious drawback I can think of when it comes to the MG3 is to feed it!
 
I love the the MG 34/ 42 series and even the modern variations!

But very true in design of the MG 34, most of the history I can dig up on the weapon involve glowing reports from frontline troops, and firearm enthusists alike.

This can almost be directly attributed to the construction of the weapon.

Sometimes, the type of construction in a weapon can be almost as important as the trigger puller behind it.
 
I suppose we can say that the MG34 was made with reliability, easy of maintainance/field-stripping, and interchangability of parts in mind, plus quality and versatility.
After all, you found them serving a number of different tasks that few other guns could do back in those days when belt-fed usually meant heavy&cumbersome, while man-portable squad MG's was usually magazine-fed.

The MG34 did set a standard of it's own.

The MG42 was a sucsessfull attempt of transfering the MG34 to a consept more suitable for mass-production, and it was just another sucsess.

The drawbacks would be that it did away with the single-shot mode the MG34 had, and while that didn't prove important, borth reports and later tests showed that the MG34 was a capable and accurate rifle in single-shot mode.
Shoting tailfeathers of a seagull at 400 meters with iron-sights is proof enough for me. :shock:

While the construction was simplified, the cyclic rate climbed to an insane level on the MG42.
That explains the need for 2 extra barrels and the massive amount of ammo they had to carry.
While highly effecive, it's well known hunger made the MG42 an expensive weapon in sustained-fire situations, no wonder the cyclic rate on the MG3 was lowered a bit.

I was once lucky enough to get to compare the two, and the difference between the MG42 and MG3 was notable.
While the MG3 felt like a machinegun, the MG42 was...more like running a chainsaw full speed through a 2x4 with a half-inch pipe embedded in it.
And there's no doubth in my mind that you can fry bacon on the barrel.

Wonder what it would have been like if we had the old fashioned steel-cased cartidges for it as well...:shock:
 
The stamped versus milled question most often comes up in AK circles. I have owned both kinds and I can say that while milled is OK, stamped is superior for weight savings. The small gain one gets in the accuracy of a milled rifle is hardly worth discussing. If one has a choice between a quality stamped AK and a quality milled AK, go with the stamped and buy ammo with the money you save.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top