The claim is that the back of your bolt can mushroom from firing if you don’t have this little piece.
Does any one have it? Is it really needed? Is it any good, how many rounds before it breaks?
Any cheap home-made substitute available?
The Soviets knew about buffers, the PPSh-41 subgun, which they armed whole battalions with in WWII, had one.
The Kalashnikov was designed without one. It’s not needed, and I’ve actually seen it accelerate wear on the cocking handle and receiver as it slams forward at a higher velocity than normal after bouncing off of the buffer.
I’ve also seen it cause a perfectly good AK to start malfing.
If you have a properly built AK, it’s definitely not needed.
The AK buffers are a waste of money. Seems like they contribute to feeding problems by shortening the bolt carrier cycle. I have tried them in both a WASR and an AK74. The 74 feeding problem became obvious in just a couple of magazines. The WASR started to have a stoppage every 100 rds or so.
I bought a AK from a guy I know who shoots at the same place for real cheap a few weeks ago, he claimed that it was a pile of shit and the place who built it were morons, I thought it must be a Century AK, so I took a look at it and saw it was a Ohio Ordance AK74, on a beautiful Bulgy kit, so I offered him 250. bucks as all it did was FTF. He took it, I took it home cleaned it up, yanked out the buffer, and it has over 1000 rds of no problems at all, before it couldnt go through a magazine without a stoppage. Save your money or buy one, install it, when it starts to act up, I will give your 250.00 for it, since it malfunctions.
If Mikhail did not include it, then that’s good enough for me.
*I don’t usually like to go by this type of logic, but AK has been around for some time. Also, if any rifle has BTDT, it’s the AK. I’m sure that if the recoil of the bolt were an issue, they would have taken care of it by now.