I've heard and read many times, sometimes in this forum, that the AK47 is regarded as inaccurate. I'm sure that any inaccuracy associated with the AK47 is relative to it's intended use but it still makes me wonder why. So, why is the AK considered less accurate and what is it being judged against, the M16/AR15 series?
I don't own any military rifles so go easy on me please.
1. People regurgitate 2nd 3rd ot 4th hand info on them.
2. The sights are open and of a fairly short radius, many shooters have little or no experience with these type of sights. And very few know how to zero them or to make use of them.
3. There are some semi-auto AK variants out there that are not properly assembled and/or with worn parts. Lemon owners tend to scream more than satisfied customers.
4. Stock length: Like the sights a lot of people do not know how to hold the rifle to get the most out of the standard length stock.
I've seen alot of guys who say they're inaccurate shooting them from the hip. When you use a rifle as a mortar it's very difficult to judge it's accuracy potential.
__________________
Zombies tremble at the mention of my name.
In general, they get between 3-5 MOA at 100 yards. My WASR-10 is closer to 5. Some guys here with Saigas get close to 2 MOA. Mainly it depends on that variant you have. I think the Romanians are the worst just because they aren't as consistant as other makes. If you spend as much money on a AK-47 variant as you would on a standard AR-15, I think they would be comparably accurate. Also, most AR-15s are closer to a 2 MOA and some can only get a 3 as opposed to the popular "they all get sub MOA at 100 yards" BS that a lot of people claim.
I had suspected the short sight radius as part of the problem just looking at the gun. JMP gives a little more data and I suspect the shooting is with a scope.
That brings me back to the original question if it is in fact true that the AK is not as tight grouping as the AR what is the reason? Is because of the gun, the 7.62x39 round, build tolerances, what?
BTW I am not pointing fingers or any such thing. I'm just really curious as to why. I might even break down and buy a AK or AR before too long.
AK's accuracy (or percieved lack there of) come from two reasons. One is the ammunition. It is not "match" ammo. 7.63x39 has a trajectory loop like a rainbow. 5.45 is on par with US 5.56. It can be very accurate from a quality rifle as can 7.62x39 if as stated above, the shooters knows his weapon & it is of sufficient quality.
The second reason is that AK's are made with looser tolerences in their moving parts. It was never designed as a range/combat rifle like the M-16 is. Since tolerences are not as tight as they could be, accuracy suffers ( but only slightly) It isn't as accurate as an M-16 at any range but it is accurate enough to hit a man up to 300yds.
Now since the M-16 has much tighter tolerences & is therefore inheritely more accurate, it also has the reputation of jamming & having stoppages in inclement weather & combat conditions. If not properly cleaned & maintained religiously, it will fail on the user at the most inopportune time. The AK, having looser tolerences gives up a little accuracy for reliability. Worldwide, it is famous for working everytime, anywhere. As long as the barrel is free from obstuctions, it will fire!
Look at it this way. Both are fine rifles for their intended purpose. The AR/M-16 is like a scalpel...very precise but needs to be sharpened frequently. The AK is more like an axe. It won't cut as precise but it will cut all day.
__________________
Trample the weak & hurdle the dead.
The AK-47 is perceived as inaccurate because people always compare it to the M-16, but they were both built for different jobs, the M-16 to have a large range, and hold a relatively flat trajectory, the AK-47 to handle Russian weather (loose tolerances) and shoot all day inside of 300 meters.
The M-16 is a more accurate weapon, but that does not mean that the AK-47 is inaccurate, just less than the M-16, also the typical "soldier"(not to include the Russian soldiers who use a AK-74 with a 5.45 round) wielding an AK-47 in combat has little to no training compared to the soldier with an M-16, so it gets a bad reputation.
The truth is if you get a well made AK-47 and know the round and its trajectory you can be just as accurate inside 300 meters as an m-16, it is just a little more work, if you sight the M-16 at 200 meters it is almost point and shoot at any range with little bullet drop.
M-16 vs AK-47 is apples to oranges. 16 platforms are more of a rifle while AK platforms are more of a machine gun. Look at their selectors. AR's and 16's go to single shot then selective/full from the safe position while AK's go to full auto first then to single shot.
__________________
Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.
Just some food for thought; in a post I made about the Winchester Super X 7.62x39 I was sighting in my scope for hunting purposes and used WOLF black box to get the scope zeroed and then confirmed with the ammo I was actually going to be using. The difference in groups was startling, to me at least. There was about a 1.5 MOA increase in accuracy from using the WInchester ammo. Regardless of what people say an AR is roughly a 2 MOA weapon, look at what some of the best AR's are rated at, Wilson Combat AR's with MATCH GRADE AMMO are rated at 1 MOA so what does that tell you? Most of these AR guys never shot at range so they don't realize what their spread is.
I am not the best shooter in the world and I can manage to hit soda cans at 300m with my 7.62x39 Saiga. They are decent shooters and are just as accurate as an AR in my honest opinion. They are both 2 MOA rifles with standard off the rack ammo.
__________________ When I can't think of anything original to post I think to myself, 'what would Sprout say?' -PSLMAN
this is not really an inaccurate rifle. It was designed and manufactured to provide a certain level of accuracy. This rifle is first and foremost a combat rifle. Accuracy in the sense of comparison with, say, a scoped sniper rifle is just not its intended purpose. It is certainly good for a human sized target under situations that can be acquired by iron sights.
As combared to heavy barrel varmit rifle with a high power scope then it is not an accurate rifle.
Yet, it is plenty accurate to meet the criteria for which it was built. People who take the time to get good with the rifle have good results on reasonalby sized targets at reasonable ranges.
I agree some people hear a story then it gets to be something else or worse in the telling down the line.
Are there match grade AK47s that have been put up against match grade AR15/M16, how do those compare? That is probably the only way to really tell which platform is more accurate.
Is the 7.62x39 a relatively mild round? I can understand bullet drop but I don't think that is really an accuracy issue. To me that is not adjusting your sights for distance.
I was just curious and don't want to start a AR fan vs AK fan war.
__________________ I'm a flag waving patriot, nephew of my Uncle Sam, a rough riding fighting Yankee man.
Are there match grade AK47s that have been put up against match grade AR15/M16, how do those compare? That is probably the only way to really tell which platform is more accurate.
Is the 7.62x39 a relatively mild round? I can understand bullet drop but I don't think that is really an accuracy issue. To me that is not adjusting your sights for distance.
I was just curious and don't want to start a AR fan vs AK fan war.
The drop of the 7.62x39 is a major part of it. Knowing the trajectory and knowing your range and POI for known distances greatly improves your ability to engage targets effectively. There are not any match-grade AK's to my knowledge. I don't think there is a market for it.
__________________ When I can't think of anything original to post I think to myself, 'what would Sprout say?' -PSLMAN
The drop of the 7.62x39 is a major part of it. Knowing the trajectory and knowing your range and POI for known distances greatly improves your ability to engage targets effectively. There are not any match-grade AK's to my knowledge. I don't think there is a market for it.
I thought BigEd 63 had a national match Mak 90. Of course it could be all the coolant fumes I inhaled at work today.
__________________
Zombies tremble at the mention of my name.
Some NHM-91's came with a match grade barrel. I had one of these rifles but it wasnt a national match barrel. I have however seen the national match stamped barrels on these rifles.
If youre going to make a comparison, I have a GP1975 AK in 7.62x39 and a Saiga .223. I went to my friends land last weekend and shot about 500 rounds through each. Both being an AK platform I can say the .223 was slightly more accurate. I contribute this to recoil of the 7.62 which makes it slightly less accurate. The Saiga .223 shoots like a dream and I am indeed very fond of this rifle. Very little recoil and very accurate.
Also, comparing accuracy of AR's to AK's, dont forget about barrel flex. The AR has almost very little barrel flex compared to AK's which was demonstrated in a video posted here last year.
__________________
Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.
Some NHM-91's came with a match grade barrel. I had one of these rifles but it wasnt a national match barrel. I have however seen the national match stamped barrels on these rifles.
If youre going to make a comparison, I have a GP1975 AK in 7.62x39 and a Saiga .223. I went to my friends land last weekend and shot about 500 rounds through each. Both being an AK platform I can say the .223 was slightly more accurate. I contribute this to recoil of the 7.62 which makes it slightly less accurate. The Saiga .223 shoots like a dream and I am indeed very fond of this rifle. Very little recoil and very accurate.
Also, comparing accuracy of AR's to AK's, dont forget about barrel flex. The AR has almost very little barrel flex compared to AK's which was demonstrated in a video posted here last year.
More Discovery Channel magic (aka propaganda) in my opinion. Watch the video once again and you will see that they never show the end of the AR barrel and you can clearly see up/down motion when it does fire.
I think barrel flex is a little overplayed, most, if not all, of the movement is following the exit of the bullet (the puff of gas shows that point). Truly only makes a matter of difference accuracy wise when firing full-auto.
__________________ When I can't think of anything original to post I think to myself, 'what would Sprout say?' -PSLMAN
More Discovery Channel magic (aka propaganda) in my opinion. Watch the video once again and you will see that they never show the end of the AR barrel and you can clearly see up/down motion when it does fire.
I think barrel flex is a little overplayed, most, if not all, of the movement is following the exit of the bullet (the puff of gas shows that point). Truly only makes a matter of difference accuracy wise when firing full-auto.
I dont think the barrel flex makes a huge difference in how accurate an AK is. I can guarantee you it doesnt IMPROVE its accuracy.... That combined with the recoil and bullet drop from the 7.62 round in my opinion makes a .223 more accurate. I would also venture to say that most people would agree with me.
__________________
Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.
That video says one hit on the lower left corner. I wonder if the thing was sighted for a shorter distance and that was the problem. Still that is a lot of drop at only 200 yards, enough to completely miss a man sized target.
__________________ I'm a flag waving patriot, nephew of my Uncle Sam, a rough riding fighting Yankee man.
They never show the M16 shooter pulling the trigger but the guy shooting the AK47 yanks the hell out of the trigger. No wonder he can't hit $h!t.
It is such a POS video and it is does nothing but reiterate a bunch of Cold-War nonsense. Remember, during WWII they were telling our soldiers that the MG-42's "bark" was worse than its "bite".
The people that say AK's are inaccurate are merely repeating that special from Discovery. Notice what they say and how it is WORD FOR WORD the crap they say in that video.
As far as the ballistics of the 7.62x39, if people actually zero it correctly it will be from 0-225 yds. +/- 6" LOS. That is a very manageable range.
I find it laughable that somehow this guy in the video hits 1/5 at a man-sized target and somehow NO ONE thinks this was a BS comparison? 200 yds. and this guys couldn't hit a man-size target yet I am able to put 3/5 when shooting clays at the same distance...
It is non-sense and nothing more. The fact is the military perpetuates this as well through how they train. The only time you every actually see a rifle target up close is the 25m zero target. Ya, groups are really tight at that range. I would love to see the look on peoples faces when they see they are hitting 6-9" groups at 300m.
__________________ When I can't think of anything original to post I think to myself, 'what would Sprout say?' -PSLMAN
