Can we be honest about what kind of accuracy you are getting from your AKs (esp WASR)


PDA






ZombiesAhead
December 22, 2008, 03:30 AM
I have put plenty of rounds through my GP-10 WASR AK-47-type rifle. I was basically minute-of-man accurate at 100 yards sitting on a rickety picnic table bench with a rickety 2 x 4 supporting the gun by the mag. I was less accurate standing using a steady-sling. I was using crap black post and notch iron sights.

I then acquired a Bushmaster AR-15 with Carbine-Length iron-sight radius. I can make 25/30 head-shots (actually head-sized stuffed animals) standing with a steady sling at 25 yards. I can follow up shots nearly immediately without having to completely re-acqure my sight picture.

I then added a PK-AS left-offset red-dot to the WASR hoping that it may just be the HORRIBLE iron sights on the AK that were throwing me off. I am now consistently minute-of-torso accurate at 100 yards but the recoil throws me off after each shot.

I use steel-case wolf in both the AR-15 and the WASR.

Why am I so bad with the AK?

a. The 7.62's recoil causing follow-up-shots to require completely re-acquiring the sight picture? I find this a serious problem causing more than twice the time in between shots as with an AR. If I don't take this time, I get sloppy and blow the follow-up.

b. The terrible iron sights and maybe a not-properly sighted in PK-AS side-mount optic? I had a guy at an indoor range tell me the red-dot seemed sighted in "good enough for an AK" (at 50 yards).

c. A bad WASR? Everything looks good to me. I don't understand what could be so horribly wrong. The rifling is correct. The problem occurs both with irons (potentially canted, but look good) and the red-dot.

d. Ergonomics? I find the lighter AR much easier to manipulate.

For an average to below-average shooter, do these results sound right? I am not a marksman nor an internet-marksman but I just can't believe the groups some claim to get with their WASR's...

I want to love the AK as I value reliablility in a SHTF gun over long-range accuracy but this seems like people on the internet may be blowing the AK's capabilities (due to many factors that come into play out-side of a vice rest) out of proportion. Honestly, I can't say that resting it on the mag or from a prone position I can do much better than 12 MOA consistently with several different batches of Wolf steel-case 7.62x39.

I am confident I can hit a torso in 1-2 shots with the AK at 100 yards. I haven't tried such accuracy with the AR but it feels so much more right. Is anyone else with me on this or am I just totally missing something in my marksmanship technique?

If you enjoyed reading about "Can we be honest about what kind of accuracy you are getting from your AKs (esp WASR)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Deus Machina
December 22, 2008, 04:01 AM
For the recoil, treat yourself to a muzzle brake ($10+) and a recoil buffer ($5 to $25). I don't have a brake on mine yet, but a dirt-cheap recoil buffer actually changed mine to a straight-back shove, instead of jumping out of my (open) hand how it was. Brand new gun, too. Undersprung for the sake of reliability, i guess.

If you can borrow or want to buy one, I've had good luck with those laser bore sighters. Put it in snug, point it down the hall, adjust sights to match. Take it to the range for proper fine-tuning.

WASR's run the whole range on accuracy. Just about anything should be able to hit well enough at 100 yards. My own AK (a Saiga, but for reference) easily shoots 4- or 5-inch groups at 100 yards with cheap Wolf JHP and stock but painted sights, and I'm shooting sitting, holding the foregrip and resting my elbow on the table. Hardly as good as from a rest.

Note that having something sighted in 'good enough for an AK' at fifty yards will really hurt your accuracy at 100. Check that.

Work on your trigger pull and stance, too. As you've stated, AK's aren't as ergonomic as an AR, and that can cause someone to jerk the trigger, or pull it to the side if they're squeezing their whole hand. Working on that stuff is good even if it's not your problem.

WardenWolf
December 22, 2008, 04:06 AM
I can honestly say I'm getting around 2 MOA with my Saiga. However, a Saiga is a far higher quality AK than average. WASR's are okay. Not great. Not particularly bad, but okay.

Guitargod1985
December 22, 2008, 04:10 AM
I have a Romanian SAR-1 and a WASR-10 and both are capable of consistently hitting an 8" paper plate at 100 yards while in standing position. This is with irons, BTW. I'm sure it would improve with some sort of optic.

LIQUID SNAKE
December 22, 2008, 04:27 AM
Your WASR 10 is not an AK47 type. For that to be true your sample would have to have a milled receiver which is the only qualifier for the 47 series. You, my friend have an AKM type. The stamped sheet metal receiver is the trade mark of the M series.

Also in terms of accuracy my AKM hit everything I aimed it at. I just called it good.

EdLaver
December 22, 2008, 05:32 AM
I agree with Liquid Snake, the AK or any of its variants were never ment to be a tac-driver. As long as you can hit paper at 100 yards thats pretty much as good as it gets. Imagine this: If you are in a SHTF scenario and you have to defend yourself, a human torso is about the size of a normal paper target therefore it will hit at 100-150 yards. Now pushing past that you may have to compensate somehow but overall I can live with my WASR-10 knowing full well what its capable of and isnt.

Gun Wielding Maniac
December 22, 2008, 08:06 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=409217

Keep in mind, that is an 8" barrel AK. My experience with Romanian rifles has been good for the most part.

Make sure your sight rail for the scope is tight. Make sure you're using a good rest. Try differant ammo. Try shooting at a smaller, more well defined target. This may seem strange, but I find *group size* diminishes when you use a target with the same diameter as the aiming point of your reticule.

LIQUID SNAKE
December 22, 2008, 11:16 AM
Ya know, most people site the rifle's design for the inaccuracy myths. I've been wondering for years now about the accuracy of the 7.62x39 Soviet from better weapons. I've been wanting to build an AR15A3 20" bbl, full stock battle rifle for a while now. I wonder exactly how much better the accuracy and range would get in that package?

In case your wondering I'd feed it with 6.8 high cap mags not those garbage 5rd mags, ugly ass Frankenstein mags or, the make believe 20rd colts. I've also ruled out the AR47 receivers, "for now anyway".

HB
December 22, 2008, 11:37 AM
No offense but you should be able to easily drill 30 for 30 stuffed animals at 25 yards with almost any gun.... I would recomend getting a .22 and practice at close range.

But to answer your original question, the AK is not going to give you the same accuracy as the AR. The AK is a great desinge, a lot of fun to shoot, and looks cool, but it will not fill your requirements as a rifle. In a war.... Inside a hundred yards I'd take a AK over an AR, Inside 400 yards I'd take a AR, inside 800 I'd bring some friends :evil:


HB

NC-Mike
December 22, 2008, 12:00 PM
6 to 7 MOA with my WASR 10 and steel cased Wolf and Golden Tiger.

It do seem to like the GT more better. :D

Pulse
December 22, 2008, 12:16 PM
there are different ways of measuring accuracy.
someone telling you that his rifle of choice "shoots sub-moa all day long" without telling how he measured it has little worth on its own.

how was it measured?
was it a single 3 shot group at 100meters with 30min waiting in between shot to let the barrel cool and off a vice? possibly even cleaned the barrel in betwean each shot?
was it a average of 10 groups at 300 meters with 30 rounds each, each group fired in less then 2minutes with just half a minute in betwean groups and no barrel cleaning, shot offhand on a windy day?

ofcourse, those are both extream examples, but both are valid ways to measur the accuracy of a given platform, but only if you compare your results to someone that did the same or a comparable test.

briansmithwins
December 22, 2008, 12:18 PM
AKs can have problems that prevent them form seeing even 6MOA accuracy: loose parts, damaged crowns, and bad ammo can all take their toll.

However, this I can make 25/30 head-shots (actually head-sized stuffed animals) standing with a steady sling at 25 yards. makes it sound like you sometimes miss 8" targets at 25 yards with your AR. I wouldn't expect you to be able to get hits on a man sized target at 100 yards with anything if that's the case.

The 7.62's recoil causing follow-up-shots to require completely re-acquiring the sight picture? I find this a serious problem causing more than twice the time in between shots as with an AR. If I don't take this time, I get sloppy and blow the follow-up. If that's the case it really sounds like you need more training.

red-dot seemed sighted in "good enough for an AK" (at 50 yards). Weapons are either zeroed are they aren't. It's kinda like being pregnant. If your weapon isn't zeroed, how can you expect to get hits except by chance?

I suspect the fault is not in you equipment, but in you skills. Skills can be improved with time and effort.

1) Read some of the stuff here: http://warriortalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=111 For all that GS can be kinda flaky, he has some good ideas about how to run AKs.

2) Zero your rifle. Really zero your rifle. Start at 25 yards and work back to 100.

3) Shoot. Shoot some more. I DON'T MEAN BLAST STUFFED ANIMALS AT EXECUTION RANGE! Go to a class, go to a rifle match. Learn what works and what doesn't. You can go to a rifle match and learn w/o ever taking your rifle out of the case. Observe what the people that are smooth are doing. Do things more like what they do. Ask questions. Most guys at a match will talk like lonely old women if given half a chance.

I been shooting our local rifle match with my AK (and SKS) for the last year. In that year I've gotten a lot better and I'm starting to get happy with my performance. I have learned a lot in that year. BSW

Like most things, practice, practice, practice. You don't want to end up like this guy.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y3/briansmithwins/211716233_1c00d459f7-1.jpg

Aka Zero
December 22, 2008, 12:24 PM
I can shoot things with mine..... Haven't been shooting at any long ranges. Shot some rounds at pistol range. 20 yards. Wasr shot pretty good, saiga shot better.

I found painting the sights white help a lot. The thin black on black makes it very difficult to aim consistently.

But I can shoot my CZ-75 better at that range. 16 rounds into a 5" target.

Nautilus
December 22, 2008, 12:30 PM
Using the basic iron sights and shooting at 100 yards I can get about 6" groups with my WASR. Thats using Golden Tiger ammo, Wolf is about the same, but my best groups have always been with Golden tiger.

My "higher quality" AK's will shoot about the same, maybe slightly better than the WASR's but not much better... all shoot about 4" to 6" at 100 yards using steel case ammo and the basic iron sights. Using an Eotech and a quality mount I can close the groups a little more and switching to a quality brass cased ammo will close up the groups a little too, but it's not going to be as accurate as an AR.

Using quality US manufactured Brass cased ammo, an optic mount made in Belarus and a decent 3-9x scope I was able to get multiple 2" groups out of one of my romanians.

An AK is going to recoil more than an AR, not a lot you can do about it, it's a bigger round so it's going to kick a little more. It shouldn't be a problem for follow up shots if you practice enough... all things being equal an AK doesn't really kick much, the AR just doesn't kick at all.

I preffer an AK over an AR... but everyone is different. I think more people in a side to side comparison would prefer the AR. But I think the complaints you have listed above could be over come with a little more practice. I would not be quick to blame these issues on the rifle.

db_tanker
December 22, 2008, 12:37 PM
at 100 paces I can reliably defend myself versus evil coffee-cans with mine. Its not a WASR and its in 5.45x39.


Your mileage may vary.

D

jackstinson
December 22, 2008, 12:49 PM
Using the basic iron sights and shooting at 100 yards I can get about 6" groups with my WASR.
Same here. That would be with propping my left elbow on the bench, using my left hand as a "rest". Not bench rest, but not offhand either.
And as was also said, evil coffee-cans don't stand a chance at 100 yards.
After reading all the net-wisdom of how inaccurate a WASR should be, I was quite pleased with my GP10/63. Out of the box, it's windage was dead on and elevation was only slightly off. A fun shooter and probably more accurate than I can hold it to be.

possum
December 22, 2008, 12:51 PM
i have never measured group sizes at 200yds, but i can get 20 for 20 in the 5 zone of an e type shillouete, from any postion. i have a mak-90

RP88
December 22, 2008, 02:01 PM
at 30 yards, using a brass bucket as a makeshift bench, my converted Saiga in x39 leaves a bit more than a quarter's size worth of paper in between the 4-5 shot groups with Wolf FMJ. Guess that's equivilent to about 4 MoA at 100 yards.

I used winchester brass once, and got a couple groups that would translate to about 2 MoA.

All in all, I'd call mine a 2-3 MoA gun with decent ammo, but that may be pushing it. Maybe just a 3 MoA gun.

My Del-Ton AR outshoots the hell out of it though, that's for sure. I can put a whole box through (or very, very close to) the bullseye off of a bench at 30 yards with it.

Clipper
December 22, 2008, 02:08 PM
My WASR 10 (it's about 1 1/2 years old, so has the Tapco trigger and a chrome-lined barrel, no brake) sports a drag-type buttstock off a WASR II, Cheaper Than Dirt's $29.00 scope mount, eBay $10.00 NC Star steel rings, and a $39.00 BSA 3-9X50 scope with illuminated center dot crosshairs. Slow-fire from the bench with a CDNN 5-round mag, it shoots Wolf black-box HP into 1.5" @ 100 yards...Seems accurate enough to me.

Winchester SPs shot a foot high, and groups opened to 8". Go figure.

Gord
December 22, 2008, 02:08 PM
My stock Yugo underfolder will put thirty rounds into six square inches or so at ~120 yards. Haven't had a chance to take the Saiga out yet, but I'm expecting it to do about the same or slightly better.

I don't expect my AKs to tag headshots on squirrels, I expect them to reliably shoot minute of torso out to 250 yards or so. As long as they can do that, they've fulfilled their primary purpose.

Mike U.
December 22, 2008, 06:00 PM
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=33277

This should put things a little more on the realistic side.

KBintheSLC
December 22, 2008, 06:05 PM
I don't know about the WASR, but I do have a Century Yugo Underfolder with a Burris Scout Scope mounted to the railed fore end. It currently produces about 2 MOA on average with Brown Bear ammo. American hunting/match ammo will get even tighter. I love to see the look on peoples faces when I keep hitting the 400 yard steel target at the range. They just cant believe that an AK can do that.

I think the tales of "inaccurate" AK's come from one of 3 things... 1) landing yourself a piss poor build 2) using only the lousy stock sights 3) poorly trained guerrilla fighters using AK's

30mag
December 22, 2008, 06:10 PM
+1 for trigger jerking.
Shoot error of some sort probably. Shoot off a bench if you want to see how accurate the gun is...

Kymasabe
December 22, 2008, 06:19 PM
My Saiga AK is more accurate than my eyes. But, I can still keep all my rounds on an 8 or 9 inch paper plate at 100 yards with a nice tight sling as taught at Appleseed. I think one of the greatest weaknesses of the AK platform is the sights. I was getting much better accuracy a couple of years ago with my Bulgarian AK that had a Krebs rear peep sight and an orange front sight from Tapco. Once Techsights completes their rear sight design, I think it'll be even better.

nwilliams
December 22, 2008, 06:30 PM
My AK's are for fun not really accuracy. Most of the shooting I do with my AK's is 50 yards or less so the accuracy is just fine for me. If I want accuracy I probably would grab one of my AK's I have better options available. If I did however need an accuracte AK then I would probably grab my Norinco 84s since its a .223 as opposed to 7.62x39 but that brings up a whole other debate.

Dr.Rob
December 22, 2008, 06:53 PM
I have put plenty of rounds through my GP-10 WASR AK-47-type rifle. I was basically minute-of-man accurate at 100 yards sitting on a rickety picnic table bench with a rickety 2 x 4 supporting the gun by the mag.

To quote Jamie Hyneman, "There's your problem."

The magazine makes a horrible rest. Shooting offhand doesn't tell you much about how the rifle shoots, nor the accuracy of the ammunition.

First off get your self a 5 round magazine. Sandbag your rifle and zero your sights (iron, red dot, whatever). The idea is to FIRST take the shooter out of the equation completely. You want a rock solid rest. Shoot several different brands of ammo, see which one your rifle 'likes.' (I really never understand those who expect match grade accuracy from the cheapest ammo available.)

After that, its really a question of practice. Shoot the same ammo all the time if possible. Those Appleseed rifle clinics are supposed to be the bee's knees. (Even if you've 'been there and done that, you MIGHT learn something new.) Shooting accurately isn't the same as shooting fast AND accurately, you'll learn over time to increase your speed.

AK's were never made for hunting rifle accuracy, but a 6 inch group at 100 yards should be possible. 223/5.56 mm and 5.45mm AK's get the benefit of a stiffer barrel and usually shoot better 2-3 inch 100 yard 5 shot groups. I am of course talking about SLOW controlled aimed fire for accuracy, not dumping a magazine as fast as you can. I can get 2-3 inch groups from my 5.56mm Mak-90 but I have to take my time.

You want to shoot prone? Get a 20 round magazine and do NOT rest the rifle on the magazine. Over tensioning your sling (if you use one) can also affect your accuracy since it mounts directly to the barrel. You can add a recoil pad to your rifle and a longer length stock (added weight = less recoil). A muzzle brake can help too.

Hope the info helps.

lionking
December 22, 2008, 09:01 PM
I can't claim to be a awesome shooter,but depending on what I am using I am decent enough I guess so this thread I did posting different ammo tests with 2 different AK style rifles I attribute more to the guns than me for the results.Would really like to get hold of a Saiga to pit it against those other 2 I used.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=387834

MD_Willington
December 22, 2008, 09:19 PM
milk jugs at 200 feet, always hit them... I haven't had time to try it at 100m, but I have found a private range in Idaho to do so.

d2wing
December 22, 2008, 09:27 PM
The Isrealis tried to make the AK into a somewhat accurate rifle called the Galil. From what I heard it helped, but still could not compete with an AR.
After owning several, I'd say hitting a man size target in the heart/lung area at one hundred yards is pretty optimistic. At 200 yards or more it is very
unlikely. From a bench on a good day 6 MOA is very good. They are intended for mass fire. I have one in the closet along with a12 ga pump. Useful yes,
accurate no.

wally
December 22, 2008, 09:48 PM
Personally I'll believe the 2 MOA AK when I see it. 4-8" at 100 yards is a realistic expectation for 10 shot groups off sandbags with optics or good, young eyes.

The "Acceptance Certificate" that came with my Saiga 7.62x39 said it did 86mm at 100 meters for four shot extreme spread. That's a bit over 3 MOA, but it opens up more if you shoot 10 shot groups. This is my best shooting AK, but my worst will put 10 shots into 8" pretty much every time.

IMHO anything less than a 10 shot group is statistically not valid, three shot groups lead to a lot of unreasonable claims, especially after "flyer's" have not been included.

I'm with MD Willington here, two liter bottles at 50 yards is is a very fun afternoon with the AK. I start them at about 25 yards and dance them down range until they fly over the backstop at about 75 yards. Hitting low right at the dirt under the bottle launches it spectacularly up in the air -- very visually appealing and its fun to try and launch it again as soon as it lands. Unfortunately can't do this at most normal rifle ranges, but when I go out to my friends ranch in Columbus we have a ball with it.

I'd say hitting a man size target in the heart/lung area at one hundred yards is pretty optimistic. At 200 yards or more it is very unlikely. From a bench on a good day 6 MOA is very good

Hmm... 6MOA is about 6" at 100 meters and should be effective at torso sized targets out to 250m if the fool is standing still :)
My AK groups are pretty much always opened up more vertically than horizontally.

--wally.

lionking
December 22, 2008, 10:00 PM
Wally I had such diifferent results with the ammo I tested that I am thinking of trying it again with ten shot groups.Higher priced ammo does seem to have a effect on accuracy.

Coronach
December 22, 2008, 10:36 PM
AK accuracy:

SAR-1: good for 3 MOA

Vepr: good for <2 MOA

The biggest impediment to practical accuracy in an AK is, IMO, the iron sight system.

Mike

woodfiend
December 22, 2008, 11:00 PM
I was able to hit a piece of printer paper standing unsupported at 100 yards with my WASR 10. Not too hard, and I could easily make body hits fairly rapidly with it at that range as well. Do you have one of those slant muzzle brakes? Because I found that it actually does help with muzzle rise.

gotmine
December 22, 2008, 11:12 PM
I'm satisfied with all of mine as far as accuracy...a couple shoot very tight by AK standards, but.....my skills sometimes vary from day to day. There's Russian, Bulgarian, Yugo, Hungarian, & Romanian in the lot with no variance in performance...They all do what they're designed to do well. If I needed to dot the I's from 100m out then I believe I'd have an AR platform.

schadenfreude
December 22, 2008, 11:31 PM
I had never shot a rifle prior to converting my saiga. We went out and I paced off 75 yards which was the limit of the spot we were in. I put nearly every round of a 30 round mag on a 12 inch target. Iron sights and standing. I think 26 rnds first go.

TexasRifleman
December 22, 2008, 11:51 PM
AKs can have problems that prevent them form seeing even 6MOA accuracy: loose parts, damaged crowns, and bad ammo can all take their toll.


My WASR-10 fits in this range here, 6-8 MOA regardless of the ammo I feed it.

This down from 10MOA after some work.

jpwilly
December 23, 2008, 12:21 AM
I really have no idea because I've never shot my AKM for groups! But I am courious to find out what it will do.

Ohio Gun Guy
December 23, 2008, 12:27 AM
Instead of sights mine just says, "This side toward enemy"

Is that bad? ;)

grimjaw
December 23, 2008, 12:28 AM
With a SAR1 and standard irons, at best I was able to get about 4-5 MOA out of it at 100 yards. That's from a bench and on a target large enough to make using the standard irons easier (i.e. a large round bullseye). With a magnified optic or red dot, I was able to do 4-5 MOA more consistently, but that's about it.

With the Arsenal Inc SAM5 and a red dot, it got a little better, but again we're not talking MOA at 100 yards.

jm

Geneseo1911
December 23, 2008, 12:29 AM
Instead of sights mine just says, "This side toward enemy"

Funniest thing I've read this week. That kind of stuff is what keeps me coming back. Well Done Sir.

ZombiesAhead
December 23, 2008, 01:46 AM
Great advice guys - I don't ever claim to be a REAL SHOOTER. I want to go to the next NE Ohio Appleseed and really learn to be a rifleman but I grew up in a liberal family in Boston, MA and while I have always loved militaria, I have only now had the freedom (age 24 now) to really work on my technical firearms skills.

I know my skills are poor. Most of what I describe is semi-rapid fire (1-1.5 seconds between shots). I do better with the AR when I take more time but it seems like the AK sights hold me back no matter how hard I wait and try.

Anyway, I will continue to watch this thread and take your suggestions into account.

If only I could really get a short mag, sandbag my WASR, and figure out what it was capable of then I would love to aspire to be as good as the gun itself. I in no way mean to blame the technology over my skills.

jpwilly
December 23, 2008, 01:57 AM
IMO the AK needs a good muzzle brake to perform well. The slant brakes most of them come with do very little. The AK-74 style brakes are very effective! Next the sights SUCK. Get a good red dot or holographic. Also a better trigger is needed IMO. With those three items and provided you have a stock that fits you well the AK can keep up with AR's in the speed department anyway.

Gun Wielding Maniac
December 23, 2008, 04:20 AM
Personally I'll believe the 2 MOA AK when I see it. 4-8" at 100 yards is a realistic expectation for 10 shot groups off sandbags with optics or good, young eyes.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=409217

http://www.gunco.net/gallery/watermark.php?file=15118&size=1
http://www.gunco.net/gallery/watermark.php?file=15117&size=1
http://www.gunco.net/gallery/watermark.php?file=15116&size=1

armoredman
December 23, 2008, 06:17 AM
Well, the WASR-10 we have is definately not an real long range rifle. Last time I had it out it was 5 inches at 50 yards, and not really on paper at 100. That was quite some time ago, should revisit since we had the sights redone. Just haven't had the time.
As for the accuracy of the round itself...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/vZ58target2.jpg

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/vZ58target1.jpg

Only 50 yards, but not to shabby, seated, not benched, this rifle.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/vZ58openbox2.jpg

stubbicatt
December 23, 2008, 09:16 AM
I bought one of those Century Yugo Rifles which we took up to a friend's place and shot at a yellow gallon sized tide bottle at 300 yards and we riddled that thing. I reckon it is a bit larger than a human head. There were a few misses, but they were close.

Shot from kneeling position, which works for me as a great field position for this sort of thing.

-- My companion that day is a former Marine cannon cocker. Dude can shoot just about anything well.

benEzra
December 23, 2008, 10:13 AM
SAR-1, Wolf, 50 yards, 1x optic, messing around from a braced position but without a whole lot of care:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=87770&stc=1&d=1226788563

The third shot was just off the card, to the left. I want to get back to the range this weekend and shoot some 10-shot groups at playing cards; I think keeping all 10 on the card at 50 is doable.

At 20 yards, you should have no trouble keeping an entire magazine on a playing card, offhand.

Having said that, there is a learning curve. AK's balance differently than bolt-actions, the trigger is different, and the sights are MUCH different (more like pistol sights, unless you shoot lever-actions a lot). AK's are easy rifles to shoot badly.

Just as with a pistol, focus hard on the front sight, breathe in and let the breath halfway out, hold it, and squeeze the trigger slowly until the shot takes you by surprise (don't hold your breath too long; stop and take another breath if you need to). Hold the trigger back for a second before letting it reset. Don't rush the shots just because you don't have to cycle a bolt. Speed will come, but accuracy first. Take at least 5 seconds per shot, more if you need to; if you can't make yourself go slowly, load the chamber with one round at a time until you get the hang of it.

When shooting from the bench, if the rifle is wobbling, figure out a position in which you can hold it steady. If you don't have a good benchrest, shooting from prone or with your elbows braced against a bench works well.

Also, AK's don't typically benchrest as well as some rifles; the barrel/receiver vibration resulting from the heavy gas piston being blasted off the cantilevered gas block can make the rifle jump off a hard rest, resulting in much more scatter than you'd expect, and resting on the magazine is worst of all. I get best results from a bench shooting from a soft support placed as far back under the receiver as possible (i.e., just in front of the magazine), not under the handguard or barrel.

Coronach
December 23, 2008, 10:48 AM
AK's are easy rifles to shoot badly.Amen!

As I said earlier, the best single upgrade you can make to an AK is to put some sort of red dot on it, or to upgrade the iron sights. Next up would be the trigger.

You can certainly get very good with the AK as-issued, but it's easier to get good with it if you have a red dot and a decent trigger.

Mike

atlanticfire
December 23, 2008, 11:58 AM
Don't have a waser, but my Vector milled slr-100 with junk wolf ammo is about 2 moa from a bench at 100. Through a scope I might add. Also the JLD breaks are good to but a little expensive.

ZombiesAhead
December 25, 2008, 05:17 AM
Interesting thoughts. I purchased the WASR as my first rifle ever and intended to "get good" with iron sights. I was sorely disappointed although I still do not want to sit around and blame my gear.

1. Iron sight upgrade done to Belorussian PK-AS side-mount red dot. It is hard to tell if it is properly zeroed at 100 yards - possibly due to an inconsistent rifle or my own incapability. I realize I need low-cap mags and some sandbags to do this right. I had already painted the irons and filed out the rear notch slightly.

2. What sort of trigger upgrade should I perform? I've heard some say that their CAI WASRs came with "Tapco"-marked trigger assemblies but mine does not say this. Still, I have no problems with "trigger slap" as I've heard it described.

3. I have the standard slant-style muzzle brake. Worth changing out? Any other ways to reduce the massive vibration/slamming of the piston that requires me to spend so much time between shots regaining a sight picture?

Tonight I took the rifle apart and did some minimal cleaning but mainly used a flashlight to look at the chamber, barrel/rifling, and crown to inspect for damage. While I am not expert, the rifling seemed consistent, the chrome looked smooth, and when I removed the brake the crown seemed fine all the way around. Could an amateur/novice to gunsmithing tell if something was amiss with these parts?

I also replaced the wire side-folder I recently added with the original wood stock - thought I had not shot it yet with the folder I figured the wood could only help me. I know the problem is more likely with the shooter than the rifle but I really would like to practice and be able to get something like 8 MOA consistently from a steady-sling or prone position using my stockpile of steel-case Wolf ammunition.

MD_Willington
December 25, 2008, 03:38 PM
RE: Galil, why would Israelis waste time and money on machining a modified Valmet when Uncle Sam was handing out AR's??

Makes more sense to go with the freebie now doesn't it.

Coronach
December 25, 2008, 04:47 PM
It does, but only if the capabilities are similar. While I profess no special knowledge of Israeli procurement practices, my feel is that they will accept the bargain when it is not a step down, but will stubbornly do their own thing if they think that the end product will better serve their purposes. You can see this in their armor development and their SAM missile systems, for example.

For instance, if the M16/M4 family is so cheap for them (and it is), why are they going their own way once again with the Tavor? Similarly, if the Galil was significantly better, I couldn't see them tossing all of them to take on the M16 series, no matter what the price was.

Mike

Girodin
December 25, 2008, 05:07 PM
After owning several, I'd say hitting a man size target in the heart/lung area at one hundred yards is pretty optimistic. At 200 yards or more it is very
unlikely.

Are you serious? I have a few and I can hit there on silhouettes and head shots at 100 yards off hand with ease. I dont think I am a particularly great shot or that the above is an impressive feat. The people who have shot with me do the same . if I couldn't hit the vitals of a man sized target at 100 yards I would either learn to shoot or toss the rifle incapable of it in the trash. really that is a pretty low standard for accuracy.

As for comparing AKs to ARs. It seems people often compare wars 10s to heavy barrel ARs sporting scopes. They are of course two different beasts. I contend that shooting from field positions inside 200 yds with similar optics (red dot) or open sights I shoot about the same with my saigas as with an AR or any of the other rifles I shoot. There are some differences in ergos etc but in terms of mechanical accuracy if i am not shooting of of rests and or a bench any differences dont seem to show up.

Deer Hunter
December 25, 2008, 05:32 PM
4 MOA with irons out of my Saiga .223.

About the same as my AR.

wyocarp
December 25, 2008, 06:19 PM
Well, I've never taken any of my aks to the range. I didn't know that was what they were for. I do take them out shooting gophers and rabbits (antelope this past year with open sights). If you are either of those two creatures, you are in trouble. I typically use aimpoints on them currently, but even with open sights, gophers weren't safe out to maybe 70 yards.

That's plenty accurate enough. At least they fire when I pull the trigger. I can't say that for the AR. The last time out, on top of other issues, I fired at least a dozen rounds out of the ak that the ar wouldn't fire.

JImbothefiveth
December 25, 2008, 06:49 PM
First of all,shooting offhand or sitting is not a good way to test the accuracy of a rifle, and prone probably isn't much better. Try resting the barrel of a gun on a cardboard box.

Now, if you want to improve your shooting skills, get a .22 rifle, so you
can practice a lot. You might even wish to get an air rifle so you can practice in your house, but be advised that they fire lead pellets, so you might not want to shoot them in the house. BB and airsoft guns don't fire lead, but might not be accurate enough.

If you don't get the air or .22 rifle, or get a semi-auto one, focus on making each shot count. WHen I first got a semi-auto, I had problems with this too, I would fire off a shot before I really got on target. If you concentrate, you can solve this.




At 20 yards, you should have no trouble keeping an entire magazine on a playing card, offhand.
I'm not sure that's true for a new shooter.

benEzra
December 27, 2008, 12:58 AM
At 20 yards, you should have no trouble keeping an entire magazine on a playing card, offhand.
I'm not sure that's true for a new shooter.
Quite true. I probably should have made it clear. The platform is capable of delivering that accuracy, if you work on your skills to be able to take advantage of it.

Big Bill
December 27, 2008, 02:52 AM
The simple answer to the question of this thread is that the AK was/is first and foremost a machine gun. And, that's why it's such a lousy semi-auto rifle. However, AR15 by design is first and foremost a semi-auto rifle then a machine gun. And, that's why the AR15 is a better battle rifle. It's more controllable and accurate out to 400 yards.

Dr.Rob
December 27, 2008, 04:53 AM
Think the real point of the thread is to TRY shooting your AK like a hunting rifle instead of a bullet hose and seeing how well you can make it shoot.

anymanusa
December 27, 2008, 05:23 AM
Iron sights my 74 does about a 'pieplate' of accuracy at 100 yds.

outerlimit
December 27, 2008, 06:04 AM
I've never owned a WASR, which is the chop shop version of the SAR-1. But I have owned an SAR-1 and the words 'accuracy' and 'SAR-1' do not belong in the same sentence. It had about the accuracy of a smooth-bore musket and made a Mini-14 look good.

Deer Hunter
December 27, 2008, 10:34 AM
The point of this thread?

AKs shoot better than their owners.

Rangegod
December 27, 2008, 11:07 AM
Two 5 shot groups off sand bag at 100 yards with 50 something year old eyes. Gun = 7.62X39 VEPR II, Ammo = Wolf FMJ

Target on left open (iron) sights. Right Kobra red dot (1 MOA dot, no magnification)

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=89895&stc=1&d=1230390295

JAC

FMJMIKE
December 27, 2008, 08:49 PM
I can fairly regularly break clay pidgeons at 100 yards with open sights. My rifle is a Sar-1 with Wolf ammo. This is shooting with elbows rested on a table. Not super but good enough to discourage any "problems" of the two legged variety......:D

MTMilitiaman
December 27, 2008, 09:58 PM
If the AK is throwing you around that much and you are having that much trouble keeping the rifle on target and achieving consistent hits with it, then stance and fundamental marksmanship are your problems. I don't see how there is any way this can be argued.

The AK is not a varmint or target rifle by an stretch of the imagination. But it is accurate enough to reliably put rounds on a human torso sized target out to 200+ yards with any decently accurate Commie pulling the trigger.

With the PK-AS on my WASR, or the Kobra that is on it now, I can take a supported knee position and keep at least 20 out of 30 inside a 16x32 inch cardboard torso-head target at 200 yards firing all 30 rounds in under 45 seconds. That's out of practice--and I don't claim to be God's gift to the rifle either.

From a bench, both this family's WASRs consistently do 4 to 5 MOA at 100 yards with Wolf black box. This isn't much worse than the 3 to 4 MOA my uncle's MAK-90 manages.

Typical 3-round group with Wolf MC JHPs @ 100 yards, prone, slowfire, now that I have the Kobra sighted in:

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l308/MTMilitiaman/Guns/Randomstuff014.jpg

Target that came with my WASR, back when it had wood furniture, standard irons, and the crappy Century trigger with horrendous trigger slap:
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l308/MTMilitiaman/Guns/AKwithcalipers.jpg

As with most things, I find that most people who can't hit anything with the AK can't really hit much with anything else either. Therefore, I am calling Indian, not arrow on this one.

Deer Hunter
December 27, 2008, 11:33 PM
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x91/Captain_Kennedy/P7140088.jpg

4x POSP scope, fairly rapid pace, 100 yards with Brown Bear .223 from my Saiga.

As honest as it gets.

lionking
January 4, 2009, 07:14 PM
OK did another test today,did better than last time,may be that now that I have fired the rifle more recent I am coming more acustom to it.Last time the results were more spread.Barnaul and Golden Bear did better today than last time.Rifle was rested and shouldered using the stock iron sights.

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa45/lionking_rocks/romaniam%20sar1/015-1.jpg
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa45/lionking_rocks/romaniam%20sar1/013.jpg
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa45/lionking_rocks/romaniam%20sar1/012.jpg

lionking
January 11, 2009, 07:41 PM
Results from testing a SAR2 in 5.45mm.Wolf black box shot good (surprisingly)Golden Tiger shot decent while the Wolf military classic was all over the place.

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa45/lionking_rocks/romanian%20sar2/014.jpg
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa45/lionking_rocks/romanian%20sar2/007.jpg

ZombiesAhead
January 11, 2009, 07:49 PM
These are great images. If good shooters find a WASR's 8"-10" group with Wolf at 100 yards acceptable then I'm pretty happy that I can do 12"-14" with my poor marksmanship.

BeltfedMG
January 11, 2009, 08:12 PM
I hit sewer lids at 365 yrds 27 out of 30 shots

Hit shilloutes at 400 about the same. All with open sights and its a SAR 2.

jgatsios
January 11, 2009, 08:58 PM
3MOA with an Arsenal SAM7-S with open sights. Could get even better with a scope. Arsenal is worth every penney.

Can't wait for Tech-Sight's AH peep sight to arrive....

gsx1138
January 11, 2009, 09:25 PM
I can get all my shots on a man sized target at 150 yds with open sights. That is semi rapid fire as well. While I don't think that's very good because the shots are all over the target, it's good enough for me.

AK103K
January 11, 2009, 11:14 PM
If good shooters find a WASR's 8"-10" group with Wolf at 100 yards acceptable
Its not. Any of them should be capable of 3-4" groups at 100 yards with ammo they like. All my AK's shoot about the same, regardless of cost or who made them. The least accurate guns I've owned were the ones assembled here from kits, and they cost more than my SAR's and WASR's. Guns originally assembled and whose receivers were barreled in the foreign factories that made them have always been the best shooters for me.


I shot this at 200 yards with a fairly early SAR1 using its stock iron sights and Wolf 154 grain SP's. The sights have a slight cant to boot. The lower group was from a rest to confirm zero, the upper from a cross legged sitting at a steady cadence.

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47b7d700b3127ccec27ff9e8590e00000010O00CYuWbdo5bsQe3nwk/cC/f%3D0/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D550/ry%3D400/

This one was shot at 100 yards using a Krebs AK103K with an Ultimak/Aimpoint combo and Barnaul 125 grain SP's.. Again, cross legged sitting.

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47b7d700b3127ccec27fd338d8fb00000010O00CYuWbdo5bsQe3nwk/cC/f%3D0/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D550/ry%3D400/

Same gun and range, slow fire offhand

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47b7d700b3127ccec27fedffd82300000010O00CYuWbdo5bsQe3nwk/cC/f%3D0/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D550/ry%3D400/

These were 2 second snap shots from a low ready at 50(R) and 100(L) again with the Ultimak/Aimpoint.

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47b7d700b3127ccec27ec09a39b400000010O00CYuWbdo5bsQe3nwk/cC/f%3D0/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D550/ry%3D400/

If you can shoot, the AK will not generally be a problem. All of mine with red dots mounted have shot pretty much the same as my AR's with red dots on them. The groups on the targets look very similar, especially when shooting targets with no aiming points.

Ammo can have a big impact. Wolf has historically been hit or miss, sometimes its great, other times, its terrible. The old Barnaul 125 grain SP's have been the best in my experience. Its got bullets with a jacketed base (like most higher end ammo), and has always been very consistent. The Wolf I've pulled has a rolled crimp base, like most military type ball, but some has smears across the base, where others are clean. Those "smears" are not good for accuracy. I've reloaded "surplus" USGI 147 grain .308 bullets that looked similar (with the smear), and would not shoot less than 10" groups at 100 yards.


The two biggest internet fallacies are, the AK is inaccurate, and the AR is unreliable. The truth is, in both cases, its usually the shooter and owner who is lacking.

ZombiesAhead
January 12, 2009, 12:41 AM
Well, so far I've been shooting a mix of Wolf MC and Wolf Black Box accumulated over a few years. All I have is ammo cans full of loose Wolf - some grey and some green. I'm sure better ammunition would help but I'm also probably not a great rifleman seeing as I've tried to lean to shoot on my own using this AK.

Mike U.
January 13, 2009, 04:29 PM
AK103K wrote:

The two biggest internet fallacies are, the AK is inaccurate, and the AR is unreliable. The truth is, in both cases, its usually the shooter and owner who is lacking.


This is so very true, it should be gospel. Well said.

SN13
January 13, 2009, 05:16 PM
My 7.62x39, .308, and .30-06 Saigas all shoot 2" or less.

I've gotten multiple Sub-1.5" groups of 5 shots with Federal Match 168 and 175gr .308.

My best 3 shot group was .42" Too bad it ended up as a 5 shot group. (http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30865&view=findpost&p=291959)

rich636
January 13, 2009, 06:55 PM
Minute of chest with my SAR-1 and wolf ammo.

benEzra
January 13, 2009, 09:00 PM
I'm also probably not a great rifleman seeing as I've tried to lean to shoot on my own using this AK.
Self-taught shooters can be/become very good shooters.

Some good tips are here:

http://www.snipercountry.com/mark1.htm

And some personal AK-specific observations (from upthread):

Just as with a pistol, focus hard on the front sight, breathe in and let the breath halfway out, hold it, and squeeze the trigger slowly until the shot takes you by surprise (don't hold your breath too long; stop and take another breath if you need to). Hold the trigger back for a second before letting it reset. Don't rush the shots just because you don't have to cycle a bolt. Speed will come, but accuracy first. Take at least 5 seconds per shot, more if you need to; if you can't make yourself go slowly, load the chamber with one round at a time until you get the hang of it.

When shooting from the bench, if the rifle is wobbling, figure out a position in which you can hold it steady. If you don't have a good benchrest, shooting from prone or with your elbows braced against a bench works well.

Also, AK's don't typically benchrest as well as some rifles; the barrel/receiver vibration resulting from the heavy gas piston being blasted off the cantilevered gas block can make the rifle jump off a hard rest, resulting in much more scatter than you'd expect, and resting on the magazine is worst of all. I get best results from a bench shooting from a soft support placed as far back under the receiver as possible (i.e., just in front of the magazine), not under the handguard or barrel.

If you have trouble shooting from a prone position using a 30-round magazine, you might want to pick up a 20-rounder at some point. They don't get in the way nearly so much when prone.

mudriver
January 13, 2009, 09:39 PM
Did a quick test of accuracy and my SKS did about 2.8" at 100 with Wolf and my Saiga .223 did 4" at 100. I can usually cut groups in half with handloads, so that would put it close to what most of the AR's I see will do.

CTW
January 13, 2009, 10:02 PM
We have an 18" steel plate hanging from a chain at 100 yards at my range and I can usually hit it every shot with my WASR 10. Not a target rifle by any means, but she will do what she was built to do.

jpwilly
January 13, 2009, 10:10 PM
There you have it...some groups are mearly inches others, well, you'll need a yard stick!

lionking
January 13, 2009, 10:22 PM
Im sorry but claims that a AK style rifle should normally shoot 3 inch groups (or less lol) and if it doesn't it is the shooters fault I don't buy that.I won't claim to be a expert marksman but having used 3 AK's with different ammo if a AK does 3 inch or less consistantly than it is a special AK with special ammo.I would believe it was me messing up shooting a AK if I sucked shooting other rifles to and I don't.

Go with whatever,but having tried out a test I know what I know as too what a normal AK with normal ammo can do when Im using it and I can tell you it isn't as accurate as many other types of military rifles that I own and have shot.


A run of the mill AK is what it is,a worthy reliable combat rifle that will probably bring down a person or game at reasonable range if a aimed shot is used but it isn't a 2 or 3 MOA rifle at least not with iron sights.

helz_mcfugly
January 13, 2009, 10:32 PM
I use to shoot at the 50 yard range with mine and I had a 9x scope on it and would get 3" to 4" groups. at 100 yard 5" to 6". funny story. I was at the range a couple months back and this guy starts telling me his story about how he builds all his Ak47's and Ak74's and what they were and what they shot and that his were some of the most accurate of AK's far better then any off the shelf AK. I didnt wanna get to close to him cuz I might have stepped on his ego. so after he tells me how good of an AK builder he was for about 20 minutes I say good talkin to ya and we return to our stations on the 100 yard range. I was shooting an AR and had a 24x scope. he was about 4 seats down from me so I figured Ide watch what his AK's can do. He started firing iron sights about a shot a second and emptied about 3 30 round mags at a round target that saw about 24"tall and 16" wide. after he had done that he stuck in another 30 rounds and fired a little slower, he didnt have a spotter scope so he didnt know how he was doing, but I did, he hit the paper twice out of all that shooting. once on the edge of the paper and once on the target. I got a laugh out of it and went about what I was doing. I cant say he lied to me about his being more accurate, maybe someone else tested them,lol it was a good laugh, though I would share. I do miss my AK and will prolly grab another one day if come upon one for a good price when I have some cash burning my pocket.

lionking
January 13, 2009, 10:41 PM
for claims that a AK style and AR-15/M4 are close in normal accuracy I can't agree with.My experience shooting a H-Bar,a friends Bushmaster Dissapator and this Bushmaster M4 in the photo tells me a different thing when in my hands.Now with the large aperature on a AR-15 yes groups haven't been stellar when I shot but with the small aperature I usually get a nice tight pattern when I concentrate on shooting skills save the occassional flyer *cough*


http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa45/lionking_rocks/ar/009.jpg

helz_mcfugly
January 13, 2009, 11:01 PM
when it comes to accuracy the AR is far superior, when it comes to power and reliability in dirty combat environments the AK is superior. kinda like compairing a corvette and a hum-v. corvette, fast, clean and grabs the pavement, hum-v, tough, durable, and can climb mountains.

benEzra
January 13, 2009, 11:56 PM
A run of the mill AK is what it is,a worthy reliable combat rifle that will probably bring down a person or game at reasonable range if a aimed shot is used but it isn't a 2 or 3 MOA rifle at least not with iron sights.

for claims that a AK style and AR-15/M4 are close in normal accuracy I can't agree with.My experience shooting a H-Bar,a friends Bushmaster Dissapator and this Bushmaster M4 in the photo tells me a different thing when in my hands.Now with the large aperature on a AR-15 yes groups haven't been stellar when I shot but with the small aperature I usually get a nice tight pattern when I concentrate on shooting skills save the occassional flyer *cough*
Looking back over the thread, I think most of us who are saying the platform is capable of 3-4 MOA or better are using optics or improved sights. Using an optic on the AK will help greatly with the sighting issue. I run a Kobra optic on mine (1.8 MOA dot, plus other reticles), and my iron sights are strictly BUIS.

You are not the only shooter who has trouble with the Russian style factory irons; as I mentioned upthread, these are easy rifles to shoot badly, and the sights get a lot of the credit for that. That does not mean the rifle is mechanically as inaccurate as it's often claimed to be, though. The AR has an accuracy edge and somewhat greater effective range, yes, but the AK is far more than a 100-yard gun, and 300 yard hits are doable with an optic and halfway decent Wolf.

FWIW, on a defensive carbine, I would definitely want an optic or luminous sights anyway. Iron sights are pretty much useless in low light, in my experience.

Eagles6
January 15, 2009, 02:19 AM
I used to get 2" groups at 100 yds with my sar-1, open sights or red dot. After about 10,000 rds and no feelable rifling in the last inch of the barrel I can still get 3-4 in groups.

Matrix187
January 15, 2009, 12:56 PM
I have a Romy G kit build, made my lancaster. Great rifle, but I need to test my accuracy with it here soon. I'll get back to this thread later.

MT GUNNY
January 15, 2009, 03:26 PM
I watch something Earlier today about the Israeli Galii bing more accurate Because the Rear sight was moved back on the cover closer to the Eye. It was also a Aperture rear sight instead of standard AK rear.

d2wing
January 15, 2009, 05:05 PM
:rolleyes: It seems the answer is yes and no and it depends, kinda like Bill Clinton not having sex with that girl.

punkndisorderly
January 15, 2009, 08:31 PM
I never had any luck with the Chinese AK I owned in the mid 90's. It had reciever cover with built in scope rings and a 3x9 noname scope. Has to be the worst way to mount a scope other than duct tape. You could actually move the scope around with your hand.

Took the scope off and tried iron sights and was no better. No one else could get a group better than 8" or so at 100m.

I ended up trading it in for a bushmaster AR and never looked back. My groups instantly shrunk to 3" at 100m with iron sights.

I did shoot an AK at the range lately (believe WASR) and was doing 2" at 50. Not sure how much of that was the rifle and how much of it was improvement on my part in the last decade. I will say that the trigger on that WASR was much better than I remember on an AK.

lionking
January 15, 2009, 08:57 PM
BebEzra I'll go with what you say,I haven't tried dot scopes and they may indeed enhance accuracy.My thoughts are for target shooting the front sight on typical Kalishnikov are too fat,a thinner one would make it easier to line up the bulls.But they weren't made to shoot targets,they were made to shoot in chaos so a fatter sight makes sense I guess.

But then again Mosin and SVT sights are about the same in style,yet they usually shoot better groups than a Kalishnikov but then a Dragunov is a AK style yet is more accurate than a AK in 7.62x39.I saw Krochus post his target with a AR-15 in 7.62x39 and it was a decent tight group so the cartridge seems to have the potential to do decent groupings.

It could be different factors that tends to make a AK do more spread out groupings certainly the front sight is one issue but it also could be the sight radius what do AK's have a 16" barrel usually?,and while I shoot one sometimes it could also be a rifle that one needs to shoot often to bring out the best it can do.Many have claimed the Saiga do better than average,maybe one day if I see a guy at the range with one I'll ask if I can shoot a couple tests with it at 100yds to see for myself.

Im no way out to dis a AK,I think they are great in their own right but putting them to a target trying to get groupings when someone says" my WASR" or just about any AK "will do 3" at 100yds consistantly" specially with iron sights they must have a real special AK

AK103K
January 15, 2009, 10:21 PM
From the standpoint of a target rifle, shooting at bullseye type targets, the AR with its target type aperture sights will usually shoot a tighter group than an AK. Theres no argument there.

Take the fixed aiming point away, and the groups between the two are very similar. Put a red dot on both, and again, the groups are also very similar.

One thing I've always found interesting about complaints about the AK's iron sights is, they are the same style/type sight as most of the older surplus military rifles, and most all US hunting rifles that most of us "old" boys learned to shoot on. If anything, the AK's sights are better than most of the hunting rifles. Yet, you hear all these complaints about how bad the AK's sights are to shoot with. Anyone want to explain that to me?

The 3-4" at 100 yards is nothing special, and as I said before, I have, and have had a number of different AK's, across the price ranges, from the lowly SAR's to the so called better quality guns, and 3-4" seems to be about average for me when the gun has decent ammo and is barreled in the country of origin. I have a Krebs Saiga conversion, which has a 14" barrel, and its the one that shot the 100 yard groups on those targets above. The head portion of those targets is 6" too by the way, so you have a better idea as to the size of those groups. Those groups were shot with a dot, the SAR's groups were with the issue iron sights, and that is a 200 yard target, so you do the math as far as MOA goes. I dont shoot bullseye targets, nor do I shoot from a bench, with either platform, and my AR targets, using either a dot or aperture and GI spec ammo, are again, very similar to my AK groups at the same distances.

Its not just the difference between AR and AK. These were shot with my SOCOM and one of my AK's at 100 yards. At this point, I dont remember which one was shot with which. Do you think it really matters?

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47b7d700b3127ccec27e7113f8cd00000020O00CYuWbdo5bsQe3nwk/cC/f%3D0/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D550/ry%3D400/


Ammo also has a lot to do with what your getting downrange. If your all worried about shooting little groups on paper, do you know what ammo your rifle likes? If so, and if its possible, when you find something it likes, do you buy us as much of that lot as you can when you do find it? This isnt just an AK problem, it goes for anything. My old MP5 would shoot 12" groups at 100 yards with the old Norinco/China North bulk 9mm. Switch mags and put Federal 9BP in the gun, and the groups would shrink to about 4" on the same target.



I think part of the problem here is, there are to many variables to really be objective about the whole thing. There are also a lot of unbalanced comparisons when the comparisons are done. To be fair, you have to make the comparisons at least the same sort of fruit. (gun and shooter)

I still stand by what I said earlier, its usually not the guns fault if you cant shoot it well.

If you've actually taken the time and effort to learn the rifle/platform, and know how it shoots, then you'll know whats reality and what isnt. Learning on one platform, and shooting it well doesnt mean your going to pick up something else and right away be an expert with it, just because you shoot the other gun well (do you shoot it well all the time too, or just that one time?). I hear this all the time about the AK's ergonomics and how its not possible to easily work one, or to shoot one well, due to one excuse or another, usually from someone whos whole experience with one was a couple of mags out of his cousin Billy Bobs AK off the back porch at the 4th of July. Yup, that boys got it all figured out. :rolleyes:

Believe it or dont, the AK and AR really aint all that far apart. Their human counterparts on the other hand........

lionking
January 15, 2009, 10:43 PM
good post AK103 and pictures speak more than words and your pics do speak.Obviously you are good with them (AK's).It is true that I pick different rifles to take to the range most of the time and dedicated shooting of a AK might bring the shooter (me) better results.

True that ammo has a bearing,the SAR2 certainly seemed to shoot better with Wolf black box than other brands when I tried it last weekend.

d2wing
January 16, 2009, 01:17 PM
It's not the ammo, the sights or the shooter, it is the gun. Ak's, SKS' are not very accurate. If you are getting similar groups to an AR you have a problem and it's not with a gun.:scrutiny:

AK103K
January 16, 2009, 03:33 PM
And what are you basing that statement on? Just for curiosity sake.

Marcus5aurelius
January 16, 2009, 05:34 PM
There is nothing wrong with the AK's design for accuracy. Its only the fact that most people dont add scopes and bipods to a "short range" rifle like the AK. First time ever shooting I took it to the range and standing I hit the target everytime at 50yrds. The previous owner shoots competition and he said 2.5in-3in at 100yrds was average. Unless you have access to the longer distance ranges out west it doesn't matter all that much, it hits the paper, its most likely your aim so dont blame the gun :neener:

carbine85
January 16, 2009, 06:53 PM
I can honestly say my Mac90 sucks big time. 6-8 at 100 yards and a man sized target @ 200. It's probably the worst of any rifle I own including M1 carbines.

gbran
January 16, 2009, 07:10 PM
It's not the ammo, the sights or the shooter, it is the gun. Ak's, SKS' are not very accurate.

Add my Ruger Mini 30 to your list. Not very accurate, but probably a good manstopper. Shooting torso's doesn't require a tack driver.

d2wing
January 16, 2009, 08:47 PM
I like the guns, it's blaming the shooter that bothers me. While it's possible to get decent groups with an AK, to say that it's the shooters fault if his groups don't compare to those with an AR, is just not true. :banghead:

AK103K
January 16, 2009, 09:44 PM
I like the guns, it's blaming the shooter that bothers me.
Why should the truth bother you? The person shooting the gun is almost always the weakest link in the whole equation, and more often than not, cant shoot up to the guns capabilities, even those of the AK or SKS.

While it's possible to get decent groups with an AK, to say that it's the shooters fault if his groups don't compare to those with an AR, is just not true.
Whose fault is it then?

d2wing
January 16, 2009, 10:07 PM
Your's I guess because you're the one trying to bs everybody. I doubt many experienced shooters will get as good a group with a AK as an AR or even close. That's common knowledge.

SlamFire1
January 16, 2009, 10:11 PM
50 yards, using a Bench as support, with a WASR.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Targets/WASR1050yards.jpg


50 yards, 10 shots, prone with a sling, with a .22LR.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Targets/Rem40-X50yards.jpg

At 100 yards, the .22LR still groups better than the WASR.

AK103K
January 16, 2009, 10:38 PM
Your's I guess because you're the one trying to bs everybody.
I'm not trying to BS anyone. I own a number of both type rifles and shoot them on a regular basis. How about you?

I doubt many experienced shooters will get as good a group with a AK as an AR or even close. That's common knowledge.
Common actual shooting knowledge, or common I heard knowledge?

If I substituted my SP1, Bushmaster, or Armalite M15A4(C) for the AK's used in shooting the targets in the above pics, the groups would be very similar. I know this because I shoot them the same way, and get the same basic results.


If you choose to believe that AK's in general are inaccurate, hey, knock yourself out. I know for a fact that its an untrue statement, and I just get annoyed at people when they just keep blurting out the same old tired crap. Next thing you'll tell me is, the AK's stock is to short and the controls are unusable. Or do you want to save that for another thread?

SlamFire1
January 17, 2009, 08:16 PM
If you choose to believe that AK's in general are inaccurate, hey, knock yourself out

Ak's are fine as a battle rifle. I think it is the best battle rifle of the second half of the 20th Century. You can give it to any ignorant peasant and it will fire. That is good enough for draftees, and for a peacetime Army that does not practice shooting.

As much as I am proud of my marksmanship skills, talking to fellow highpower competitors who are combat vets, target accuracy is of little use in combat. They seldom saw an enemy, what was more important was putting a lot of fire on a tree line, hedgerow, and getting the enemy to keep his head down.

One Vietnam vet, I asked him how he sighted in his M14 before helicopter deployments. He said if he could hit a 55 gallon drum at 50 yards, he considered his rifle sighted in!

He was incidentally a Master class shooter, he understood what rifle accuracy was, and the limits.

barnetmill
January 17, 2009, 09:07 PM
My romanian ak was tested at 100 feet of a sand bag. Using chinese ammo with slant muzzle flash hidder gave 5 rd group of 2 inches (6 " at 100 yrds); removal of slank break FH changes point of impact and reduced group size to 1 inch (3" at 100 yards). AK's can have accuracy equivalent to rack grade MI's if they are made right. Often the sights are loose and the flash hidders move about leading to inaccuracy. Of course it depends on the barrel. An AR with a good barrel and its superior sights will generally beat an AK off a range sand bag. For ranges under 100 yards I select the ak, for longer ranges a good M14. AKs are more reliable and used to be cheaper. The difference in price seems to be growing smaller.

Nautilus
January 22, 2009, 09:03 AM
Just an interesting thing to add to this thread...

I just got the March/April copy of rifle shooter magazine. There is a test of three AK's. All three of century's inexpensive models... The WASR-10, the GP1975 and the M70 underfolder. This is a real test done by an unbiased source... Groups were at 100 yards using open sights.

Accuracy results are the averages of three - five shot groups fired from a sandbag rest at 100 yards.

Romanian GP WASR-10
American Eagle FMJ: 5.61"
Winchester Super X SP: 3.01"
Wolf steel case FMJ: 6.93"

Century Arms GP 1975
American Eagle FMJ: 2.16"
Winchester Super X SP: 4.85"
Wolf steel case FMJ: 3.93"

Yugo M70 AB2
American Eagle FMJ: 1.36"
Winchester Super X SP: 1.82"
Wolf steel case FMJ: 2.82"

Not match grade, but also not exactly the minute of barn you hear some people complaining about.

I personally own a rather large collection of AK's.... and my experience is some what similar to those described above. I personally have not seen many sub-2" groups using iron sights at 100 yards, and the few that I have seen I've written off as luck because the normal grouping for me is 3"-6" depending on rifle and ammo. I have seen lots of sub 2" groups using quality ammo and an optic so I've always thought the limitation to my accuracy was my inability to use the iron sights, low quality ammunition and not the fault of the rifle due to the improved grouping when using an optic and quality ammo.

Although this thread originally was discussing real world accuracy of AK's... like all AK threads it has turned into a comparison between the AK & AR. In my experience... I've always been more accurate with an AR. Not the massive difference that many seem to post about, but my avg group size with an AK is 3-6" and my avg group size with my AR's is about 2-4". I mostly shoot cheap steel cased ammo out mf my AR's as well so it can't be blamed on ammo, so I have always just added it up to being a slightly more accurate rifle out of the box, with much better sights.

So in summary yes I believe the AR's are slightly more accurate, part of that i'm sure is the design of the rifle, but IMO a lot of that is the quality of the sights. But, in my experience AK's are reasonably accurate guns if you actually shoot for accuracy and are more than sufficient for a battle rifle, the problem in my opinion is a lack of ability with the AK's more crude sights and maybe the fact that because people don't expect much for accuracy out of an AK they never actually take the time to learn how to use the sights and improve their ability with the rifle.

BoltCollector
January 22, 2009, 10:29 AM
Gettin minute of beer can @ 100 yards (@ 3m.o.a) with my Romanian that looks like it was built by a 3 year old. Sometimes you get a shooter, sometimes you don't. Had a real nice AMD 65 that looked much better, but shot like crap.
TR

JImbothefiveth
January 22, 2009, 04:05 PM
Its not. Any of them should be capable of 3-4" groups at 100 yards with ammo they like
Keep in mind that shooting from a rest and shooting standing are not the same.

AK103K
January 22, 2009, 04:28 PM
Keep in mind that shooting from a rest and shooting standing are not the same.
If the gun is capable, then the rest falls squarely on the shooter. Dont you think? Just because I cant doesnt me you cant, and vice versa.

MTMilitiaman
January 22, 2009, 05:06 PM
Im sorry but claims that a AK style rifle should normally shoot 3 inch groups (or less lol) and if it doesn't it is the shooters fault I don't buy that.I won't claim to be a expert marksman but having used 3 AK's with different ammo if a AK does 3 inch or less consistantly than it is a special AK with special ammo.I would believe it was me messing up shooting a AK if I sucked shooting other rifles to and I don't.


I doubt many experienced shooters will get as good a group with a AK as an AR or even close. That's common knowledge.

At one point it was common knowledge that the earth was flat. So much for common knowledge.

I am convinced much of what is common knowledge is merely heresay passed around by people while playing Counterstrike.

"Ooo, I PWND you with the AK!"
"Yeah right, the AK could never make a headshot at that distance. It isn't accurate enough..."

Fact is, most shooters can't shoot well enough to shoot to the capabilities of the AK. These people will be the first to tell you how much the rifle's accuracy sucks, when in reality, these people have no business judging the accuracy of any rifle.

My brother and I each bought $279 WASR in Aug of 04, just in case the original AWB didn't sunset. The rifles were rough around the edges and required minor Dremeling in the magazine wells and such, but the sight blocks were, as near as we could tell, straight. The rifles were reliable, and when we did our part, it was obvious that they were more accurate than some might initially give them credit for. Each came with a signed 100 meter test target depicting a group less than 5 inches. This was with iron sights and the rifle's horindous trigger slap. Improving ergonomics and trigger pull is a simple task on the AK, and each rifle came with a side mount bracket for Russian optics. With the Kobra reflex sight on mine, it is truly capable of as much accuracy as most are capable of shooting with any rifle. Mine will consistently group 4 inches or less with Wolf MC, slowfire prone, at 100 yards. So will my brothers. My uncle has a stamped receiver MAK-90 that will do 3 to 4 inches with iron sights. That's 3 AKs, two of which are bottom of the barrel Century WASRs, and every one of them can group around 4 inches at 100 yards and keep 75%+ COM at 200 yards from field positions at a rapid pace--a feat we've accomplished on more than one occasion. So yes, I am inclined to believe that if someone can't hit what they are aiming at with an AK, it is the Indian not the arrow.

The fact is, wildly inaccurate AKs are about as common as abysmally unreliable ARs. They exist, but are the exception. Most AKs are accurate enough to put aimed fire COM out to at least 200 yards. And most ARs function fine with a little bit of cleaning. In terms of accuracy, the AR will probably always have an advantage, just like no modification done to an AR will ever make it as intrinsically reliable as an AK. But the practical differences between each in the field are not as large as some would have you believe.

d2wing
January 22, 2009, 05:44 PM
I should apologize as my opinion, based on my experience and many others that they were not capable of that level of accuracy, was refuted. Still not
very accurate but better than I thought. I have owned 5 AKs and SKS rifles of different types and all were pretty bad. Before you flame me as a bad shot I qualified as an expert in the service and am a certified instructor. I once shot 9 out of 10 shots into 1 hole with an M-14 in training at 25 meters. I did my part. Before you ask, I don't have a pic of it. Maybe I need to take my current AK (Saiga) to the range again.

lionking
January 22, 2009, 09:47 PM
MTmilitiaman,since you grabbed a quote of what I said,I mean with stock iron sights.They may indeed shoot better with dot scopes or scopes.

But ya know what,maybe I just suck shooting AK's.But my targets posted reflect what I came up with.So at the very least I know where I stand as far as shooting them.But I don't think the wide percentage of shooters even experienced ones will do 3inches all day long with one.Some of you might,most of us won't.Most of us will shoot better with other designs though.

AK103K
January 22, 2009, 10:52 PM
Let me ask those that dont think they will shoot that well, did you explore different brands and/or lots of ammo to see what the gun liked, and did you really give it a good try to see exactly how they shoot with each?

Or did you just grab whatever was available and not make out, and figure that thats the best you can expect with anything, so why bother, and declare the gun inaccurate?

Looking at Nautilus's posted results, there's a fair amount of difference between the different guns and the same ammo. This has been one of my points all along, if you have ammo the gun likes, it can and will shoot better than most expect, and often better than many seem to be able to shoot. If you never tried to figure out what works best, and then blame the gun as being inaccurate, your really not being fair in your assessment.

The biggest problem accuracy wise with the AK's and SKS's is usually the quality of the ammo. Wolf has generally been the most available, and unfortunately, the least consistent and accurate. Not that there arent good lots of it out there, I've got a couple of cases set aside that are very good, but in general, its usually been a 50/50 proposition. It also seems to have the highest rate of misfires. I usually get at least one or two out of a case, and often more.

Barnaul on the other hand, was almost always very good stuff, especially the 125 grain SP's. All my AK's seemed to like it and do well with it.

This isnt just an AK problem either, AR's or anything else can and do have the same issue. I have an AR that will literally put my reloads into one little hole when shot from prone off a bipod. Same gun, same time and conditions, switch the mag for USGI Lake City, and I'm lucky if I get 2" groups. So ammo is a real issue, no matter what your shooting.


Of course, all of the above is assuming you are a capable shooter yourself too.

czarjl
January 23, 2009, 11:07 AM
I have an SKS that more for fun than any serious shoot. I use cheap surplus ammo and so long as it goes bang and the bullet come out of the muzzle and goes some were in the relative area I was aiming I’m happy with it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Can we be honest about what kind of accuracy you are getting from your AKs (esp WASR)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!