why not an AK?

[1stmardiv]

So I just got my first AK, cleaned it up, oiled it, and smoothed out all the spots where the function was sluggish. I took it to the range and put 100 rounds threw it and the thing is dead on at 150 (range doesn't offer targets further than that) so why are so many people against AKs saying they are lousy and inacurate.

 

[DRAM40A1]

Re: why not an AK?

Probably because they are. I have an Arsenal converted Saiga that shoots around 3.5 MOA with Wolf at 100 yards.I assume with better ammo, it would do better but it is a blast to shoot. JMHO

I saw a guy shoot an AK at a 3 gun match one time and to say he used alot of ammo would be an understatement. What's the old saying? Spray and pray.....LOL

 

[ewoaf]

Re: why not an AK?

this is an accuracy oriented site...just saying.
otherwise for a tactical carbine, the AK rocks.

 

[mwroseberry]

Re: why not an AK?

I had a saiga that I modified myself and shot 2-2.5MOA with it. It has more to do with the ammo than anything. The 7.62x39 falls on it's face at 300 yards. And in the sand box when my M16a4 was crapping out on me I was scooping up every AK I could get my hands on to keep me alive.

Do yourself a HUGE favor and get an AK74 muzzle brake for that AK in 7.62 and your muzzle climb will go from 4" per round to under an inch.

Good luck,
Merritt
SGT USMC vet.

 

[Rarebreed93]

Re: why not an AK?

I have a 1967 Norinco that I love to shoot. It is however "Spray & Pray"

 

[cal50]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1stmardiv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I just got my first AK, cleaned it up, oiled it, and smoothed out all the spots where the function was sluggish. I took it to the range and put 100 rounds threw it and the thing is dead on at 150 (range doesn't offer targets further than that) so why are so many people against AKs saying they are lousy and inacurate. </div></div>


Because a lot of them are inaccurate and hard to shoot accurately. Some shoot great.

Short sight radius (open sights)mushy trigger and cheap ammo makes it harder to fire accurately. I am not bagging on them by any means because I have a few and would not be without one. I don't think its a great infantry rifle but its amongst the most reliable guns out there.

 

[scotharr]

Re: why not an AK?

Uber-reliable, great for CQB. But you are putting lipstick on a pig when talking about accuracy. The much-maligned AR direct impingement system is wonderful for accuracy.

 

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Re: why not an AK?

Everyone in America should own an AK47


Good luck

 

[lazy21]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everyone in America should own an AK47


Good luck</div></div>

NO......every American should own a ar, you terrorist

 

[desertrat1979]

Re: why not an AK?

I agree with the above where the AK is a good CQ weapon. It just doesnt have the accuracy for practical long range use. However, the AK has durability and awesome reliability to shoot under any condition. I have to objections to an AR, but for me if cost is a factor, ammo, and use, I go for an AK. On the other hand. I had a chance to shoot my friends AK a while back. Its a bone stock, but refurbished with some Tapco internals. The wood stock...ouch. My cheek weld was kinda tight to get good sight alignment, and every time I pulled the trigger it felt like I was getting cracked in the face. Could only take about 15-20 shots.

 

[RyanScott]

Re: why not an AK?

I'm not opposed to the AK operating system but it is far inferior ergonomically. If I want an AK I will get a Sig 553.

 

[JSTARSZ]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RyanScott</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not opposed to the AK operating system but it is far inferior ergonomically. If I want an AK I will get a Sig 553.</div></div> Or a Galil - Kind of expensive now though...AK's are very durable and built loose for that reason. I can shoot an AK to 3-4 MOA at a 100 or I can shoot my AR to 1 - 1.5 MOA at the same distance. I have a friend who was challenging his AK to my DPMS AR - both had about the same length barrel...so I laid down and shot a 10 round group at a 100 with a Leupold CQT at about 1.5 MOA and I had him look at it through my spotting scope - he said, ok, you proved your point.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: why not an AK?

The AK always shoots where pointed. The problem is coming to an understanding for exactly where it's pointed.

 

[limamike56]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ewoaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this is an accuracy oriented site...just saying.
otherwise for a tactical carbine, the AK rocks. </div></div>

+1. I have a couple of AK's that shoot 3 1/2 inches groups at 100 yards with good ammo. You can hit a 18" x 24" inch target all day long at 200 yards. A good AK is excellent for what they were designed to do but precision work is not one of them.

 

[Hawk45]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lIMAMIKE56</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ewoaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this is an accuracy oriented site...just saying.
otherwise for a tactical carbine, the AK rocks. </div></div>

+1. I have a couple of AK's that shoot 3 1/2 inches groups at 100 yards with good ammo. You can hit a 18" x 24" inch target all day long at 200 yards. A good AK is excellent for what they were designed to do but precision work is not one of them.</div></div>

+2 I love my AK platform as much as my AR. Something about that big .30cal bullet you know will do the job with one hit. Plus it's cheap and fun to shoot at around $0.20/ round. Get a brick of 1000 and put it away for when you need it.

 

[Ishikawa]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hawk45</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lIMAMIKE56</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ewoaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this is an accuracy oriented site...just saying.
otherwise for a tactical carbine, the AK rocks. </div></div>

+1. I have a couple of AK's that shoot 3 1/2 inches groups at 100 yards with good ammo. You can hit a 18" x 24" inch target all day long at 200 yards. A good AK is excellent for what they were designed to do but precision work is not one of them.</div></div>

+2 I love my AK platform as much as my AR. Something about that big .30cal bullet you know will do the job with one hit. Plus it's cheap and fun to shoot at around $0.20/ round. Get a brick of 1000 and put it away for when you need it. </div></div>

I like mine...great for deer & pig hunting...makes it more challenging for me, as I force myself to wait for a < 50 yd shot. Reminds me of bow-hunting, but with firepower

Does a great job on the smaller central Texas deer...pushing the new Hornady loads.

 

[Dsparil]

Re: why not an AK?

The big problem with the AK is full and complete follow-through. The AK WAS originally designed to be fired on full auto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fouesdpTBXo Some think of Suarez as a crook, I dunno. The guy is kinda off personality-wise, then again so am I. As for what he says here he is absolutely correct. A good solid milled AK can go a LONG way. If you own a milled AK of good quality, go get some American Eagle(I said this in the SVD thread) and run that through it instead of Wolf. For whatever reason most AKs LOVE the American Eagle ammo and can punch some pretty tight groups.

 

[LoneWolfUSMC]

Re: why not an AK?

I have several AR's and I have an AK.

I can use either to defend my life. I am faster and smoother with the M4 because it's what I constantly train with. My AK is my "oh shit" truck gun.

 

[MK14 SEI]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1stmardiv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... why are so many people against AKs saying they are lousy and inaccurate. </div></div>

I have heard the same criticism of the AK47 for many years... it's reliable, but it's not very accurate...
My personal AKM experience has only been with stamped Poly Tech and Norinco variants.
The Chinese rifles seem to be better out of the box than most other makes and their triggers are smooth.



I put alot of lipstick on my Norinco T56SHTF and it is both reliable & accurate... it's a keeper.

 

[Strangedays]

Re: why not an AK?

I am a M4 guy myself but the AK is a great rifle. The AK trigger is not at all as good as an AR (I don't care what brand) The AK is a good GTG. The AK sights is the worst for me I have hunting rifles with better sights than my AK. The AK is nice in the fact that its a rifle you don't care enough about to care if it gets a ding or scratch and it will always work. JMHO

 

[Red_SC]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lazy21</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everyone in America should own an AK47
</div></div> NO......every American should own a ar, you terrorist

</div></div>

Everyone in America should own both.

 

[Austincqc]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1stmardiv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I just got my first AK, cleaned it up, oiled it, and smoothed out all the spots where the function was sluggish. I took it to the range and put 100 rounds threw it and the thing is dead on at 150 (range doesn't offer targets further than that) so why are so many people against AKs saying they are lousy and inacurate. </div></div>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0

This video does a good job explaining why the AK isn't as accurate as the AR platform. Two different thoughts behind their designs and purposes. I'm definitely not nocking the AK, but for accuracy, there are many other semi-auto choices.

From some mercs that have come back from Iraq and Afganistan, they said its like a turkey shoot. They can engage their targets with little threat of getting hit by enemy fire due to the limitations of the 7.62x39.

I'm sure the AK in this video could have been shot more accurately though. Did anybody else see him slapping the trigger?

 

[DWood]

Re: why not an AK?

There is room enough in my life for both. They were designed to different specs, the AK being more tolerant of dirt and fouling while being less precise, and the AR being less tolerant of dirt and fouling while being more precise. each does a good job at what it was intended to do.

The biggest shortcoming I see in the AK is the iron sights. The rear notch is too narrow and too far from the eye for precise shooting. Notice I said precise, not accurate. To me, accuracy in a carbine of either style means hitting a chest size target consistently at 10-200 yards. I'm OK with a 4" group at 100 VS a 2" group. If I'm not mistaken, the military acceptance standard is 4 moa at 100 yards which is a hair over 4". Put a T-1 and Ultimak on an AK and watch your accuracy improve.

It is fairer to compare the AK 74 with it's 5.45 X 39 round to an AR than it is to compare the AK 47. The 74 is known to be more accurate than the 47 with its 30 caliber round. Of course, it can be argued that there is a benefit in the power of the 7.62 X 39 round of the 47.

The Romanian PSL is closer to an AK than either a Galil or Valmet mentioned above. It can be very accurate, at least from what I've read. I don't own one and have never shot one. I do own 2 ARs, 2 AK 47s, and 2AK 74s, and as I stated earlier, there is room in my shooting world for all of them.

And if the snipershide site was just about accuracy, most of the forum would not exist.

 

[Austincqc]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DWood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is room enough in my life for both. They were designed to different specs, the AK being more tolerant of dirt and fouling while being less precise, and the AR being less tolerant of dirt and fouling while being more precise. each does a good job at what it was intended to do.

The biggest shortcoming I see in the AK is the iron sights. The rear notch is too narrow and too far from the eye for precise shooting. Notice I said precise, not accurate. To me, accuracy in a carbine of either style means hitting a chest size target consistently at 10-200 yards. I'm OK with a 4" group at 100 VS a 2" group. If I'm not mistaken, the military acceptance standard is 4 moa at 100 yards which is a hair over 4". Put a T-1 and Ultimak on an AK and watch your accuracy improve.

It is fairer to compare the AK 74 with it's 5.45 X 39 round to an AR than it is to compare the AK 47. The 74 is known to be more accurate than the 47 with its 30 caliber round. Of course, it can be argued that there is a benefit in the power of the 7.62 X 39 round of the 47.

The Romanian PSL is closer to an AK than either a Galil or Valmet mentioned above. It can be very accurate, at least from what I've read. I don't own one and have never shot one. I do own 2 ARs, 2 AK 47s, and 2AK 74s, and as I stated earlier, there is room in my shooting world for all of them.

And if the snipershide site was just about accuracy, most of the forum would not exist.

</div></div>

There are many shortcomings aside from the iron sights when it comes to developing accuracy. The flimsy barrel, the loose tolerances of components, the gas piston, etc. I like AKs though. Don't let my post lead anybody on to think I don't like them. They are great CQB or brush weapons especially in urban or other areas with thick cover (ex. jungle, heavy brush, etc). Those bullets just shred whatever's in their path. If anybody has had an opportunity to shoot cars or other vehicles, you'll know the 7.62x39 will fly through a car to take out targets on the other side without issue.

The AR platform was designed to lend itself to better inherent accuracy. As we both said, two different purposes for the two different rifles. The 74 is definitely more accurate than the 47. Since the OP didn't specify which AK he was shooting, perhaps we were all assuming the 47.

The military definitely has looser standards than myself and other shooters I know. My future father-in-law loves my AR. He's retired military and constantly tells me how much nicer mine is than the ones he used. To him, nicer means better fitting components and more accurate.

 

[Strangedays]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AustinCQC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DWood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is room enough in my life for both. They were designed to different specs, the AK being more tolerant of dirt and fouling while being less precise, and the AR being less tolerant of dirt and fouling while being more precise. each does a good job at what it was intended to do.

The biggest shortcoming I see in the AK is the iron sights. The rear notch is too narrow and too far from the eye for precise shooting. Notice I said precise, not accurate. To me, accuracy in a carbine of either style means hitting a chest size target consistently at 10-200 yards. I'm OK with a 4" group at 100 VS a 2" group. If I'm not mistaken, the military acceptance standard is 4 moa at 100 yards which is a hair over 4". Put a T-1 and Ultimak on an AK and watch your accuracy improve.

It is fairer to compare the AK 74 with it's 5.45 X 39 round to an AR than it is to compare the AK 47. The 74 is known to be more accurate than the 47 with its 30 caliber round. Of course, it can be argued that there is a benefit in the power of the 7.62 X 39 round of the 47.

The Romanian PSL is closer to an AK than either a Galil or Valmet mentioned above. It can be very accurate, at least from what I've read. I don't own one and have never shot one. I do own 2 ARs, 2 AK 47s, and 2AK 74s, and as I stated earlier, there is room in my shooting world for all of them.

And if the snipershide site was just about accuracy, most of the forum would not exist.

</div></div>

There are many shortcomings aside from the iron sights when it comes to developing accuracy. The flimsy barrel, the loose tolerances of components, the gas piston, etc. I like AKs though. Don't let my post lead anybody on to think I don't like them. They are great CQB or brush weapons especially in urban or other areas with thick cover (ex. jungle, heavy brush, etc). Those bullets just shred whatever's in their path. If anybody has had an opportunity to shoot cars or other vehicles, you'll know the 7.62x39 will fly through a car to take out targets on the other side without issue.

The AR platform was designed to lend itself to better inherent accuracy. As we both said, two different purposes for the two different rifles. The 74 is definitely more accurate than the 47. Since the OP didn't specify which AK he was shooting, perhaps we were all assuming the 47.

The military definitely has looser standards than myself and other shooters I know. My future father-in-law loves my AR. He's retired military and constantly tells me how much nicer mine is than the ones he used. To him, nicer means better fitting components and more accurate. </div></div>
I think you lost on the car issue. My .40 handgun goes through the driver door and clean past the passengers and thats on an old Lincoln with the better made doors than most newer cars. An AR will do the same, I shot three cars in a row and it stoped in the third driver door. This was all at about 50 yards with the rifle and 15 yards with the handgun. The loose parts of the AK is what makes it so great for what it is. I however would never buy another AK becouse like I stated above I am an AR guy who like the more accurate rifle of the two.

 

[Austincqc]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: strangedays</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I think you lost on the car issue. My .40 handgun goes through the driver door and clean past the passengers and thats on an old Lincoln with the better made doors than most newer cars. An AR will do the same, I shot three cars in a row and it stoped in the third driver door. This was all at about 50 yards with the rifle and 15 yards with the handgun. The loose parts of the AK is what makes it so great for what it is. I however would never buy another AK becouse like I stated above I am an AR guy who like the more accurate rifle of the two. </div></div>

I didn't say other rounds won't penetrate a car door or loose parts are bad on the AK (loose parts are bad for accuracy...not reliability...totally agree with you on that). Depending on the distance, most bullets will go through a car door. I was just commenting on the force that follows the 7.62x39. When I was shooting through cars, the AK I shot was delivering bullets consistently through the car while my AR didn't. My 5.56 went through and hit the target on the other side, but I had probably 30-40% get caught inside the first vehicle. The sole purpose of that course was to realize what can be used for cover from an AK and what can be used for cover from an M4.

I just can't see a 5.56 travelling through 4 doors consistently and definitely wouldn't bet my life on it. Just based on what I've done and what I've shot, it's hard to imagine but nothing's impossible. If I saw that, you'd hear a loud, "Holy sh!t!! Did you see that?!" from my mouth. lol

I won't argue on build quality either because I'm a huge classic car guy and love cars made out of thick gauge steel. You'd be surprised though on how thick some components are within doors now to protect from side collisions. The skin may be weak sheet metal but the stuff underneath can be pretty strong. I drove a 79 Buick in high school...I know all about those big beasts.

 

[dlxcupid]

Re: why not an AK?

I've got a MAK90 that I can consistenty shoot 2-2.5MOA @ 100yds with brown bear FMJs. The best 3 shot group I've held is 1MOA but thats on perfect conditions on a still day. Sure it might not be accurate as an AR but ammo is cheap and readily available. Try finding a super reliable AR for under $500. Also I can feed anything to my MAK90 and it'll eat it all up. Not taking any sides because I've got a DPMS LR308. I love both of them and they are used for different purposes.

 

[badka2ma]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AustinCQC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I think you lost on the car issue. My .40 handgun goes through the driver door and clean past the passengers and thats on an old Lincoln with the better made doors than most newer cars. An AR will do the same, I shot three cars in a row and it stoped in the third driver door. This was all at about 50 yards with the rifle and 15 yards with the handgun. The loose parts of the AK is what makes it so great for what it is. I however would never buy another AK becouse like I stated above I am an AR guy who like the more accurate rifle of the two. </div></div>

if you are trying to put 5.56 on equal ground with 7.62x39 concerning barrier penetration there is no contest. 7.62x39 is much better, it's apples and oranges.

the ak does what it was intended, iron sight shots on a man sized target are easily achievable out to 300m by an adequately trained conscript. that is exactly what the soviets wanted.

 

[Travis S]

Re: why not an AK?

You think the wood stock sucks? not nearly as bad as the underfolders and wire sidefolders!

 

[boltcatch]

Re: why not an AK?

I'd love it if there was room in my life for both an AR and an AK, as well as 5.56 and 7.63x39, but there just isn't.

This made for a simple decision - AR parts and ammo are available where I'm at, and it's a lot easier and faster to hit stuff with the AR.

 

[DWood]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: boltcatch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd love it if there was room in my life for both an AR and an AK, as well as 5.56 and 7.63x39, but there just isn't.

This made for a simple decision - AR parts and ammo are available where I'm at, and it's a lot easier and faster to hit stuff with the AR. </div></div>

It must suck being limited to one gun and one round.

 

[boltcatch]

Re: why not an AK?

Having one rifle and one round is a lot better than having two rifles and no rounds, or no mags, or no food, or no gas.

 

[Strangedays]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: badka2ma</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AustinCQC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I think you lost on the car issue. My .40 handgun goes through the driver door and clean past the passengers and thats on an old Lincoln with the better made doors than most newer cars. An AR will do the same, I shot three cars in a row and it stoped in the third driver door. This was all at about 50 yards with the rifle and 15 yards with the handgun. The loose parts of the AK is what makes it so great for what it is. I however would never buy another AK becouse like I stated above I am an AR guy who like the more accurate rifle of the two. </div></div>

if you are trying to put 5.56 on equal ground with 7.62x39 concerning barrier penetration there is no contest. 7.62x39 is much better, it's apples and oranges.

the ak does what it was intended, iron sight shots on a man sized target are easily achievable out to 300m by an adequately trained conscript. that is exactly what the soviets wanted.



</div></div>
No I was not, just bringing up how a car regardless is bad cover unless you have the engine block to stop a round.

 

[JL]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mwroseberry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I had a saiga that I modified myself and shot 2-2.5MOA with it. It has more to do with the ammo than anything. The 7.62x39 falls on it's face at 300 yards.</div></div>

Please, there are peoples who actually shoot AK:s past 500yds. I´m one of them.

I have seen and tried AK47 -system rifles that shoot good- I mean GOOD. Valmets and Sakos. I have witnessed groups at 550meters, shot with scoped bone-stock Sako M92S and army std ammo that would put many, many accurate bolt actions in shame.
Torso targets are quite easily doable with Sako AK47 up to 400 meters -with iron sights.

Secondly, what comes to accuracy, for some reason people seem to forget that 98% of AK:s are basically crap. Or at least they are in my books. Yes, they do work no matter what and you can hit man standing at 200yds but thats about it.
Poor workmanship, poor materials, huge tolerances and so forth. What can you except?


If AR:s would be mass-produced in china, Iran or Egypt, they would suck too. So its not the system IMHO. Its how it was done.

 

[jjhawk]

Re: why not an AK?

AK'S are what they are, I have 2, A Saiga .223 for plinking, AK 47 for serious stuff if it ever comes to that, 1 AR for hunting, after shooting several 1000 rds. through both this is my conclusion, AR make great hunting, predator rifles, love them, AK'S are rugged and tough, I don't think you could hardly destroy one, if it came to I could only have one rifle--it would be an AK, --no question.

 

[edwin907]

Re: why not an AK?

My .308 Valmet M-78 does far better than the "standard" AK at distance. While it won't compete with a proper bolt/AR chambered in .308 firing match ammo, it's close.

My NHM-91 Norinco was one of three we bought, the first was useless past 50 meters, the second suffered so much barrel droop when heated it was useless after a single mag.
The third looked the worst, but had a standard muzzle nut with intact spring/pin, and is one of the best AK barrels I've ever seen. Droop, from the bipod, is essentially non-existent, and very little POI migration is seen even with multiple mags/drums fired. I've been amazed at the variability of these particular guns, most of them truely suck. Out of 9-10 examples I've seen/shot, only mine and one other would pass live fire inspection.

My Arsenal A1R is a superb example of a milled AK, and accuracy is certainly adequate for a 300 meter gun.

My M92 (won in the ar15.com member's raffle), has turned out to be pleasantly accurate, rapid fire fist sized groups at 50 meters is the norm.

Good ones are out there, you just have to look for them. Since it's unlikely you'll get to test fire a given example, just be prepared to deal it away if needed.

 

[300WSM]

Re: why not an AK?

problems with the AK

FMJ bullet doesn't break up so it's not as effective as 5.56. Get the right ammo and then it's a better stopper.

usually poor triggers

takes some customizing and some $$$ to have a rail that you can put light ...other junk on.

trajectory isn't nearly as flast as 5.56

 

[300WSM]

Re: why not an AK?

mags don't go in as easy as AR platform

charging handle moves back n forth as the gun cycles/fires.

safety kinda sucks.

sights attached to the barrel not the best idea.

with out a lot of customizing - hard to mount an optic solidly.

 

[russellmn]

Re: why not an AK?

I had the pleasant opportunity to spend a week with a group of Riflemen out at Rolla, ND at a "Riflemen's Boot Camp", we had a 13 yr. old young man by the name of Evan that ran a scoped AK-47. He was laying in sub-2moa groups out to 600 meters with RUSTY surplus and Wolf ammo. Apparently the ammo was in the basement of his house and they got flooded out. The ammo looked terrible and was carried to the range in an old tin Folgers coffee can.

Couldn't believe the groups Evan ran with this thing, rapid fire sitting at 200 was a nice tight group (around 2 moa), rapid prone at 300 was similar. Slow fire at 400 was under 6 inches and he kept 10 rounds, slow fire, inside 9 inches at 600.

AKs can shoot, it's the nut hitting the bang switch that usually screws it up.

 

[300WSM]

Re: why not an AK?

what kind of ak was it?

 

[1943m1garand]

Re: why not an AK?

I have an Arsenal AK with an Ultimak Rail and Aimpoint. I love it, but without the Aimpoint AKs just suck.

Of course M855 does a great job penetrating armor, but it still does not penetrate as well as 7.62x39 when it comes to building materials and auto glass/body panels.

When it comes to reliability, nothing beats an AK. I saw a show several years about about South Africa police commandos. Long story short, they pulled an AK out of the dirt that had been buried for the better part of a decade. They dumped some motor oil in the breach, racked it a few times and if f'ing ran.

I just wish I had stocked up when 7.62x39 was $95 for a 1k rounds.

 

[300WSM]

Re: why not an AK?

95 per 1k...when was that?

 

[marduk185]

Re: why not an AK?

i always liked ak's just hard pressed to keep one. seems like i buy it cheap, pimp it out a bit then sell or trade it for something more interesting that comes along....that said..ive never got a poor one that everyone makes it out like thats all thats out there. theyve all been at least 3moa or better short range beasts that are ultra reliable.

 

[MK14 SEI]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
problems with the AK


usually poor triggers


safety kinda sucks.



with out a lot of customizing - hard to mount an optic solidly. </div></div>

These 'issues' are easily corrected.

Chinese AKMs have excellent, slap-free FCGs.

Krebs and Blackjack offer real nice replacement safeties.

UltiMAK offers gas tube rails that co-witness irons through most Aimpoint red dots.
Not very expensive and easy to install.

 

[JL]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">problems with the AK

FMJ bullet doesn't break up so it's not as effective as 5.56. Get the right ammo and then it's a better stopper.
</div></div>

556 bullet fragments only up to 150-200 yds, depending barrel length. Othervise 123gr 7.62 offers more penetration in structures as exchange

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
usually poor triggers
</div></div>

Again, it depends. Sako/Valmet trigger is ok. Much better that about all other AK:s. IPSC rifle shooters usually change Sako triggers in their xxxx AK47.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
takes some customizing and some $$$ to have a rail that you can put light ...other junk on.
</div></div>

Isnt it same with AR:s?
Brugger&Thomet makes excellent 4-rail handguard for Sako/Valmet AK:s.
At least a dozen manufacturers make various AK rail systems.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
trajectory isn't nearly as flat as 5.56
</div></div>

True. But thats only one side of coin. According to my own tests, Accurate AK with 123grainers is about same (or actually bit easier) at +500yds ranges compared to 16" AR carbine with 55gr M193. 7.62 doesent care about small changes in wind.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
mags don't go in as easy as AR platform
</div></div>

True. But some are quite fast with AK too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5LPaMhlOc
There used to be few r-e-a-l-l-y fast AK guys in youtube, but vids seems to be removed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
charging handle moves back n forth as the gun cycles/fires.
</div></div>

So?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
safety kinda sucks.
</div></div>

Even original model is fast to manipulate with middle finger (middle+index finger together). If selector is too stiff, bayonet adjustment takes only a second.
And there are few other styles too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHkQ72XpxCk&feature=related

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
sights attached to the barrel not the best idea.
</div></div>

Sako/Valmet/Galil use gasblock mounted front sights

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
with out a lot of customizing - hard to mount an optic solidly.
</div></div>

Many models come with rail already installed in left side. Almost identical design rail can take SVD 7.62x54R scope+mount weight inertia, so it should be ok with 7.62x39 too.
Sako AK:s have three 6 millimeter threaded holes in left side of reciever.
Alltoghether, its still not picatinny -but there are piles of mounts, scopes, thermals, NV:s and god knows what for AK rail system.

 

[1943m1garand]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">95 per 1k...when was that?</div></div>

If I recall around 00/01.

 

[marduk185]

Re: why not an AK?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1943m1garand</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">95 per 1k...when was that?</div></div>

If I recall around 00/01. </div></div>
yup, think i got a case for under $90 and a metal tin for less than that around that time. now where did i bury that stuff?think i drew a map in my zombie handbook maybe...

 

[VJJPunisher]

Re: why not an AK?

you did but I metal detected it while you were sleeping, shot that sheet years ago

 

[oneshot onekill]

Re: why not an AK?

I got a POS Yugo folder for like $450.00 a few years ago. I only did it because it came with 2-30 round mags and one of the better 75 round Mags. The machining is horrible. Loose tolerances, no smooth surfaces... even the ones that should be somewhat smooth.
I gotta tell ya though, that thing will ring the 18"X18" gong at 300 yds. every freakin' time... off-hand! I just get the windage about right and aim for the cross-bar that the gong hangs from and "Bingo!". Plus it's fun for those one-handed mag-dumps at the plinkin' range. Marvelous!

 

[VKC]

Re: why not an AK?

Hard to beat an AK for realibility and lower cost of rifle..also cheap ammo. However, accuracy tends to be less than an AR. Robinson XCR seems like it could be the best of both worlds.