Discovery Channel Reliability....AR vs AK

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have shot a MAK 90 at that range and could consistently hit a 12 inch rock while goofing around. So could my father, and my son.

While it wasn't an actual paper target, it shows that the rifle is certainly capable of better accuracy than portrayed.

This was using wolf ammo, and a variety of shooting positions.
 
AK

The shooters didn't look very talented to me.........IMHO!!!
:D
The AK is much more reliable than an AR-15.........The AR-15 will be a more accurate shooter. If my life depends on a rifle I will take an AK everytime......:D
 
Oh my God, that guy needs to learn how to squeeze a trigger! No wonder he can't hit anything.

As for the AR, no doubt it could have grouped better, but he did shoot 5 shots relatively quickly.
 
What does accuracy have to do with reliability?

Move the range to 400 meters and you will change your view of the AK/AKM.
The AK/AKM is a close range assault rifle.
The M16 is a long range rifle capable of being used as a close range suppression weapon in a pinch.
This makes the M16 a better general purpose rifle.

You cannot turn an AK/AKM into a sniper rifle, you can turn an M16 into a sniper rifle.
 
You cannot turn an AK/AKM into a sniper rifle, you can turn an M16 into a sniper rifle.

well being a sniper simply means firing from a concealed location with not real criteria for distance, the AK is a sniper rifle everyday in iraq, afghanistan and more.

to think the average issue M16 is a tack driver or to say its across the board better general purpose rifle is a stretch.

they both have there merits and failures.
 
What does accuracy have to do with reliability?

Move the range to 400 meters and you will change your view of the AK/AKM.
The AK/AKM is a close range assault rifle.
The M16 is a long range rifle capable of being used as a close range suppression weapon in a pinch.
This makes the M16 a better general purpose rifle.

You cannot turn an AK/AKM into a sniper rifle, you can turn an M16 into a sniper rifle.

Said exactly what I was thinking. I LOVE all the responses on Youtube, those people are DUMB!!! Anyway this is turning into an ak vs. ar thread... "opinions are like....."
 
Well, to judge the vid, I can say that it did a disservice to both weapons.

In general, the AK is less accurate. But, it has solely to do with looser tolerances, and poorer sights.

In general, the AR is more accurate. Tighter tolerances, and better sights.

Those looser tolerances make the AK more reliable. But, the AR isn't exactly unreliable, as long as you keep up on PM. Granted, the AK doesn't need much PM.

As for the bullets, it's all based upon bullet construction. All things being equal, the heavier bullet will always put out more force. It should be pointed out however, that the fact that the 7.62x39 is a short stubby bullet, and the case is short and fat, yet it is propelling a larger bullet means that the AK round has less inherent range, and inferior ballistics to the .223.

It's about what's important to the individual/security force/military as to what to choose. I personally think either system is excellent as long as you understand it's advantages and disadvantages.
 
Those looser tolerances make the AK more reliable. But, the AR isn't exactly unreliable, as long as you keep up on PM. Granted, the AK doesn't need much PM.

just some pet peeve of mine..

an AK has loose CLEARANCES. Clearance being the distance between parts. the greater the clearance the less likely foriegn debri or build up can clog the weapon. this is because as the space between parts gets larger so must the foriegn debris required to clog it. a grain of sand could clog a fine swiss watch because of the small, tight fitting intricate pieces. that same grain of sand will do very little against an AK.

tolerance is how closely a part matches its blueprinted specs. loose clearances allow for loose tolerances as theres extra room to take up the difference if the item is too large, and normally designed so that a item too small will still function in the weapon.

in a perfect world this decreases manhours spent on weapons and increases cost effectiveness by allowing greater variance in the design...

make sense or am i rambling? (seriously)
 
Ok guys. The difference in accuracy between AK and AR is this:

I'd say the biggest reason AK's aren't as accurate as AR's is the Ammo. people shoot ****ty ammo through their AKs. 1000rds/$200 for AK. I shot a 1.34" 6 shot group with My .308 AK using 168gr Federal Gold Match. If I use Brown Bear, I get 3" groups.

My 7.62x39 scoped 3-9x40, has hit 18" steel plates at 600yrds. I was getting 4-6 out of 10 hits on the plate using Kentucky windage.
 
What does accuracy have to do with reliability?

Move the range to 400 meters and you will change your view of the AK/AKM.
The AK/AKM is a close range assault rifle.
The M16 is a long range rifle capable of being used as a close range suppression weapon in a pinch.
This makes the M16 a better general purpose rifle.

You cannot turn an AK/AKM into a sniper rifle, you can turn an M16 into a sniper rifle.
Yes, the AK is a 300-meter rifle, whereas the M16 can reach out further.

However, given that most military engagements, and practically all civilian defensive engagements, occur inside 300 yards, a 300-yard carbine isn't a huge handicap for most of us.

FWIW, AR's are great rifles, and I am not discounting that. I'm just saying that the AK is not as inferior to the AR as a general-purpose carbine as some would make it out to be.
 
When you look at the mentality of the AK vs the AR you see why they would perform so much differently. The AK is the stamped mass produced inexpensive rifle(in general and I know many go against that). The AR is machined and thought of as a technical tool. Most people shooting an AK buy the cheapest ammo they can find. A ton of AR shooters swear a steal cased round will never touch their chambers. AK shooters often buy crappy sight mounts and crappy sights to top off their rifle. AR shooters spend as much on rails and mounts as they do the rifle, then they again spend as much on a sight as they did the rifle. Which one is in general given the better chance to succeed? The AR. More is expected from it accuracy wise so more is given to it. I would think if you had equal quality ammo with equal sights the accuracy difference would be much smaller than it appears. The real world problem with this is that you don't see people in general willing to spend the extra to level the playing field. They want cheap and powerful up close and thats it. In the real world it doesn't matter what the rifle is capable of under perfect conditions, its what it is capable of with the situation it is in. It is too bad that such idiots get put on TV and as such their word becomes the truth to those who are uneducated.
 
I think it is odd that some people think AR's aren't inexpensive and mass produced. :confused: The government doesn't pay what you pay for them.

As far as steel cased ammo goes, AR users swear a steel cased round will never enter their chambers because AR's have problems shooting steel cased ammo. In fact AR users are responsible for why Wolf is now covered with that useless poly coat instead of the original lacquer. The lacquer did an excellent job sealing out water from ammo and worked fine in guns with robust actions. However the general point is absolutely valid, more consistent ammo will lead to tighter groups, no matter why you are shooting it. Then again its not exactly like every AR is turn sub-moa groups either.
 
The government doesn't pay what you pay for them.

whoa whoa whoa. lets not confuse PRICE with COST ;)

but the gov does pay a decent penny for them not far off from us
 
Ive ran plenty of steel cased .223 through my AR and never had a single problem. I can't talk for everyone but I have never had problems with it in any rifle, .223 or 7.62x39. I'm not sure what robustness of the action has to do with how well it extracts though.
 
Looks like this has turned into a bit of a flame war. I was just looking to see what kind of groups people were getting past 200 yards. Also, is the 7.62 cartridge accurate enough at those distances to even bother scoping it?
 
The disparity in the precision of the sights alone likely accounts for more on the difference in overall accuracy of these two platforms than any other factor.

Nachosgrande the 7.62x39mm cartridge is as accurate as any other cartridge. The determining factor is the quality of the ammo used and the quality of the firearm . I've been able to reliably shoot sub 1/2 MOA 5 shot groups all the way out to 300m with one of my 7.62x39's


HPIM1966-1.jpg
 
Yes the 7.62x39 isn't an inaccurate round. With good ammo in a good rifle it certainly is capable of great results. Its just a matter of the right ammo in a good rifle. If you have bad ammo or a bad rifle it isn't going to group all that well.
 
Most people shooting an AK buy the cheapest ammo they can find. A ton of AR shooters swear a steal cased round will never touch their chambers.
One reason is that a design specification of the AK was to be able to digest ~100,000 rounds of steel-cased ammunition full-auto without breaking, whereas the AR's extractor is widely regarded as more delicate. Brass is easier on the extractor.
 
Well for some situations it could make a great scoped rifle but long range isn't its thing. The round just drops too much. At 400 yards you are looking at 4+ feet of drop on a 200 yards zero and at 500 yards you are looking at 8+ feet of drop. It isn't a round designed to go a long ways really flat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top