I was in the market for an Arsenal SLR 107UR with plans to SBR it. I quickly realized however that the manufacture has stopped making them. After a few months of both myself and my dealer searching for one, I’ve thus far come up empty handed. At this time do any other 7.62 options exist, that are on par with the Arsenal’s quality and easy ability to SBR?
buy an AK pistol and SBR it. That is the cheapest way to get into SBR’s IMO.
My local shop has the 5.56 krinks in stock, but the 7.62 ones are very hard to find.
How about a Vector 7.62 krink? only $1000
Vector makes good quality.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=264250109
—edit----
Be patient. Arsenal rifles pop up on gun forum classifieds every once in awhile. You may have better luck on Gunbroker as well.
I agree. Be patient. If not then you’ll buy something else and still want the arsenal and it was likely cost you even more money in the long run.
There was one on gunbroker a week or 2 ago. Not sure if it sold or not but you might try there.
Thanks for the advice. I’m pretty much married to the 7.62 round for various reasons so I’ll continue to be patient and keep searching gunbroker for an arsenal. Hopefully something pops up.
however once you get the arsenal krink, you’re going to have to buy a yugo underfolder krink to flush out the set. I know this because I did the same thing, but I bought the 5.56 arsenal since I already had a 106fr
No more to be had, expect to pay $1,500 plus.
BTW, 7.62x39 is not exactly the most ideal cartridge for a short package like that. I’d try to find an SLR-106UR, or have a good smith build an rguns 5.45 krink kit on a 5.45 donor saiga rifle.
You could also SBR a romanian draco and have a smith put a sidefolder on it. The yugo krinks and dracos are a lot easier to handle in 7.62x39.
107CR is a good option too.
You think 5.56 is better for an 8" barrel than 7.62x39?? Why?
It’d be my last choice of the three calibers…
5.56 and 5.45 are ballistically pretty much the same cartridge. The Russians went away from 7.62x39 for the same reason we went away from 7.62x51, because soldiers shot better with the smaller, high velocity cartridges. SLR-106UR’s are also easy and cheaply found, as is the ammunition and even the magazines. Similar weight 5.45 and 5.56 bullets are clocking in at about the same velocity out of the spout, M43 is down to M1 carbine velocities.
Nothing against 7.62x39, but when you put it in a 8’’ AK it behaves more like .308 in a G3K or HK51. I just don’t find it to be the most favorable cartridge in a krinkov. Thankfully the AK-103 brake effectively negates most of the recoil characteristic differences between a full length 7.62x39 rifle and an AK-74 to the point where numerous former servicemen have commented that my 103 reminded them of their M16A2/A4 in terms of accuracy and controllability.
About the same velocity, but it’s well below ideal fragmentation range for 5.56 even at the muzzle. 5.45 wasn’t designed to fragment to begin with, so it isn’t as detrimentally affected by the slow velocity as 5.56 is. That’s my concern.
That whole yaw thing is a load of bad science. It’s more likely that the Russians might have been trying to prevent the bullet from fragmenting at high velocity (like 5.56) and make it behave more like 7.62x39 by designing what amounted to a crumple zone. 5.45 yaws, but so does 5.56 and just about every other rifle cartridge. Mr. Bin Laden can attest to the terminal performance of 5.56 fired from a short rifle.
Mr. Bin Laden was shot from like 10 ft away 
I was more concerned about 100 m 
When you say crumple zone, are you saying the hollow nose of 5.45 crumples or bends on impact with flesh, causing yaw? Recovered 5.45 bullets aren’t visibly deformed, the only deformation is of the lead inside. The uneven dispersion of lead inside the formerly hollow area is what causes yaw.
Also, although 5.45 and 5.56 (and 7.62) yaw, they don’t do it all the same. Spitzer bullets flip once, then travel base first, but the 5.45 often yaws around 90°, then stops and continues through sideways for a while.
Why do you think 5.45’s design is bad science? Because fragmentation is better than non-fragmenting rounds? If so, I agree with that part, but without agreeing 5.45 is necessarily bad. 5.56 that fragments is better than 5.45, but 5.45 is better than 5.56 that doesn’t fragment because of its better yawing. It’s less picky.
I’m not hip enough on fragmentation to talk much about it, but I will say that 5.45 is a good, solid caliber. If the next republican repeals the sporting purpose import ban crap and Tula puts some semi-auto krinks on the boat for saiga prices, you better believe I’ll be buying.
I don’t know if this helps at all but I just found this last night.
http://akpartskits.com/cart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5_11&products_id=635&zenid=022877c68d75fd6879e890c9cd5ff16b
The shorter the barrel, the better you are with a heavy bullet and larger caliber.
The 7.62x39mm is outstanding in short barrels as it doesn’t relly so much on velocity. Also the bore/chamber ratio makes the 7.62mm cartridge loose less energy in shorter barells than both 5.45 and 5.56mm cartridges.
Here’s a table with velocities of 7.62x39mm cartridges out of short barrels:
As you can see the velocity lost going to short barrel is not as bad as in 5.56mm.
Bought this one about two years ago for $1300 from a shop in Florida. Can’t recall the name and pretty sure the emails were deleted, but they are out there from time to time. I’d expect that the prices have gone up a bit though.
