PDA

View Full Version : Yanks buy AKs


cosmicdingo
August 16, 2012, 09:14 AM
My brother, a Major in the Army, says AK's are basically a thrown rock for accuracy, but they sure seem popular, since according to NBCN American gun owners buy as many as the Russ military.Looking for link.

Quentin2
August 16, 2012, 11:04 AM
I don't know how many AKM style rifles U.S. citizens have bought but there sure are a lot of us! :D

Patriot86
August 16, 2012, 12:52 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48670593/ns/business-us_business/?__utma=14933801.972012377.1345055927.1345055927.1345055927.1&__utmb=14933801.1.10.1345055927&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1345055927.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=111857924

I guess the key is that the Chinese cannout get their AK's into our market very easily, which keeps them from outpricing the Russian AK makers.

RedBowTies88
August 16, 2012, 01:01 PM
Anyone who says an AK is like a thorwn rock for accuracy is talking directly out of their ass. Maybe the armed foreces feed them that BS to help enstil a sense of weapons domance? I don't know but its a lie nevertheless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TsN7Jerx74

kraigwy
August 16, 2012, 01:38 PM
Anyone who says an AK is like a thorwn rock for accuracy is talking directly out of their ass. Maybe the armed foreces feed them that BS to help enstil a sense of weapons domance? I don't know but its a lie nevertheless.

Is that the reason you see so many winning rifle matches????

Get real

I put on DCM GSM and High Power Rifle Cinics all the time. You see people show up every now and then with AKs and SKS's but you never see anyone show up twice with one.

There is a reason.

Don't say they arn't authorized in these matches, they are in the Modern Military Catagory in the CMP matches but they have to compete with ARs and they CAN'T.

Anybody can "dummy up" a U tub vedio, hard to dispute results of CMP or NRA Matches.

RamItOne
August 16, 2012, 03:13 PM
AK is commonly considered not to be too accurate, it does have a lot to do with the primary user of this weapon, most (remember what most means, not what about this group or that faction) of the users do not get quality range time, lots are undisciplined and sometimes high on some sort of drug. I don't think anyone would chose an AK over an AR for target shooting. The video is definitely stretching the range of the round, did anyone else notice a report coming before the dirt flew?

Bottom line for me at least, I'd take my AR yard for yard against any AK, now after 500 yards (think armys point target max eff is 550) i'd have to default to my .308 bolt, who can see that far open sight.... :)

Scorch
August 16, 2012, 04:13 PM
Up until fairly recently, AKs were cheap, dirt cheap, and ammo was also dirt cheap. IMO it has little to do with the superiority of the weapon, it appeals to low-budget buyers. And it goes bang. Put cheap ammo and cheap rifle together and you will sell lots of them.
I guess the key is that the Chinese cannout get their AK's into our market very easily,
Norinco, the primary manufacturer of AKs in China, is banned from importing them to the US after their troubles keeping full-auto rifles separate from the civilian version semi-autos.

armoredman
August 16, 2012, 04:15 PM
I'd say the long range aspect has a lot to do with the rainbow trajectory of 7.62x39mm. At 300 yards I have a 26 inch drop in my loads.I can hit steel reliably, (not every round, to be honest), at that range with iron sights/red dot, but going out to 500 yards would stretch it a wee bit far for me. I'll try it if i find a steel target at that distance, but I'm not going to hold out a lot of hope. ;)

Eghad
August 16, 2012, 04:16 PM
The AK will shoot minute of individual which is enough.

Venom1956
August 16, 2012, 04:28 PM
for its intended function as a combat weapon it its plenty accurate.

Coltman 77
August 16, 2012, 04:29 PM
Sorry guys, I respect the history and reliability of the AK but I grew up watching the Vietnam War on the nightly news as a very young child.

Also the Soviet nuclear threat was a big issue then. Bomb shelters, hiding under your desk at school, etc.

It made one hell of an impression on me. Negatively. :mad:

To me, the AK 47 was the rifle that the VC/NVA used to kill thousands of our young American soldiers in Viet Nam.

I'll stick with my American Colt AR's thank you very much. :D

Auto426
August 16, 2012, 04:33 PM
As was mentioned before, US shooters will buy anything that's cheap and goes bang. AK's are just one gun in a long line of cheap military surplus weapons that were dumped on the U.S. market. They sold for cheaper than new commercially produced weapons, and the ammo that was imported along with them was often cheaper than new commercial ammo as well. Being able to shoot more for less is hardly ever a bad thing.

RamItOne
August 16, 2012, 04:51 PM
Used a 25 yard zero, the AK needs limited holdover out to 200-225 yards, but past that there's not much it has going for it.

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg293/ramitone4x4/2961BC7C-B443-42C0-BC37-3AC93AD8C422-36638-00002269B8D3510E.jpg

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg293/ramitone4x4/A7553EA2-7F05-4819-98E9-2BB8A51714CC-36638-00002269B2BEDBEA.jpg

Sorry for the large pics, photobucket and iPad

kraigwy
August 16, 2012, 08:20 PM
I wasn't talking about trajectory. I was talking about accuracy. Leaving trajectory aside, as far as grouping, The AK/SKS's suck.

The CMP GSM matches (excluding the vintage sniper match) are shot at 200 yards, or if the range is limited, at 100 yards.

They cannot compete with any other vintage military rifle I've seen, what's worse they have to compete in the Modern Military Category (See the CMP Rules) There they compete with ARs, M1A, FALs, etc.

I've seen it too many times, those guns don't cut it. If you want a cheap Russian shooter, get a Mosin.

If you want to just make noise then by all means get an AK.

I don't even have to talk about Service Rifle where you shoot 200, 300, 600 and 1000 yards. That's where the AR's shine. That being Service Rifle not Match Rifle.

Smit
August 16, 2012, 08:59 PM
I always thought the design of the AK was the reason for its inaccuracy. If you see an AK shoot in slow-motion, the entire frame bends and flexes. This in-turn affects the accuracy of each shot fired due to the inconsistency. Is this wrong?

tahunua001
August 16, 2012, 09:36 PM
Anyone who says an AK is like a thorwn rock for accuracy is talking directly out of their ass.

HI, I'm Earth, have we met? by the way. I've shot a number of AKs both on active duty and as part of my personal collection. they are all inaccurate. the round is a major hindrance. heavy bullet+light charge=lots of wind drift+bullet drop. pair that with a weapon that was for the most part cranked out in the millions by very poor countries lacking high tech manufacturing equipment and you end up with a gun that severely lacks accuracy.

I can make better shots with my 10/22 at 200 yards than I can at 50 yards with any AK I have ever tried. I got fed up with the shortcomings of the AK and sold mine, the only rifle I have ever cast out of my collection.

I suppose that I must be speaking out of my ass but I figured I'd give my personal experiences anyway.

stubbicatt
August 16, 2012, 09:47 PM
The CMP GSM matches (excluding the vintage sniper match) are shot at 200 yards, or if the range is limited, at 100 yards.

I guess it depends on the game you are playing. Take a Ferrari off roading and you will probably not be as impressed with its performance as you would an ol Willys. Take the Willys onto a track somewhere and you would tend to think the Ferrari is the better choice.

You make a valid point of course, but one does not have to enjoy these tournaments to enjoy shooting. And sometimes a man will experience a bond with a rifle he has used in unsociable social situations which cannot be readily explained. It does not yield to demands for justification.

And I have shot against Kraigwy, and happen to know that you could put a Red Ryder in his hands and he could outshoot many at 200 yards with match prepped ARs. Given his excellent skills, Kraigwy can wring the most amazing performance out of any firearms. --For the rest of us mortals, and some a little less experienced than many on this board, there are certain benefits to the Kalashnikov.

RamItOne
August 16, 2012, 09:50 PM
I think perhaps there's a differing opinion on accuracy.

Are we saying MOA, point target (aka minute of bad guy) or area target.


I don't think the AK is accurate but don't believe I'll miss a man sized target at 100yards either.

RedBowTies88
August 16, 2012, 10:33 PM
So you would liken minute of bad guy out to 500 yards to "a thrown rock"

Also, not all ak's are chambered in 7.62x39

ronl
August 16, 2012, 11:14 PM
When considering its design parameters, the AK is probably one of the best rifles ever. It is more than accurate enough for the purpose intended. Given my preference, I'd much prefer an AR, but don't sell the AK short. It is a very capable rifle.

armoredman
August 17, 2012, 12:15 AM
Remember, the AK was designed as a sub machine gun, not a long range rifle - the Dragunov equipped Squad Marksman was supposed to handle that type of range, IIRC. The AK was originally intended for the same thing as the STG44, a "storm rifle" meant for short range urban combat, and the designers who worked on it were heavily influenced by the closing days of that war. If I remember correctly the round was invented first, and employed in the end days of WWII with the Red Army, with the revolutionary and already outdated SKS-45.
I have to ask the experts, because, for one, I've never competed in any rifle match whatsoever, so I have less than no clue - are there ANY rifles that come out to play and win with the AR-15s?

spacecoast
August 17, 2012, 05:02 AM
I'm just a beginning rifle shooter, but my AK is better than a "minute of bad guy". In my first serious session with the rifle a couple of weeks ago I put 10 of 11 into 2-3/4" at 100 yards using the cheapest steel cased ammo, iron sights, ,my so-so eyes and not much experience.

I know that most ARs are way better than this (not to mention most are equipped with optics), but I would hardly say that this rifle "sucks" w.r.t. accuracy. I don't know, maybe I just got lucky, but that's one reason I kept shooting to see how repeatable it was, and I hope to get better.

Could it be that most people assume they are poor and don't really try for accuracy?

http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac115/spacecoast_guns/AK/AK-100yds.jpg

zukiphile
August 17, 2012, 05:38 AM
When I had one, I think that AK was a couple hundred dollars and the ammunition was seven cents a round. I understand the affection for a rifle that doesn't cost a grand.

I'm just a beginning rifle shooter,..

I'm not great with a rifle, but I was beginning to think I had owned the only AK that could hit a soda can at 100m. I could not have done that with a rock.

I grant that lots of guys with ARs can keep it all in the black on your target at that distance, and many will keep all those shots within a quarter.

kraigwy
August 17, 2012, 09:01 AM
are there ANY rifles that come out to play and win with the AR-15s?

Are you asking if any one "wins" using the AR? If thats the question, the answer is yes.

If you're asking if any rifle can compete with the AR, then the answer is NO.

Understand I'm an M14/M1A gun. I've shot the M14/M1A in competition since I started in 1977, been shooting them since I went to basic in 1966. I used it in sniper school and taught sniper schools with the M14 (M21). I got my distinguished badge using the M14/M1A.

I was reluctant to switch but I saw the light. In major High Power matches the M1A is as rare as hen's teeth. In fact it was given its own match at Perry.

I'm not talking Palma Match rifles but service rifles. The ARs beat the records set by the M14s, even in 1000 yard service rifles.

One only needs to walk down the line at any major rifle match and see what's being used.

Minute of Bad Guy???? What is that. Bad guy standing in the open at 50 yards or peeking over the sights of a machine gun at 300 yards? A group of bad guys standing in a road junction at 50 yards or using woman and kids as human shields at 200 yards.

There is, in my opinion, no such thing as "accurate enough", even with my AR's or even my bolt guns, I'm constantly working on trying to make them shoot better, trying to develop more accurate ammo.

One other thing people don't take into account when discussing the AK v. AR.

Put each rifle to your shoulder. Without removing it, with your shooting hand, push the button and drop the magazine and insert another with your other hand. Put the safety on and off using one hand without taking your shooting hand off the pistol grip. Change magazines with out taking your eyes off the sights.

Communist countries didn't flood the third world with AKs because they were the best rifles made, they did it because they are the cheapest.

spacecoast
August 17, 2012, 10:22 AM
Gosh, this subject sure generates a lot of passion... I am in no way arguing that the average AK is even near as well built, well designed or accurate as the average AR, but would point out that many shooters never develop their skills to the point where they really test the gun's capability. I also believe that there are MOA-capable AKs in existence, whether by a fluke or made that way on purpose.

Minute of Bad Guy???? What is that.

My interpretation of "minute of bad guy" or "minute of individual" is that you could consistently make a center of mass hit on a human at 100 yards, the target area being about the size of the 8" 8-ring on a 50-yard NRA pistol target. Even rifles that "suck" should be able to do that in the hands of a competent shooter.

I believe my AK and likely many/most others are capable of much better than that even using iron sights and cheap ammo, as I think has been demonstrated. The pop can hits at 100 mentioned by zukiphile are I think a good baseline as well. If and when I can generate a significantly better target than the one I already posted I will post it.

Wyosmith
August 17, 2012, 10:24 AM
Anyone trying to shoot competitively with an AK against mach grade M-1as or M-14s, or any tuned bolt action is fooling himself. However anyone that thinks they are a "thrown rock' is equally foolish. If that were true we could fight most of our enemies with handguns only and come out way in front, but ask any vet who's been shot at with AKs if they are worthless and you will get one of 2 answers
Answer #1 is "HELL YES they are dangerous, and they are dangerous in the hands of an enemy who knows how to shoot out to about 300-350 yards"
Answer #2 is "Nahhh, don't worry about them. They can't hit you with such an inaccurate gun. Not a real threat"
(#2 is ALWAYS coming from a vet that has not been shot at)

Here is the real truth of the AKs being sold and made in the USA

You will hear advertisements from some companies that their AKs will shoot MOA. I have NEVER seen that done even one time and I deal with guns every day of my life as a gunsmith, and as a shooting instructor I see a LOT of different kinds of rifles and carbines used. An MOA AK is a myth as far as I can see, and if I do see one I’d be very interested to see what was done to make it so accurate.

USA made AKs very often use USA made barrels and the quality of those barrels can be WAY better than what you sometime get from the European countries. Imported barrels can be as good, but they can also be pretty wide in their tolerances.

An AK is NOT as accurate as a match grade M-16 or AR 15. That’s just how it is.
However a good AK with a good barrel is super reliable and will shoot as well (and most times shoot better) than an average lever action 30-30.

I have 2 that will out shoot most Remington 740 rifles.

They will out shoot the old Winchester M100
They will outshoot 99% of the shotguns set up with scopes and rifles barrels.

They will not win target matches, but the idea that you (or a deer) would be “safe” from one at 300 yards is on the same level as the promises of the current president.
BS!

armoredman
August 17, 2012, 01:45 PM
First, "minute of felon" is the ability to reliably hit a "kill zone" on a B-27 or similar target at 100 yards. Since 99.95% of people today will engage ONLY paper targets with their AKs OR their AR-15 clones, that's reasonable for defensive purposes. The AR-15s at work would be hard pressed to do much better than that, sorry. Stock Colts, and with regular Dept shooters they are NOT that accurate.
The question i asked was this - has anyone won one of these matches with a rifle that is not an AR-15? If the answer is no, I next wonder what rifles show up besides the AR-15? That would be telling - has it become so ingrained that the AR is the end-all do-all that nobody else tries anything else, Daewoo, FNC, AUG, anything? Seriously curious.

Put each rifle to your shoulder. Without removing it, with your shooting hand, push the button and drop the magazine and insert another with your other hand. Put the safety on and off using one hand without taking your shooting hand off the pistol grip. Change magazines with out taking your eyes off the sights.

Half a moment while I set up the camera, let me see if I can.:cool:

kraigwy
August 17, 2012, 02:45 PM
The question i asked was this - has anyone won one of these matches with a rifle that is not an AR-15? If the answer is no, I next wonder what rifles show up besides the AR-15? That would be telling - has it become so ingrained that the AR is the end-all do-all that nobody else tries anything else, Daewoo, FNC, AUG, anything? Seriously curious.

Yeap, in High Power, the M14/M1A and once in a while a Garand will do it. But its rare any more. Normally its because of the shooter, its the exception.

Where you see more of it is in the Modern Military Rifle catagory fired in CMP Games. This catagory covers other then the Garand, Springfield and (bolt action) Vintage Military Rifles.

To get others involve the CMP created the modern military catagory to provide a vinue for ARs, AKs, SKS,s M1A, FN FALs etc etc.

I'm a CMP GSM Master Instructor and put on clinics and matches for these rifles. I know I sound like a broken record, but its the ARS that win these matches.

Now as to the first part of your post. I am a LE Firams instructor, Pistol, Shotgun, Rifle, and Sniper.

When I attended the NRA LE Rifle Instructors Couse yes we used the B-27 target and shot at 100 yards, but don't get the ideal that's all it takes. To pass the course you also had to hit a cold bore shot at a mailing lable on the forhead of that target.

There is a reason most police departments us some viarity of the AR/M16s as a patrol rifle.

Never heard of a Department using AKs or SKSs.

armoredman
August 17, 2012, 03:46 PM
Neither have I. However, I knew some who used 30-30 lever actions, too...my Dept for one, until someone dragged them kicking and screaming into the next century.
No, I don't believe MOF is all that is needed for a LEO shooter, (However, I have seen snipers from DOC and BO that I could outshoot with my old Enfield!), but for your average civilian non competitor shooter, the guy who drags the WASR-10 out to the burn pit every couple of months to blast away, MOF is just fine.

Well I nee more practice, as I have never really practiced this before, (shame, I know), but there it is. At least I can say I stepped up to the challenge. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz-zLNrV83w&feature=youtu.be

This is how a pro does it, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7wRz06BpqU
Neit is now NEA, in Canada, make lots of neat stuff, and they even make some AR stuff for you guys, too. :)

spacecoast
August 17, 2012, 03:56 PM
That is a very cool bolt release! I might have to look into that.

armoredman
August 17, 2012, 04:10 PM
http://northeasternarms.com/accessories/cz-858-vz-58/tactical-bolt-release
http://www.czechpoint-usa.com/products/spare-parts-and-accessories/vz-58-parts-and-accessories/tactical-bolt-release/

Easy to install and use, great thing to have. Do everything with one finger.

armoredman
August 17, 2012, 04:32 PM
When I attended the NRA LE Rifle Instructors Couse yes we used the B-27 target and shot at 100 yards, but don't get the ideal that's all it takes. To pass the course you also had to hit a cold bore shot at a mailing lable on the forhead of that target.
I'll try that, what size label?

Lashlarue
August 17, 2012, 05:13 PM
My 16" Saiga fires sub 4" groups at 100m, my 20" Sks fired sub 3" groups at 100m.Both would leave an adversary very dead.M-16s may be a bit more accurate but they don't hold up to certain conditions.The Israeli Galil came to be due the unreliability of the M-16s in the desert.

kraigwy
August 17, 2012, 08:34 PM
.M-16s may be a bit more accurate but they don't hold up to certain conditions.

What conditions?

Do you know this from personal experience or is it something you read on the Internet?

Not interested in what some uncle said happened to his 3rd cousin twice removed.

Expound on this please.

kraigwy
August 17, 2012, 08:37 PM
I'll try that, what size label?

3 inch.

I cheated. I went though the course with my Heavy Match M1A. I didn't have any problems with iron sights. But I've been shooting that rifle for the AK NG Rifle Team for a long time.

Did come in #1 in the class. But I feel I cheated.

armoredman
August 17, 2012, 09:16 PM
The closest DCM affiliated club is 70-80 miles away, and it's a Boy Scout Troop.

Cshooter
August 18, 2012, 04:42 AM
I like my AK. Its plenty accurate for me, and in a SHTF scenario, nobody is going to be worrying about sub 2 inch groups at 200yds. They are going to be worried about the man size target at 75yds or closer, in which the AK will take care of no problem. Its a shooter, a work horse. Not a competition or long range gun. Look at how many americans took AK's off of the dead enemy in vietnam. Because when the M16 got all mucked up and jammed up in the bad weather, the AK still shot. I have seen alot of old videos of men walking off the battlefield in NAM carrying an AK with the M16 strapped to their back. Dont get me wrong. I like AR's as well. I guess my whole point is the AK does what its designed to do well, as does the AR. There is a place and time for each of them.

MikeGunz
August 18, 2012, 06:48 AM
I can hit a target the size of a soda can at a 100 yards with my sgl-31 in a few shots with iron sights. Its a fact that ARs are more accurate then an AK, but for what the rifle is designed for it is plenty accurate.

I Think there are different factors that develop the myth that AKs are extremely inaccurate. #1 Many of the fighters using them are poorly trained and will shoot them over their heads rather than shoulder them and use proper sight alignment. #2 The sights that come on AKs suck in my opinion, the AR peeps sights are much better. I mean you need damn tool to adjust for windage! #3 I dont think too many people shoot aks for accuracy. AK is more of the type of gun people slap a 30rd mag in it then blast away at some old electronics. #4 Propaganda that has been spit out to leave Americans to believe that we have the better weapons. ARs are great but drop me in afghanistan or some other **** hole Id take an AK variant over any AR and many of my fellow Marines and contractors would do the same.

kraigwy
August 18, 2012, 07:41 AM
Look at how many americans took AK's off of the dead enemy in vietnam.

More Internet BS. I'll tell you why.

Nothing sounds like an AK but an AK. The sound is so much different then the M16s.

When someone opens up with an AK, its assumed they are bandits and you open up on the sound.

We had a (not so) Friendly fire incident. One of our fireteam leaders took an AK off a bandit, and just for kicks fired off a burst. His sister fireteam, close by but out of sight opened up on the direction of the AK fire.

We have two fine soldiers' name on the Wall, listed as "misadventure".

Hell, it was a long time after I got back from Vietnam and the Internet came out that I found out my M16A1 didn't work when I was there.

Crow Hunter
August 18, 2012, 08:40 AM
It isn't just the inaccuracies of the AK that make it inferior to the AR. (I have owned a Polytech AKS 762 since 1998 and it is for sale)

1. The round, in it's most common M43 form, will do the same amount of damage that a .38 special on soft targets because the bullet needs 14+ inches of travel before it will flip over and even if it does flip, it doesn't break apart. It usually punches .30" holes in targets compared to the M193/M855 that will flip in 3-4" and usually will break apart at the cannelure created extra projectiles that could perforate tissue within the temporary stretch cavity causing that tissue to tear. The Yugoslavian M67 does much better, however, it is not anywhere near as common. SP ammo greatly improves the performance, but it isn't available to the military.

2. No bolt hold open. When you run out of rounds you get a click. That slows down reloads immensely. And no, you can't count rounds under stress.

3. Rock and lock magazine are both slower to lock in and you can easily miss the notch in the front and with the mechanical advantage of the magazine length jam the mag in place. It won't feed and you won't realize it until you get a misfeed. You will have to bash the mag out to correct it.

4. The safety is much harder and slower to take on and off. Particularly in the military form.

5. It is much harder to shoot from prone because it has a higher profile and you need much more room to do a reload because of the rock and lock magazine.

However

The AK does have the advantage of being overbuilt and over gassed with sturdy feed lips on the magazines that will allow it to run with more fouling and poorer ammo that other guns. But even AKs have malfunctions and the still need to be cleaned.

I was watching a documentary by Micheal Wood following the footsteps of Alexander the Great. He was in Afghanistan before the Taliban was in power. He was talking to a young Afghani fighter who had his AK apart. He asked what he was doing. The young man said that he was cleaning his AK because he didn't want to have it jam on him when he was fighting the next day.

5.56RifleGuy
August 18, 2012, 01:06 PM
I like my Aks. They are fun to shoot, work very well, and always go bang when I pull the trigger. I have an SP1 also. The sp1 is a lot easier to shoot accurately, but I have had it jam on me when I am not running it wet. If I keep it well lubricated, it isn't a problem.

I shoot the SP1 a lot more at the range, if that says anything. I like the lightness of the weapon, and those awesome triangular hand guards. I cant stand all that rail crap on a weapon. It adds a ridiculous amount of weight. In my opinion, there should be very little you have to put on your rifle. A nice optic and maybe a fore grip if you like them. Anything else doesn't make sense to me. Why put an extra 3 pounds on your rifle for that?

I think my favorite to shoot nowadays is my AR 180. Its light, works very well, accurate, quick to shoulder, and is reliable. Its a shame it never got picked up by anyone. It cheap to produce and works well. I bet that design would have come a long way.

raftman
August 19, 2012, 12:20 AM
I'm gonna have to agree that anyone who says the AK's accuracy is that of a "thrown rock" is indeed speaking from the wrong orifice.

Yes, AK's are generally less accurate than AR's, I've had both over the years and presently one both, no need to try to convince me, but unless you're able to throw rocks into 3" groups at 100 yards (and for an additional challenge, go ahead and try to throw these rocks at 2400fps), keep the simpleton one-liners to yourself.

Beans
August 19, 2012, 12:51 AM
I guess I could be considered "ol Salt" by some standards. 1961 in Boot camp I was issue a M1 Garand. For the next 2 years I carried and used a BAR. which may have been considered a fire team support weapon but we were required and did run normal fire team maneuvers the same as the rest of the Marines in our four man fire team.
Yes we also did the normal rifle exercises with the BAR again along side the other Marines carrying the M1's. that is 20 lbs vs 10 lbs weapons.

IN 1963 I was issued a M-14 and did my 1st tour in SEA (1966) with it. My second tour 1968-1970 was with the M-16.
My KD range scores was much higher with the M-14 then with either the M-1 or the M-16.
Contrary to the Internet BS the M-14 is not totally uncontrollable on full auto, unless you pull the trigger and hold it back until the mag is empty. But the BAR is also uncontrollable if you do the same thing.

Short bursts 2-4 rounds at the most will work on those weapons including the .45 Cal grease gun and the Thompson. The M-2 carbine is another matter and can be controlled with the trigger held back until the mag is empty

I have both Ak's and AR's today. Changing the mags on the AK is no problem for me. It rocks in much like the M-14.

Is the AR more accurate then the AK47? IMHO yes it is.
Is the AK47 accurate enough? IMHO Yes it is.

In doing IA drills at 125 yards or less, the number of hits vs. the number of rounds fired, for me, is mostly equal. A disabling hit on a Silhouette target is a disabling hit. One time it is the AR and the next it may be the AK.

If I were still an LEO and working in a less harsh environment and with maintenance gear available I would Chose the AR and my 1911.

As I a no longer an LEO and if I was going to be in harsh environment where cleaning/maintenance gear was not, nor was going to be available I would choose my Glock and the AK 47.

FWIW That is my opinion based upon my actually using the weapons mentioned

PS For the Tech nerds I only run SP ammo in my AK's, and choose the V-max rounds for my AR

10mmAuto
August 19, 2012, 01:16 AM
Don't say they arn't authorized in these matches, they are in the Modern Military Catagory in the CMP matches but they have to compete with ARs and they CAN'T.
With an optic, a quality AK-74 with an RPK receiver or a rebuild of the newer imported Saigas will keep pace with an AR-15. Get anything else and the mechanical accuracy is low, the external ballistics will be poor (AK-47 patterns in 7.62x39) and without optics we both know you can't perform at a competitive level because the iron sights and sight radius leave a lot to be desired.

the rifleer
August 19, 2012, 01:36 AM
This is a silly topic. If you take a an AK and aim center mass and a human sized target and pull the trigger, you will hit the target every time. I can't throw a rock that far.

TheGoldenState
August 19, 2012, 01:57 AM
They will not win target matches, but the idea that you (or a deer) would be “safe” from one at 300 yards is on the same level as the promises of the current president.
BS!


/Thread

Pilot
August 19, 2012, 04:32 AM
Over recent years, I've been gravitating back to the AR-15 for semi-auto rifle shooting because I am more interested in accuracy, and the AR can be darn reliable. The AK was a bit of a Combloc fad for me, however, I still keep two AK-74 variants, a Polish Tantal built from a kit on a U.S. receiver (with original Polish barrel), and a Romanian CUR II I had converted to an AK-74 clone. Both in 5.45 as I like the round better than the 7.62 out of an AK. Not so much like throwing a rock either.

spacecoast
August 19, 2012, 11:14 AM
you can't perform at a competitive level because the iron sights and sight radius leave a lot to be desired.

I have a hard time giving much credence to this oft-repeated claim about the short sight radius of the AK being a handicap. My AK's 15-1/4" site radius is more than twice the 7-1/4" site radius of my S&W Model 17 (or any other handgun used for target shooting), yet Bullseye shooters shooting unsupported with one hand at 50 yards have been getting along fine for a century with iron sights.

Surely a rested rifle with iron sights twice as long can shoot accurately up to 200 yards, assuming a visible target. Again, given the number of excellent iron shooters over the decades and centuries I think it's more a matter of training, desire and discipline.

militant
August 19, 2012, 12:16 PM
The AK is a battle rifle. How many people in a battle like situation are sitting at a bench, slowly squeezing off shots? It is what it is. Its not accurate you say? I'd say most guns are more accurate then their shooters. And the sks is not on the same level as an AK. I can consistently shoot 3 inch groups at 100 yards with wolf ammo.

essohbe
August 19, 2012, 12:22 PM
My brother, a Major in the Army, says AK's are basically a thrown rock for accuracy,

Everybody's definition of "accurate" is different

Also, there are many different calibers for an AK, not just 7.62x39. Most people, even some of those in the military, don't understand this.

My 5.45x39 will perform much better than my 7.62x39, just the ballistics of the rounds.
There's a .308 AK, a .30-06 AK, 9mm AK, etc...

Open your mind Quade. Open your mind. Kuato is a mutant that lives on Mars.

spacecoast
August 19, 2012, 12:51 PM
I'd say most guns are more accurate then their shooters.

That's exactly what I said in post #25

I can consistently shoot 3 inch groups at 100 yards with wolf ammo.

That's about what I'm doing currently, and I hope to improve on that.

10mmAuto
August 19, 2012, 12:53 PM
I have a hard time giving much credence to this oft-repeated claim about the short sight radius of the AK being a handicap. My AK's 15-1/4" site radius is more than twice the 7-1/4" site radius of my S&W Model 17 (or any other handgun used for target shooting), yet Bullseye shooters shooting unsupported with one hand at 50 yards have been getting along fine for a century with iron sights.
You can do pretty much anything given enough time even with limited iron sights and radius. I can tag a man sized silhouette reliably at 150m with my 9mm. But I'd register many more hits many times faster with an M16A2 without optics. Not all competitions are slow fire bullseye shooting and combat certainly isn't.

James K
August 19, 2012, 01:17 PM
"There is no such thing as 'accurate enough' ".

Well, the U.S. Army says there is. Unless they have changed the specs, a rifle must put its shots into a four inch group at 100 yards to be acceptable.

And that figure was first used for the Model 1855 rifle and hasn't (AFAIK) changed.

Jim

kraigwy
August 19, 2012, 09:58 PM
I have a hard time giving much credence to this oft-repeated claim about the short sight radius of the AK being a handicap.

Its simple math:

To determine how much sight change or movement one needs at 100 yards you divide the sight radius by 3600 (3600 = 100 yards time 36 inches)'

Now lets compare the same rifle and ammo in a 16 inch and 26 inch sight radius.

In a 16 in barrel its 16/3600= .0044, so each .0044 correction or error in the sights moves the impact 1 inch at 100 yards.

In a 26 inch barrel its 26/3600=.0072. so each .0072 correction or error in the sights moves the impact 1 inch at 100 yards.

What it means on a 26 inch barrel it takes .0028 more correction or error to move the impact 1 inch.

Since there are few of us that can tell the difference of .0028 error in sight alignment, it stands to reason the we can shoot the longer sight radius more accurately.

As far as the bullet is concerned it doesn't matter. The Army, Dr F. Mann, and the Secrets of the Huston Warehouse all found out the most accurate barrel length is 18 inches. Anything more, isn't a deterrent but doesn't add to the accuracy. But you'll notice those who shot target rifles with iron sights use a 26 or 28 inch barrel, not because the bullet likes it better but because the longer barrel gives the shooter the advantage, allowing him to shoot better.

----------------------------------------------------------------

"There is no such thing as 'accurate enough' "

I made that statement. I'll add to it that by saying.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ACCURATE ENOUGH

The Army DOES NOT SAY 4 inch group at 100 yards is "accurate enough"

The Army like everyone else strives for more accuracy. The M16A1 with its M193 ball round shoots well within 4 inches, but the army didn't stop, They wanted to extend it beyond your 100 yards so they went to the 'A2 with a heavier bullet, then the 77 Grn to extend that range further.

Shooting is no different then anything else. You strive for more accuracy.

A golfer who hits a hole in one for every hole to 18 holes, will then want to hit a hole in one for 36 holes, then 72 straight holes in one.

When the 5 min miles was broken, people aimed for the 4 minute mile, they didn't say 'fast enough"

Call the Army Marksmanship Unit. Ask them how many people they send to the Olympics that can hold your "good enough' 4 MOA.

The day we give up and except limits is the day we loose.

The day I stop trying to build a better rifle, and develop better ammo, and improve my marksmanship is the day I lay down for my dirt name.

spacecoast
August 20, 2012, 07:29 AM
Note - I borrowed the image below (Colt 6920 vs. Saiga SGL21) from this post - http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=403107.

Point is - the AK sight radius isn't much different than an AR.


http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n443/thorm001/Guns/IMG_0001-5.jpg

kraigwy
August 20, 2012, 11:16 AM
OK I'll give you that, the A4s and AKs sight radius isn't much different. But the M16s is a different matter.

But there is more to shooting iron sights then sight radius. Anyone who has any experience with shooting irons sights know that a Peep type rear sight it more accurate the the open or buck horn type sights.

You eyes automatically want to want to look through the center of the peep. Easy to test. Take a paper towel roll. Hold it out so you can look at a spot on the wall. If you do it naturally you'll automatically center the spot in the center of the roll.

Same thing, you'll automatically center the front post in the rear peep. What is more accurate yet, it peeps or aperture sights on both ends. Then you naturally want to center the bullseye in the front sight, the front sight centered in the rear sight.

Son so with the Open type sights on the AKs or most other non us military rifles. You have to work at getting the front post lined up with the rear notch, forcing you to be looking at the rear sight instead of front sight where your concentration should be.

Ever wonder why ISU or Olympic shooters only use aperture sights and not the open type sights???

This is the reason, the American Army, since the 1903a3s, have used an aperture rear sight.

Added to that, the sights on are military rifles are positive, meaning (unless you have a screwed up sight) that if the manual says one click of elevation or windage will move the sight X MOA. (Use to be Minutes, now its CMs).

No military makes as accurate (iron) sights as the American Army.

In 1948 in Gen Hatcher's "Book of the Garand" he gives the sight corrections from 100 to 1200 yards for the Garand. From 100-200, 2 clicks, from 200 to 300, 3 clicks............all the way to 1200 yards.

I ran sniper schools using the M1C/Ds from the late 70s through the late 80s when we switched to the M21. The M1's irons worked the same way as Hatcher wrote in '47.

As a CMP GSM Master Instructor I run Garand Clinics and matches, (that last one being Sat) The sights still work the same way.

My White Oak Service rifle (M16a2 style) is the same way. In pitch darkness I can set my sights anywhere from 200 to 1000 yards and KNOW its accurate.

I've shot a lot of SKSs and AK,s and taught classes using AKs and SKSs. I've never seen one I could trust the sights.

However, once you get the Mosin sighted in at 100 yards, it is on at what ever yardage you set the mark.

The sights for the M1917 are good using the peep on the ladder, but it lacks the ability to make windage adjustments like the A3. Garand, M14 & M16s.

Any rifle is only as good as its sights. You take a match palma Model 70 and put AK sights on it, it ain't gonna be a match quality rifle.

Quentin2
August 20, 2012, 05:52 PM
Interesting picture comparing AR vs. AK sight radius, spacecoast. That's one reason the midlength gas length is so popular on carbine barrels, you get an extra 2" of handguard/rail and sight radius.



kraigwy, excellent points as usual! Good to hear from someone who knows the M16 from the early years! I also can't complain about my A1 from 1968. We cleaned them with gasoline/diesel and boot laces, t shirts, etc. and lubed with anything we could get. Lots of conflicting reports from Nam but I took care of mine and it worked. I think the chrome lined barrel and proper ammo/magazines solved most problems.

Jo6pak
August 20, 2012, 07:17 PM
My brother, a Major in the Army, says AK's are basically a thrown rock for accuracy

Typical Officer:rolleyes:

kraigwy
August 20, 2012, 09:39 PM
My brother, a Major in the Army, says AK's are basically a thrown rock for accuracy

Typical Officer

LOL, OK, lets look at it from an Infantry Officer's point of View. We were talking about the advantages or disavantages of ours vs. their rifles.

It behooves an Infantry Officer to know the advantages. Lets talk about "over watch". This is where one unit covers a manover unit who's moving to a point of contact.

Lets say one unit covers another who has to move from point A (friendly lines) to point B, (enemy position).

Looking at the map while preparing the operation plan, the Officer knows that point B is 1000 yards away. He knows he only has rifles to cover the manover element. He knows that in moving from point A to B, there are two spots, one going and one coming, where the friendy troops would be in danger from overhead fire. Between those spots the unit can move while being covered, meaning the stationary unit is firing on point B, keeping them in their holes.

Now the Officer knows the range of his guns, and knows that on American guns you are safe in assuming X click on the sight will move the elevaton Y distance.

So he has the stationary troops set their sights for 1000 yards, to bring fire on positon B, He also has to know the trajectory of the bullet between point A and point B.

They "typical officer" you refer to has to calculate the ordinate of the rifle round at any distance.

To do this he needs to know the angle of departure (in mils) for 1000 yards.

He can then find the abscissa (horizonatal distance) at any point between the muzzle and the target.

I'm going to use a 30 cal round because I dont have a chart handy for the 5.56.

The angle of departure for the above round at 1000 yards is 26.14 mils. Knowing that you can find the abscissa at any given spot between A and B.

Lets take 800 yards. The angle of departure for the above round for 800 yards is 15.88 mils.

Substract 15.88 from 26.14 and you get 10.26. W (abscissa) = 800X10.26/1000=8.208 yards or 24.624 feet, well over the head of the frinely troops.

Do the same math to figure the point where the troops enter and exit the safe zone. (that's what typical officers do in planning a mission).

Now those of you who say "accurate enough" ask your self if you were one of the manover troops, do you want the sights on an American Rifle, or do you want the sights on a AK or simular rifle.

Now you can see why the Major (typical officer) says the AK is like throwing rocks.

Officers have more to do then get you lost with their map reading.