PDA

View Full Version : My AK



rob_s
03-12-08, 20:11
As a self-avowed hater of the AK, I bought one late last year in order to have one to take an AK-specific class with and to see if my mind might be swayed.

I wound up buying a Lancaster built Bulgarian parts gun from Blaine at www.atlanticfirearms.com after a lengthy phone conversation. I explained to him what I wanted, we tossed out the milled guns for what they are (marketing hype and collectors pieces) and we both wound up agreeing that the Lancaster or the Vector would be good choices, and the Lancaster won due to the chrome-lined barrel (it is my understanding that some Vectors come with them and some don't).

My thought going into the class was to "learn the weapon", and that if I wanted an AK it would be because it was inexpensive and simple. If I wanted expensive and "jocked up" I have plenty of ARs for that.

I made some very minor changes before the class. I put a Blackjack SWIFT safety lever on it to make it easier to disengage the safety with my trigger finger without taking my hand off the grip. I bought two Ergo grips and went with the one I found most comfortable. I added a Blue Force Gear Vickers sling with a clip I ordered off the internet. and I took off the slant brake and installed an A1 birdcage flash hider to be more "tactical". This is what the rifle looked like when I took it to class.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/gun%20stuff/DSC_1917cropped.jpg

What I learned at the class was mostly what I expected would happen.
1) The trigger is horrendous. Coming off of a Knight's SR15 T&E rifle with one of their excellent tow-stage triggers and trying to make the switch to the AK trigger was a huge hurdle. A Two-day class isn't nearly enough to even begin to make a dent.
2) The sights suck. Call it being spoiled by dots and the like, but making 200 yard hits with the stock sights was extremely difficult for me (and my bad eyes), and I witnessed other students up and down the line with similar problems. Some were better than me and some were worse, but the ones that shot the best had optics.
3) The stock does not fit me. I find that the toe is not deep enough to really get it into my shoulder. The sights are so low that I barely get just the tip of the toe on my shoulder, and the lack of any kind of rubberized coating makes it hard to get it "into the pocket.
4) 7.62x39 kicks. Mostly due to #3 above, that little point of the stock that I was able to make contact with really bit in under the greater recoil of the larger round. I used to shoot a FAL exclusively so I'm no stranger to recoil, but the FAL has a much better stock design, has a rubber pad to keep it from sliding around, and it has a brake. Yeah, that birdcage on my AK wasn't helping at all.

I came back from the class, ran the rifle in a drills night, and set out to fix the things I didn't like. I decided that if I was going to shoot this gun, there was no sense fighting it when there are products available that make it possible for me to modify it to better suit my needs and help me to get better hits quicker. This is what it looks like now.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/gun%20stuff/IMG_2603.jpg
1) I bought an Aimpoint Micro. I got the H-1 model which is good to 5 meters instead of 30, and doesn't have the NV settings (as compared to the T-1). I mounted it on an Ultimak gas tube rail.
Man, what a difference! I haven't gotten it to the range yet, but already the slightly higher optic allows me to get more of the toe of the stock into my shoulder pocket, and it just feels 100% better already. In chasing the dog around the house I found tracking a moving target and swinging to that target to be much easier.
2) I bought a J-tac AK brake. This also made a huge difference in the felt recoil as well as the muzzle climb for followup shots. I would almost swear that the muzzle was diving it worked so well.
3) I figured out a way to mount the light. I bought an offset rail from Brownells, and attached a Surefire G2 in a Vltor mount to the offset rail. I also mounted a Surefire X300 to it to see which I preferred, and I actually like the G2 in this location better than the X300.
4) I changed the grip. I liked the Ergo OK, but some of the guys in the class had SAW grips and I REALLY liked the way they felt, so I switched.

There are some things I haven't/can't/won't change.
1) There is nothing to be done with the stock. Short of buying an AR stock conversion it just is what it is. However, I did find that the Aimpoint Micro did help by allowing me to keep my head higher and therefore the stock lower in my shoulder. I would still like to see a rubber buttpad, but for non-slip moreso than for recoil absorption. Something like the pad on the CTR, Emod, or SOPMOD would be nice.
2) I haven't addressed the trigger. I'm generally not a fan of tinkering with the trigger too much, but this one could use a lot of help. Although, for my intended purpose for this rifle (inside 100 yards) it's not that bad.

I'm going to keep playing with the AK for the rest of the year. I still don't like it, and I still think the AR is a better solution, but I can see a place for a $700 gun (base gun plus minimal upgrades) vs. a $3k jocked up AR. Eventually I suspect I'll scavenge off the optic, stick the thing in the truck somewhere with a couple of mags, and be done with it. I'll bring it out once or twice a year to dust off the skills. I think it's very well suited to this application.

In the meantime, it is kind of fun beating AR shooters running jocked-up guns when I'm running an AK. We had a match last month that required 4 reloads, and even with the tragically slower reload of the AK my time was still something like 3rd overall out of 17 shooters. Gave me a chuckle and a certain sense of satisfaction. I think I'm starting to understand what the revolver shooters enjoy.

Links to components
Lancaster AKM 47RM Poly Rifle (http://atlanticfirearms.com/programming/expand.asp?Prodid=446)
BFG/Vickers Sling (http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/ProductDetail.aspx?p=23992&title=CAR-15/M4%20VICKERS%20COMBAT%20APPLICATIONS%20SLING)
Blackjack Swift Notched Safety Lever (http://www.blackjackbuffers.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=202)
J-tac47 Compensator (http://www.blackjackbuffers.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=585)
Tapco SAW Grip (http://www.tapco.com/proddesc.aspx?Id=1ffb4242-ec89-4dd7-88e7-45c3a9137326)
Ultimak Rail (http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/ProductDetail.aspx?p=1571&title=AK-47%20SCOPE%20MOUNT)
Aimpoint Micro H-1 (http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/productdetail.aspx?p=23984&st=h-1&s=)
Warne Picatinny Side Mount Adapter (http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/productdetail.aspx?p=18402&st=947-000-095EC&s=42515)
Surefire G2 Package Deal (http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=G2-P) (w/ Z32 Bezel, Z49 Tailcap, and Vltor mount)
Arsenal Bulgarian Waffle Mags (http://www.impactguns.com/store/AIM47W.html)
5.56 Magpuls (http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/ProductDetail.aspx?p=1498&title=MAGPUL%20INDUSTRIES%20MAGPUL)


ETA:

Well the light mount crapped out. The threads won't stay tight even with red Loctite, so I pulled it for now. I'm thinking of either going with the GG&G 90 degree mount and the Sure quick release ring I have now, or just going with the Vltor M-OCG (Off-Set) Scout Mount.

In other news, people have asked me about the cowitness of the optic. I finally got some passable pictures, so here they are.

Irons
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/gun%20stuff/DSC_2090Medium.jpg


Dot
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/gun%20stuff/DSC_2088Medium.jpg



In addition, some people have asked about weight. I know that, subjectively, it doesn't feel heavy. In fact, this gun with mounts etc. weighs less, by feel, than a stock Yugo does with wood stocks. The weight, without light, as pictured below is 7 lbs 5.5 oz empty, with a loaded Bulgy circle-10 mag weighing in at 1 lb 10.2 oz. Clearly a magazine that adds over 1.5 lbs is a major factor. For reference, a loaded 5.56 Pmag (30 rounds) is 17.5 oz.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/gun%20stuff/DSC_2081Medium.jpg


http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/weights/DSC_2086Small.jpg

JOHNO
03-12-08, 20:22
Looks like you got alot out of the class, if nothing else, its worth alot to know the strengths and weaknesses of your equippment, and in this case, the ability to make improvements.

From what I see in the second part of your post, a fixed stock Yugo may be a better base AK for you. A slightly longer buttstock with rubber pad and a more ergonomic pistol grip. Check one out if you get a chance.

rob_s
03-12-08, 20:26
I handled a "Yugo" at the gunshow this past weekend. I was hoping to pick one up. I seemed, even in stock form, to be even heavier than my jocked-up Lancaster with all the mods.

Is this normal for that model?

Jay Cunningham
03-12-08, 20:36
Wow Rob.

That's quite... different... from the last time we had this conversation.

There are certain universal upgrades that make the AK exponentially more effective. Of course, nothing replaces training and practice.

Business_Casual
03-12-08, 20:38
The Yugo is heavier, because in a lot of ways it is a shortened RPK.

M_P

skipper49
03-12-08, 20:57
The YUGO is stout and heavy, but a really well built AK. Check for sight cant and the rest is pretty much GTG.

Skip

JOHNO
03-12-08, 21:26
Like the other Guys stated, the Yugo is a little heavier but it kinda helps in taming the beast. Here's a pic of me doing rapid fire with the Yugo, keeping it on target is not a problem.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/jaodom722/10-30-05533.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/jaodom722/10-30-05536.jpg

BushmasterFanBoy
03-12-08, 21:56
Rob,

I grew up shooting a .22LR with some pretty horrendous notch sites. I find the AK an improvement :D .

Was there any reason why you opted to go with the 7.62x39 round?
5.45 is very cheap, and lighter recoiling which should help offset the added recoil caused by the bad shouldering characteristics of the weapon.

Very good write up.

rob_s
03-12-08, 22:08
I went with the 7.62x39 because that's what AKs are supposed to be. :D

In all seriousness though, I wavered between getting a 5.56 vs. the 7.62, but the 5.45 never even entered my selection process. Cheap now, sure, but I'd rather have something that's more widely available in commercial loadings.

Eventually I'll pick up some brass ammo for the gun and keep it held back in case I ever need to reload for it.

TOrrock
03-12-08, 22:42
Nice write up and glad to see you're giving it a chance.

armakraut
03-13-08, 01:00
I went from barely being able to hit paper at 100m with an AK to not doing terribly bad with one.

My opinions...

A good flash/comp device is worthy upgrade, you did good on that one. I like the SAW grips, and I like the bulgarian ARM9 style even better. I think VLTOR makes an AR stock interface for the rifle, but I'm not sure if it works well (or at all) with magpul, etc.

Shoot the bejeezus out of the rifle, get a few thousand down the barrel. 7.62x39 is an intermediate cartridge fired out of a light rifle. It does two things in recoil that I associated with firing a rifle that should rightly make you go "jeez, that hurt" afterwards. The muzzle jumps, and it's a very sudden "snap" back on the shoulder.

The sights suck, they're a mass production shortcut left over from WWI and WWII. For the mean time, it can't be helped much. New stuff is coming out all the time.

In terms of accuracy/reliability/durability, a well built one is all it can be for $600-900. If they work, the less expensive yugos, WASR's and MAK-90 conversions might be 95% the functional equal of a nicely finished AK-100 series clone.

MY current approach to them is that if I'm good with an AKM, I'll do even better with an AK that has every modern amenity. There isn't an extreme amount of difference between my Khyber Pass Rifle and my KTR-03S.

Shoot it a lot, however you can, try for the hard shots. It's just a different stab at the same concept as the M16. Durability and ability to manufacture were the driving factors. It's not a cheaply made, dumb gun, for dumb conscripts. At the time of its introduction the closest thing we had was the M2 carbine. Soviets were shrewd at the top, much of the AK's design was likely done by the MG42 and STG44 design teams. The Soviets looked at the hardware they wanted, and tried to make the most of what industrial base they had.

Good to see another AR guy is giving the AK a fair shake. I more or less progressed with mine a few 30 rounders at a time.

Bulldog1967
03-13-08, 06:51
Good review, welcome to the dark side!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/darth_vader10/JoinDarkside2.jpg

The aimpoint on the ultimak is a GREAT setup.

I wonder what trigger came with your rifle...you might want to try a Red Star Arms adjustable.

RSA adjustable trigger. (http://www.redstararms.com/index.htm?c1.htm&1)

Striker5
03-13-08, 08:43
This is my AK, there are many, many, many like it, but this one is mine!

I purchased a SAR-1 and have been shooting it for the past two weeks. The first time out I was crushed at my inability to shoot a decent group. I did some research and found out I was not alone. My second trip to the range was much better - nothing to yell about, but a vast improvement. I think it will improve over time, like a few other rifles I have owned.

Rob, have you thought about installing that Tapco trigger kit?

Business_Casual
03-13-08, 09:05
If a Lancaster doesn't already have a Tapco/US trigger group in it, I would be shocked. It is an easy way to get 3 US parts for 922r. The trigger is copied from the M1 Garand; I never thought it suffered compared to an AR.

M_P

RyanS
03-13-08, 11:53
Rob,

Have you looked into the rubber stock extension that Tapco sells?

http://www.tapco.com/proddesc.aspx?Id=3e88c8e5-cb9d-465a-8ca7-eab5da1fe009

rob_s
03-13-08, 12:31
I like the length, which is why I don't want to make it longer. I'm really just looking for something non-slip.

warpigM-4
03-13-08, 12:40
Outstanding write up.I use to think the Ak was the gun for me,got the vepr ,saiga 103,S-12.But after sleeping, eating with my Colt M-4 .I don't even pick them up anymore. :confused:

Shihan
03-13-08, 13:34
Rob for the stock since you dont want to mess with the length, how about some skater tape?

If you dont have a Tapco G2 trigger in it im sure that will make it better for you. The G2's I have are decent. Power Customs makes an adjustable trigger that is easy to install.

rob_s
03-13-08, 14:01
Can anyone tell me if I need a single- or double-hook trigger?
http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/ProductDetail.aspx?p=22875&title=AK-47%20TRIGGER%20GROUP

armakraut
03-13-08, 14:17
http://www.nodakspud.com/images/rpk74-1.jpg

If I'm remembering correctly, the single hook receivers look like these, with one notch. The double hook will have a notch on the other side as well.

If there are two notches, I'll always opt for a double.

If you only have a single hook, Red Star arms makes the best one out there. Ain't cheap, but it is one nice trigger group.

Akoni
03-13-08, 18:23
I too would be surprised if that Lancaster doesn't have a G2 in it already. Can you describe what the trigger is doing? They do not feel anything like an AR trigger. It kind of rolls front to back....not really a take-up/stop/break feel like a single stage AR. I know you had AK's b4 so this is probably not news to you.

ps. Thanks for holding those mags so long.

rob_s
03-13-08, 18:27
The trigger is about what I remember from my last AK, but it is as you say re: the take-up. I'll have to find someone local with a G2 that I can compare it to. I think Frank and Miggy both have them.

No worries on the mags. I just hope you paid Rick. ;)

Akoni
03-13-08, 18:34
I paid him and he KEPT one of the mags as a delivery fee! LOL

My AK's have G2's, your welcome to slap that b!tch anytime. Of course, my stock may not be to your liking...:D

sjc3081
03-13-08, 18:59
Look at the trigger from the bottom outside of the rifle. The single or double cut in the receiver front of the trigger will tell you if you have a single or double hook trigger.

Shihan
03-13-08, 19:33
Look at the side of the trigger and see if it says anything.

LonghunterCO
03-13-08, 20:30
If your receiver take the double hook of not the single hook will work in any receiver. The G2 has "Tapco G2" just above the curve of the trigger should be showing just below the receiver.

Have you given any thought to having Bill Springfield in Colorado Springs work on it? His work is good.

Bison
03-17-08, 22:00
The trigger is about what I remember from my last AK, but it is as you say re: the take-up. I'll have to find someone local with a G2 that I can compare it to.

I also have a Lancaster and believe it to have the G2 trigger. I think it is a fun little rifle so far. However, I've also had an issue with the trigger and it may just be that I'm not used to such a trigger. Here is what I experience:

Sometimes the trigger doesn't reset. I *think* it is caused by pulling the trigger slowly, enough for the rifle to fire, but not all the way back and then releasing the trigger after the rifle fires without having pulled the trigger all the way back. This happens mainly when trying to sight it in. Anyway, my question is whether that seems normal or whether there is a problem with the trigger?

Thanks in advance.

TOrrock
03-28-08, 18:48
Rob, can you take a close up pic of the light set up, specifically how the the mount interfaces with the Ultimak?

Thanks.

Alaskapopo
03-29-08, 14:56
What I learned at the class was mostly what I expected would happen.
1) The trigger is horrendous. Coming off of a Knight's SR15 T&E rifle with one of their excellent tow-stage triggers and trying to make the switch to the AK trigger was a huge hurdle. A Two-day class isn't nearly enough to even begin to make a dent.
2) The sights suck. Call it being spoiled by dots and the like, but making 200 yard hits with the stock sights was extremely difficult for me (and my bad eyes), and I witnessed other students up and down the line with similar problems. Some were better than me and some were worse, but the ones that shot the best had optics.
3) The stock does not fit me. I find that the toe is not deep enough to really get it into my shoulder. The sights are so low that I barely get just the tip of the toe on my shoulder, and the lack of any kind of rubberized coating makes it hard to get it "into the pocket.
4) 7.62x39 kicks. Mostly due to #3 above, that little point of the stock that I was able to make contact with really bit in under the greater recoil of the larger round. I used to shoot a FAL exclusively so I'm no stranger to recoil, but the FAL has a much better stock design, has a rubber pad to keep it from sliding around, and it has a brake. Yeah, that birdcage on my AK wasn't helping at all.

]

I have found the same thing you have with stock sights the AK is not much more than a 100 to 150 yard gun. Despite claims to the contrary. I have not tried the DOT Aimpoint Micro dot yet and I may in the future. For me the AK is just a cheap toy in my collection so I have not put much money into it compared to my AR's which are my duty guns and my competition guns.

The main issues I see with the AK are.
1. Crappy sights,
2. Lack luster accuracy, (good enough for 0 to 200 or so and 200 is stretching it)
3. Crappy safety (slow to use and noisy)
4. lack of a bolt hold open feature on the last round which means slow reloads.
.

The AK is a fun gun to shoot because it was an important part of history. But I would never consider one as a serious use rifle unless I had no other viable choice.
I have had some on here say that AK's are accurate and I just don't know how to shoot. Seems to be a common theme when you point out a weapons flaws the fanboys try to kill the messenger. But I seem to have no problem shooting every other weapon system I have tried.

Beating a AR shooter with an AK is a serious testiment to the skill of the AK shooter as using the AK is a huge handicap. I shoot three gun for fun and have yet to see an AK shooter place in the top 10 at any of the matches I have attended.

The AK strengths are as follows.
1. Extremely reliable regardless of poor or no maintenance.
2. They are cheap.
3. They are simple to operate.

They are the best choice if you are going to equip a large army of poorly trained peasant farm workers. But if you are arming capable trained individuals the AR is the better choice by far.
Pat

Jay Cunningham
03-29-08, 15:14
I have found the same thing you have with stock sights the AK is not much more than a 100 to 150 yard gun. Despite claims to the contrary.
The AK in all flavors is a 200m gun. I don't know who is claming otherwise.



The main issues I see with the AK are.
1. Crappy sights,
2. Lack luster accuracy, (good enough for 0 to 200 or so and 200 is stretching it)
3. Crappy safety (slow to use and noisy)
4. lack of a bolt hold open feature on the last round which means slow reloads.
The sights on the AK aren't really any more "crappy" than your average sights on your pistol. I agree that the iron sights on the AR are better. Off of a bench I agree that the typical AK cannot run with an AR (especially past 200m) but inside 200 offhand it is the skill of the shooter. I have witnessed this over and over and over again. The safety doesn't make any more noise than an AR safety, and if the BG heard it he should also be hearing a bang shortly thereafter. There are aftermarket selector levers that allow you to operate the safety just as fast as an AR. The lack of a bolt hold open isn't really what slows reloads down, it's how the magazine locks in. I agree that on an emergency reload the AR is faster. This can be largely (but not completely) mitigated by training and practice with the system.



The AK is a fun gun to shoot because it was an important part of history. But I would never consider one as a serious use rifle unless I had no other viable choice.
I have had some on here say that AK's are accurate and I just don't know how to shoot. Seems to be a common theme when you point out a weapons flaws the fanboys try to kill the messenger. But I seem to have no problem shooting every other weapon system I have tried.
Because you have problems employing the iron sights on the AK does not mean the AK is an inaccurate gun. Try it with an optic sometime.



Beating a AR shooter with an AK is a serious testiment to the skill of the AK shooter as using the AK is a huge handicap. I shoot three gun for fun and have yet to see an AK shooter place in the top 10 at any of the matches I have attended.

The AK strengths are as follows.
1. Extremely reliable regardless of poor or no maintenance.
2. They are cheap.
3. They are simple to operate.
They are robust; they are just as reliable as AR's which is to say very. They can take a bit more abuse/neglect. They are relatively cheap but it's not like the Soviets are handing them out anymore. They are indeed simple to operate - malfunction clearance is easy as well.

Alaskapopo
03-29-08, 15:27
The AK in all flavors is a 200m gun. I don't know who is claming otherwise.



.



Because you have problems employing the iron sights on the AK does not mean the AK is an inaccurate gun. Try it with an optic sometime.



They are robust; they are just as reliable as AR's which is to say very. They can take a bit more abuse/neglect. They are relatively cheap but it's not like the Soviets are handing them out anymore. They are indeed simple to operate - malfunction clearance is easy as well.

Well apparently at least according to the OP I am not the only one having problems with the AK's sighting system. I modified mine to use an apature system which I feel works much better.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Semi%20auto%20rifles/IM000930.jpg

As for those claiming its more than a 200 yard gun. In a previous thread some claimed it was a 300 to 400 yard gun. Which from what I have seen is pure BS.

I can take a recruit who has never touched a gun before and get them to where they can hit targets with ease at 300 yards plus with an AR. Try that with an AK. It says something to the accuracy or lack there of with the AK.
Pat

Jay Cunningham
03-29-08, 15:37
I can take a recruit who has never touched a gun before and get them to where they can hit targets with ease at 300 yards plus with an AR. Try that with an AK. It says something to the accuracy or lack there of with the AK.
Pat

Didn't I just say that past 200m the AR rapidly pulls away?

A trained shooter can easily engage targets at 300m with a 5.45mm or 5.56mm AK. But past 200m you are starting to take the gun out of it's optimal perfomance envelope.

Have you ever shot with a group of trained shooters employing the AK platform?

Alaskapopo
03-29-08, 15:47
Didn't I just say that past 200m the AR rapidly pulls away?

A trained shooter can easily engage targets at 300m with a 5.45mm or 5.56mm AK. But past 200m you are starting to take the gun out of it's optimal perfomance envelope.

Have you ever shot with a group of trained shooters employing the AK platform?

Depends on what you mean by trained. Did they get trained specifically on the AK or where they good shooters who tried shooting the AK. Like I have said before I shoot three gun matches for fun and the AK shooters there were good shooters but with the AK platform they could not keep up.

Also I will have to clarify I am talking about 7.62x39 AK's as I have no experience with the 5.56 or 5.45 versions and can not speak to their performance.

Part of the AK's accuracy problem is not just pure accuracy but also speed of target acquisition. The stock sights are not very fast outside of point shooting range in my opinion.
Pat

Shihan
03-29-08, 16:35
Not again!

armakraut
03-29-08, 17:29
The AK in all flavors is a 200m gun. I don't know who is claming otherwise.

The sights on the AK aren't really any more "crappy" than your average sights on your pistol. I agree that the iron sights on the AR are better. Off of a bench I agree that the typical AK cannot run with an AR (especially past 200m) but inside 200 offhand it is the skill of the shooter. I have witnessed this over and over and over again. The safety doesn't make any more noise than an AR safety, and if the BG heard it he should also be hearing a bang shortly thereafter. There are aftermarket selector levers that allow you to operate the safety just as fast as an AR. The lack of a bolt hold open isn't really what slows reloads down, it's how the magazine locks in. I agree that on an emergency reload the AR is faster. This can be largely (but not completely) mitigated by training and practice with the system.

Because you have problems employing the iron sights on the AK does not mean the AK is an inaccurate gun. Try it with an optic sometime.

They are robust; they are just as reliable as AR's which is to say very. They can take a bit more abuse/neglect. They are relatively cheap but it's not like the Soviets are handing them out anymore. They are indeed simple to operate - malfunction clearance is easy as well.

Big +1

Redmanfms
03-29-08, 21:09
Nevermind.

Failure2Stop
03-30-08, 11:39
The AKs I have used are 3-5 MOA guns (with stock sights) in decent hands, none over 7 MOA (not to say that they don't exist).

I have shot AKs at 500 yards, with 60% to 80% hits on a standard Echo Silhouette target (Daylight, groomed range, supported prone, white target on black background, no wind call, sights zeroed POA/POI at 200 meters, set on 5, lollipop hold).

Trained shooters (trained on not just marksmanship, but AK marksmanship) are caipable of this level of performance in those conditions.

Real-world application is definately under 300, and much more like 200 (as explained by other posters) due to sight limitation and the rainbow trajectory of the 7.62x39.

texasyid
03-30-08, 18:15
Real-world application is definately under 300, and much more like 200 (as explained by other posters) due to sight limitation and the rainbow trajectory of the 7.62x39.

+1
Maybe this is why people start hanging stuff all over them and trying to make them into something they are not instead of trying to adapt to the platform for what it was intended to be.

Jay Cunningham
03-30-08, 18:17
+1
Maybe this is why people start hanging stuff all over them and trying to make them into something they are not instead of trying to adapt to the platform for what it was intended to be.

You mean like how people hang stuff all over their nice KISS AR-15's?

:rolleyes:

texasyid
03-30-08, 18:33
oh boy here we go. What I am talking about is the round itself. You can put all kinds of stuff on an AK but it is not going to make the 7.62 round any more powerful, flatter shooting or more inherently accurate.
Nearly every time I post here you seem to get defensive and start to take things personally. I never said anything about an AR. I really don't know where you are coming from.

Redmanfms
03-30-08, 20:19
+1
Maybe this is why people start hanging stuff all over them and trying to make them into something they are not instead of trying to adapt to the platform for what it was intended to be.

Why don't you explain exactly what you think the platform was intended to be?


oh boy here we go. What I am talking about is the round itself. You can put all kinds of stuff on an AK but it is not going to make the 7.62 round any more powerful, flatter shooting or more inherently accurate.
Nearly every time I post here you seem to get defensive and start to take things personally. I never said anything about an AR. I really don't know where you are coming from.

No offense, but this argument is just bunk.

Hanging stuff all over an AR doesn't make the 5.56mm anymore powerful or flatter shooting either.

Optics DO narrow the gap between mechanical accuracy and practical accuracy though, and they do the same thing for AKs. Even more substantially so in fact. AK sights are useable but hardly ideal and the addition of a good optic narrows the gap between mechanical and practical accuracy even further than it would for an AR.

texasyid
03-31-08, 08:04
Why don't you explain exactly what you think the platform was intended to be?

Adopted and standardized in 1947, it was designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov and originally produced by Soviet manufacturer Izhevsk Mechanical Works.[3] Compared with most auto-loading rifles of World War II, the AK-47 is compact, of comparable range, moderate power, and capable of selective fire. It was one of the first true assault rifles and, due to its durability and ease of use, remains the most widely used assault rifle. More AK-type rifles have been produced than any other assault rifle type in the firearm market segment.[3][4]

More of a machine gun rather than a rifle. Not intented to be a tack driver but everyone here already knows that.

Lumpy196
03-31-08, 08:53
More of a machine gun rather than a rifle. Not intented to be a tack driver but everyone here already knows that.



I think you just made Sarah Brady's argument that AKs are nothing more than bullet hoses... ;)

This is not the forum to argue traditionalism over mechanical devices that demonstrably improve hit-potential when the goal is something other than bump-firing into the dirt.

decodeddiesel
03-31-08, 11:25
I think you just made Sarah Brady's argument that AKs are nothing more than bullet hoses... ;)

This is not the forum to argue traditionalism over mechanical devices that demonstrably improve hit-potential when the goal is something other than bump-firing into the dirt.


ROFL...thanks Lumpy you just made my morning :D

rob_s
06-16-08, 11:15
Updated original post with weight information and cowitness photos.

John_Wayne777
06-16-08, 12:38
oh boy here we go. What I am talking about is the round itself. You can put all kinds of stuff on an AK but it is not going to make the 7.62 round any more powerful, flatter shooting or more inherently accurate.


I had no trouble hitting an MGM C-zone steel target from 200 yards offhand when I did my part on the trigger. I had no problem hitting the same target with Templar's iron sighted VZ-58 at 200 yards either....and I'm talking good center mass hits. From the prone position it was embarrassingly easy to make center mass hits at that range.

Given that guys using AR's in carbine classes were routinely missing the same target even with a more accurate weapon, ammo, and high-speed optics, it seems to me that the limiting factor on the AK platform is usually the guy behind the trigger.

I have missed lots of times with my AK...but they've all been MY fault, not the weapon's fault.

Jay Cunningham
06-16-08, 12:50
it seems to me that the limiting factor on the AK platform is usually the guy behind the trigger

Imagine that.