Accuracy Comparison: Ak vs. M1 Carbine


PDA






SharpsDressedMan
September 7, 2009, 07:24 PM
Anyone besides me found that the M1 Carbine generally outshoots the Ak47 (7.62x39)? Both my guns have Z-Point sights on them, but the carbine seems to shoot groups almost half the size of the AK.

If you enjoyed reading about "Accuracy Comparison: Ak vs. M1 Carbine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
carbine85
September 7, 2009, 08:18 PM
I would say they are about the same within 100 yards. After 200 yards I think AK is better. Neither one is noted as accurate. I actually perfer shooting the M1 over the AK.

briansmithwins
September 7, 2009, 08:43 PM
Just curious, how did you mount the sights?

What kind of group size are you getting?

BSW

Maverick223
September 7, 2009, 08:48 PM
Of all of both that I have fired (my fair share of both) the M1 has almost always exceeded the AK in accuracy at any range (up to about 200yds). The one Universal Carbine that I have fired exhibited accuracy on par with the average AK (about 3-5MOA), but that was a horrible rifle that the bolt ended up breaking on. IME the M1 Carbine has exhibited 2-3MOA. :)

SharpsDressedMan
September 7, 2009, 08:58 PM
Both have the Ultimak mount with Z-point sight. This puts them on even ground for comparison, sight-wise. I get about 3.5 inches (100 yards) from the AK (a Bulgarian front half with a Hungarian AMD folding stock, US made receiver). This is with US, Chinese, and Yugoslav ammo, pretty much same results. The Carbine was used with USGI and some nice commercial re-manufactuted ammo. I got about 2 inches at 100 with the Carbine. 200 yards had the Carbine stringing a bit horizontally due to the wind on the day I shot it at that range. I cannot recall the AK at 200 yards (shot that on a different day). The carbine also seems to handle better. http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m247/matquig/DSC05280.jpg http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m247/matquig/DSC05447.jpg

DMK
September 7, 2009, 10:02 PM
My M1 definitely outshoots my AK (SAR1). It also has better sights, a longer sight radius and lighter recoil.

I never understood why some folks bash the M1's accuracy. Mine shoots very well. Maybe some folks just have worn out barrels on theirs?

Now the AK certainly has more energy and much better range though.

SharpsDressedMan
September 7, 2009, 10:54 PM
DMK, funny you should mention carbine accuracy bashing. My dad was an 81mm mortarman in the S. Pacific in WWII. He trained with an old WWI 1917 Enfield in basic training, bu they gave him an M1 Carbine when he arrived in Australia as a replacement in 1942. He wa usually carrying a mortar baseplate, or ammunition, and the carbine was intended to lighten the load. He said he couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with the carbine, but I often thought that the carbine had already gained a poor reputation among the troops there as a "knockdown" weapon, maybe failing against Japanese troops hopped up on adrenaline or drugs. He said he quickly dumped the carbine, and scrounged up an M1 Garand from a dead GI (he also said the Garand had rusted rather quickly in the jungle environment, but he got it clean enough to use). Even though the combined weight of his mortar gear and the Garand was more than others were carrying, he felt better off with it. I think carbine inaccuracy is a myth, propagated by guys like my dad, who just found a reason not to carry or use it. The accuracy of every carbine I have fired has been at least as good as most every .22 (save target guns) I have owned or shot.

dispatch55126
September 7, 2009, 11:34 PM
My grandfather was the last original member of his company before getting hit in Feb '45. We can do/say/think whatever from the comfort of our recliners and ranges but I always take what he says as having practical experience. If your dads carbine was a POS, I suspect that it was.

DMK
September 8, 2009, 08:52 AM
We can do/say/think whatever from the comfort of our recliners and ranges but I always take what he says as having practical experience. I have great respect for those who served, but I don't understand why a gun would be any more or less accurate in the field than it would be at the range. The shooter might be less accurate when getting shot at, but the gun itself should shoot the same unless it just wasn't properly maintained or zeroed.

Snowdog
September 8, 2009, 10:00 AM
I don't have an AK nor do I plan on owning one unless I stumble upon an incredible deal, but I do own a couple SKS rifles (that I presume is similar in accuracy to the AK) and have friends who own AK type rifles. Not only do I find my AO/Kahr M1 Carbine more accurate but I found my old Universal M1 (that was of lesser quality than my current M1 Carbine) more accurate as well.

Pilot
September 8, 2009, 10:03 AM
SKS's are typically more accurate than AK's. My two Russian SKS's are easily good for 3 - 4 inch groups at 100 yards.

GunTech
September 8, 2009, 12:06 PM
Depends on the AK. Almost anything will outshoot the common AK variants - even a mini-14.

But AK variants like the Valmet and Galil can be very good shooters indeed. My Golani will do 2 inches at 100 yards.

http://guntech.com/galil/golani-aimpoint.jpg

rfurtkamp
September 8, 2009, 01:04 PM
I'd wager that the ergonomic differences alone (AK with sidefolder isn't known for cheek weld or repeatable hold) would account for much of it, along with differences between rifle to rifle.

They're both performing about what I'd expect out of the box. Neither one is a MOA weapon.

Maverick223
September 8, 2009, 01:10 PM
I don't consider a Galil or non 7.62x39 variants of the Saiga to be an AK...but if you do, my limited experience with one has shown the Saiga in .223 to be about equal to M1 Carbine, and I have little doubt that the Galil (or Golani) could do likewise or better. :)

SharpsDressedMan
September 8, 2009, 03:35 PM
Now we might be getting into a caliber/cartridge debate. My original thinking was to compare the .30 cals, because I believe the .223 and 5.45x39 just might be more accurate than the 7.62x39 in general. The folding stock on the AK makes it harder to keep good rifleman skills (cheek weld, etc); I will agree that might be a hindrance to the comparison. The Galil is a milled receiver gun in .223 or .308, so that might not be the best example of general comparison of an AK47. FWIW, my AK 74 (5.45x39) variant is also significantly more accurate than my AK47, and they are both stamped steel receivers. For those that have shot both, or own and shoot both the usual 7.62x39 AK47 and M1 Carbine, your results of comparison would still be interesting to me. Has anyone had an AK47 7.62 shoot BETTER than any .30 M1 Carbine they have handled?

Pilot
September 8, 2009, 03:38 PM
FWIW, my AK 74 (5.45x39) variant is also significantly more accurate than my AK47, and they are both stamped steel receivers.


That is true. My two AK-74's in 5.45 are more accurate than my AK-47 and SKS's.

SSN Vet
September 8, 2009, 05:18 PM
I do not know... but would love to find out :^)

rcmodel
September 8, 2009, 05:24 PM
The M-1 Carbine has better (peep) sights, a longer sight radus, a more ergonomic stock design, a far better trigger, and less recoil.

It should and does shoot better then any SKS I have owned, and any AK I have fired..

rc

Maverick223
September 8, 2009, 05:27 PM
Has anyone had an AK47 7.62 shoot BETTER than any .30 M1 Carbine they have handled?Not from my experience. :)

SharpsDressedMan
September 8, 2009, 05:44 PM
O.K. For many years, my dad had me convinced tha the carbine was inaccurate, then I got to shoot one in my teens. Nothing unusual, seemed as accurate as anything else. Then along come the carbine bashers, with many acting like the carbine doesn't belong in the same room with an M1 Garand, because of poor performance in WWII and Korea (some complaints were true, some were myths; many GI's just LOVED the carbine). Taken in its context, the carbine is not a bad short range, defensive instrument, somewhere between a pistol and full rifle (exactly what it was designed to be.) Now along comes the AK invasion from foreign lands, a semi auto firing a .30 cal slug just a tad heavier and about 200-300fps faster, from a similar sized package (although a bit heavier). At some point, a gun buyer thinking about one might think about the other. Since everything is a compromise, I find it interesting that both of these guns will serve to protect & defend, and either might fit a little better into one's wants, depending on which direction a user goes. I like them both, and find it even harder to place one over the other when the less powerful one becomes the more accurate one. It does add to the fun in life, though, to be able to go to the range and wring them out against each other.

Vern Humphrey
September 8, 2009, 05:51 PM
I often thought that the carbine had already gained a poor reputation among the troops there as a "knockdown" weapon, maybe failing against Japanese troops hopped up on adrenaline or drugs. He said he quickly dumped the carbine, and scrounged up an M1 Garand from a dead GI
I did the same thing. As an Adviser to Viet Namese Infantry on my first tour, I was issued an M2 carbine (that's the selective fire verson.) It got wrapped around a tree, and I bummed an M1 Garand from the unit I was advising.

amd6547
September 8, 2009, 07:40 PM
I use my CMP Inland for my HD longarm, and it is quite accurate at 100yds. However, my Yugo UF AK is just as accurate at the same range. In fact, I shot a tighter group at 100yds than another shooter who was preparing for a match with his M1 Garand while I was sighting in my Yugo. Which proves absolutely nothing, but the Garand shooter, who had been a little snooty, seemed pretty abashed.
I will say it is easier to shoot the carbine.

DMK
September 8, 2009, 07:55 PM
I used to keep my sidefolder SAR1 AK handy with a few mags for a "on the go" gun in case I needed a carbine that I could stuff under the seat of the truck, or stuff into a duffle bag and go. However, since I got my Inland carbine dialed in, I got pretty impressed by it. I put the AK back in the safe for range toy use. The M1 is much handier, lighter, more compact (both shorter and slimmer) and I can keep the rounds in the 10 ring of a reduced SR1 out to 100y no problem, something that's a little more difficult to do with the SAR1, especially offhand.

I have no worries about its stopping power out to 100y or so when loaded with softpoints. It's no Garand or FAL, but I can't stuff my Garand in a suitcase either.

http://mysite.verizon.net/dmk0210/myarms/carbines.jpg

lionking
September 8, 2009, 08:31 PM
I have two G.I carbines that I haven't shot groups on paper yet but I took my Universal carbine out two weeks ago and shot these two 10 shot groups @ 100yds rested.Not very impressive groups,but my Universal is a bang around rifle that rattles when you shake it and I don't know how many rounds it had through it before I bought it,it is my plinking at soda cans or bowling pins rifle.I used Georgia arms ammo,which I dunno if it is reloaded or surplus but all the ammo is LC marked.My AK's tend to do somewhat better than these groups I got.

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa45/lionking_rocks/universal%20carbine/023.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "Accuracy Comparison: Ak vs. M1 Carbine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!