AK 47's suck. :)

[iusmc2002]

If the AK sucks so badly, why has it been around for 60 years? Not to say I'm a huge fan of them myself, but for functionality, they smoke most other auto/semi-auto weapons! I would wager that had our warriors had them in Vietnam, there would have been probably 10,000 fewer deaths after the damn M-16 came into service. Ok, maybe not 10,000, but if it could have saved even ONE life it would have been worth the slight lack of accuracy. Last time I fired an AK variant was in 2003, but I could routinely hit a pop-up target at 300 meters. That probably falls into the category of "Shooter Capability" lol But like someone else said, to each their own, like them, love them or hate them, it's no one elses decision.

 

[Just Jim]

Of course a marksman will shoot better with an optic, but what if your optic breaks, fogs up, loses zero in the field or is lost? Its always good to be proficient with all aspects of the weapon you choose to use.

Keith

If you can't see your target then you have less chance of hitting it. If all your enemies stand in the open I guess it doesn't matter to have optics. Optics are better for low light. Iron sites are good but when it comes to target identification at distance I would rather have optics. A good quality optic will break but what will it take to make it happen? Will the rifle owner still be alive in the event?

What is the trend in the military, optics or irons?

jj

 

[Unka-Boo]

Here's a pic from PR yesterday ( stolen from Tangofoxtrot )...not me in the pic, it's to show range...

had to play with the brightness and contrast a bit, then circled the targets in the pic. I couldn't make out the farthest target on this pic, but it was in between the rock crusher/conveyor thingy and the red circled target on the right. They were at 300+ yards.

My "inaccurate" AK was able to hit all ( there were 10 total targets on that stage ) in 77 seconds, the back ones needing a few rounds to find range on them...I am running a cheap red dot on an Ultimak, nothing special and no magnification.

Par time on the stage was 180 seconds, with many of the guys using it all and not hitting all of the targets....

I am in no way an "expert" shooter, but I know my rifle and what it can do, running Yugo surplus, I'm averaging about 2MOA, plenty accurate for 300+ yards.

 

[mpmarty]

I find the AK design superior to the AR platform in every respect. Unfortunately the original AK47 was fitted with an inferior cartridge. I have a Saiga AK in 7.62X51 and with the Lake City National Match ammo or my handloads it is in every way better than any other semi auto rifle I've ever experienced including the M-14, M-1 Garand and all the stamped sheet metal FNs and FALs. My AK utilizes a very nice Russian eight power scope with range finder reticule and optional illumination. Unlike the 223 it will convert cover into concealment quickly, I've pulverized concrete block walls with it at ranges of over 200 yards.

 

[Father of four]

I can't seem to get my 30 round mags to fit into my 30-30.

My 30-30 is a tack driver but runs out of "POW POW" rather quickly.

My AK Is Great For Firing Loads Of Lead Down Range! :gun11:

I'll keep my AK. Gunner3456 I'll gladly take any AK's that you wanna get ride of.

 

[56kninja]

I had a rather large group of friends over yesterday and all were invited to bring weapons to fire. We went down the road and set up a 50 yard and a 200 yard target. My own range is only 100 yards.

We also had a pretty darned good barbecue.

Some guys brought hunting rifles and handguns, but the bulk of the long guns fired and sighted in, etc. were AKM's, AR-15's and a few AR-10's. There were a couple of AK-74's.

I got very discouraged with the lack of accuracy from the AKM's and some of them even had expensive optics. (Why, I'll never know.)

I went home and grabbed my Dad's 60 year old Marlin 30-30 and with iron sights shot the best group of all the AKM's. (sandbags.)

IMHO an AKM is nothing more than a semi-auto 30-30 but lacking the accuracy.

The AR's are deadly accurate. A couple of AK-74's were deadly.

OK, flame away.

Cliff:

An AK being the first gun I owned.. I completely agree with you.

AKs are horribly in-accurate. They are overhyped as "reliable" while they are usually, they have design flaws that for some reason people over look. I'd take an AR-15 anyday over an AK.. much easier to shoot, more accurate, much more comfortable to just hold.

AKs are also boring to me.. I've only kept mine and not sold it because I don't really collect guns.

It would be the ideal home defense weapon if it's bullets didn't have so much penetration power.

 

[trainsktg]

If you can't see your target then you have less chance of hitting it. If all your enemies stand in the open I guess it doesn't matter to have optics. Optics are better for low light. Iron sites are good but when it comes to target identification at distance I would rather have optics. A good quality optic will break but what will it take to make it happen? Will the rifle owner still be alive in the event?

What is the trend in the military, optics or irons?

jj

I'm not arguing with your statement. I support it. I think you overlooked my point that practice with the iron sights is important in case there is need of them in an emergency. Since I am less proficient with open sights than a scope, I practice mainly with open sights.

Keith

 

[saxon]

they have design flaws that for some reason people over look

care to discus what they are?

 

[trainsktg]

Regarding above reference that the 7.62x39 cartridge being 'inferior', I'd have to agree. There is a reason that the Soviets updated their rifles to the 5.45 round. Gunner alluded to this in his first post when he said that the '74s on his range were shooting good, but not the '47s.

Unka-Boo, that's some nice shooting .

I've also heard good about the Saigas chambered in 7.62 NATO. I don't own one, so I can't comment. I do love the ability of my Saiga 12 AKM clone to lob 10, 12 or 20 rounds of buckshot downrange as fast as I can pull the trigger without a reload. http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/storeproduct776.aspx


Keith

 

[Just Jim]

I'm not arguing with your statement. I support it. I think you overlooked my point that practice with the iron sights is important in case there is need of them in an emergency. Since I am less proficient with open sights than a scope, I practice mainly with open sights.

Keith

There is a point where some of old guys can't see open sites good enough. I would practice alot if I could see the damn things

jj

 

[trainsktg]

There is a point where some of old guys can't see open sites good enough. I would practice alot if I could see the damn things

jj

Agreed . Sometimes I feel like Mr. Magoo out there .

Keith

 

[Partsproduction]

Interesting thread. I saw a documentary where the M-16 was fired against an AK, the AK did horribly, like 6" at 100 yards compared to about an inch for the 16. I don't really know from experience. Theoretically a rotary bolt would be more accurate than a tipping lockup, if that were the only difference. My FAL has a tipping lock of course and is only slightly less accurate than an M-14, or so I'm told. I shot both my FAL and an AK at a range in Yuma and was amazed at the accuracy of the AK, though at 500 yards the FAL was clearly more so.

But accuracy is the product of a lot more than the lockup type, there are so many things, and I bet consistency in the AK is pretty rare since there are so many countries making them. The round is weak compared to a .308, I don't know if intrinsically it is more or less accurate than the .223, though at longer ranges it would seem that the heavier slug has the advantage.

I'd take an AK over an AR myself because I have a phobic reaction to aluminum in any firearm, just knowing a gun has aluminum in it makes me want to puke. But then there is the evil empire thing to overcome. :winkkiss:

 

[Unka-Boo]

Ammo selection is critical, Some brands are better than others, Yugo surplus is the best "cheap" stuff I've found, Wolf if downright terrible. ( 2MOA vs 6 or more, out of the same gun...)

I fully understand why people think they are inaccurate, give a noob unfamiliar iron sights on a parts-kit build with a marginal barrel then shoot the cheapest ammo you could buy.....think there might be an issue?

 

[saxon]

Early ballistics tests done demonstrated a pronounced tumbling effect with high speed cameras.[3] Some Western authorities believed this bullet was designed to tumble in flesh to increase wounding potential. At the time, it was believed that yawing and cavitation of projectiles was primarily responsible for tissue damage. Martin Fackler conducted a study using live pigs and ballistic gelatin demonstrating that the 5.45 mm round does not reliably fragment or cause unusual amounts of tissue disruption.[4] Most organs and tissue were too flexible to be severely damaged by the temporary cavity effect caused by yaw and cavitation of a projectile. With the 5.45 mm bullet, tumbling produced a temporary cavity twice, at depths of 100 and 350 mm. This is comparable to modern 7.62x39mm ammunition and to (non-fragmenting) 5.56 mm ammunition. The average width of a human torso is 350 mm

 

[The Cheese]

Here's a pic from PR yesterday ( stolen from Tangofoxtrot )...not me in the pic, it's to show range...

had to play with the brightness and contrast a bit, then circled the targets in the pic. I couldn't make out the farthest target on this pic, but it was in between the rock crusher/conveyor thingy and the red circled target on the right. They were at 300+ yards.

My "inaccurate" AK was able to hit all ( there were 10 total targets on that stage ) in 77 seconds, the back ones needing a few rounds to find range on them...I am running a cheap red dot on an Ultimak, nothing special and no magnification.

Par time on the stage was 180 seconds, with many of the guys using it all and not hitting all of the targets....

I am in no way an "expert" shooter, but I know my rifle and what it can do, running Yugo surplus, I'm averaging about 2MOA, plenty accurate for 300+ yards.

I saw this go down and it was some really good shooting. I shot the same stage with a sighted in 223 with a nice 1-4x scope and it took me 177 seconds if I heard right. I am still waiting to see my time for this stage. 300yds with no magnification is not an easy thing. Especially with the fog and on the clock with 9 other targets to hit.

 

[Partsproduction]

I fully understand why people think they are inaccurate, give a noob unfamiliar iron sights on a parts-kit build with a marginal barrel then shoot the cheapest ammo you could buy.....think there might be an issue?

I'm really a noob when it comes to rifles.

It seems to me that there are design features that tend towards accuracy, a solid stock instead of a two piece stock, rotary locking bolt, harmonics of the barrel, (Which has been the bane of the Mini 14) the trigger group, the sights, and the cartridge's inherent potential for accuracy. Maybe I have missed something? The shooter has nothing to do with the inherent accuracy potential of the rifle.

Unlike many things that can be tested rifles are hard to do a double blind test on, anyone who knows how to bring the best out of a rifle doubtless knows the difference between an AR and an AK,so the documentary test was likely flawed by bias. They were trying to make the case that the M-16 is a great battle rifle, bias?

Likewise anyone in this forum who may be willing to chime in may have a bias as well, but I've read often that the AR rifles are much more accurate than the AK's.

Bias also extends to ammunition types, I had a guy try to tell me that my FAL was going to be a highly expensive club after the ammo was gone, and of course he would still be shooting his M-15. True, given the limited scenario.

But it seems to me that the 5.56 round is inherently more accurate than the 7.62 X 39 at ranges where bullet weight are not a huge factor. There are many things that appear to me to favor the AR, the cartridge, the rotary bolt, and what I've personally seen many times, the inferior quality of most AK manufacturing. They look junky to me, that can't help.

I'd like to hear what some target rifle shooters would say about the differences between the two rifles. As I said, I'm not well versed in rifle technology.

 

[Gunner3456]

Heh heh. We always seem to be getting into these conversations, don't we Gunner ?

With my standard of never shooting less than a 5-shot group to gauge accuracy, I am quite satisfied with 4moa using open sights when considering the combined effective range of both the cartridge being shot and my poor eyesight (which is quite poor). Say...150-200 yards for a .22, 250-300 yards for a 7.62x39 round, 500-600 yards for a 7.62x51, x54r or x63. Remember, I'm talking open sights here. If people can routinely hit man-sized targets past those ranges with open sight rifles, then they're better shots than I am...I can't do it.

Also, groups in a properly sighted rifle will be hitting center mass, and at 500 yards, a 20" 5-shot group will still have hit that 20" target 100% of the time.

With my scoped rifles using surplus ammo, I'm happy with 1.5 to 2moa, although I've got several that beat that, including an original M91/30 PU sniper using regular '86 Czech lightball.. Of course if I reloaded for each rifle, I'd expect that to be even better, but that's not a field I have any interest in.

I should also say that almost all of my rifles are untouched original military surplus (US, Finn and other Combloc), and a few clones. I have no modern rifles other than a Greek SAR-8 and a 10/22. No bedding, no tuning, no barrel fluting. That matters when comparing my results with modern weaponry.

Keith

Thanks for being a good sport, Keith. I'm just having a little fun on a boring day.

Cliff

 

[Gunner3456]

Optics are about being able to SEE your target. Nuff said.

jj

I thought that was what glasses or lasik surgery was for, LOL.

Besides, how well do you need to see when you have an AK with an effective range of 50 yards?

 

[Gunner3456]

kennedy lol know thats a flash back lotta cool stuff

Wasn't that a cool store? Mostly second hand junk with a nice stock of guns in the corner nearest the counter.

I don't think it was a pawn shop????

Cliff

 

[Gunner3456]

I find the AK design superior to the AR platform in every respect. Unfortunately the original AK47 was fitted with an inferior cartridge. I have a Saiga AK in 7.62X51 and with the Lake City National Match ammo or my handloads it is in every way better than any other semi auto rifle I've ever experienced including the M-14, M-1 Garand and all the stamped sheet metal FNs and FALs. My AK utilizes a very nice Russian eight power scope with range finder reticule and optional illumination. Unlike the 223 it will convert cover into concealment quickly, I've pulverized concrete block walls with it at ranges of over 200 yards.

Nice gun. I'd like to see that.

It's not what I refer to as the regular AKM though.