Here is a recent interview of Jim Fuller on buying an AK . . .
https://www.full30.com/video/f0af39b...7fa5839e43a4be
Printable View
Here is a recent interview of Jim Fuller on buying an AK . . .
https://www.full30.com/video/f0af39b...7fa5839e43a4be
What would be important to me in an AK would be a milled receiver, mil spec trigger group, a 4150 chrome lined steel barrel poly furniture and something that shoots 2" max groups at 100 yds. In my collection, firearms accuracy is paramount. At the range I see all these AK guys shooting that can barely hit the paper. Some shoot pie plate size groups.
Isn't a rifle worthless, if you cannot hit the target?
You don't need a milled receiver to have an accurate rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by dlagrua
And not many AK's get used by people with any idea what they're doing. I'd be surprised if the majority of AK's you see at the range are legitimately only capable of shooting pie plates.
They are battle rifles. Not meant to shot moa or better.
2 to 4" is about right.
Now maybe company like rifle dynamics that makes higher end ak's probably will do better.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Exactly, need AR size groups over 7.62x39's penetration and stopping power? AK74 is your answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by tvfreakarms
For 'practical accuracy', reliably hitting a man-sized target out to 3-400yd, it's a wash. 3-4 MOA is mil standard for issue rifles few civilian shooters are able to wring even that from their rifles.
When the AK bug finally bit me, I looked for straightness, weight and price point. It all came together for me with my WASR 10. Nearly 3k rounds later, I am still completely satisfied.
Maybe so but the tighter the group, the higher the chance of placing a shot on target becomes. I once owned an original arsenal gun (100% Bulgarian made) with a milled receiver and a cold hammer forged barrel and it was dead nuts accurate so AK's can provide that, but many of the AK rifles out there that I've seen are cheaply made, very inaccurate and basically junk. I guess that you get what you pay for but for 30 cal. I lean towards the FAL and HK91/G3 RiflesQuote:
Originally Posted by shep854
Well milled rec would be a little more stable. But I don't think cause it's milled it will be a tac driver.
Yes a lot of the ak's are basic on the cheap side. Some worst than others.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
No argument there! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by dlagrua
Milled receivers are more rigid, but there's also a lot of tolerance stacking that goes into them when they are built. I really doubt that the milled receiver alone makes a large difference in the rifle's accuracy potential.Quote:
Originally Posted by tvfreakarms
For what the AK was made for, that slight difference in accuracy you get from one AK to another probably shouldn't be the deciding factor of choosing that AK over another rife, at least in my opinion. It's hard to word what I'm trying to say, but basically if that marginal improvement in MOA from one AK to another is that important for the shot, then you should probably using something else.
The other thing that's very often over looked in regards to accuracy from AK's is the ammo itself. Face it, the vast majority of 7.62 x 39 people buy and shoot is the cheapest steel cases ammo they can buy. It's not famous for its precision/consistency.
Even though not all brass .223/5.56 is crazy accurate, I would still say it has better potential than the steel East European stuff. Then again this isn't even taking into account the physical difference in .223 and 30 cal.