View Full Version : Accuracy Consensus of an AK (7.62x39)
crusader377
06-08-17, 11:03
Although I'm mainly an AR guy, I do enjoy shooting my AK (Arsenal SGL-21). I'm always impressed with the accuracy that I get out of the rifle with bulk 7.62x39 using just iron sights. I consistently shoot in the low to mid 3 MOA range (5 or 10 round shot groups) with the rifle. Although it is harder for me to use the AK iron sights over an AR with irons, my accuracy with them is pretty good. Furthermore on various forms of speed drills my accuracy with the AK with irons is broadly comparable to an AR with irons.
This has me thinking that perhaps the AK is much more accurate than the bulk of shooters give it credit for. With the AR, the general consensus for a standard M4 pattern rifle seems to be roughly 2-3 MOA with M193 or M855.
My question is what do you think a standard factory AK can do with standard 123gr 7.62 FMJ?
Depends on the country and their specs.
Picture is of my friend sighting in his Arsenal using Lapua ammo! The holes on the bottom, on the white, was 154gr Tula soft pointhttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170608/c027826789d94c2bcb383627f2a94461.jpg
That being said......you give him a rifle and it just works. I'm convinced that if I gave him a musket from the 1700s he'd still manage to do that. However, give him a handgun and watch him hot everything but the target
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
5 shots 3-4 inches is good for a 7.62 AK. Irons or scope it's what they're capable of. Many are only 4-5 or even 5-6 inch rifles. It opens up by another inch or two once it gets hot.
So after a fast mag a 3-4 in capable AK is more like 4-6. That 5 inch rifle goes to 6 or 7. Now double the range (and groups) at 200 yds...add an 8 mph crosswind. Pretty easy to miss a man entirely at this range from a rest with a hot AK.
For natives add a worn out rifle and full auto and you'd have to pray to hit the enemy too.
But I'm not picking on the AK. I've shot them plenty and respect them for what they are; very powerful submachine guns that can be used as a rifle sometimes
Depends on the AK, ammo, and most importantly the shooter.
Its plenty accurate if all three are are good enough.
My SAM7SF's will do 2" or better at 100 yards
My SAM7SF's will do 2" or better at 100 yards
Same with my Vepr (right ammo of course)
Depends on the AK, ammo, and most importantly the shooter.
Its plenty accurate if all three are are good enough.
Pretty much.
Trying to apply a blanket statement on the AK is like applying a blanket statement on the AR. That's silly.
My dad and I bought a set of Arsenals back in 07 before the election. I zeroed them in. My rifle shot about 1.5 MOA for the first five round group. His shot a surprising 0.75" for the first group.
Contrast that to a recent BCM I purchased with a FF rail that shot 3-4 MOA with match ammo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
hotrodder636
06-09-17, 00:09
I think I typically see about 1.5-2 MOA from my SAM7SF.
I don't shoot it for groups but rather st steel from 50-150 yards. Only 'groups' I have shot were when I was trying to figure out the irons on it.
Something about those Sam 7s, watched a buddy who is a decent shot, but not any kind of expert shooter, tag a can of white spray paint at 100 yards with open sights.
My friend once shot 3 shots out of my wasr within a half inch at 50 yds.
I could never use the stock sights well enough for tight groups at distance. I'll post a pic in a couple months once I put it back together with an rds.
vicious_cb
06-09-17, 12:57
The AKM is a 200m and in gun period. The AKM and variants are inaccurate at range but not because of the inherent inaccuracy of the platform but because of the stubby low BC 7.62x39 bullets. You can show all the 2-3 moa groups you want at 50m or 100m but shoot out to 300m with a 10 mph cross wind and your bullet is drifting a full 19 inches off to the side. I could care less how tight your 100m groups are when your bullets are randomly veering off to the side when the wind picks up.
Now a 5.45, that a different story.
The AKM is a 200m and in gun period... You can show all the 2-3 moa groups you want at 50m or 100m but shoot out to 300m with a 10 mph cross wind and your bullet is drifting a full 19 inches off to the side. I could care less how tight your 100m groups are when your bullets are randomly veering off to the side when the wind picks up.
Now a 5.45, that a different story.
Yup. Shooting a match that involved nearly 300 yd shots on steel with a low power scope on an AKM 7.62 in a strong crosswind is where I learned the limits of the gun/cartridge.
It's just not the gun for that job. Ak-Hatchet, AR-Scalpel (and don't let the hatchet rust or the scalpel get dull/break)
The 5.45's I've fired did seem more accurate. But my only 5.45 AK wasn't built right and didn't work well. (Wasr-2)
Mrgunsngear
06-09-17, 13:49
I shoot a lot of AKs for groups. In 7.62x39 2-4 MOA is what can be expected
Rifleman_04
06-09-17, 17:42
3 round groups aren't proving anything.
Just in case anyone is responding to me, i'm fully aware the 3 rd group is nearly meaningless, hence my anticipation to try the rds. I've only shot 6" 10 shot groups at 100yd with irond, but think it can do much better. I'm expecting 2-3."
like said above it really depends on the gun and the ammo used. Ive owned a few older WASRs back in the early to mid 2000s. 4-5 MOA guns with bulk ammo. I used to be a big believer of the "inaccurate AK" theory.
Then around 2008 or so my good friend bought an Arsenal. That thing shoots most bulk ammo at 3 MOA and even ammo "it doesn't like" is 4 MOA. I've seen that gun print multiple sub 3 MOA groups with decent range ammo and have seen it shoot 2 MOA with good ammo. Out to 300 yards that thing is definitely accurate enough for government work.
Since then I have been more exposed to properly built AKs as my shooting friends have grown older and tend to buy better guns. Per the Poll I chose 2-3 MOA but in reality I think it's more 2.5-3.5 MOA.
3 shot groups tell you nothing about your weapon or your ammo beyond the general direction you're shooting in. Not even good enough for a solid zero.
10 shots gives an ok idea, 30 is better. That way you KNOW you aren't seeing just the left half of the group, the bottom half, etc like happens with 3 and even 5-shot groups. Too many people use 3 or 5-shot groups and excuse flyers that result in larger than expected groups as being the shooter's fault. A 10-shot group leaves little room for doubt and a 30-shot composite leaves (effectively) none.
What do you mean "left half, bottom half"
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
7.62x39 out of my polish underfolder is 6moa. Same cartridge in my sks with same cheap combloc ammo 4 moa. 7.62x39 with carefully assembled reloads using premium bullets out of scoped mini30 3moa. Read an article years ago in the now defunct but sorely missed Precision Shooting journal used 7.62×39 in a bolt gun for sub moa precision. In summary? All in the platform!
Wouldn't carefully assembled reloads be more in the ammo then the platform?
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
I was trying to get the highest level of precision out of a mini30 without modifying the rifle. The rifle was being used to hunt smallish black tail deer. The mini30 was horid with steel cased east german and Chinese mil surp. 7-8 moa scoped groups. Not enough firing pin energy to ignite the hardened primer cups of combloc ammo. Out of 20 rounds 5 would require a second trip through the chamber to fire.
It turns out that the mini30 is a bastard of a compromise. Uses a 311 throat to feed milsurp ammo but the bore is 308. Once I found out about the 308 bore I began constructing taylor made reloads featuring the bullets that we americans enjoy. I ended up using nosler 120 ballistic tips for most of my hunting after months of experimenting.
You've got patience. I would have thrown that thing away a long time ago
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
I was a college kid at the time and enjoyed the challenge. Proved to be a healthy distraction from course work. I ended up selling rifle as package deal with dies, magazines, etc. Broke even and ventured into the 6br world. Bought a hart barrel and new rem700 action. Gunsmith made a benchrest rifle for me.
I have a stock LE6920 and a stock WASR. At 100 yds using irons on both and shooting cheap Ammo in both I get slightly smaller groups with the WASR. It's mostly because of the triggers. The mil spec in the Colt sucks worse than other mil spec triggers I have. The stock Tapco in the WASR is pretty light and crisp. Also I shoot better with the WASR's post and notch sights.
I prefer my AR's with Geiselle's over both.
I took out a circa 2006 6920 today that is bone stock. I've had this rifle for years. Despite the shit trigger, I did shoot one MOA group, but averaged about 2 MOA with handloaded ammo.
How many of us actually scope AKs the same way we do ARs? How many of us buy a quality AK and feed it quality ammo?
We treat ARs and AKs so differently. When I tell you I shot 5 MOA with wolf and irons in my AR today, how many would suggest that the poor accuracy is due to the wolf and irons?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This guy has no trouble hitting plates at 150-300 yds standing with Wolf Ammo.
https://youtu.be/aSuAPjw2Jgw
What do you mean "left half, bottom half"
This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dhPTf18_mw&feature=youtu.be&t=226) is an excellent explanation of what I'm describing. A single 3 or 5 shot group isn't enough to reliably tell you how big a group your firearm produces. It's only part of a group.
On the precision pages, we either say five five-round groups are a good idea. The 20 or 30 round groups start to cause things like barrel heat, mirage, etc that cause problems that are not related to the mechanical accuracy of the firearm.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Moose-Knuckle
06-12-17, 05:05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J13BFhQiUwo
Mrgunsngear
06-13-17, 11:15
This guy has no trouble hitting plates at 150-300 yds standing with Wolf Ammo.
https://youtu.be/aSuAPjw2Jgw
...and magically his AK was the first combloc AK to be zeroed out of the box. What are the odds? :confused:
http://youtu.be/aSuAPjw2Jgw
NothingClever
06-13-17, 16:31
5 shots 3-4 inches is good for a 7.62 AK. Irons or scope it's what they're capable of. Many are only 4-5 or even 5-6 inch rifles. It opens up by another inch or two once it gets hot.
So after a fast mag a 3-4 in capable AK is more like 4-6. That 5 inch rifle goes to 6 or 7. Now double the range (and groups) at 200 yds...add an 8 mph crosswind. Pretty easy to miss a man entirely at this range from a rest with a hot AK.
For natives add a worn out rifle and full auto and you'd have to pray to hit the enemy too.
But I'm not picking on the AK. I've shot them plenty and respect them for what they are; very powerful submachine guns that can be used as a rifle sometimes
Submachine gun? AK? I was under the impression sub guns were basically hand gun loads in a rifle. Have I been misinformed?
Submachine gun? AK? I was under the impression sub guns were basically hand gun loads in a rifle. Have I been misinformed?
"very powerfull submachine gun". What I mean is the gun (AK-47) was designed to be used by tank crews and guards and such. It had a submachine gun-type role but can work as a rifle as well for short distances. Sub-gun first, rifle second. The M16 was sort of the opposite. A rifle first, carbine second.
But generally, a submachine gun is a short, full-auto weapon chambered for a pistol cartridge.
Submachine gun? AK? I was under the impression sub guns were basically hand gun loads in a rifle. Have I been misinformed?
Actually the Russians classify it as a submachine gun (or did at one point), but they clearly use different criteria than we do.
crusader377
06-13-17, 23:31
Submachine gun? AK? I was under the impression sub guns were basically hand gun loads in a rifle. Have I been misinformed?
In the west submachine guns were always chambered in pistol ammo. Soviet infantry doctrine developed differently from their experiences in WWII. The Soviets were unique among armies of that era in their mass issue of submachine guns (PPSH and PPS) in far greater quantities than the Allies or the Germans. Whereas in most armies only a few submachine guns would be issue to a platoon (PLs and SLs) in the Red Army often the majority of soldiers would be issued with submachine guns if not entire units. Although this give Soviet infantry a great deal of firepower in the close fight, their infantry was lacking in engagements over 100M.
So when the Soviets developed the AK in the late 1940s, they thought of the AK as a submachine gun with better range/hitting power. Whereas in the west, the Assault rifle was more of a rifle with select fire capability.
MountainRaven
06-14-17, 19:48
"very powerfull submachine gun". What I mean is the gun (AK-47) was designed to be used by tank crews and guards and such. It had a submachine gun-type role but can work as a rifle as well for short distances. Sub-gun first, rifle second. The M16 was sort of the opposite. A rifle first, carbine second.
But generally, a submachine gun is a short, full-auto weapon chambered for a pistol cartridge.
That's not really true.
Actually the Russians classify it as a submachine gun (or did at one point), but they clearly use different criteria than we do.
This is more true.
The AK (the Soviets only referred to it as the AK, not AK-47, that was something done by Western intelligence) and AKM was developed as a replacement for the Airborne, Motorized, and Mechanized infantry squad's weapons, which were chiefly PPSh-41s and PPS-43s. Doctrinally, strategically, the AK was a "submachine gun". The Soviet experience in WWII had taught them the benefits of a squad being able to provide their own suppressing fire in an assault by hosing objectives at range with 7.62 Tokarev, making the AK-47 truly an "assault rifle". Like any true assault rifle, the AK was designed to be fired semi-automatically at range and fully-automatically in close quarters.
The SKS was developed simply to replace the Mosin-Nagant in its various guises and was chiefly to be issued to regular infantry units. However, the AK proved to be capable of doing everything they wanted the SKS to do and to do it better, and with cost-savings for standardizing on one rifle instead of two, they ultimately went with AKs service-wide.
The PPS-43 was still used for armored crews (and others who needed a defensive firearm where space was at a premium) and wouldn't fully be phased out of service until the adoption of the AKS-74U.
(It might also be worth noting how handguns were treated totally different in the Soviet Union: In the US, we wanted a fighting handgun in a fighting cartridge. In the Soviet Union, they wanted a compact, last-ditch, defensive handgun with just enough power to get the job done.)
Moose-Knuckle
06-15-17, 03:59
The AK (the Soviets only referred to it as the AK, not AK-47, that was something done by Western intelligence) and AKM was developed as a replacement for the Airborne, Motorized, and Mechanized infantry squad's weapons, which were chiefly PPSh-41s and PPS-43s. Doctrinally, strategically, the AK was a "submachine gun". The Soviet experience in WWII had taught them the benefits of a squad being able to provide their own suppressing fire in an assault by hosing objectives at range with 7.62 Tokarev, making the AK-47 truly an "assault rifle". Like any true assault rifle, the AK was designed to be fired semi-automatically at range and fully-automatically in close quarters.
And none of that had anything to do with reverse engineered StG-44s captured on the Eastern front. :p
crusader377
06-15-17, 11:19
And none of that had anything to do with reverse engineered StG-44s captured on the Eastern front. :p
I think it is more form following function. You could make an argument that the AK-47 in terms of operating system is closer to an M1 than STG 44.
RetroRevolver77
06-15-17, 17:55
AK's are fine accuracy wise from the better manufacturers; Saiga, Izhvesk, Arsenal etc.
7n6
MountainRaven
06-15-17, 22:47
And none of that had anything to do with reverse engineered StG-44s captured on the Eastern front. :p
Well, the 7.62x39mm cartridge probably came from the 7.92x33mm Kürz, which the Soviets captured in some quantity along with MkB42s from the Battle of Stalingrad.
But the AK is more of an upside-down M1 Garand with the safety from a Remington model 8. It resembles the StG-44 for the same reasons it resembles the FN FAL or the M16: Convergent evolution. Hell, from what I can tell, Eugene Stoner took more directly from the StG-44 for the AR-10 than the Mikhail Timofeyovich did for his Avtomat.
Well, the 7.62x39mm cartridge probably came from the 7.92x33mm Kürz, which the Soviets captured in some quantity along with MkB42s from the Battle of Stalingrad.
But the AK is more of an upside-down M1 Garand with the safety from a Remington model 8. It resembles the StG-44 for the same reasons it resembles the FN FAL or the M16: Convergent evolution. Hell, from what I can tell, Eugene Stoner took more directly from the StG-44 for the AR-10 than the Mikhail Timofeyovich did for his Avtomat.
I don't think we should overlook the contributions of Hugo Schmeisser to the AK-47.
By August 1945, the Red Army had created 50 StG 44s from existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10,785 sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of their research. In October 1945, Schmeisser was forced to work for the Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons including the AK-47.
Schmeisser was one of 16 Germans for which a special department (no. 58) was created at factory number 74, later known as Izmash. Schmeisser was appointed as one of the five designers of the group, together with Kurt Horn and Werner Gruner (both from Grossfuss) and Oscar Schink (from Gustloff), under the formal leadership of Karl Barnitske (also from Gustloff). There is some evidence that Schmeisser was uncooperative with the Soviets because he received the most negative review by his Soviet handlers in this group of five German designers. In these Soviet reviews, Schmeisser was described as a "practical man", whose lack of formal training showed whenever he was presented with any design problems.
Schmeisser worked in Izhevsk until 1952 when he and other German specialists returned home to Germany. With short notice, his stay in the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon specialists by a half year. He finally returned home on 9 June 1952. Schmeisser died on 12 September 1953, and was buried in Suhl. The 50th anniversary of his death was honored by a ceremony held in Suhl, as he is recognized as one of the most important technical designers of infantry weapons of the 20th century.
AK's are fine accuracy wise from the better manufacturers; Saiga, Izhvesk, Arsenal etc.
This. And even these can be improved, as usually the accuracy is limited by badly finished crowns and loose muzzle devices.
The most accurate out of the box AK is a Sako or a Valmet with Lapua ammo: 2 MOA is normal, and many rifles shoot better than that.
Moose-Knuckle
06-16-17, 04:20
I don't think we should overlook the contributions of Hugo Schmeisser to the AK-47.
By August 1945, the Red Army had created 50 StG 44s from existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10,785 sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of their research. In October 1945, Schmeisser was forced to work for the Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons including the AK-47.
Schmeisser was one of 16 Germans for which a special department (no. 58) was created at factory number 74, later known as Izmash. Schmeisser was appointed as one of the five designers of the group, together with Kurt Horn and Werner Gruner (both from Grossfuss) and Oscar Schink (from Gustloff), under the formal leadership of Karl Barnitske (also from Gustloff). There is some evidence that Schmeisser was uncooperative with the Soviets because he received the most negative review by his Soviet handlers in this group of five German designers. In these Soviet reviews, Schmeisser was described as a "practical man", whose lack of formal training showed whenever he was presented with any design problems.
Schmeisser worked in Izhevsk until 1952 when he and other German specialists returned home to Germany. With short notice, his stay in the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon specialists by a half year. He finally returned home on 9 June 1952. Schmeisser died on 12 September 1953, and was buried in Suhl. The 50th anniversary of his death was honored by a ceremony held in Suhl, as he is recognized as one of the most important technical designers of infantry weapons of the 20th century.
The thing that Schmeisser did for the Russkies was give them perfected mass produced sheet metal stamping. He invented it for the Germans and without it the AKM and subsequent arms would have never been.
Templar had a thread on a book entitled The Gun by C.J. Chivers that IIRC delved into conspiracy that the Russians fabricated the invention of the AK by Kalashnikov. The Russians were all about propaganda and the people needed a hero giving them the weapon to defend the glorious motherland with.
Would have been hard blow to their perfect utopia if they had to admit to the masses that the Red Armies new whiz bang rifle was a product of Teutonic genius.
The thing that Schmeisser did for the Russkies was give them perfected mass produced sheet metal stamping. He invented it for the Germans and without it the AKM and subsequent arms would have never been.
Templar had a thread on a book entitled The Gun by C.J. Chivers that IIRC delved into conspiracy that the Russians fabricated the invention of the AK by Kalashnikov. The Russians were all about propaganda and the people needed a hero giving them the weapon to defend the glorious motherland with.
Would have been hard blow to their perfect utopia if they had to admit to the masses that the Red Armies new whiz bang rifle was a product of Teutonic genius.
My post was with that book in mind. However we should remember that the first 47s Type 1-3 were milled so no sure that was Schmeissers contribution. IIRC the first prototypes were stamped but they had flaws so the first production rifles were milled until they got the AKM online in 1959 but Hugo died in 1953.
MountainRaven
06-16-17, 21:54
The thing that Schmeisser did for the Russkies was give them perfected mass produced sheet metal stamping. He invented it for the Germans and without it the AKM and subsequent arms would have never been.
Templar had a thread on a book entitled The Gun by C.J. Chivers that IIRC delved into conspiracy that the Russians fabricated the invention of the AK by Kalashnikov. The Russians were all about propaganda and the people needed a hero giving them the weapon to defend the glorious motherland with.
Would have been hard blow to their perfect utopia if they had to admit to the masses that the Red Armies new whiz bang rifle was a product of Teutonic genius.
I seem to recall that Chivers never claimed any connection between Schmeisser and Kalashnikov. That while it's almost a certainty that Kalashnikov simply got his name slapped on a rifle chiefly produced by the minds of other Soviet arms engineers, Schmeisser probably played little or no role in the rifle's development.
In any event, I think the Kalashnikov is too derivative to be one of Schmeisser's designs. Maybe Schmeisser helped design the magazine or something. But I don't think he was involved in any meaningful way with the development of Mikhail Timofeyovich's Avtomat.
I seem to recall that Chivers never claimed any connection between Schmeisser and Kalashnikov. That while it's almost a certainty that Kalashnikov simply got his name slapped on a rifle chiefly produced by the minds of other Soviet arms engineers, Schmeisser probably played little or no role in the rifle's development.
In any event, I think the Kalashnikov is too derivative to be one of Schmeisser's designs. Maybe Schmeisser helped design the magazine or something. But I don't think he was involved in any meaningful way with the development of Mikhail Timofeyovich's Avtomat.
Pages 152, 207-208. Also you do understand it was Schmeisser who designed the Stg44/45 right? To suggest that all of the Russians work wasn't based almost exclusively on that idea is a major reach, especially when they occupied the area where it was produced and had the designer himself (along with 18 other guys named Hans and Franz) on the design team.
Moose-Knuckle
06-17-17, 05:06
That was my point, that the Russians based the massed production of stamped sheet metal AKs on Schmeisser's contributions to the process of stamping not that Schmeisser himself actually designed the AK. Until he came along the Russians could not perfect stamping.
That was my point, that the Russians based the massed production of stamped sheet metal AKs on Schmeisser's contributions to the process of stamping not that Schmeisser himself actually designed the AK. Until he came along the Russians could not perfect stamping.
But they also couldn't do it while he was on the team or even alive. The first stamped prototype was a failure so the first production guns were milled until well after his death. So I'm not sure if that was his primary contribution.
MountainRaven
06-17-17, 18:38
Pages 152, 207-208. Also you do understand it was Schmeisser who designed the Stg44/45 right? To suggest that all of the Russians work wasn't based almost exclusively on that idea is a major reach, especially when they occupied the area where it was produced and had the designer himself (along with 18 other guys named Hans and Franz) on the design team.
The assault rifle wasn't Schmeisser's concept: The concept dates to 1918 in the German military and it was the Waffenamt that propsed the original concept that became the MKb42(W) (which Schmeisser did not devise) and the MKb42(H) (which he did help develop).
The cartridge wasn't his, having been previously developed in 1940/41 for the MKb concept.
Even the StG-44/45 wasn't entirely his: The Waffenamt required the MP43 incorporate features of the MKb42(W), like the fire control group and firing from a closed bolt.
The only part of the concept that was wholly Schmeisser's was the stamped steel construction.
So, yeah, beyond the presence of a stamped steel receiver, I'd say Schmeisser's influence was probably pretty minimal.
The assault rifle wasn't Schmeisser's concept: The concept dates to 1918 in the German military and it was the Waffenamt that propsed the original concept that became the MKb42(W) (which Schmeisser did not devise) and the MKb42(H) (which he did help develop).
The cartridge wasn't his, having been previously developed in 1940/41 for the MKb concept.
Even the StG-44/45 wasn't entirely his: The Waffenamt required the MP43 incorporate features of the MKb42(W), like the fire control group and firing from a closed bolt.
The only part of the concept that was wholly Schmeisser's was the stamped steel construction.
So, yeah, beyond the presence of a stamped steel receiver, I'd say Schmeisser's influence was probably pretty minimal.
So the Stg44/43 incorporated a bolt design from another firearm. I guess that means Stoner didn't design the AR-10/M-16 series since it used a Ljungman bolt. And yes, it was built upon previous ideas just as the Luger and even the P-38 were derivatives of the Borschardt.
But that doesn't mean Schmeisser wasn't the designer of the Stg44/45 just as Stoner was the designer of the AR-10/M-16 series. Seesh. Who do you think was the primary designer of Stg44/45?
Also you seem to be missing a huge part, only the prototype AK-47s had stamped receivers, the production rifles had milled receivers, they weren't stamped until the AKM which came AFTER Schmeisser had died.
Mrgunsngear
06-18-17, 08:14
AK's are fine accuracy wise from the better manufacturers; Saiga, Izhvesk, Arsenal etc.
7n6
In my experience Green Mountain nitrided barrels are the most accurate. Other aspects about US barrels will always be debated but they've been the most accurate for me.
For com bloc guns, K variants that have been re-crowned seem to be the most accurate.
RetroRevolver77
06-18-17, 10:29
In my experience Green Mountain nitrided barrels are the most accurate. Other aspects about US barrels will always be debated but they've been the most accurate for me.
For com bloc guns, K variants that have been re-crowned seem to be the most accurate.
It's the difference between a precision barrel and a hammer forged chrome lined machinegun grade barrel.
I only use former com block barrels and most of my guns are factory anyway.
The Dumb Gun Collector
06-18-17, 18:53
About 3moa avg. I have been shooting about 1k per month between my wasr and my Saiga and I have renewed respect for the practical accuracy of the platform.
RetroRevolver77
06-19-17, 10:50
No 7.62x39 rifle is going to be a target rifle but you can effectively engage 18" silhouette targets out to 400 meters if needed.
7n6
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.