Hi all, I was lucky to get in on this most recent LMG sale from TI but have always secretly wanted just a regular rifle model. The bent receiver threads over the last couple years though have really left a sour taste on my mouth... I scoured various threads and from what I can tell the 2017 fixed stock models seem to be the most affected ones. Is that the case? I will most likely be looking to get a folder. Is there a specific serial # that corresponds to the specific years or do the 2018 and 2019 rifles have the year stamped on the receivers like the 2017 ones?
Type 81SA Rifle Models - Questions for the Experts
- Thread starter Albguy40
- Start date
I don’t think there was a serial number range that had the bent ones,
Some seemed to be bent more then others. I think most of the rifles were “bent” somewhat
I have two of the 17 models and they look straight to me but if you put a laser on it I’m sure it will show that they are not perfect
Normal for mass produced stamped metal receivers
Most people made a big deal over nothing IMO
The so called bent ones still functioned and shot well
I wouldn’t worry to much about it
Some seemed to be bent more then others. I think most of the rifles were “bent” somewhat
I have two of the 17 models and they look straight to me but if you put a laser on it I’m sure it will show that they are not perfect
Normal for mass produced stamped metal receivers
Most people made a big deal over nothing IMO
The so called bent ones still functioned and shot well
I wouldn’t worry to much about it
my 2017 folder 77### S/N (bolt Carrier side), is a "visually misaligned barrel to receiver" rifle.
TI claimed to have a scope mount in preparation, I asked if the mount works well with the "visually misaligned barrel to receiver" rifle, somehow my posts got deleted
TI claimed to have a scope mount in preparation, I asked if the mount works well with the "visually misaligned barrel to receiver" rifle, somehow my posts got deleted
Sounds typical for TI. My guess is that ull be able to shim one end of their special mount to compensate for the "bend" if u have a noticable one.
I second what deathrawt said. The noticably bent rifles seem to be consistently present throughout all of the imported batches. My personal observation is that noticeably bent rifles occur more frequently in the folder variants.
The bend is normal. Its a testament to certain tolerances that the Chinese factories hold. And what the PLA military would issue to the immense population of soldiers in their army. Rifles with a noticeable bend function just as good as ones with straighter alignment. My Type 81SA folder has been fondled by over a dozen different people and none of them noticed the bend if i didnt mention it.
The only legitimate concern regarding the bend is for those mounting receiver optics. I Calculated that the bend on my rifle would force my optic to compensate for 7ft @100m. Which for FFP Russian optics can be a big deal. Cus it makes the reticle sit funky in the FOV after that.
The bend is normal. Its a testament to certain tolerances that the Chinese factories hold. And what the PLA military would issue to the immense population of soldiers in their army. Rifles with a noticeable bend function just as good as ones with straighter alignment. My Type 81SA folder has been fondled by over a dozen different people and none of them noticed the bend if i didnt mention it.
The only legitimate concern regarding the bend is for those mounting receiver optics. I Calculated that the bend on my rifle would force my optic to compensate for 7ft @100m. Which for FFP Russian optics can be a big deal. Cus it makes the reticle sit funky in the FOV after that.
tenringbound
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Atlantic Canada
I’ve had a fixed stock model from the first batch in 2017 and it’s straight, and I looked at it with a very critical eye when the “bent rifle” issue was first raised.
Murray 3-D said:
Do you have access to original manufacturer documentation or to military acceptance documentation to claim that "bent is normal"? In all my studies of history of firearms I have never seen any single model, factory or army that would accepts this. Also have you seen pictures of original military issue rifles to claim they have the same trunnion misalignment?
I and others have found bits and pieces of evidence here and there that implies such. Somewhere back in 2018 i remember a CGNer posted a PLA propaganda poster of a soldier aiming down a Type 81-1 and u could clearly see a bend. Others have linked discussions down in the states regarding the Type 56's and how many of them had slight misalignment in the trunnions... one discussion i remember included Mac from Military Arms Channel. Another personal hint that ive made is the fact that the front sights all seem to come adjusted from the factory.
Which means a worker took the time to fiddle with the gun in a task that would certainly reveal the misalignment to them... and finally, despite my skepticism of Tactical Imports... Nadine Wong did tell me over the phone that it was the factory norm. And looking back I now believe she was sincere.
Ah and another hint is from responses to my videos regarding the Type 81. Some of those who have viewed my videos imply that they once served in an army that issued the Type 81s. Many of them have criticized my 4-5moa accuracy claim to the Type 81. But yet i dont recall any of them making comments regarding the bend...
Last edited:
Thanks for the responses so far. I’ve seen relatively accurate measurements of rifles that look visually very lightly bent. On one video on YouTube the deviation was “only” 2.5cm which with a receiver mounted optics rail would translate to extreme deviations (close to 25 inches at 100 meters between “receiver zeroed point of impact” and where the muzzle is actually pointing.
If you zeroed at 100 I bet any close plinking at say 20-30 yards will need some wild windage adjustments/compensation... as if the 7.62x39 ballistic curve wasn’t already a nightmare to get used to to begin with lol
If you zeroed at 100 I bet any close plinking at say 20-30 yards will need some wild windage adjustments/compensation... as if the 7.62x39 ballistic curve wasn’t already a nightmare to get used to to begin with lol
Pretty sure ive seen the same video. Was it mr Gnutzguy? I think he measured 2.5mm, not cm. Which would make more sense. Mine was about 5mm which i think works out to a 3 degree misalignment. 25" off POA @100m aint bad, most optics can easily adjust for that. Heck i bet ur average econo scope ring set puts an optic off by that much. It wont effect the ballistics either. Thats a common misconception. When u zero ur optic, your basically aligning its internals to the barrel. The only deviation is whats created by the optics offset above and next to the barrel. Not its pointing angle. If you can get that reticle moved to a bullet strike, ur golden. If ur using a side mount optic like i do, the reticle on many designs may be as much as an inch to the left of the barrel axis. This sort of thing can create the phenomenon ur concerned about depending on how u zero it. Ex, if i were to zero the windage a 50m... that means at 100m the POI would be 1" to the right... at 200m, 3 inches. Conventional Western optics are typically mounted directly above (centered windage wise) the barrel. Leaving height over bore as the only complicated deviation left to deal with.
Last edited:
Cant speak for anyone else but mine is a straight as can be. The handguard on mine actually sits a tad biased towards the left side, i intially thought it was bent. I removed the handguard and gas system and it shows to be very straight, last time i shot it at 100m i hit around a 2.5 moa group.
Just saw this video posted. Very interesting. Anybody know who this guy is? I am curious. The T81 is more Sks than AK in my eyes though and to be honest the most accurate SKS I ever had was a Chinese one... on another note, thanks to the poster who explained that the minimal deviation would actually have a very small and negligible difference in POA and POI even with a side mount type receiver mounted scope. Great explanation and makes perfect sense.
He is an employee of russian Kalashnikov Concern. Majority of them in prominent roles there are former military or intelligence.
He mentioned that AK was $93 wholesale in the 90s. I remember reading somewhere that the cost was about $30. Chinese still managed 200% profitability on them.
Type 81 on the other hand was about $80 to make.
Well after shooting both I personally prefer the Type 81s last round hold open, gas system, safety and recoil impulse. They got those right in my opinion. Also another CGNer made a good point that the Type 81s stamped receiver is probably more rigid then the AKs due to the step in its receiver walls.
But otherwise i mostly agree. The Type 81 honestly comes off as an over hyped Chinese wannabe wonder weapon lol
