What makes a Kalashnikov less accurate than its western counterparts?


PDA






Whats-his-name
May 30, 2009, 06:00 AM
Howdo,

This is more of a satisfy-my-curiosity thread than anything else.

It is generally well known that Kalshnikovs (and I include AK-47, AKM, and AK-74's) are less accurate than their western counterparts, e.g., M16, SA80, SIG550, etc.

This of course does not mean that the Kalashnikov is a lesser assault rifle (quite the opposite in fact) but it would be good to know what areas of Kalashnikov's design or build/production could be improved to improve accuracy without damaging its overall excellence as an assault rifle (i.e., without damaging its reliability).

(Please exclude any assessment of the kits available in the US).

Cheers,

If you enjoyed reading about "What makes a Kalashnikov less accurate than its western counterparts?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ChristopherG
May 30, 2009, 06:04 AM
One critical factor: Inferior Sights

scythefwd
May 30, 2009, 06:17 AM
Looser tolerances and fit of components on the Kalashnikovs compared to the AR-15s out there. That is the exact same reason the AK will fire with dirt in the action when an AR won't.

peyton
May 30, 2009, 06:28 AM
Inferior Sights, american soldiers trained with peep rear sight and front post protected by ears. Good sight alignment and sight picture is easy.
AK sights are similar to the K98 mauser variants, rear sight is a LONG way from eye. This long eye relief makes sight alignment and sight picture difficult. Good shooting rifle and it will kill anything it hits. US Army is provided marksmanship training and M16's to Iraqi army for use. The training is very sucessful.

Domino
May 30, 2009, 07:08 AM
Sights and ammo are usually going to be the BIGGEST factors in accuracy. If they put on some optics and use quality ammo, I estimate many of those guns to be capable of 2-4 MOA pretty easily.

Joe Demko
May 30, 2009, 07:38 AM
Tolerances are not loose in Soviet/Russian AK's. The design has greater clearances than the AR-series; but that is not the same thing.

Mr. Bojangles
May 30, 2009, 07:39 AM
I agree that the looser tolerances decrease accuracy but do improve reliability. I have two WASR 10/63s and both are dead-on reliable and are reasonably accurate with iron sights. They both rattle a little when I shake them too. :D

Communist millitary doctrine essentially was centered around arming virtually all of their respective population, many of whom would be poorly trained. The reliability of the AK-47 and the minimal maintenance requirements are well suited for this doctrine. A more complex and maintenance intensive firearm such as the M-16 would likely not receive proper maintenance and care by these poorly trained "people's soldiers."

HippieMagic
May 30, 2009, 07:50 AM
i always thought it was the way it flexes violently with recoil...

scythefwd
May 30, 2009, 07:57 AM
Joe,
I stand corrected. I associated the two in my mind even though I know they are two different things.

RatDrall
May 30, 2009, 07:59 AM
They're built with a lot of wiggle room (most rattle if you hold them up and shake) making them less accurate but more reliable.

My old Romanian SAR-1 would shoot into 3" at 100 yards, and never jammed. It was a perfect compromise, much better than an AR15 that shoots 1" at 100 yards but jams occasionally.

Joe Demko
May 30, 2009, 08:02 AM
Communist millitary doctrine essentially was centered around arming virtually all of their respective population, many of whom would be poorly trained. The reliability of the AK-47 and the minimal maintenance requirements are well suited for this doctrine.

Please provide a cite on this.

MrCleanOK
May 30, 2009, 08:52 AM
I think it's a combo of them being all wiggly-jiggly because of the clearance between parts, and terrible rifle sights on too short a sight radius with too much eye relief.

Yes, wiggly-jiggly is a real technical word.

H2O MAN
May 30, 2009, 08:59 AM
I guess I got lucky because my AKM is very accurate :)

SlamFire1
May 30, 2009, 09:06 AM
Let me ask this question: how much accuracy is enough?

At what distance do you expect the soldier to engage the enemy. Realistically, not movie stuff. Then what target size do you expect the guy to hit?

Most of the vets I have talked to from Iraq are engaging targets in rooms, and hardly anything past 200 yards. So what sort of accuracy do you need at this distance?

Most militaries came to the conclusion, after WWII, that soldiers would have a hard time seeing an enemy, never mind hitting the enemy, past 300 yards.

So what sort of accuracy do you need for a 300 yard engagement distance?

Then the tradeoff is, is accuracy more important than weapon reliability?

When you look at the trade off space, the AK does fine.

aka108
May 30, 2009, 09:09 AM
I think they were designed to be cheap and fast to produce, have 100% reliability with absolute minimum maintenance, simple enough to train a operator in 5 minutes and accurate enough to take down a man sized target at 300 yards. If you aim for the belt buckle you won't hit it but you will hit enough to take one person out of action.

SamG.
May 30, 2009, 09:11 AM
As someone above me said, crappy sights. Along with very loose tolerances and the bore not being made to the precise specs of what an American company would have made it by. All this combined adds up to nothing near that of an AR15 :D

H2O MAN
May 30, 2009, 09:13 AM
SlamFire1 Let me ask this question: how much accuracy is enough?

Good question.

My AKM is accurate enough that I decided that I didn't want or need an AR.

nalioth
May 30, 2009, 09:47 AM
I refute all of your "wiggly jiggly" claims.

How many of your bolts are "wiggly jiggly" when locked to the breech? That would be the only "wiggly jiggly" fitment that would effect accuracy.

Sights? The AK will put rounds on target where you want them, if you do your part.


The main reason that it's less accurate is the reciprocating (and heavy) gas piston/bolt carrier group and gas block.

The AR15/M16 can't be beat for accuracy, because for all intents and purposes, it's got a 'free floating' barrel.

Uncle Mike
May 30, 2009, 10:40 AM
Communist millitary doctrine essentially was centered around arming virtually all of their respective population, many of whom would be poorly trained. The reliability of the AK-47 and the minimal maintenance requirements are well suited for this doctrine. A more complex and maintenance intensive firearm such as the M-16 would likely not receive proper maintenance and care by these poorly trained "people's soldiers."

I think they were designed to be cheap and fast to produce, have 100% reliability with absoute minimum maintenance, simple enough to train a operator in 5 minutes and accurate enough to take down a man sized target at 300 yards. If you aim for the belt buckle you won't hit it but you will hit enough to take one person out of action.

think they were designed to be cheap and fast to produce, have 100% reliability with absoute minimum maintenance, simple enough to train a operator in 5 minutes and accurate enough to take down a man sized target at 300 yards. If you aim for the belt buckle you won't hit it but you will hit enough to take one person out of action.


I think all this pretty much sums it up.

From an engineering standpoint, all the above opinion and fact is correct.
Also the abutment type bolt of the AK, in contrast with the AR's rotary lug bolt/barrel lock-up, may have something to do with accuracy between these two rifles.

Also western battelfield doctrin seems to prove that expending massive quanities of ammunition in the direction of the enemy works for your cause.

You don't necessarily have to HIT/KILL the enemy, as long as you can keep his head down.

If you have ever been under fire during wartime conflict then you understand what I say.

Keeping the enemies head down through the continuous application of fire, while you maneuver works.:D

jpwilly
May 30, 2009, 11:21 AM
Mostly accurate rifles have three main things going for them, Shot to shot consistency, good triggers and good sights and let's not forget Good Ammo.

The AKM's receiver flexes when fired due to being made of thin sheet metal and from the large heavy bolt carrier gas piston slamming back and back into battery. This isn't good for "shot to shot" consistency.

The barrel isn't free floating or anything close.

The sites are a poor design IMO and have a much shorter sight radius.

The trigger on most models is long and gritty but can be cleaned up with a G2 or Red Star.

MOST AK's are feed crappy ammo like Wolf and Surplus.

The clearances are loose and help to make it one of the most reliable maint free designs in the world.

Most of these issues have been address in the AKM I ordered for myself. I beefed up the receiver to 1.6mm a milled receiver would have been even better. It has a G2 trigger from Tapco. It wears a red dot sight. It's been feed decent ammo and gets good much better groups than with Wolf...mainly do to fliers every 4 to 5 rounds with Wolf.

Ky Larry
May 30, 2009, 11:42 AM
Don't know this for a fact. I once heard the difference between Russian weapons and Weatern weapons is: We build Swiss watches. The Russians build sledge hammers. I take this to mean there is a difference in armament ideas. The Russians don't "gold plate" there weapons like we do. Each individual weapon won't be as well finished as ours but they can build 10 of them for the same price as one of ours. Does this sound correct?

ARNETT44
May 30, 2009, 11:43 AM
Look at the distance between the front and rear sights. Very short distance. And the distance from your eye to the rear sight.

maskedman504
May 30, 2009, 11:55 AM
The main reason that it's less accurate is the reciprocating (and heavy) gas piston/bolt carrier group and gas block.

The bolt also sits slightly off-ceenter and can cause noticeable barrel vibration when cycling.

xbox360
May 30, 2009, 12:00 PM
their built for reliability not so much on accuracy :(

SHvar
May 30, 2009, 12:03 PM
Years ago the AK was made in Russia and China for the equivalent of $15 each, they were made simply as an effective weapon for the untrained individual to make due with very little maintance.
Not that ARs jam if maintained, but in comparison with what an AK is capable of putting up with the AR will jam from being caked in mud or grit.
Others have already mentioned the other qualities which make it inaccurate, but the fact that the weapon is made cheap from stamped sheet metal and a few other parts, it has alot of movement throughout, and was never designed to engage man sized targets beyond 200 meters.
The AR/M16 was made to be used by trained professional soldiers with basic and advanced marksmanship training, and consistent follow-up training there after.
The average Russian infantry soldier (like all other Russian soldiers) recieves 2 weeks of hazing, and being made to clean his units baaracks, beat downs, and fires around 5-10 rds from his weapon, thats basic training to them. The average Russian soldier grows and farms his own food, and fires less rds in 5 years than the average American soldier fires in a day.
Simply put the weapon wasnt made for the soldier to outlast it, but another soldier could then pick it up and make use of it, later on you could then sell it as surplus to 3rd world countries as "functioning used" for more than what it cost to make them.

JShirley
May 30, 2009, 12:04 PM
their (sic) built for reliability not so much on accuracy

On what do you base this? Are you repeating the opinion of acknowledged subject matter experts (SMEs), or are you experienced enough to offer an educated opinion of your own?

Extensive shooting certainly is valuable, and leads to one having an informed opinion- what is your opinion based on?

John

HatFried
May 30, 2009, 12:07 PM
The bolt also sits slightly off-ceenter and can cause noticeable barrel vibration when cycling.

Not my video, but I found a high speed video of a guy shooting his WASR 10. I'm kind of curious as to whether the barrel flexing is a fault of the gun or the manufacturer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlJTleh2yes

jonc
May 30, 2009, 02:15 PM
Here is a quote from an interview with Mikhail Kalashnikov, he states "“I was in the hospital, and a soldier in the bed beside me asked: ‘Why do our soldiers have only one rifle for two or three of our men, when the Germans have automatics?’ So I designed one. I was a soldier, and I created a machine gun for a soldier. It was called an Avtomat Kalashnikova, the automatic weapon of Kalashnikov - AK - and it carried the date of its first manufacture, 1947.”
So What I get from that statement is that he designed a weapon that could throw down a lot of firepower and was quickly produced. Those seem to be his primary goals for the weapon as he didn't mention accuracy

Cannonball888
May 30, 2009, 02:24 PM
I refute all of your "wiggly jiggly" claims.

How many of your bolts are "wiggly jiggly" when locked to the breech? That would be the only "wiggly jiggly" fitment that would effect accuracy.

Ummm...no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0

benEzra
May 30, 2009, 02:35 PM
The factory slant brake common on 7.62x39mm models hurts accuracy, by yawing the bullet and inducing nutation as it exits the muzzle. Switching from a slant brake to a Phantom or Smith Vortex flash suppressor will generally improve accuracy.

Short sight radius. Adding an optic does wonders.

Huge gas piston, cantilevered gas block, and large mass of moving parts. When the bullet passes by the gas port and the big gas piston launches the heavy bolt carrier assembly, the barrel bending moment is significant (as seen in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlJTleh2yes)). The slant brake doesn't help. You end up with barrel vibrations that open groups up; the Ruger mini-14 has exactly the same issue. The barrel bending moment from the AR's direct-impingement system, by contrast, is negligible, so you end up with less muzzle whip.

Special care required to benchrest. All that barrel bending moment and barrel vibration will jump the rifle off of a rest if it's supported under the barrel or forward portion of the handguard. Shooting an AK from sandbags, the front bag needs to be as far back as possible, either under the front of the receiver or even under the front of the trigger guard, whatever works. But you need to float the barrel off the rest as much as possible.

Self-fulfilling expectations of low accuracy. Many shooters take an AK capable of 3-4 MOA, shoot 12 MOA with it, and blame the rifle. But because of their low accuracy expectations, they are ignoring the basics and not paying attention to breathing, jerking the trigger, and otherwise shooting poorly in ways that would guarantee 12 MOA out of any rifle.

Is a 7.62x39mm capable of the same level of accuracy as a typical civilian AR-15 flattop? No. But it is capable of accuracy comparable to the average .30-30 lever gun, which it also ballistically resembles.

BTW, most of the "wiggly jiggly" shown in the Discovery Channel video is a loose cleaning rod that looks to have been improperly installed. The other video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlJTleh2yes)shows the barrel flex better, but that is not due to loose parts; it is due to the immense forces generated by the gas system, transmitted to the barrel by the cantilevered gas block.

If I could wave a magic wand and banish the Discovery Channel M16-vs-AK clip to Oz, I would. The guy they have shooting the AK couldn't stay on a 200-yard target with an Anschutz bolt gun, if he shoots it as sloppily as he shoots the AK; he slaps the trigger like he's auditioning for a Three Stooges episode. A rack-grade AK should be capable of 8" groups at that range, but he can't even hit a big silhouette target 1 for 5. The commentary regarding the safety/selector is also a bit misinformed.

Uncle Mike
May 30, 2009, 02:49 PM
How many of your bolts are "wiggly jiggly" when locked to the breech? That would be the only "wiggly jiggly" fitment that would effect accura

Does the AK bolt 'lock' into it's receiver? ?? the barrel extension??

You know... it doesn't take a 20/20 visioned rocket physicist atom splittin' lab zombie to realize that the AK just ain't all that: It doesn't shoot accurately compaired to the AR, it's cheaply built although somewhat indestructable, it has a 'wiggly-jiggly' bolt (I really like that, I do!), crappy sights, too short a length of pull (by corn fed farm boy standard), it reeks of and oozes cosmoline, and it is just plain fugly...... But we all love em'! :D

RugerOldArmy
May 30, 2009, 02:57 PM
Quote:
their (sic) built for reliability not so much on accuracy

On what do you base this? Are you repeating the opinion of acknowledged subject matter experts (SMEs), or are you experienced enough to offer an educated opinion of your own?

Extensive shooting certainly is valuable, and leads to one having an informed opinion- what is your opinion based on?



John, such a response cuts both ways. Why criticize, what IMO is the general consensus, without stating your position? Clearly, if you refute that, which would strain credibility IMO, state your opinion and credentials.

You don't need to be an military expert or engineering whiz to recognize:


Stamped metal parts cant be made to, or maintain, the tolerances of machined barstock, investment casting, MIM, etc.

A key consideration for the design of the AK-47 was the cost to produce. This was likely a reason for the design using stamped parts.

While the need for accuracy in most common military situations may not be the foremost consideration, its clearly a benefit in situations in which longer shots are required. This isn't exactly a 'minus'.

Civilian AK-47s aren't legally full auto. For semi-auto file, doesn't the accuracy become a greater priority?


Are you going to argue the position that the priority ranking for MK's design didn't favor reliability over accuracy? From an engineering perspective, I'd even go so far as to say that the priorities were:


Cost to produce

Reliability

...far lower -> accuracy.



I don't claim to be an expert on this. Yet, I'd love to see this refuted.

SlamFire1
May 30, 2009, 03:01 PM
The average Russian infantry soldier (like all other Russian soldiers) recieves 2 weeks of hazing, and being made to clean his units baaracks, beat downs, and fires around 5-10 rds from his weapon, thats basic training to them. The average Russian soldier grows and farms his own food, and fires less rds in 5 years than the average American soldier fires in a day.

The jogged my memory. So what if you hand a world class target rifle to someone, if the military does not spend the time and money teaching the Soldier how to shoot, the inherent accuracy of the platform is wasted.

Currently our GI’s are getting a lot of weapon familiarization. That was not necessarily the case for the first bunch in. Private Jessica could not clear a jam. She said "my gun jammed". And our Cold War era troops, if they got 20 rounds per year to shoot, that was it.

And what about the big wars? My Uncle, 101 Airborne 502 PIR Company F got exactly five rounds of familiarization with his weapon prior to dropping in Normandy. If he had not been a country boy shooting rabbits, squirrels, what not, he would have been totally ignorant of firearms. Incidentally, his primary weapon was the 1919 Light Machine gun. He had so little training that he did not know not to leave a round in the chamber. He and a bud were setting the weapon up in France, with a belt in the thing, and they bumped it on the ground. His bud had a finger on the muzzle. That was shot off.

I mentioned this to a club member, and he told me his Dad landed in France having fired zero shots from his weapon. He was transferred to the infantry from some support group, given a weapon, and landed on the beaches of France. No weapon zero and no training in the weapon. What was his hit probability?

So all of this discussion about weapon accuracy assumes the troops are trained to a level where they can use it. Well history shows, if the guys are not practicing on their own time, they are not going to get the trigger time in the military to be an accomplished shot.

TeamRush
May 30, 2009, 03:59 PM
It is generally well known that Kalshnikovs (and I include AK-47, AKM, and AK-74's) are less accurate than their western counterparts, e.g., M16, SA80, SIG550, etc.

This of course does not mean that the Kalashnikov is a lesser assault rifle (quite the opposite in fact) but it would be good to know what areas of Kalashnikov's design or build/production could be improved to improve accuracy without damaging its overall excellence as an assault rifle (i.e., without damaging its reliability).

The reasons are numerous, and mostly it's the fitment and quality of the materials used.

You can also blame the ammo normally used, it's about as accurate as a hand full of BB's out of a sling shot.

The AK series was supposed to be all stamped steel,
But the 'Soviet Union' didn't have the abilities to even form sheet metal correctly,
--OR to produce sheet metal that would take the forming process without stressing/cracking/breaking for several years,
So the receivers we milled out of solid blocks of steel for quite a while.

During the second World War, the infrastructure was virtually obliterated, and other than for a few crude tanks and stuff,
The ability to produce much of anything else was retarded for several years.

Also, Stalin ('Papa Joe') was real big on executing all the educated types, engineers, designers, anyone with higher education was usually treated like prisoners or executed because he felt that 'Academics' were dangerous to his rule... (and he was correct)

The results were he had a substandard design, building, machining, and production facilities even before WW II, so he would up fighting WW II with WW I rifles, cannons, artillery pieces, tanks, ect.
If it hadn't been for 'Allied' support, they would be speaking German right now!

After WW II it was all about acquiring 'Allied' technologies.
Jet engine designs from Britain, Aircraft designs from USA,
Wheeled & Track Vehicles from USA and Germany,
And small arms from Germany,
And, of course, the atomic bomb from the USA.

So much effort was spent in copying the US B-29 for a delivery system,
And so much effort was put into producing a A-bomb of their own I'm surprised that the AK-47 developed as fast as it did!
Stalin let MILLIONS starve & freeze to death after WW II just to develop the A-bomb and developed aircraft from the German and American aircraft that were 'Obtained' during the war.

The AK was made mostly from melted down tank and armored vehicle wrecks in the beginning.
Huge amounts of refined steel were left behind after the war, and they were used for making the first production runs of AK rifles...

Steel strength was 'Questionable' at best,
So they simply used MORE STEEL to keep the receivers & barrels from coming unglued.

Mikhail Kalashnikov once said that a higher velocity round was intended, but reliable barrels couldn't be made light enough,
And the USSR couldn't produce the modern powders reliably at the time, so he settled for about 2,000 FPS and a lighter weight bullet than he originally intended.

Later, after Stalin died and the USSR was up on it's feet again, the AK got it's better barrel and stamped steel receiver.

Newer, threaded barrels put into older machined steel block receivers are more accurate.

Older barrels have VERY crude rifling, with VERY large tolerances, so they don't control the bullet very well.

Later barrels are MUCH better quality, actually 'Ordnance' steel, and the rifling got much better with time.

The bolts are loose & sloppy, and NEVER can seat in the same place twice, so there is no repeatability possible.
Mikhail Kalashnikov said this was so the bolt didn't hang up or jam on carbon, sand, rust on the bolt/barrel, ect.

But in actuality, it was because the Russians simply didn't produce milling machines, or cutting tools for the rifle plants that were capable of making fine quality cuts.

Copper and Lead were SCARCE in post war Russia (and the rest of the USSR) so most bullets were STEEL CORE, with a copper wash jacket or thin copper jacket.
The steel was REMARKABLY hard on the rifling in the barrel,
And the steel cases were VERY hard on the chambers, eroding away places where the steel cases impacted the chambers when the fresh round loads.

You also have to think about primers and powder.
Most Russian 'Commercial' grade ammo will produce a 500 FPS (or more) velocity difference between rounds.
REAL HARD to make anything accurate when you can't determine the speed/drop of the bullet!

Bullet cores are often roll formed...
Meaning they can be 'Off Round', actually lopsided,
They can be MUCH heavier on one side than the other side of the bullet, making it wobble badly in flight.
Russian military surplus ammo is REALLY bad about having lopsided cores pressed into copper jackets to make them look 'Round'...

You have to remember that Russia is still producing CORROSIVE primers and CORROSIVE powder!
Powder is often MIXED in the Russian cases! Something you should NEVER do!

Anyway, just some history, and some insight into the Russian way of doing things...

AK103K
May 30, 2009, 04:45 PM
I'm going to say most of it is the shooter, and shooters who seem to like to make excuses. :)

If you cant make good hits on a man sized target out to 300 yards with an AK, its not the guns fault.

AgentAdam
May 30, 2009, 05:09 PM
Besides the unlocked bolt to breach face, and the heavy recoil and barrel whip, it also has to do with the largely of centered bolt carrier and cocking handle hence the need for the largely off centered slant muzzle break.

Joe Demko
May 30, 2009, 05:14 PM
This "untrained" meme with regards to Soviet soldiers is an enormous pile of leftover Cold War bee-ess. I have numerous friends and family who served in the Soviet Army from the closing days of WWII right up to the dissolution of the USSR itself. They soldiered, they did not farm. To this day, they are quite capable of field stripping, reassembling, and accurately firing the weapons with which they were trained.
If we had ever actually gone toe-to-toe with the Sovs, any US personnel who went into the fight expecting to slaughter a horde of spraying-and-praying primitive screwheads would have died with a surprised look on their faces.
I'm not going to argue the point with chairborne rangers. I know these people personally and I've seen what they can do with an AK, an SKS, or a Makarov. They have more than proven to me that an AK is more than sufficiently accurate in the hands of trained personnel.

JShirley
May 30, 2009, 08:16 PM
Clearly, if you refute that, which would strain credibility IMO, state your opinion and credentials.

I'm not trying to "refute" it. I *am* tired of people repeating internet rumor or "common knowledge" that may or may not be true without any relevant personal knowledge, or even taking the care to state upon what their opinion is based.

I mean, crap, we didn't even get a "the common consensus is..." from this person. Does he own a firearm? If he owns some sort of AK pattern, is he experienced enough to know if inaccuracy seen from his AK is due an intrinsic fault or due to poor shooting habits? The point is, we don't know. What makes his opinion valuable?

Only educated opinions are valuable. If I see Art E. post, I know he's shot umpteen jillion firearms, including being present at the beginning of at least one shooting sport. If I see Jeff White post, I know he has an entire career's worth of soldiering and training experience. Who is this guy, and why should I listen?

Get my point?

Personally, I've owned (IIRC) 3 AK-pattern rifles, but think I've only fired 500 or so rounds through such carbines. I don't think my store of knowledge on these weapons systems is great enough to have a personal opinion, especially when compared to the thousands of rounds I've fired through M4s. I believe there are a variety of reasons a ComBlock rifle could be less accurate than a U.S. one, but absent skilled shooters and ammunition that's equivalent, it's hard to get an apples to apples comparison. And I'm just plain damn tired of erroneous "common knowledge".

John

mljdeckard
May 30, 2009, 08:47 PM
I just put a Tech sight and a muzzle brake on my SKS. WOW. makes a LOT of difference, and I think most of it was sight radius.

I think ben ezra summed it up pretty well. Most of what's wrong with an AK for accuracy could be easily trimmed up if the factory were told to do it, and most people never really laid it across a sandbag to see for sure how accurate it is.

H2O MAN
May 30, 2009, 08:56 PM
JShirley
I *am* tired of people repeating internet rumor or "common knowledge" that may or may not be true
without any relevant personal knowledge, or even taking the care to state upon what their opinion is based.


I know what you mean, it's nerve wracking.



My Norinco T56SHTF is very accurate and reliable. I can run it with a sound suppressor and a 100 or 75 round drum of 7.62x39 :evil:

http://www.athenswater.com/images/M14-DC-AKM-1.jpg

9mmepiphany
May 30, 2009, 10:00 PM
It is generally well known that Kalshnikovs (and I include AK-47, AKM, and AK-74's) are less accurate than their western counterparts, e.g., M16, SA80, SIG550, etc

interesting that you included, under "western counterpart", a gun base on the Kalshniko action. the Sig might well be the ultimate refinement of the AK design...it's competition would be the Finish Valmet and the Israeli Galil which are more direct decendents and surely as accurate as any AR.

so seeing that a AK base rifle is every bit as accurate a the AR, i would think the answer it's just a matter of ammo quality and choice of sights

lipadj46
May 30, 2009, 10:01 PM
If he owns some sort of AK pattern, is he experienced enough to know if inaccuracy seen from his AK is due an intrinsic fault or due to poor shooting habits? The point is, we don't know. What makes his opinion valuable?

He's owned a Saiga for a whole week now :evil:

BlackHand1917
May 30, 2009, 10:14 PM
The reason the AK series of weapons are less accurate than American and Western European battle rifles and assault rifles is that the Soviets had a different theory of infantry tactics than the West at the time of the invention of the AK-47. While the AK-47 is NOT technically a submachine gun, the AK-47 was fielded by an army that during World War Two was an extremely sub-gun heavy army. The Red Army had whole battalions where every single person in the outfit was issued with a PPsh. As far as I know the Americans and the Brits didn't have whole units armed with Stens and Grease Guns. Like a sub-gun, the AK-was designed to be fired most of the time in full auto, making it a kind of super-submachine gun. M-16's, on the other hand were meant to be used in full auto only during what the Army in the seventies and eighties was calling "final protective fire." Because the M-16 was supposed to be used 90% in semi-auto it HAD to be a more accurate weapon. Some folks say AK's have an inferior sighting system. That would only be true if you were using it in semi-auto most of the time. Comparing AK-47's/AKM's with the M-16 is like comparing apples to oranges because of the different tactical doctrines of the two armies.

Beagle-zebub
May 30, 2009, 10:30 PM
Ehhhhh, a rifle that is based on the AK doesn't necessarily share all of its flaws. Like the AK74, the SIG 550 and Galil are going to have heavier barrels (assuming equal thickness), since they are chambered in a .22-caliber round, not a .31-caliber round; add to that the decreased weight of the projectile being fired, and you probably have somewhat less of that awful flexing seen in those videos. At least some of those Western rifles (the SIGs, I believe), have a gas-system re-engineered to have at least adjustment, unlike the system on the AK, which absolutely tears the spent casing out of the chamber. The SIG, Galil, and Valmet all milled receivers, to boot, no? In the 1200 fps video, it looks like a lot of the flexing is happening at the joint of the trunnion and the receiver, which is undoubtedly better designed in the Western derivatives, along with having a much stiffer receiver.

RugerOldArmy
May 30, 2009, 10:35 PM
H20Man: Ever run that Norinco on decent handloads? What sort of 10-shot groups can that shoot with brass cases, BTHP, and tuned handloads?


Any MOA AKs out there? Any 3/4 MOA AKs out there?

H2O MAN
May 30, 2009, 10:50 PM
RugerOldArmy H20Man: Ever run that Norinco on decent handloads?

No hand loads, just Golden Tiger.

RugerOldArmy
May 30, 2009, 10:58 PM
I'm not trying to "refute" it. I *am* tired of people repeating internet rumor or "common knowledge" that may or may not be true without any relevant personal knowledge, or even taking the care to state upon what their opinion is based.

I mean, crap, we didn't even get a "the common consensus is..." from this person. Does he own a firearm? If he owns some sort of AK pattern, is he experienced enough to know if inaccuracy seen from his AK is due an intrinsic fault or due to poor shooting habits? The point is, we don't know. What makes his opinion valuable?

Only educated opinions are valuable. If I see Art E. post, I know he's shot umpteen jillion firearms, including being present at the beginning of at least one shooting sport. If I see Jeff White post, I know he has an entire career's worth of soldiering and training experience. Who is this guy, and why should I listen?

Get my point?

Personally, I've owned (IIRC) 3 AK-pattern rifles, but think I've only fired 500 or so rounds through such carbines. I don't think my store of knowledge on these weapons systems is great enough to have a personal opinion, especially when compared to the thousands of rounds I've fired through M4s. I believe there are a variety of reasons a ComBlock rifle could be less accurate than a U.S. one, but absent skilled shooters and ammunition that's equivalent, it's hard to get an apples to apples comparison. And I'm just plain damn tired of erroneous "common knowledge".

I get it. I'd bet 10% of my posts debate blatent mistruths posted.

I don't think it is realistic to expect you're going to get posts from a resurrected John Moses Browning, or an AK-interested Tony Boyer on a public forum. Nor would I expect the opinions of every soldier, gunsmith, or educated expert would necessarily be anything that I'd assume as fact without consideration of reason, context, or potential bias.

I figure you were just having a bad day and blasted a poster with 'xbox' in his name for stating what, IMO, is the common consensus. Can you expect anybody who has picked up an AK and looked at it, let alone fired it, to think that it's accuracy can rival a Stolle Panda BR Rifle, Cooper, Tubb T2000, Sako TRG, or a HP competition AR?

I'll be skeptical, regardless of the poster, when they tell me thay have a 1/2 MOA AK. Yet I don't think most would doubt claims of a 1/2 MOA custom AR.

AK103K
May 30, 2009, 10:58 PM
This was shot at 200 yards with my SAR1 using the iron sights (which also have a slight cant). Ammo was Wolf 154 grain SP's. The smaller group at the bottom was fired off a rest to confirm zero, the upper group from a cross legged sitting position at a steady cadence.

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

100 yards, again, cross legged sitting, using Barnaul 125 grain SP's out of my 14" barreled Saiga AK103K using an Aimpoint mounted on an Ultimak.

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

100 yards offhand, same rifle and ammo.

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

One was shot with an AK, the other a Springfield M1A SOCOM. I cant remember which was which at this point. Does it really matter?

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47b7d700b3127ccec27e7113f8cd00000030O00CYuWbdo5bsQe3nwk/cC/f%3D0/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D550/ry%3D400/

RugerOldArmy
May 30, 2009, 11:11 PM
AK103K - That's viable for military purposes. It isn't even fair, however, to judge an AK(s) accuracy potential using Wolf ammo. I'd bet handloads could halve that. I guess what I was looking for was more of a direct comparison.


For example: ARs have many times 'shot clean' on highpower competitions. Has anybody ever, under the same or similar constraints, cleaned their targets with an AK? If such a feat wasn't possible, we're back to the OP's question of why.

JShirley
May 30, 2009, 11:56 PM
I figure you were just having a bad day and blasted a poster with 'xbox' in his name for stating what, IMO, is the common consensus

Ruger, I was addressing a poster who has started a lot of threads consistent with the level of thought that went into his choice of user name. :rolleyes: In other words, if you're going to repeat what other people have said, please at least let me know this isn't your opinion, you know? If you have no reasonable way to know something, either don't reply, or give me someone who has reason to know's opinion. And tell me whose opinion it is, and why it's worth listening to.

Our most important mission here is to build a community of good people who know about firearms. When folks who really know almost nothing about firearms post authoritatively, it detracts from the site. It detracts from our mission. And it lowers our collective IQ, as it were. I think we therefore have to really call for a little more accountability from posters, or we will be diminished as a community. All opinions are not equal.

Now, in my- limited- experience, I think a combination of factors often result in reduced accuracy from AK patterns, when compared with something like an AR-15. Quality control standards on many ComBlock or former ComBlock weapons aren't up to Western standards. Despite not having enough range time on AKs, examination will readily show this to be true. Also, ammunition from most countries is just plain not up to U.S. ammunition in quality, and most people these days shoot Russian ammunition in AKs. And for me, especially, I will always do better with peep sights. Just installing Mojo sights on my SAR instantly tightened my groups. U.S. service rifles come with peep sights, which means even a high quality rifle like many Mausers will still be easily bettered by me with a similar U.S. rifle (1903, 1917).

pax,

John

musick
May 31, 2009, 12:01 AM
Let me ask this question: how much accuracy is enough?

My thoughts exactly.

I can consistantly hit a 1 gal. water jug @ 100yrds with my SLR-95, using the so called "inferior" stock iron sights.

For me, 'nough said.

But to answer the question at hand, I would say the loose tolerences are the biggest factor in making them less accurate. For myself, I dont think I can justify shooting at a man that is 100+ yards away. At that range, they are just not a threat in the real world.

TeamRush
May 31, 2009, 12:05 AM
It's the mindset of the American military that ACCURATE RIFLE FIRE, AT LONG RANGES, will win the battle...

And it persists to this day!
But FINALLY we have rifles *AND OPTICS* capable of making those accurate 'Long Range' shots possible by (G.I.) Joe Average.

The Army and Marines have BOTH done studies (plural, more than one) of 'Enemy' dead to find out if your troops were EXECUTING captives...

The reason for this was so many head shots at reported distances of over 150 yards!
Some head shots are taking place with off the shelf M-16's at 300 yards!

Just in case you DON'T know,
300 yards with an M-16 and OPEN BATTLE SIGHTS is virtually impossible... Lucky shots at best.

With the new optics, rifles that have ACCURATE barrels in them,
And some reasonable quality control on the ammo now, our troops are making head shots that the 'Average Grunt' couldn't have hit the building they were hiding in before!

With AK's, there is no real quality control as we know it,
For the firarms themselves, or for the ammo since the USSR/Russian mindset was different entirely.

Many Russian units wouldn't even be deployed in the event of war, they would be held back to guard the 'Home Front'.
Conscript troops from satellite countries would be used for 'Cannon Fodder',
Used to 'Charge' in mass at the enemy troops.

The idea was to close the range in armored vehicles,
(of which the USSR/Russians have one of the best armored troop transport vehicles ever built!)
Then dispatch an overwhelming number of troops into any one battle or location.

IT worked in all the satellite countries USSR/Russia invaded (with one exception, Afghanistan, and it would have worked there if the US hadn't got into it.)

From the US 'War Between The States' (nothing 'Civil' about it) to both World Wars, Long range, hard hitting, ACCURATE rifles were used...
What the US Forces failed to do was provide OPTICS or SIGHTS that could EASILY BE USED by 'Joe Average'...

Some guys are just born to fire long ranges accurately, From Alvin York to David Tubb,
But most of the time 'Volunteers' or 'Conscripted' soldiers are just not very good at lining up sights, figuring wind, bullet drop at 500+ yards, ect.

The USSR/Russians bypassed all that and went right into a Select fire, magazine fed large caliber/intermediate velocity rifle that EVERY MONKEY fresh off the farm or labor camp could fire at reasonably short ranges...

Then they developed the BMP to deliver the troops through ACCURATE LONG RANGE ENEMY FIRE...
To get them right in the infantry fight without loosing them to accurate long range fire...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-1

Arm them up, get them close, dump them out and let them slug it out toe to toe with NATO troops...

It was a good plan...
Wouldn't have worked past about 1990 though, since our tank killers would pulverize all the armor they had...
(see 'Sadam', 'Desert Storm' or '100 Hour War'!)

Also be advised, although the USSR/Russia was developing huge stock piles of biological and chemical weapons,
They didn't issue anything but gas masks to the troops in the satellite countries.
The designs from the beginning, even the very first version of the BMP-1 had chemical/biological/radiation protection, but once opened for the troops to deploy, that seal was broken, and they only needed to keep those troops alive long enough to do the battle at hand...

The soldier was as easily replaced, and therefore as expendable as the stamped steel rifles were!

While the mind set of the US troop is...
"I *MIGHT* get killed in wartime, but I have the best gear and training."
The mindset of the average 'Soviet' was,
"I'm expected to give my life for the 'Fatherland'!"

RugerOldArmy
May 31, 2009, 12:08 AM
I can consistantly hit a 1 gal. water jug @ 100yrds with my SLR-95, using the so called "inferior" stock iron sights.


For perspective, that's a breeze with a flintlock and a patched roundball. Not exactly a high bar.

JShirley
May 31, 2009, 12:08 AM
Team Rush,

I have heard these studies mentioned before. I would like to read more about them. Where can I find more information?

John

RugerOldArmy
May 31, 2009, 12:14 AM
Our most important mission here is to build a community of good people who know about firearms. When folks who really know almost nothing about firearms post authoritatively, it detracts from the site. It detracts from our mission. And it lowers our collective IQ, as it were. I think we therefore have to really call for a little more accountability from posters, or we will be diminished as a community. All opinions are not equal.

FWIW, I can appreciate that John.

musick
May 31, 2009, 12:14 AM
For perspective, that's a breeze with a flintlock and a patched roundball. Not exactly a high bar.

But more than adequate for 99% of my real world situations. I do believe follow up shots might be a tad quicker w/ an AK as well.

maskedman504
May 31, 2009, 12:18 AM
I have heard these studies mentioned before. I would like to read more about them. Where can I find more information?

My Google-fu is escaping me, but I did hear about the studies on Fox News. It was about Marines currently fighting in Afghanistan; I am not sure if the evidence is indicative of the motive with all of the mud slinging about the current political climate here in the U.S. and the current combat climate in the sandbox, because, at best, I have anecdotal evidence.

-v-
May 31, 2009, 12:18 AM
As I understand it, has to do with barrel harmonics, and the large gas block on the barrel throwing those harmonics off and creating "poor" groups.

I have heard that a rack grade AK will do ~4" at 100 yards, a rack grade M16 will also do the same ~4" at 100 yards.

RugerOldArmy
May 31, 2009, 12:24 AM
But more than adequate for 99% of my real world situations.

I'd defer to folks with actual combat experience, yet I picture troops in Afghanistan, able to engage AK(s) with AR(s) before the AK(s) are in effective range.

My Bad: Missed the MY in 'my real world situations'.

SHvar
May 31, 2009, 12:27 AM
I also knew a few Soviet soldiers, one was Spetnaz (from my army days), he was an American soldier who at the time, he escaped from the Iron curtains crip in the 80s. And yes he told me about the Soviet doctrine of making a load of lies to convince their enemies that they were better trained and equipped than they actually were.
He was the one who told me first about the lack of training Soviet soldiers recieved, that only Spetnaz were professional soldiers, the rest were fodder for their own NCOs and officers to torture and kill for their entertainment. The Soviets were worse to their own soldiers than they were to the Afgans during the war.
I knew a few sources who verified that Soviet soldiers had to grow food at their barracks so they could eat, also that they fired 5 rds in basic training (the 2 week beat down). Spetznaz do not have to farm their food, they are treated differently.
Also during the cold war our soldiers (infantry, rangers, special forces) fired thousands of rds each per year from our M-16A1 and M-16A2. I dont know of a single American soldier in the active duty who served more than 8 weeks of duty and fired less than 92 rds. In the infantry we fired at least 132 or more(M-16) by the end of basic training, a few hundred M-60. By the end of AIT we fired about 100 SAW rds at least each, a few M203, a claymore, threw a few handgrenades, fired the LAW, and around 120 or more rds through M-16s again.
By my first year in the active army I had zeroed an M-16, qualified 2 separate occasions (expert), fired the M-60(sharpshooter), the SAW(sharpshooter), a LAW(expert), the 1911A1(expert), the M203(expert). By the time I was out of the army I had qualified on the Dragon missle launcher, the TOW2, the M9 berretta (expert), and was party to more cases of 5.56x45mm being fired through our M-16A2s than I could possibly count. I remember spending an hour just loading mags that a few of us shot throughout the day on several occasions.
Keep in mind these counts do not include live fire ranges that you move in formations, and shoot at pop up targets in the woods. These ranges we would go through several cases in 2 days alone, not including M-60 and SAW rds.
Aside from the Brittish who had alcoholic drinks in their rations and frequently drank until passing out in the field during training. Not many other countries put the time, money, and effort into their professional soldiers that the US did during the cold war.
My father who was army-air corp in WW2 fired alot more than 5 rds on the garand before going to Europe, also fired a good amount of rds through the BAR beforehand, and trained on the 1911A1 (2 mags at least). His brother who was Artilliary had more extensive training beforehand. His other brother who was infantry and spent 4 years as a POW of Japan was far more extensively trained than either of the other 2 on his rifle, and other hand held firearms. Oh, maybe thats because he was an Airborne solder, all 3 were chosen fields, volunteers in what they did for our country.
The lowest amount of trigger time of any active duty military personnel I know of was the Air force, and Navy. The air force fired M-16s with .22 lr conversions in basic for familiarization at one time (dont know about now). The navy fired the M-14, around 20 shots or so in basic, then they would fire a few shots familiarization on their ships with the M-16A1.
Im sure the Marines spend at least as much trigger time as the army in basic.
So American soldiers (Infantry at least), and Marine Infantry get a good amount of trigger time with their rifles.
I can tell you that unfortunately much of the support units in the army and other services dont keep familiar with their rifles long after basic training. Ive ran ranges and had to re-educate several MPs, and other support units on how to zero, and qualify with the M-16, how to use the 1911A1, M9. Some just how to turn the safety to fire after they had been out of basic for a year, what a shame. These are the people who fire 12 rds to zero or more then 40 rds to qualify a year on the M-16. Its no wonder Ms Lynch had trouble, if you dont train to keep yourself ready, you will panic and fail when you are being fired at. She was a truck driver.

Sunray
May 31, 2009, 12:30 AM
"...What makes a Kalashnikov less accurate..." They weren't/aren't made for accuracy. They were designed to be made as fast as possible then issued to illiterate conscripts and, later, 3rd World troopies who could be trained to use 'em and field maintain 'em with minimal training. Great accuracy just wasn't a consideration. Massive numbers of PBI troopies carrying one of the only true 'assault' rifles ever made is/was more important.

musick
May 31, 2009, 12:37 AM
I'd defer to folks with actual combat experience, yet I picture troops in Afghanistan, able to engage AK(s) with AR(s) before the AK(s) are in effective range.

Again:

But more than adequate for 99% of my real world situations.

Im not in Afghanistan btw ;), but I have a few friends that have served recently in Iraq. A majority of them preferred using an AK over an AR in that environment.

Range is of little importance if a rifle is not reliable.

But their experience/preference is of little concern to me. I am not in combat. I know what I need out of a rifle and am more than happy w/ an AK platform. Of course, YMMV. :) But this has little to do w/ the topic on hand, so I will digress.

musick
May 31, 2009, 12:41 AM
Ahh...just so your edit ROA. To each his own - AR, AK...as long as we are united under the 2nd A, that is what is most important!

Cheers!

Dan Crocker
May 31, 2009, 12:59 AM
Joe Demko,

You said This "untrained" meme with regards to Soviet soldiers is an enormous pile of leftover Cold War bee-ess.
In both of the following books, the authors share the stories of Soviet conscripts who talk about the 2-week basic training (hazing) and 3-round weapon familiarization before being sent to Afghanistan. THe books are: Borovik, Artyom. The Hidden War: A Russian Journalist’s Account of the Soviet War in Afghanistan. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1990. Heinamaa, Leppanen, Yurchenko. The Soldier’s Story: Soviet Veterans Remember the Afghan War. Translated by Haun, A.D. Berkeley: Regents of the University of California, 1994.

Team Rush,

IT worked in all the satellite countries USSR/Russia invaded (with one exception, Afghanistan, and it would have worked there if the US hadn't got into it.)

Your assertion forgets the fact that Soviet armor/infantry doctrine was entirely unsuited to fighting a counterinsurgency conflict in mountain terrain. Their reliance on armor over light, mobile infantry was one of the deciding factors that allowed the Mujahideen so much successes. American involvement was limited before 1985/1986 with trying to keep the 'pot boiling but not boiling over,' i.e. we didn't want the Soviets to invade Pakistan as well. It was only after Gorbachev's decision in October 1985 to begin a phased withdrawal if the 40th Army could not change the tide of the war over the winter of '85 and '86 that we really began to heavily and not so secretly pour it on. Once we realized that they were going to pull out, the Stingers and other equipment really started to flow in. (Soviet General Staff, The. The Soviet-Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost. Translated and edited by Grau, Lester W.; Gress, Michael A. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2002.)
Les Grau's other book, The Other Side of the Mountain, offers numerous vignettes of Soviet armor not entering highly vegetated areas, even with infantry support, during battles because of the ease at which the mujahideen could ambush them with mines and RPGs.

There's a lot of bad information out there regarding the Soviet-Afghan War. We really wanted to make it as much of an embarrassment to the Soviets as Vietnam had been to us, but it was an entirely different conflict (with many parallels) and a mythology in the West very different than what actually went down.

Archie
May 31, 2009, 02:12 AM
"One more thing..."

The AK47 was manufactured by all the Warsaw Pact countries. They were made in all the old Soviet Union nations as well as Poland, Albania, Romania, PRC and who knows where else. Whereas all the blueprints were originally the same, the manufacturing equipment and therefore specifications varied to some degree. Not only in how the barrels fit the stock and how the bolts locked up with the barrel, but the size and shape of the chamber and bore diameter.

And trigger pulls. Momma kiss Vera! Trigger pulls run from adequate to abominable. Weight varies and creep like Peter Lorre.

Also consider all the Warsaw Pact nations made AK47 ammunition. Same problem, different equipment, different people reading the specs and setting up production.

But all ammo from all the nations had to fire and function in all the weapons of all other nations. With some discrepancies in chamber dimensions, guess what happened to ammo dimensions? According to information derived from military intelligence reports, by our standards, country A made a different cartridge than country B. And both were different from country C. But it all cross functioned.

With all that 'looseness' built into the weapons, it's not a wonder they aren't target rifles.

And of course, that doesn't mean all were hideously loose. No doubt some came off the line just about perfect in every regard. No doubt some plants had workers who had a little pride in their work and turned out the best guns they could. Certainly not all Kalashnikov rifles were made on Friday afternoon. Then if one got the right ammo that fit the chamber more or less correctly, that's a good combination.

But, as a group, they are not nearly as accurate as a group as most any U. S. rifle of the same era.

Consider this: Does anyone in the world make target rifles out of Kalashnikovs? Does anyone pick a 'good one' and spend several days tuning up the trigger, bedding the action in the stock, installing special sights and so forth like is done on a Garand, M14 or M16? There is a reason for that.

As an around the farm general purpose rifle, I think one would do reasonably well. (With my luck, I'd get the one made Friday afternoon...)

AK103K
May 31, 2009, 07:14 AM
AK103K - That's viable for military purposes. It isn't even fair, however, to judge an AK(s) accuracy potential using Wolf ammo. I'd bet handloads could halve that. I guess what I was looking for was more of a direct comparison.
I know what your saying about Wolf, I usually dont consider it a reliably accurate ammo, but I happened to get a good lot of it here that shoots very well. Generally, Wolf is literally hit or miss. I also usually get one or two duds per 1000 with it.

I've always found Barnaual 125 grain SP's to be the most accurate and consistent. Its the only Russian loaded 7.62x39 I've seen where the base is jacketed, and the bullet looks very much like a Sierra Game King.

I never saw the point in trying to reload for my AK's, as ammo "was" always cheap and plentiful, and I dont "target" shoot with them. Accuracy has always been more than reasonable enough for me.


From the stand point of direct comparison accuracy wise, the targets posted are very similar to what I get from my AR's using their open sights, GI ammo, and shooting from the same field positions on a target with no aiming point. I also get similar results between the two using either rifle equipped with an Aimpoint. From the stand point of combat rifles, I really dont consider them to be all that far apart overall, and in all respects. For me personally, the AK's actually shoulder and shoot more naturally than the M16's. I like both, and have enough experience with both, not to buy into the usual crap passed around about them by those who obviously have little or no real experience with them. If your a "rifleman", you shouldnt have trouble shooting either well.

I do have a target grade AR that will literally put my reloads into one tiny hole, but it is a "target" rifle, and my reloads are tuned to the rifle and not commercial/military ammo. That same rifle will do 2" on average using GI ammo in the very next mag. Even with a 'perfect shooter", your always at the mercy of your ammo (as well as other factors).

Ed Ames
May 31, 2009, 09:17 AM
I took a Russian citizen (working in the US) shooting once.

He, as we shot, started talking about his time in the army. USSR army. The most relevant point being that they shot a rather large (man-sized) target at 50 meters and as soon as he had his three hits they took the rifle out of his hands. He said he had maybe fired 10 rounds total in Russia.

He opined that there were a few well trained people who were basically used as ringers during demonstrations and exercises, especially demonstrations to generals and party officials. They kept the numbers up and could be trotted out as a typical recruit while he shot 3 rounds and was shuffled on.

That doesn't have any direct bearing on why their guns may be inaccurate. However, it does speak to the possibility that they weren't trying for accuracy for all weapons. They could make a few very accurate weapons and get the same result.

Limeyfellow
May 31, 2009, 10:32 AM
The Tech-sights for the AK have just been released and I will probably buy one and throw it on to test it. I think a windage and height adjustable US GI style peep sight mounted much further back will be a vast improvement over the standard iron sights.

H2O MAN
May 31, 2009, 10:42 AM
What makes its western counterparts less reliable than a Kalashnikov?

AK103K
May 31, 2009, 10:59 AM
What makes its western counterparts less reliable than a Kalashnikov?
The same thing that makes the Kalashnikov less accurate. ;)

RP88
May 31, 2009, 11:29 AM
The AK was not made to be a precision rifle. That is the main reason. It was expendable, well-rounded firepower given to an expendable soldier. Even with better irons, ammo, and an optic, it still won't be making precision shots. That isn't to say that such things wouldn't improve it. But, you can't make a mule into a race horse...

Uncle Mike
May 31, 2009, 11:36 AM
What makes its western counterparts less reliable than a Kalashnikov?


This of course WAS the question... not which rifle(the AK or the AR) was/is the BETTER of the two.:scrutiny:

Uncle Mike
May 31, 2009, 11:40 AM
ohhh nooo... must be this @&^#$*(&^ computer... I would never double post...
Sorry all... my bad!

RugerOldArmy
May 31, 2009, 11:47 AM
What makes its western counterparts less reliable than a Kalashnikov?


That is a fair question. As is: 'In reality, how does reliability compare between AR(s) and AK(s).' There have been threads soliciting input from those that have been in Afghanistan and Iraq, (both here and on AR15.com), on reliability. Here is a link (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=432922) from the highroad.org. In the poll, 50% report their experience as 'never had a problem'. I'm sure maintenance comes into play, and perhaps there may have even been some isolated experience of an AK having a bad magazine too!

In judging either design, you should also consider what we've seen with 1911 pistolas. The bone stock remington-rands ran fine, but with the proliferation of aftermarket parts and design changes, you can find some balky 1911s out there now. The same applies to Franken-AR(s).


Uncle Mike: Are you pressing the Western-designed 'Post Reply button' or the Russian-designed 'Post Reply button'? ;)

H2O MAN
May 31, 2009, 11:56 AM
If the western counterparts (AR) were subjected to the less rigorous cleaning and
maintenance schedule the Kalashnikov enjoys it (the AR) would die a quick death.

The slight edge in accuracy would be a moot point because only the AK would be running.

Uncle Mike
May 31, 2009, 11:59 AM
Uncle Mike: Are you pressing the Western-designed 'Post Reply button' or the Russian-designed 'Post Reply button'?


...got to be the Ruiski button... the western-designed button would NEVER malfunction... you know that.. hehehe:neener:

H2O MAN
May 31, 2009, 12:02 PM
Keep that western-designed button clean or it will jam :neener:

RugerOldArmy
May 31, 2009, 12:05 PM
If the western counterparts (AR) were subjected to the less rigorous cleaning and
maintenance schedule the Kalashnikov enjoys it (the AR) would die a quick death.

I don't see any point here. I mean, if you submerge them both in mud, neither are going to run. FWIW, do you really believe that real-life failure rates match the internet legend of AK reliability? (As in, and AK never had a FTF, FTF)?

We're getting off-topic here. The OP(s) post was on what made an AK less accurate. :neener:

H2O MAN
May 31, 2009, 12:11 PM
The point is crystal clear.
The AR must be cleaned and maintained on a regular basis if you want to keep it running.
The AK keeps running without regular cleaning and maintenance.

The slight accuracy edge of an AR rifle that ain't running is worthless.

SHvar
May 31, 2009, 12:24 PM
Why is it that one person who has never seen combat will always say that they know someone who was there, who preferred the AK?
Ive been in the middle east in combat, in Iraq, even then the Iraqis liked our M-16s and hated their AK47s.
The Iraqis wanted to get rid of their AKs and the US supplied them.
I know that the story about returning soldiers liking the the AK better is a lie because the Iraqi army has been using the M-16A2 for several years now, the only AKs used by the Iraqis are police that have not gotten M-16s yet.
The sucess of the Iraqis currently involves their use of a better rifle, and training by US soldiers.
Stop with the AK legendary lies already.
The AK was simply a cheap rapid fire rifle made for a peasant army to field in high numbers, nothing more. If you made an AK from machined parts, and tightened the tolerances, and redesigned other flaws Im sure you would increase its accuracy a bit more.

AK103K
May 31, 2009, 12:29 PM
I don't see any point here. I mean, if you submerge them both in mud, neither are going to run.
This could be a definite "maybe", either way.

The point is crystal clear.
Again, well maybe.

While I agree with your point that if its not running what does accuracy matter, I dont think its as critical as your making it seem. I've shot more than a few M16's and a lot of AR's over the years, and really had very few stoppages or failures. My old SP1 has god knows how many rounds through it at this point, and while I know it must have had a stoppage at some point, I really dont remember any that were memorable. On multiple occasions, its been shot pretty much non stop, by multiple shooters over the course of the day and fired in excess of a 1000 rounds at a sitting, without cleaning, and never missed a beat.

If you look around on you tube, theres a company that does a non stop 1000+ round test with an M4 they build. They shoot non stop, both 30 round and beta mags, and cool the gun off in a sandy tidal pool every so often. You can hear the sand crunching in the gun when he works the charging handle.

I believe there was one malfunction during the test, and it was beta mag related.

Here, I found the link, its in two parts.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5CQOvdYW6c

The sucess of the Iraqis currently involves their use of a better rifle, and training by US soldiers.
I would think the "training" part was the more critical issue, regardless which weapon was involved.

The AK was simply a cheap rapid fire rifle made for a peasant army to field in high numbers, nothing more. If you made an AK from machined parts, and tightened the tolerances, and redesigned other flaws Im sure you would increase its accuracy a bit more.
Whos bandying about the worn out internet crap now? ;)

RugerOldArmy
May 31, 2009, 12:32 PM
The slight accuracy edge of an AR rifle that ain't running is worthless.


H20MAN:

Is this where you abandon your M1A(s) and clean out the safe for a bunch'o pot-metal stammed AK(s)? After all, you don't even need to clean your rifle if you switch to th AK, and your M1A's accuracy advantage is, as you say, worthless.

I'll give you an AK for each of those worthless M1A(s). Send me a PM. ;) Let's get this done! Think of all that reliability!

RugerOldArmy
May 31, 2009, 12:35 PM
*drool*

H2O MAN
May 31, 2009, 12:38 PM
All things being equal, the modernized M14 remains reliably accurate in harsh conditions longer than the AR.

I'll pass on your offer, the one AKM I own is enough and don't own an M1As.

RugerOldArmy
May 31, 2009, 12:43 PM
Come now, a fine AK for this beast ;)

http://www.athenswater.com/images/MK14_SEI_EBR-a.jpg

Wasn't it Townsend Whelen who wrote that, "Only accurate rifles are interesting"?

H2O MAN
May 31, 2009, 12:53 PM
RugerOldArmy Come now, a fine AK for this beast ;)

Not gonna happen!

All of my SEI M14s are keepers :evil:

RugerOldArmy
May 31, 2009, 12:58 PM
You're making my point for me H2OMAN. It seems you're willing to trade away a bit of that AK-Legendary reliability.

So, now we're still looking for anyone who has shot-clean, under highpower rules, with an AK. :neener:

H2O MAN
May 31, 2009, 01:01 PM
My accurate and reliable Norinco T56SHTF is also a keeper :evil:

I sold off all of my ARs and AR kit

Uncle Mike
May 31, 2009, 01:02 PM
Ive been in the middle east in combat, in Iraq, even then the Iraqis liked our M-16s and hated their AK47s.
The Iraqis wanted to get rid of their AKs and the US supplied them.

The Iraqis liked our M-16's and hated their AK's..... that is probably beacuse of the regularity of heads exploding from AR fire.

RugerOldArmy
May 31, 2009, 01:04 PM
My accurate and reliable Norinco T56SHTF is also a keeper.

Due to personal taste, I'll make no offer on that. My gunsafe has no permanent home for stamped parts or questionable accuracy :evil:

H2O MAN
May 31, 2009, 01:08 PM
Fair enough :)

Chindo18Z
May 31, 2009, 01:14 PM
My .02...

For many reasons already mentioned, I believe that the AR design is generally capable of shooting tighter groups at all ranges and is decidedly more accurate at long range (>350m).

There are accuracy exceptions. Some high end quality Kalashnikovs (VEPRs, Arsenals, etc.) may match or exceed some ARs.

A lot can be attributed to quality of ammo and its match to bore (which can vary wildly across many makes of ammo/rifle for both designs).

The AK design also has a shorter sight radius (distance between rear & front sight). This tends to magnify shooter sight picture error with the AK.

And the single greatest factor in AK "innacuracy" is shooter error. A good rifleman can hit anything within range with either system. A poor or marginal shooter will have less accuracy with the AK than he/she would with the AR. As range increases, so do shooter errors.

I've wrung out a personally owned Norinco 7.62 x 39 folder side by side with my issued M16A1 at computerized record/field fire ranges at Ft Benning. Multiple popups and movers from 25m to 350m with no difference in effect. Both weapons with a good zero and generally consistent hits on all targets at all ranges with both (also shooter error misses ).

Way back in the day, my forward-based SF unit issued Romanian AKMS rifles (select fire, 7.62 x 39, underfolder, forward pistol grip) as our primary weapons. By that I mean that we zeroed, qualified, and live-fire trained with our AKs most of the time while the M16A1s stayed in the rack. However, when we fired for record, we would generally fire both weapons on the same range day.

My ODA generally qualified to the same standard with each weapon. Expert shooters would consistently shoot expert with either. Lesser shooters were lesser with either weapon. I did notice (over a three year period) that most of my guys tended to shoot a few (1-3) inches lower with their AKs than with their M16A1s at most distances.

Mechanically, the AK design is not as accurate as the AR.

Ballistically, the 5.56 x 45 outshoots the 7.62 x 39 at distance.

Practically, a good shooter with an iron sighted AK is perfectly capable of outshooting a novice armed with an iron sighted AR.

YMMV.

benEzra
May 31, 2009, 02:40 PM
I'd defer to folks with actual combat experience, yet I picture troops in Afghanistan, able to engage AK(s) with AR(s) before the AK(s) are in effective range.
That probably has a lot to do with the shooting style the Iraqi insurgents and Taliban seem to have learned from watching Al Jazeera videos and bad U.S. action movies.

I'm sure there are a few incidents of U.S. soldiers with iron-sighted M16's engaging AK-armed insurgents beyond 300 meters, where that would be an issue, but I believe the typical engagement ranges are under 300m.

And the single greatest factor in AK "innacuracy" is shooter error. A good rifleman can hit anything within range with either system. A poor or marginal shooter will have less accuracy with the AK than he/she would with the AR. As range increases, so do shooter errors.
I think that pretty much sums it up.

This target was fired by a skilled shooter (AK103K) with a rack-grade, iron-sighted AK at 200 yards with Russian ammo:

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

...whereas the Picatinny Arsenal "expert" in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0) can't even stay on paper with an AK at that distance while shooting from a rest, and blames the gun instead of his goofy slappin'-n'-grinnin' shooting technique. I would point out that AK103K's rested 200-yard group with the SAR-1 (bottom) is considerably smaller than Discovery Channel Guy's "precision" group with a rested M16.

Yes, the AK is an easy rifle to shoot badly---the design is perhaps less forgiving of incompetent shooters than the AR/M16, as is evidenced by the Discovery Channel video---but it is not incapable of being shot well. And for those who have trouble with the issue irons, Warsaw Pact optics are a great improvement (I run a Kobra on mine).

Dan Crocker
May 31, 2009, 03:42 PM
SHvar,
During my first Iraq tour I carried an AK almost all the time. Whenever I've had the choice, it's what I've used if it fit the mission. I'm the one without the blacked-out face.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=99120&stc=1&d=1243798900

H2O MAN
May 31, 2009, 04:39 PM
Great posts Chindo, Ben & Dan :)

Whats-his-name
May 31, 2009, 09:35 PM
Wow, that got the replies coming in!

So to sum up briefly, the reasons that an AK is, or could be, less accurate than it's western counterpart are (in no order of importance):

1. Loose tolerances of fit, (but good for reliability)
2. Poor sights (poor position)
3. Barrel flex (would be good to compare with SIG 540 or 550)
4. Rough trigger
5. Poor ammo
6. Differing balistics (differing ammo)
7. Possibly muzzle brake issues (depending on type?)
8. ...(I've probably forgotten something).

From what I can see above there is nothing inherent in the design that does not make the AK inaccurate. All the issues can be resolved it seems. As has already been pointed out, the SIG 540/550 series are based on the AK action and these are regarded as among the finest in the world for accuracy (and indeed reliability).

Therefore, could we see an AK that is copied and produced to a standard that would rival an M16? I know that it is reported that some of the ex-communist countries produced rifles that were better than others - Poland and Yugoslavia come to mind. However, I guess not many people have tested all the variants out there to determine which country made the best AK variant. From my own experience of Yugoslavian and Polish rifles, the build quality is better than, say Romanian rifles, but I can't say if that is reflected in their accuracy.

It would be interesting to know if anyone has attempted to accurise an AK.

... and it would be interesting to know of anyone who has shot an AK in a NATO round (7.62x51mm or 5.56mm)

Cheers,


PS.
Aside from the Brittish who had alcoholic drinks in their rations and frequently drank until passing out in the field during training. Not many other countries put the time, money, and effort into their professional soldiers that the US did during the cold war.
This is a complete myth. If you were caught drunk in training you would never, ever drink again after the red caps had dealt with you.

Uncle Mike
May 31, 2009, 09:42 PM
So, now we're still looking for anyone who has shot-clean, under highpower rules, with an AK.

The whole darn place is an uproar, luaghing :neener: :D

That was good-

Limeyfellow
May 31, 2009, 10:03 PM
I'd defer to folks with actual combat experience, yet I picture troops in Afghanistan, able to engage AK(s) with AR(s) before the AK(s) are in effective range.

Thats when you pull out the M2 and neither matters.

benEzra
May 31, 2009, 11:00 PM
So, now we're still looking for anyone who has shot-clean, under highpower rules, with an AK.
I think the AR platform is more conducive to wringing out that last MOA, no question. But I think comparing rack-grade M16's to rack-grade AK's, with good shooters on either platform and ammunition of comparable quality, the accuracy difference between the platforms is not as great as is sometimes assumed. It may be that your typical M16 is a 2 MOA gun and your typical AK is a 4 MOA gun, but that does not make the AK as wildly inaccurate as some would like to claim. The Discovery Channel video supposedly proving that an AK can't stay on a human-sized target from a rest in 5 shots from 200 meters is just laughable. And when shooting from field positions (offhand, kneeling) the difference between individual shooters will be much greater than the difference between the two platforms.

It'd be interesting to see what an AK chambered in 6mm PPC (which is based on 7.62x39mm, BTW) and optimized for accuracy could do, but the financial outlay would be considerable.

545poison
May 31, 2009, 11:41 PM
http://hdmuse.com/images/M70B1/built/DSC_0003.jpg
http://hdmuse.com/images/M70B1/built/DSC_0011.jpg

I have great success hitting a 20 oz. plastic coke bottle at 100 yards with this ratty Yugo M70B1. It has the original barrel and iron sights.

Shooting position/cheekweld has a lot to do with my accuracy. By staying forward (with my nose nearly touching the rear of the top cover) I can hit very consistently. I think getting closer to the rear sight really helps

SHvar
June 1, 2009, 12:28 AM
If the Brits were so worried about getting caught drinking in the field why did it happen so much, not too many years ago. Yes, I saw this first hand once, and know many others who saw this over the years training with the Brits. In fact Ill site an incident with an entire battalion not showing up to an ambush site, when the ambush moved to where they camped out for the night, all were still either drunk and passed out, or hung over heavily.
Dont tell me its made up, one of these incidents happened in Germany in the mid to late 80s.
Regardless of which rifle a person prefers, the AR is much more accurate, and the AK can be slightly more reliable when very dirty, but if both are too dirty, both are paper weights.
The Iraqis liked the M-16 much more because it was easier to shoot, and much more accurate to shoot. Also seeing heads explode from 300-400 plus meters away from the M-16 that fired the round helped alot. Thanks in part to the Trijicon ACOG and American military training. In fact the iraqis like the M-4 much better than the AK, but they wont be getting those from us.

musick
June 1, 2009, 12:31 AM
I mean, if you submerge them both in mud, neither are going to run.

Not true:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPbF0kKyc2c

musick
June 1, 2009, 12:33 AM
Here is a link to part 1 of a 5 part series on AR vs AK. I found it quite balanced and fair to both:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN-T_zeTdTM&feature=fvsr

No matter how you look at it, both platforms are 40+ (one is even 50+) years old. U.S troops in combat deserve a more modern system IMO.

For civis, either is more than adequate.

Dan Crocker
June 1, 2009, 02:30 PM
In fact the iraqis like the M-4 much better than the AK, but they wont be getting those from us.
Actually, both the IA and the ANA have been getting M4s. In 2008 they were beginning to field select units with the M4 at KMTC in Kabul. This page http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/20070517.aspx talks about the issue of the M16 and M4 to the IA.

JShirley
June 1, 2009, 04:08 PM
I saw many more AK platforms, but I did see some ANA with M16s at Pol-e-Charki in 2007. I think they were A1s, but it's been a while...

Dan Crocker
June 1, 2009, 04:22 PM
Ah...Pol-e-Charki. Did you like route Pegasus then?

JShirley
June 1, 2009, 04:26 PM
I have never been more frightened of physical danger than zipping along on a "shooter ride" in a Ford F550 from Black Horse to Phoenix. I think we averaged over 75 mph, and came within feet of taking a bus head-on at a combined speed of well over 110 mph...

As we neared Phoenix, the E5 looked back and told me, You don't need to mention to anyone how fast we made this trip. :what:

J

paintballdude902
June 1, 2009, 04:31 PM
tolerances

these looser tolerances allow for the rifle to function very well but they arent as accurate since there is more play between the parts

Deutsche Schuetzen
June 1, 2009, 04:42 PM
I recently purchased a interarms Tantal AK-74 in 5.45x39 with the original chrome lined barrel that is reportedly made by Steyr.I replaced the original folding stock with original Russian Red laminated wood. I installed a milled steel Beryl scope rail with a Russian ww2 4x three post scope.With the standard Russian ball ammo I get 2" groups at 100 yards prettey consistantly.I recently aquired a case of RWS 5.45x39 ammo and my "Red Scorpion " shoots 1 moa with this ammo .Having 3 friends directly KIA in the Marine Corps due to failures of the M-16 just for reliability sake I prefer the AK-74 ;and they can be accurate. This is not a fluke as a good friend recently went the same route and his is just as accurate.I have a M-1A a H&K 93 and many other battle weapons and I consider this my most reliable.I still have a lot of connections in the Marine Corps even though I a retired and I have heard many reports of massive M-16 failures and of many front line Marines who were dumping the M-16s for an ak for reliability sake.Just an added thought;Thanks

Dan Crocker
June 1, 2009, 05:27 PM
J-
It's much safer to ditch the uniforms and go out in a Corolla with a nice beard. It's so ridiculously hard to get the Army to realize that, though.
We'd run into Phoenix and CSTC-A PSD convoys all the time driving like jerks in their SUVs. It's funny how the commanders want to look like baller s driving around in those, but all they do is scream 'target.' Plus, you can't fight out of them. We had a couple armored cars, but we'd rarely take them out.

But here we go getting all off-topic again...

nalioth
June 1, 2009, 05:41 PM
I recently purchased a interarms Tantal AK-74 in 5.45x39 with the original chrome lined barrel that is reportedly made by Steyr.Sorry to burst your bubble, but Steyr did not make the barrel in your rifle.

You see, when a process becomes universal, it picks up the name of it's creator. Steyr machinery has been sold to companies around the world for decades, and all produce "steyr (process) hammer forged barrels"

danweasel
June 1, 2009, 08:16 PM
Hey with the slant style muzzle brake (which I have) maybe affecting accuracy, what would be the best fix? Just taking it off? Replacing it with a ???? style brake?

By the way, I haven't cleaned my AK yet and it hasn't jammed yet. Even at 50 degree's below zero. Of course, I only shot 60 rounds that day. I have fired really close to 1900 rounds total. I just put a Texas Weapon Systems rail on it and promptly left my crappy Baraska Red dot sight on for 3 days killing the battery and negating my chance to check the accuracy of the rifle. With the mojo sights I had before I could hit small stuff at 100 yards pretty well but I never "printed" it on paper. It came zero'ed from the place I bought it from. Just some more experiences to share...

nalioth
June 1, 2009, 08:27 PM
Hey with the slant style muzzle brake (which I have) maybe affecting accuracy, what would be the best fix? Just taking it off? Replacing it with a ???? style brake? Unless you're having bullet strikes on your slant brake, the brake isn't affecting accuracy.

I'd suggest taking the slant brake off and seeing if it makes a difference.

mordechaianiliewicz
June 1, 2009, 08:32 PM
We have gotten to a point now though where they aren't too much less reliable than AKs

benEzra
June 1, 2009, 09:29 PM
Unless you're having bullet strikes on your slant brake, the brake isn't affecting accuracy.
The brake doesn't hinder accuracy via bullet strikes. It hinders accuracy by causing the bullet to fly through a several-thousand-mph off-axis gas jet as the bullet transits the brake, a characteristic that is unique to the scoop-style slant brake. That off-axis gas jet, interacting with the typical hollow-base 7.62x39mm bullet, causes large transient yaw moments and resulting nutation, and the nutation opens up the groups.

The AK-74 style brake, as well as Western-style brakes, don't have this problem because they generally don't significantly disturb the flow field the bullet flies through. The slant brake does, badly (and it doesn't help the barrel harmonics, either).

Small Arms Review did AK accuracy testing a while back and found that the slant brake did indeed cause significantly larger groups. Is it the only factor? No, of course not, but it is a significant one.

Hey with the slant style muzzle brake (which I have) maybe affecting accuracy, what would be the best fix? Just taking it off? Replacing it with a ???? style brake?

Replacing it with pretty much any other type of muzzle brake should help. The slant brake is pretty much unique in the way it makes the bullet fly through the gas jet.

Here's one option:

http://yankeehill.bizland.com/store/media/YHM-28-5M1.jpg
http://www.yhm.net/store/muzzle.html

Another option, a little nicer but three times the price:

http://www.onesourcetactical.com/ProductImages/FSC47_L_1.jpg
http://www.onesourcetactical.com/ProductImages/FSC47_L_1.jpg

For me, the AK recoil is mild enough that I'd rather have a flash suppressor than a brake anyway (and that way it's not so loud). But if you are shooting IPSC/USPSA and don't mind the noise, I can see where a brake could help with splits to some degree. Either of the above brakes will probably be more effective at reducing recoil than the slant brake, also.

For your rifle, it would be pretty simple to see if your brake is a significant contributor to group size with your ammunition of choice; simply push in the spring-loaded pin that keeps the brake from unscrewing (it pushes into the recess in the front of the front sight tower), and screw the brake off (note that it is a left hand thread, so it will screw off in the opposite direction you think it will). Then shoot it without the brake and see if your group size is affected; just be careful not to damage your threads or else you may have trouble getting the brake back on. If your main problem is sighting difficulties, poor benchrest technique, or craptastic ammunition, removing the brake may not help much, but if you have the other things down then you may see a difference.

H2O MAN
June 1, 2009, 10:19 PM
Another option is the DC Vortex flash hider from SEI... the sound suppressor reduces recoil and flash :evil:

http://www.athenswater.com/images/practiacl-AKM.jpg

SHvar
June 1, 2009, 11:46 PM
Last time I checked, the Marines (including the marine I spoke to today who was in Iraq recently) loved their M-16A2s and M-16A4s. The M-4s they recieved were given to another unit promptly (all but a few). Not one member of their units would dream of giving up an M-16 of any kind especially for an AK, to a marine giving up your M-16 is like committing suicide.
After all why do the SAS (Brittish and Australian), Israelis (some still have M-4s and M-16A2s which they have preferred for many years), and multiple other countries all choose the M-4 and M-16 as their rifle of choice, simply put it is more reliable and effective than their other options (AK, SA80, Steyr AUG, etc).

BlackHand1917
June 1, 2009, 11:49 PM
I disagree with Sunray's description of Russian troops as "illliterate conscripts." We Americans might be superior to the Russian people in many ways but the level of literacy in both the old Soviet Union and modern Russia among the "common folk" was and is superior to American levels of literacy.

HorseSoldier
June 2, 2009, 12:32 AM
The AK keeps running without regular cleaning and maintenance.

Not really. The AK is pretty rugged, but if you run them hard and neglect them they fail eventually. I've yet to do military training or take a civilian class where a bunch of AKs were present and at least a couple didn't hiccup during the course of 2-5 days of good range work (and very modest, at best, neglect by combat standards).

JShirley
June 2, 2009, 01:03 AM
The M-4s they recieved were given to another unit promptly (all but a few).

Hm. The Marine E4 at the ETT base next to our little ODA camp seemed to like the M4 (with ACOG) just fine. He was a fighting SOB, too. :) Put a tracer warning round between someone's legs at around 500 meters.

Just in time. We would have killed him immediately if he hadn't left.

H2O, are you able to use the same suppressor for M1A and AK?

J

HorseSoldier
June 2, 2009, 01:07 AM
The Marines I've occasionally worked with, co-used ranges with, and such, probably ran about 90% in favor of getting M4s to replace their 16s, from talking to them.

Dan Crocker
June 2, 2009, 01:41 AM
After all why do the SAS (Brittish and Australian), Israelis (some still have M-4s and M-16A2s which they have preferred for many years), and multiple other countries all choose the M-4 and M-16 as their rifle of choice, simply put it is more reliable and effective than their other options (AK, SA80, Steyr AUG, etc).
It all depends. I've rolled with SAS in Basrah for tactical questioning using G36s and again the next day gone out with NCIS and OSI using Mk18s. I've seen Marines at Um Qasr using AKs instead of their 16s because it's what they are training the Iraqi Navy with. You can generalize all you want, but there are always exceptions dependent upon the mission and personal preference.

Uncle Mike
June 2, 2009, 11:34 AM
Iraqi troops see their AK-47s as something losers use, while M16s and M4s are the weapons of winners.

See, I knew it... only loosers shoot AK's...Yea right! hehehe :D

On the negative side, the M16 requires more maintenance to prevent jamming. Many tests have been conducted on this subject, and it's quite clear that M16s have more jams, in dusty and sandy conditions, than do AK-47s.

.... now the AK's are better... I'm confused... oh my, what shall I do?... hehehe :neener:

The M16, in the hands of trained shooters, is more accurate than the AK-47

... now the M-16 is on top... somebody help...:banghead:

The M16 is also a more expensive rifle, costing about $600 each. The second hand AK-47s the Iraqis are now using are worth less than a hundred dollars.

...and the AK lands a devastating right punch to the wallet.... hell, a new Ak aint worth a hundred bucks... hehehe

Each Iraqi soldier that is issued an M16, has his name, fingerprints and retinal scan taken, as well as the serial number of the weapon

...I said damn... what's next... rectal scans over the M-16... hehehe :neener:

...Just being bad this AM... I do love both these rifles! :o

danweasel
June 2, 2009, 11:37 AM
benEzra, Thank you much for your help. I am kind of wary of spending money (besides the $200!! dollars on a rail and a red-dot) on my AK but I think I will pick up one of those brakes.

Anyways, about US forces carrying AKs, One of the guys in my unit carried a AK-74 around the Mosul Palace for a while. And we were SIGNAL! He told me he simply signed it out from somewhere or another.

H2O MAN
June 2, 2009, 12:42 PM
H2O, are you able to use the same suppressor for M1A and AK?

My single SEI M14DC 0.30 Caliber Sound Suppressor works equally well on all of my M14s as well as my lone AKM.

benEzra
June 2, 2009, 04:18 PM
benEzra, Thank you much for your help. I am kind of wary of spending money (besides the $200!! dollars on a rail and a red-dot) on my AK but I think I will pick up one of those brakes.
If you order one of the ones I linked to, do make sure it is a 7.62mm AK brake (I didn't look super closely, although I know Yankee Hill sells AK brakes on that page). A 7.62x39mm AK will have M14 X 1 LH (metric 14mm x 1, left hand) threads, so an M14 7.62mm brake won't screw on.

H2O MAN
June 2, 2009, 04:36 PM
benEzra
A 7.62x39mm AK will have M14 X 1 LH (metric 14mm x 1, left hand) threads, so an M14 7.62mm brake won't screw on.

Correct!

I had to purchase my 14 X 1M LH threaded DC Vortex AK-47/AKM Flash Suppressor (PN #6026V (http://www.smithenterprise.com/spec/Vortex_AK47AKM.pdf)) direct from SEI.

Dan Crocker
June 2, 2009, 04:40 PM
Each Iraqi soldier that is issued an M16, has his name, fingerprints and retinal scan taken,
This is done to all Iraqi and Afghan troops now, their biometrics are loaded into the BATS database. We do this to all detainees, local workers on US installations, etc. Really cool system.

If you enjoyed reading about "What makes a Kalashnikov less accurate than its western counterparts?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!