In terms of ergonomics, it seems to me the two largest points are the safety - no where near as easy to manipulate as the AR - and the speed of mag changes. Beyond that, I think it becomes more a matter of preference/familiarity.Originally Posted by Pat_Rogers
The iron sights, I agree - they are rudimentary compared to the AR though I've seen some younger guys (with good eyes) do some mighty good work with iron-sighted AKs. For my tired eyes I'm going to give the Krebs rear aperture sight a try and of course, with an Aimpoint mounted the quality of the irons is at least somewhat immaterial.
BTW, it's good to see vendors like Mark Larue taking an interest in the AK platform - I look forward to the release of his Aimpoint side mount that will allow co-witness. Let's not forget that up until now, ARs have been getting all of the attention for this kind of stuff!
The trump card of the AK is what you alluded to above - its was designed from the ground up to be a simple, reliably rugged fighting rifle. What it gives up in refinement it more than makes up for in robustness. And it turns out most of the rough edges can be dealt with very effectively.
I don't have far to go to make my Krebs rifle all I want it to be. Until the Larue mount is available I am tweaking the Aimpoint mounting (have a lower ring on order), will give the Krebs aperture sight a try, will replace the grip with the Tapco SAW grip and experiment with different ammo to wring as much accuracy out of it that I can. I'm betting I'll end up with a pretty good rifle.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks