I have a Hadar II stock coming. Now I have to figure out what to do with it...
The Hadars used milled Galil receivers, angled up in the front. As far as I can tell they were all in .308.
I'll be doing a scratchbuilt sheet metal receiver. Various Valmet models (Galils were licensed Valmets) used stamped receivers. I posted pictures of several of them on the general AK subforum. I'll use .060/.062 4130 stock and thin a spare Romanian trunnion to match, like the thick-receiver Norincos.
Somewhere I saw a picture of a stamped Valmet that showed the weld; they just bent the sides, cut a V, bent the angle, welded, then bent and trimmed the top rails, apparently. With fancy dies they could have just stamped it bent and done the top rails on the next top. Load across the weld is compression due to recoil, so it shouldn't hurt. Lots of .060 thick milled rewelds out there working just fine, too.
I need to see if I can find some of those flat, low-profile rivets some AK variants used. I'll have to clearance the stock to clear the rivets.
I'll probably dispense with the iron sights entirely and used a top cover mounted scope. A side rail won't clear the Hadar stock.
So, I expect to have a nice targetty-looking rifle with a wood stock. Now I'm wavering about what cartridge. .300 Savage or 6.5 Grendel look good so far...
From these pics if the receiver is the same other than being cut back for the 308 trigger guard and magazine, then it looks like the 308 hammer axis pin is higher in the receiver.I can't tell if the front to back placement has been moved. A measurement from the top edge of the receiver would show if the 308 hammer pin placement is different and maybe a measurement from the trigger pin. Maybe it is the same but raising the hammer pin would make sense to speed the lock time of the action and it would use a shorter hammer. One 308 pic shows the relationship to the selector lever. This might help when compared to a 223 rifle.
Anyone out there with a .308 Galil and a dial caliper? What we need is the distance from the top of the receiver to the centerline of the pin. Or the top of the hole, for that matter.
It doesn't look like they've moved it up much. The angles of the ears on the hammer and the hooks on the trigger have to match. I wonder if the .223 Galil uses the same hammer and/or trigger. I guess they'd have different part numbers if they're not the same.
I wonder how high you can raise the trigger axis pin before the hammer doesn't work right any more... I've seen pictures of some old flats that had the holes way high after they were bent, and they apparently worked.
On the other hand, if you raised the axis 1/8 inch, would it really make enough difference in lock time to notice?
I'm not sure how or in which direction exactly it was moved or if I'm just seeing it wrong but I remember reading something about it. The Tapco flat hammer pin holes seem a bit higher but standard parts still work. The Ace template holes don't match the factory AK but are close enough to work and seem to work better than the Tapco flat locations.Since they changed the FCG parts in the 308 model they wouldn't have to be stuck with the 223 or AK hole locations. They were doing a number of "improvements" for the 308 model to compete against the G-3 and the FAL in international sales.
The 308 Yugo and Valmet use standard FCG parts and move the barrel forward, out of the receiver a bit. I don't know if the space was required or they did it to make the bolt head larger. The 308 Galil bolt doesn't look any larger than a standard AK bolt. The front of the receiver or trunnion might have to opened a bit between the lugs to get a 7.62x51 cartridge to feed through it.
I think some of the flats, besides being a bit off, weren't designed to be bent in a press jig but were meant to be bent in a press brake which might not stretch and pull the sides of the receiver up like a jig might.
Somewhere I saw a picture where someone had bent and drilled some sheet metal to make a working model of an AK trigger group that could be examined from all sides. Something like that would help you verify the angles on the hammer wings and trigger hook.
Since I have to drill the holes in the blank anyway, I don't want to miss a trick that might help accuracy... but lock time is one of those "magic bullet" target shooter things that I'm not sure about. I'm still wondering why not just go to a lighter hammer and a stronger spring.
I'm still planning to use one of the $20 Chinese import top covers with the scope bases on it. But if I get a cash windfall in the mean time, I want one of these.
The guy was talking about $139 each. I emailed the maker to see if any are still available. Maybe I can get one before he has them anodized or painted; I think I'd like clear coat over brushed aluminum...
I'm still planning to use one of the $20 Chinese import top covers with the scope bases on it. But if I get a cash windfall in the mean time, I want one of these.
The guy was talking about $139 each. I emailed the maker to see if any are still available. Maybe I can get one before he has them anodized or painted; I think I'd like clear coat over brushed aluminum...
Somewhere I saw a picture where someone had bent and drilled some sheet metal to make a working model of an AK trigger group that could be examined from all sides. Something like that would help you verify the angles on the hammer wings and trigger hook.
I made a trigger Dyno almot 5 years a go I just cut up a tapco bent blank that was exactly the same as what I was using and cut away any thing that wasent nedded so i coluld gring ,flile poilsh and test with out dissasmbly It cut the time to work a trigger by over 75 percent. some were i posted on it a few times. I did see were a guy had a plate that held the componets but it really didnt do much that my $9 set up did and I know it was the same as what I was building.
Upsides on this build: I should have a decent barrel, tightly chambered and headspaced. 1.6mm receiver with the rails tweaked so the bolt carrier has minimal clearance. Hadar stock with a forward anchor under the front trunnion and fully-floated barrel.
Downsides: no side-mount scope bracket possible with Hadar stock. No rear tang to mount a Beryl rail to. No access to the sides to use one of the Chinese "spider" scope mounts. So I need to mount the scope to the top cover or use an RSB and mount the scope to that, like you did. Technically the top cover mount is bad, but it seems to work for the various "Hunter" rifles, and the original Hadars, for that matter.
You mentioned reducing the clearance between the bolt and the carrier to keep it lined up with the bore. I will be looking into that; I guess the first thing to do is make sure the bolt carrier's centerline is the same as the barrel centerline.
The AK armorer's manuals have the FCG angles and gaps for inspecting and correcting factory AK's. They even tell which Russian welding rod to use to repair the ejector on a milled receiver.
Sarco list the 308 hammer as different from the 223 hammer. Gun parts list the same hammer for semi auto 308 and 223 Galil's but they list different hammer springs. What could be different about the hammer spring? Time to look at a parts blow-up pic.
Slightly thicker wire would make it stiffer, and being wound with a different shape could increase preload.
Hm, you might be able to increase preload with a standard spring by building up the area of the hammer where the spring touches it. Tou couldn't get a lot by doing that, but it'd be easy to do.
I realize it's "in the white" and unfinished, but... dang, that's a fine looking Kalashnikov! The "after" picture looks like just another black Galil.
From what he talked about on how he modified the hammer, it sounds like the rear of the bolt sat further back in the .308. He said he took a quarter inch off the front. I think I've read about some guys moving the hammer pin back on conversions.
I found this picture by some lucky b***** who has two Hadar IIs. It's way better than the pictures I took of my stock - you can get a better idea of how sculpted it is. Note the sling swivels, and how the right side is cut away for wrist clearance around the pistol grip. The stock doesn't look nearly so blocky in real life, and it's way more comfortable than it appears.
I also found a picture of a Micro Galil. I think the front sight block/gas block unit is the same between it and the Hadar.
Also take a look at the bolt carrier - I had thought the Hadars used the 45 degree handles, but it looks like they used a stairstep handle. The step to raise it to clear the stock, and sticking out the side instead of up so you wouldn't bump the scope if you had the optional top cover with the scope mount.
Ah! *@&!&!! I just noticed the picture was from "jetskrtal" - one of those is stocks is the one I own now!
Apparently Google doesn't index Uzitalk; that thread doesn't ever come up when I search for Hadar stuff, anyway.
I found another picture, again better than the ones I took. This one shows the "cast" of the Hadar stock well. The centerline of the buttpad is slightly to the left of the centerline of the barrel. Not all rifles have cast; it has gone in and out of fashion over the years.
I may have my Hadar stock back now. My wife saw a picture of a Super Vepr stock, and she now wants one of those instead.
Looking around, it looks like most of the full-stocked Super Veprs have been converted to folding stocks and pistol grips. You'd think the wood stocks would be a glut on the market, but I haven't found any, other than one on Gunbroker the seller withdrew before the end of bidding.
Looks like the Super Vepr has a screw going up from the bottom into the front trunnion like the Hadar, plus another one at or near the gas block. There doesn't look like enough room for a buttstock screw like the Hadar, so I'm guessing the pistol grip screw does all the work in the back.
Looks like you'll have to weld in a front trunnion from something, though.
[edit] I emailed them about the trunnion. I didn't think to ask about the top rails - I can't tell from the picture if the rails are bent over or if the tops are just notched.
I have one of early Stenparts Galil weld kits and it used the front and rear section of demilled Galil receivers for trunnions. The rails, both upper and lower need to be welded in. You can get an idea of how he did his receiver if you check out the Galil pics on his project page.
Not yet, still working on other projects and my welding skills are not up to it yet as I only have one set of de-milled receiver pieces and I don't want to screw 'em up.
I was planning on a 6.5, but Green Mountain's 20" .310 blank for $30 was too good a deal to pass up.
Looks like I'll have to scope out some nice Boxer-primed x39 brass.
A friend is getting into bullet swaging, and he's been bending my ear about how easy it is to "bump up" small bullets to larger ones. The swaging guys claim it's much easier than trying to swage larger bullets down. Once I see what the bore diameter of the GM barrel is, I'll check on the price of a bump die for mashing .308 bullets up to .310-.311.
There used to be a guy in Canada that sold Galil receiver sections. He had ones that were "US legal" and some that were more complete sections of receiver that he said weren't legal to send to the US. With the welded sections the lower rails could be made with stamped rails as long as they weren't too fat to clear the hammer. Welding the upper rails is reported to be a super pain even though they are easier to reach, they have to be welded the length of the receiver. I think a wide section welded across and cut after welding might be easiest.
My receivers from Coldsteel showed up today. They're dimpled for the various holes, but I'll need to order some metric reamers to finish them.
I'd wondered about using flush rivets. The Hadars all used milled Galil receivers. Just a moment ago I found some pictures of a Super Vepr receiver which definitely uses flush rivets.
Hmm. Stainless steels aren't very malleable; I wouldn't have thought about using stainless to make a rivet from. I wonder what alloy they're using... hey! Click on "steel" under the "stainless" part, and it brings you to ordinary steel countersunk rivets.
I wonder what *those* are made from... come to think of it, I've never seen any specs on what alloys rivets are made from. I need to haul my Machinery's Handbook back to the Throne Room for a while.
They only have 3/16" and 1/4". 3/16" ought to work. The page shows the head diameter is .351", which is larger than the Vepr, and .079" high, or deep. I'd have to trim the head a bit, but it'd be easier than making rivets on the lathe. At $7.17 per pound, I'm willing to do a little extra work.
Oh, I was thinking 3/16" would be too big [I've never built a stamped build before so I dunno]. Well, if you use the rivets as they are, then sand them flush it could look like the type 1 AKs with their flush rivets.
My other Hadar stock came in today, and since I had three AK receivers laying on my desk, I tried sticking one into it.
It wouldn't go. It was too wide.
Tapco generic bent from a flat, TX_Dogblaster stainless AKM blank, and the .062 Coldsteel blank. None of them would fit.
I dug into the box of bits I'm supposed to send to chopper eventually, and tried a piece of 1966 Chinese milled receiver. Dropped right in.
The Tapco receiver and Dogblaster blank were 1.365" wide. The Coldsteel was 1.40" wide. And the Chinese milled was 1.34" wide, and a snug fit in the Hadar stock.
I never knew milled receivers were narrower than stamped ones...
Is that what people mean when they talk about top covers and selectors for milled receivers vs. stamped ones? I thought it was just the shape, not the size.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Gunco Forums
772.5K posts
34K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to AK-47 and AR-15 firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!