I am looking at modern AKs and forever mad at myself for selling the Egyptian years ago. What do current owners like/have ect.

I would like both a pistol and full length so thinking zpap92 & m70 imports, but the PSA GF5 looks like they may have done the gun right. Parts look better on the PSA with the barrel and trigger but the buzz over on reddit is that the PSAs still stuck compared to the imports.

I know avoid some of the CA, IO and other types. Looking for your opinions!

Two words.

Rifle Dynamics.

It will cost you dearly, but you will have a solid gun built by people who eat, sleep, and breathe AK's.

Regardless of what the Reddit "experts" say, PSA has it figured out. The 1st gen? Not so much, but after that they are good to go.
AK operator's Union 5K rd test.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxk1wAOznsU

IMO, AKM is a disposable trench gun by design, meant to be used by the Soviet expendables.
That’s why rivets.
There’s no way that I’d spend more than $700 on it, even in the current market situation.

Thanks for the input everyone. I decided to go all 3 and run about 700 rounds through each of them as an experiment as I don't see one overwhelming opinion when i aggregate the internet. I like Surveillance's statement of how he sees the AK for what it is, but its kinda like how Jeeps keep their value. Everyone can point out issues and PSA has its haters, which many have never touched a PSA ak.

The PSAK is solid. I bought the GF3 a couple years ago, and have never had a hiccup. It was surprisingly accurate right out of the box. I have since added a Midwest Industries mount and a Sig ROMEO5 red dot. It's by no means my favorite rifle to shoot, but it's a fun range toy.

One of each is my preferred way to do things like this, too. Especially right now--stack 'em deep while you can!

For stamped guns, I half-agree. Making guns out of sheet metal and rivets doesn't necessarily make them disposable, it just makes them cheaper to manufacture at scale.

For milled guns, the receiver's last. There's an AR15.com thread somewhere where a machinegun rental range in Vegas was, at one point, providing input on all of his different guns, AK's included. Basically telling people how long they lasted, what kind of maintenance to expect, etc. Stamped AK's tended to go tits up at around 100k, but he hasn't yet totally killed a milled gun. Lots of new barrels, springs, and whatnot, but the receivers don't break.

Well, to my knowledge it is not about receiver's life but the life of barrel.
Shooting .30 cal. bi-metal jacketed projectiles significantly increases barrel's wear. This is why all Soviet/Russian AKMs have hard chrome-lined bores - to reduce the wear and to extend the barrel's life. So the durability of receiver is not the matter in this case.
Moreover, IMO the value of milled receivers is way overestimated. The only reason why Russians made first batches of AKMs with milled receivers, because they haven't learn first how to stamp. Once they did, there were no more milled receivers.
Other than aesthetical or collectible, I see no reason to pay more for the milled receiver. It's also impractical, because it's notably heavier.

Even my 2019 WASR-10 has a chrome lined barrel. Not sure if the all of the WASR-10 were built with chrome lined barrels or not. I have not had any failures but I have only shot 1300 rounds through it so far.