[Inebriated]

Welp, I've pulled the trigger on a 4-12x40 for my Arsenal SGL-21, and I think it'll be great for the range, where popping cans at 200 yards is the biggest concern, as well as the occasional hog hunt where I need less magnification, and more FOV. It's also very versatile for other rifles, if I want to move it around. It works out great for me, but.... am I the only one who thinks an actual scope (not a dot) looks funny on an AK?

[SabbathWolf]

Depends, but I voted NO.
The Russians put POSP scopes on AKs all the time.
It must be OK, since they are ones who invented the gun in the first place.:D

I only have a red dot on mine (AK), and use my scoped bolt rifle for long ranges...but I see nothing "wrong" with your choice either way. I guess it's really just personal preference.

"Looks" is really in the eye of the beholder either way.

[LJ-MosinFreak-Buck]

I say if it works, go shoot!

[Cal-gun Fan]

That big of a scope would look goofy to me. Anything above a 2x7 scope looks goofy on an AK to me though. Functionality wise? 12x is far higher than I would need or an AK can really use IMO. But, if it works for you, go for it!

[Inebriated]

I chose the 12x because I like the versatility. I looked at 2-7, but I felt like 3-9 worked better for what I use it for. Then at that point, the 4-12 was the same price, and I can use it on a whole host of other rifles, if I want to.

[Adam123]

It depends on the size of a scope. I have a 3-9x32 that is only 6.5-7 inches long.

[wasr10634unme]

pics of it mounted? im wondering just how goofy....

[Inebriated]

Not my rifle (courtesy of markdavidson of Saiga-12.com), but should give you an idea. The scope isn't here yet, and neither is the mount.

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq223/markdavidson64/IMG_0097_cr.jpg

[Texan Scott]

Surprised noone's trotted this one out yet...

*AHEM*

"If it looks stupid, but it works, it ain't stupid."

[Rail Driver]

I had a 3-9x40 scope on my converted Saiga - I thought it looked decent, if a little bit big - Shot fantastically though. I never stretched it out past 200 meters, but accuracy was much as expected - around 3-4" at 200. I think with a little more work on the rifle itself and handloads, I would have had much better groupings. My 100yd groups were around 1-2".

[Inebriated]

I love the 1911 grips on that lol... Never seen that before. And I have to agree, the accuracy on these AK's are excellent.

And Texan Scott, I think you hit the nail on the head.

[CraigC]

You need a 4-12x to shoot garbage cans at 200yds??? :p

[wnycollector]

I vote no mainly because I have a 2-10x44 scope on my converted 5.45 saiga;)

[Nullcone]

It looks... heavy.

[Inebriated]

For the range, I don't care about weight. Hunting, I may regret my choice...

And CraigC, we happen to have really small garbage cans, ok!? lol

[Rail Driver]

I don't know about garbage cans, but I was using the stick on 8" shoot-n-see targets at 200 meters (not yards) - at that distance, all you see until you shoot is a black circle through the scope using irons, it's little more than a black spot on a plywood background. I've found, though, that once my scope is zeroed, just centering the target in the crosshairs does the trick - I've shot a few groups better than 3" at that distance with that rifle, but I count fliers and had a heavy handguard on the rifle, so the smaller groups don't happen as often. I never fired it using handloads or premium ammo, just surplus and cheap Tula or Wolf steel cased ammo. I would almost regret selling it if the profit hadn't been so much in my favor.

[Inebriated]

I mostly shoot clay targets, soda cans, tannerite on occasion, and steel. I mean, it's all doable with irons, and that's what I use at the moment... but it's nice to be able to actually see the target with any clarity.

[JohnnyK]

I had a 3x9x40 on my AMG-65 and that was too much...

[C'Thulhu]

I prefer very compact optics, but that's just me.

[Ar180shooter]

Probably looks fine, but the magnification seems a little high. I'd go for a 4x or 6x optic on that rifle if it were mine (but hey, I can't even own one thanks to my countries crappy gun laws :()

[mattmann]

Not my rifle (courtesy of markdavidson of Saiga-12.com), but should give you an idea. The scope isn't here yet, and neither is the mount.

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq223/markdavidson64/IMG_0097_cr.jpg

I think this looks pretty cool. Looks like it would be a great hog gun!

Sent from my DROID RAZR

[mshootnit]

12X is probably a little too much magnification, in that you might be able to see a 1" spot at 200 and put your crosshairs on it, but your POI will dance around it in a 6" circle and you probly wont hit it very often. Thats frustrating and pretty quick you will be blaming your mount for being loose when in reality you never had the accuracy to call such a shot.
Now for shooting 6-8" targets or bigger at 200 meters, a 4 or 6 or 7 power scope is ideal. I also have a nice 8X POSP that works really well. 8x is really all you need with an AK of just about any type or even a SVD.
For mounts pick your flavor but what you will realize is that a real low mount will just make you get taller rings to clear the rear sight area.
You will want to mount your scope forward to prevent getting hit in the eye.
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d14/rizbunk77/riz2/josh067.jpg

[chaser_2332]

I don't think ak's warrant a scope but if so I think the 1-4 is more than enough. The 1-4 can get most rifles 400-500yds+

[Ar180shooter]

I don't think ak's warrant a scope but if so I think the 1-4 is more than enough. The 1-4 can get most rifles 400-500yds+
Yup. I have a 1-4x24 Vortex Razor HD on my Sig PE90 and can ring a 13" gong at 550 yards with it. Not on every shot, but that's mostly me.

[ritepath]

IMHO you can never have too much scope. That extra power allows you to pull a antler out of a group of leaves. Dial it in at 100 yards and see where every shot goes without having to pull out another optic.

Sure some scopes look like crap on a small rifle but it's the results you get that matter.

[Cesiumsponge]

A scope? Or a 12x scope?

12x is good enough to 1000+ yards with good quality glass. It seems excessive for the AK platform. Something in the 4 or 6x range at the high end seems more sensible. Even with the generally more accurate AR platforms, most general configurations are using no more than 4-6x optics on the top unless you're building a designated marksman rifle.

If you're simply going high magnification for spotting your own holes, then I don't see a problem but you'll probably get a ribbing from folks.

[Cal-gun Fan]

IMHO you can never have too much scope. That extra power allows you to pull a antler out of a group of leaves. Dial it in at 100 yards and see where every shot goes without having to pull out another optic.

Sure some scopes look like crap on a small rifle but it's the results you get that matter.
You can definitely have too much scope. Often times, scopes with high magnification have higher minimum magnification. That makes it harder to hit targets closer in, and harder to hold on a target, especially in positional shooting. The AK isn't meant to be a bench rifle and I generally don't shot my SGL from the bench. For that application, a 1-4x or 2-7x is ideal, whereas a 4-12x starts to be a hindrance.

[henschman]

The only ways I would say a scope looks goofy on an AK is 1) if it has a minimum power over 4x, and 2) if the stock doesn't have a raised cheek rest, so the scope is sitting way up over the sight line for the irons, with no way to get a good cheek weld. Mounting scopes up high without adding a cheek rest is a sure sign of an inexperienced shooter.

[Rail Driver]

The only ways I would say a scope looks goofy on an AK is 1) if it has a minimum power over 4x, and 2) if the stock doesn't have a raised cheek rest, so the scope is sitting way up over the sight line for the irons, with no way to get a good cheek weld. Mounting scopes up high without adding a cheek rest is a sure sign of an inexperienced shooter.

... or a tall shooter, or a bench shooter, or someone that shoots using an unconventional "jaw weld" instead of a cheek weld when they shoot a scoped AK, or someone that wants to be comfortable when they shoot and understands how ergonomics can be used to do so, etc etc etc.

Anyone ever tell you not to judge a book by it's cover? I build my rifles to fit my body and my shooting style (see the photo of the black and white Saiga AK in this thread) - The scope on the rifle I posted in this photo was not only a little higher, and a bit further back because I don't hunch down behind an AK like I do behind an AR-15. With a more vertical plane, I can shoot better with a slightly higher mounted scope.

Just because I have a high mounted scope and no raised cheek rest certainly doesn't make me an inexperienced shooter - I've put tens of thousands of rounds down range in the past 15 years, both in the military and in civilian life. You can't judge a person by the way they or their rifle looks.

[SabbathWolf]

... or a tall shooter, or a bench shooter, or someone that shoots using an unconventional "jaw weld" instead of a cheek weld when they shoot a scoped AK, or someone that wants to be comfortable when they shoot and understands how ergonomics can be used to do so, etc etc etc.

Anyone ever tell you not to judge a book by it's cover? I build my rifles to fit my body and my shooting style (see the photo of the black and white Saiga AK in this thread) - The scope on the rifle I posted in this photo was not only a little higher, and a bit further back because I don't hunch down behind an AK like I do behind an AR-15. With a more vertical plane, I can shoot better with a slightly higher mounted scope.

Just because I have a high mounted scope and no raised cheek rest certainly doesn't make me an inexperienced shooter - I've put tens of thousands of rounds down range in the past 15 years, both in the military and in civilian life. You can't judge a person by the way they or their rifle looks.


That's true.
Even the Russian Kobra red-dot system sits higher than what a lot of people are "used" to. But it works great.

[WardenWolf]

Nope. Scopes on AK's look and work great. And if you get a proper quick-detach mount, you don't have to keep it there.

[CraigC]

IMHO you can never have too much scope.
Pure, unadulterated nonsense. You can absolutely have too much scope on any given rifle, much easier and much more common than too little. Many times less is more and you sure as hell don't want a 6-18x on your 100yd woods rifle.

[SabbathWolf]

Pure, unadulterated nonsense. You can absolutely have too much scope on any given rifle, much easier and much more common than too little. Many times less is more and you sure as hell don't want a 6-18x on your 100yd woods rifle.


Oh blah blah blah Craig....
Stop interrupting this thread with actual "facts."
:D

[WardenWolf]

You certainly CAN have too much scope. You won't see me putting a 6-18x50 scope on a .223 or 7.62x39, for example. However, a 3-9x40 is perfect, as are some 12x's. You shouldn't go over a 40mm objective lens on a normal AK. A PSL, on the other hand, wears a 6-18x50 nicely and looks great doing so.

[CraigC]

Oh blah blah blah Craig....
Stop interrupting this thread with actual "facts."
I'm goofy like that. ;)


However, a 3-9x40 is perfect...
Even the ubiquitous 3-9x is too much for most of the rifles that wear them.

[henschman]

On the cheek weld issue, I have been a rifle marksmanship instructor for years, and would never dream of instructing someone to go ahead and let something like that slide (unless physical injuries prevented it). A solid cheek weld goes to both stability and consistency. The idea is to get the neck muscles to be completely relaxed, which requires resting the head in the hollow of the cheek, and to make sure the head is in the same place on the stock every time for a consistent sight picture. Having the head resting on the chin or out in space requires some neck muscle to maintain, which causes the shooter to get tired more quickly, and introduces motion from tensed/tired muscles.

Is a poor cheek weld something that you can get away with and still do some pretty decent shooting? Sure, especially off a bench (benches are somewhat forgiving of a lot of bad shooting habits). But is it something that should be encouraged, or taught as "just as good as any other way?" Absolutely not. And to suggest that kind of advice to new shooters who might not know better on a forum like this would be doing them a disservice.

I seriously doubt you will ever see any sort of reputable shooting class or firearms instructor teaching students that cheek weld is no big deal, or is something that can be overlooked. Obviously it is one thing that can be dispensed with when you are shooting from a non-ideal position in combat or something, but cheek weld should be used any time you can possibly get it.

So I stand by my comment on it being the sign of an inexperienced marksman.

The fact that some Communist design bureau designed a gunsight to be used without a cheek weld is not in any way an endorsement of proper shooting form.

Yes, I am fully aware that some US military personnel use a mini red dot sight on top of their primary optic in this type of manner, but that is purely a last-ditch form of aiming for emergency close quarters shooting. People who know what they are doing would never mount their PRIMARY optic in that manner, if they could at all help it.

[SabbathWolf]

Translation:

If you don't happen to shoot exactly like henschman say to, then you are automatically an inexperienced shooter simply because he says so.
:rolleyes:

[Rail Driver]

On the cheek weld issue, I have been a rifle marksmanship instructor for years, and would never dream of instructing someone to go ahead and let something like that slide (unless physical injuries prevented it). A solid cheek weld goes to both stability and consistency. The idea is to get the neck muscles to be completely relaxed, which requires resting the head in the hollow of the cheek, and to make sure the head is in the same place on the stock every time for a consistent sight picture. Having the head resting on the chin or out in space requires some neck muscle to maintain, which causes the shooter to get tired more quickly, and introduces motion from tensed/tired muscles.

Is a poor cheek weld something that you can get away with and still do some pretty decent shooting? Sure, especially off a bench (benches are somewhat forgiving of a lot of bad shooting habits). But is it something that should be encouraged, or taught as "just as good as any other way?" Absolutely not. And to suggest that kind of advice to new shooters who might not know better on a forum like this would be doing them a disservice.

I seriously doubt you will ever see any sort of reputable shooting class or firearms instructor teaching students that cheek weld is no big deal, or is something that can be overlooked. Obviously it is one thing that can be dispensed with when you are shooting from a non-ideal position in combat or something, but cheek weld should be used any time you can possibly get it.

So I stand by my comment on it being the sign of an inexperienced marksman.

The fact that some Communist design bureau designed a gunsight to be used without a cheek weld is not in any way an endorsement of proper shooting form.

Yes, I am fully aware that some US military personnel use a mini red dot sight on top of their primary optic in this type of manner, but that is purely a last-ditch form of aiming for emergency close quarters shooting. People who know what they are doing would never mount their PRIMARY optic in that manner, if they could at all help it.
First off, there are exceptions to every rule - That's a fact of life you can't get around or explain away no matter what course you teach.

Secondly, the cheek weld for one person IS NOT going to be the same as the cheek weld for the next person. Like I said - I build my rifles to FIT ME - it has nothing to do with what some communist bureau designed, and regardless of what you say I'm not going to shoot better in a hunched over, uncomfortable position with my neck kinked and my offside neck muscles stretched to the point that it's painful. Quite the contrary - I'll likely shoot much worse.

Accurate rifle marksmanship isn't about cheek weld, it's about consistency - Cheek weld is ONE way to achieve and ensure that consistency. It's not the ONLY way. Until you can open your mind enough to add another tool to your toolbox, stop implying that the next person is inexperienced simply because you don't know how to be consistent without a cheek weld.

[BoltActionPrepper]

beauty goes hand in hand with function i suppose.

[CraigC]

While there are obviously exceptions to every rule, in general, I have to agree with henschman. The importance of a solid, consistent cheek weld should not even be a debatable issue.

[Inebriated]

The importance of a solid, consistent cheek weld ISN'T a debatable issue... it's Henschman's claim that if you DON'T have it, you're an inexperienced shooter. And that is simply not true.

[CraigC]

It's usually a pretty good indication that it IS true. Like I said (I seem to have to repeat myself a lot), it is not universal, there are exceptions (like those little side mounted Docter sights) but it is generally true. If your scope is too high for you to get a good cheek weld, you probably do not understand the importance of cheek weld and therefore, one could reasonably assume that you are an inexperienced shooter.

Do you guys know how politically correct this all sounds??? Are we afraid of labeling or being labeled "inexperienced"? It's not a terminal illness, we were all there once. :rolleyes:

[fatcat4620]

Do what you want and enjoy it.

[el Godfather]

1.5x or 3x would look good on AKM