AK-47, aiming, recoil, rapid fire

It depends entirely on your own personal level of training. The better trained you are, the faster you can shoot accurately.

It also depends on what you mean by "accurate." It takes time to reacquire the sight picture and get it settled on your target consistently. The more time you take, the more accurate your shots will be (subject to diminishing returns, of course). In general, "fast" and "accurate" don't go together. A good rifle with good sights (especially optics), quality ammo and a well-trained and highly experienced shooter will be able to shoot quickly with precision much better than a poor rifle with bad sights, cheap ammo and a poorly trained and inexperienced shooter. The AK-47 is not a particularly accurate rifle, its sights are pretty poor for long range shooting, and almost all of the ammo available is low quality from an accuracy standpoint, so even the best shooter will struggle to shoot quickly and accurately at 100 yards with a typical semiauto AK and ammo. There are lots of rifles that would far better choices for rapid, accurate shot placement at 100 yards.

And I say that as someone who owns and admires AK's, so no need to flame me. I just understand the limitations of the AK. It is a rugged, reliable rifle best suited for short range work. For intermediate and long ranges, there are much better choices.

+10 on the previous posts...

how you handle recoil affects your ability to re-aquire the target with iron sights.

With me, if i give 1 second to re-aquire my target at 100 yards, i can garuntee that I wont be as accurate, but I woukd certainly give a fair amount of damage to a humanoid sized/type target. Its all on you.

Technique will be the single biggest variable

In a good stance with a mag hold pulled in tight my carbine barely moves

Use a red-dot sight.

Put the donut of death on target.

Kill target.

That is all.

Калашников - даже для людей, которым нужно сказать не гадить в водоснабжении

I would say it should take you 3-4 seconds per shot on a 100 yard target, assuming that target was the size of a person.

I believe there's a military standard of "rate of aimed fire" but don't recall what that is. I *thnk* it was 20-30 rounds per minute. I don't recall what the parameters of that standard is or how other types compare.

However, the soviets intended to achieve accuracy with the go-fast switch.

Seriously depends on your training, size of your target, and the sights on your rifle.

Assuming you're fairly competent - you've mastered breath control, trigger control, and sight alignment. Also assuming you're using a sling around your bicep to hold the rifle tight against your shoulder.

If your target is a man-sized cardboard, and hits anywhere count:

-standard v-notch rear sight, maybe 4-5 seconds between shots to guarantee a hit; 2 seconds to get a 75% probability

-ghost ring rear sight, maybe 3-4 seconds between shots to guarantee a hit, 2 seconds to get a 75% probability

-red dot 1x sight, maybe 2 seconds between shots to guarantee a hit, slightly less than 1 second to get a 75% probability

If your target is say a 12 inch circle, say a bullseye or a spot representing the vitals of an "enemy combatant" (whether you imagine it as a zombie/alien/commie invader/whatever):

-standard v-notch rear sight, maybe 6-7 seconds between shots to get 75% probability

-ghost ring rear sight, maybe 4-5 seconds between shots to get 75% probability

-red dot 1x sight, maybe 2 seconds to get 75% probability

This is of course informal, and based on my own experience. I replaced my v-notch sight with a Mojo ghost ring, and my time between shots went way down for the same level of accuracy, or you could say my accuracy went up if I took the same time. They're easier to use than the v-notch.

Of course, I had gotten far more practice by the time I installed the mojo sight, so that may be part of it. But I believe the sight is easier to use. And a red dot sight is easier still, especially for fast target acquisition.

Arsenal arms says the "practical" rate of fire for my AK is 40 rd. per min. so if you are good enough then less then two seconds between shots. But don't expect good MOA, expect "body shots".

i can bump my ak (or any ak) nearly as fast as a f/a
buttstock goes on hip, left hand holds down fore-end
right middle finger hammers the trigger
adjust aim by watching the targets destruction
though since the ammo prices went sky high, i no longer enjoy this as much as i'd like

Last time my wife and I went to the range, my wife shot some video of me shooting the SAR-1 w/Kobra, offhand, at a small 50-yard target (probably comparable to a 100-yard IDPA/IPSC silhouette).

In that string, I fired 3 rounds @ 2 seconds per shot, did a reload, and fired 3 more rounds at 1 second per shot. All were hits, as I recall. I was using the Kobra's dot reticle (1.8 MOA), with or without the chevron I don't recall.

HOWEVER, I could not do that with the stock iron sights. The Kobra helps immensely.

The AK-47 is not a particularly accurate rifle, its sights are pretty poor for long range shooting, and almost all of the ammo available is low quality from an accuracy standpoint, so even the best shooter will struggle to shoot quickly and accurately at 100 yards with a typical semiauto AK and ammo.

Click to expand...

Most people are the weak link in the equation, regardless what the weapon is. The AK isnt a bad shooter if you can shoot. I have AK's form all price ranges, and they all pretty much shoot the same. Ammo is usually the issue when there is an issue. Wolf tends to be inconsistent, one lot can be very accurate, another, not all that great. Barnaul SP's has always been the most consistent and accurate that I've used.

This was shot at 200 yards with a SAR1 using the iron sights and Wolf 154 grain SP's. The lower group was fired from a rest to confirm zero, the upper group from a cross legged sitting position and shot at a "steady" cadence.



This is the rifle, the Aimpoint wasnt on it at the time.



These were 2 second "snap" shots from low ready at 50(R) and 100(L) using a converted 14" Saiga with an Aimpoint.


Same rifle, offhand at 100 yards.


This is the Saiga


If take the time to learn the rifle, and what ammo works best for you, you can usually expect 3-4" 100 yards groups from field positions.

nice post 103.

makes me want a saiga + ultimak + aimpoint even more

Sight picture, press, sight picture, press. How fast determines on the individual.

does this thread seem suspect to anyone else or am I just parinoid? A user with two post no info on their bio wanting to know how fast you can accuratly fire at 100 yrds. I would not be suprised to see this thread mentioned on some "evil assualt weapon" news piece. Maybe I am wrong, but this just feels like those "How can I make my gun full auto" threads.

I'm not trying to bash what anyone's said regarding times taken to ensure a hit. What I'm curious about is how taking longer ups the odds? Once you've got sight picture, squeeze. Standing there admiring that pretty sight picture doesn't make it any prettier.

~~~Mat

does this thread seem suspect to anyone else or am I just parinoid? A user with two post no info on their bio wanting to know how fast you can accuratly fire at 100 yrds. I would not be suprised to see this thread mentioned on some "evil assualt weapon" news piece. Maybe I am wrong, but this just feels like those "How can I make my gun full auto" threads.

Click to expand...

"I got the information I was looking for" seems a little suspect, but I'd rather be trusting than paranoid I guess.

does this thread seem suspect to anyone else or am I just parinoid? A user with two post no info on their bio wanting to know how fast you can accuratly fire at 100 yrds. I would not be suprised to see this thread mentioned on some "evil assualt weapon" news piece. Maybe I am wrong, but this just feels like those "How can I make my gun full auto" threads.

Click to expand...

Right now, the anti's are claiming 600 rounds per minute from a civilian AK.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/columnists/ana_menendez/story/239241.html

There is, of course, a more sane solution. Though it's doubtful that we could reverse the damage of an out-of-control gun culture, at least we might outlaw assault rifles. Is that too much to ask?

It's still not clear how Shawn LaBeet got the assault rifle he used to kill a cop in Cutler Bay on Thursday. But most people are allowed to own one. That's right, unless you're a convicted felon or mentally ill, it's perfectly legal to own a weapon that can fire 600 rounds in one minute.

That's insane. These aren't made for hunting animals; they're for killing people. Why are these things even for sale?

Renew the assault weapons ban. It will be too late to save Jose Somohano, but it might save the next victim. Maybe even you.

Click to expand...

Cutting that back to the true figure of 30 or 40 aimed rounds a minute (same as any other small- to intermediate-caliber, detachable-magazine civilian carbine or pistol) would be a significant improvement as far as truth is concerned...

I'm not trying to bash what anyone's said regarding times taken to ensure a hit. What I'm curious about is how taking longer ups the odds? Once you've got sight picture, squeeze. Standing there admiring that pretty sight picture doesn't make it any prettier.

Click to expand...

The difference is between a coarse sight picture and a fine one. It doesn't take as long to get a "close enough to hit anywhere on a 2-foot by 4-foot target" sight picture as it does to get a "close enough to hit inside a 6-inch circle" sight picture. Rate of trigger press also influences accuracy (the more rapidly you load the trigger, the more likely you are to influence the lay of the rifle).

In other words, the more you rush the shot, the larger your cone of dispersion becomes, and there comes a point at which that cone of dispersion will be larger than the target.

It's the same reason that it takes longer to get an "A" zone hit on an IPSC target at 25 yards than it does at 5 yards--you take a sight picture in both cases, but you have to have a lot more refined sight picture for the first case than the second.