AK hate
- Thread starter thereisnospoon
- Start date
- Status
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
Some dot sights will co-witness on the Ultimak, some wont, depends more on the mounts/rings than anything else. I've had the cheapie BSA dot, the one with the mount attached, on my SAR and it co-witnessed fine. That cheap sight worked fine too. I have a Tasco Pro Point on it now and it to will co-witness. I have an Aimpoint ML2 on my AK103K and it wont co-witness on the 100-300M settings, it will on the 400M, but I leave it at the BSZ. The sight is on a Larue lever mount, which is really made for the AR and sits a little high anyway, and I think if you go with a ring instead, you can also get it to co-witness. With the lever mounts the sight can be gone in a heartbeat anyway, so its really not a problem. The forward mounted red dot is the way to go for the AK. Its sits low enough to shoulder and shoot naturally, basically just like the iron sights. Its up front, out of the way of both handling and your vision. Snap shots are a breeze and your longer range shooting will improve a lot.
For those that keep saying the AK is not accurate, and has bad ergonomics, all I can say is, you must not have practiced enough with it to learn it. Its amazing how all the so called disabilities just seem to go away when you take the time to learn it. You can easily sweep the safety off, with your hand on the grip, using the middle finger of that hand, and you can also dump the mag the same way. 99% of the mags will fall free on their own too, and reloads are really not that much slower than an AR. The complaints about the stock being to short is interesting too, since it has the exact same LOP as a M16/M16A1. The A2 is just 5/8" longer. If you have an AK and are contemplating switching out for a longer one, I'd highly suggest that you give the standard stock a chance. Once you get used to it, you will want all your rifles short stocked. They are much easier to shoot quickly with, and its even more noticeable when you have on winter clothing and/or web gear and armor.
This is my Krebs AK103K. It shot the targets at 50 and 100 yards. Its also doing this with a 14 1/2" barrel.
These were 2 second snap shots from a low ready. Left is 100 yards, right 50.
Offhand slow fire 100 yards.
Now, the next two pics were both shot prone at 100 yards, one using the rifle above, and one using my M1A SOCOM. Can you tell which one shot which? Is it even worth worrying about?
For those that keep saying the AK is not accurate, and has bad ergonomics, all I can say is, you must not have practiced enough with it to learn it. Its amazing how all the so called disabilities just seem to go away when you take the time to learn it. You can easily sweep the safety off, with your hand on the grip, using the middle finger of that hand, and you can also dump the mag the same way. 99% of the mags will fall free on their own too, and reloads are really not that much slower than an AR. The complaints about the stock being to short is interesting too, since it has the exact same LOP as a M16/M16A1. The A2 is just 5/8" longer. If you have an AK and are contemplating switching out for a longer one, I'd highly suggest that you give the standard stock a chance. Once you get used to it, you will want all your rifles short stocked. They are much easier to shoot quickly with, and its even more noticeable when you have on winter clothing and/or web gear and armor.
This is my Krebs AK103K. It shot the targets at 50 and 100 yards. Its also doing this with a 14 1/2" barrel.
These were 2 second snap shots from a low ready. Left is 100 yards, right 50.
Offhand slow fire 100 yards.
Now, the next two pics were both shot prone at 100 yards, one using the rifle above, and one using my M1A SOCOM. Can you tell which one shot which? Is it even worth worrying about?
MTMilitiaman
Member
Well stated AK.
I have a WASR. I am able to shoot 1 gallon orange juice bottles at about 150 yards, slow fire, from the cross legged sitting position--and that is using Mojos and Wolf ammo.
Right after I got the rifle and had put the Mojos on it and polished the internals to eliminate trigger slap, I set up a target like yours at 200 yards. From a knee firing one round every second and a half or so I managed 16 hits out of 30. Keep in mind this is a brown cardboard target on gated maintenence road in the woods. It blended in pretty well and I didn't take the time to pay much attention to my sight picture. I pretty much pulled the trigger as soon as the sights seemed somewhat level COM. After checking my target I slapped a new mag in it, walked 50 yards down range and with the rifle on safe held at low ready I spun around, faced the target, took the rifle off safe on the way up, and snap shot a controlled pair at the head. I am not an expert rifleman by any means so I didn't expect much but when I examined the target again there were two .31 caliber holes in the center of the face vertically strung about 3 inches apart--either would have been instantly fatal and the other shot wouldn't have been necessary. Keep in mind this is with an open sighted rifle that cost me less than $400 with the accessories that were on it shooting cheap ammo, and with which I was unfamiliar because it was only my 3rd or 4th time out with the rifle. I think people underestimate what the Kalashnikov is capable of, accuracy wise, if someone takes the time to be honest with themselves and their rifle and just learn it. A case of ammo is still less than $120 or so, so practice isn't all that expensive, and neither are the rifles. But for what they were designed to do, the AKs are every bit as accurate as they need to be.
I have a WASR. I am able to shoot 1 gallon orange juice bottles at about 150 yards, slow fire, from the cross legged sitting position--and that is using Mojos and Wolf ammo.
Right after I got the rifle and had put the Mojos on it and polished the internals to eliminate trigger slap, I set up a target like yours at 200 yards. From a knee firing one round every second and a half or so I managed 16 hits out of 30. Keep in mind this is a brown cardboard target on gated maintenence road in the woods. It blended in pretty well and I didn't take the time to pay much attention to my sight picture. I pretty much pulled the trigger as soon as the sights seemed somewhat level COM. After checking my target I slapped a new mag in it, walked 50 yards down range and with the rifle on safe held at low ready I spun around, faced the target, took the rifle off safe on the way up, and snap shot a controlled pair at the head. I am not an expert rifleman by any means so I didn't expect much but when I examined the target again there were two .31 caliber holes in the center of the face vertically strung about 3 inches apart--either would have been instantly fatal and the other shot wouldn't have been necessary. Keep in mind this is with an open sighted rifle that cost me less than $400 with the accessories that were on it shooting cheap ammo, and with which I was unfamiliar because it was only my 3rd or 4th time out with the rifle. I think people underestimate what the Kalashnikov is capable of, accuracy wise, if someone takes the time to be honest with themselves and their rifle and just learn it. A case of ammo is still less than $120 or so, so practice isn't all that expensive, and neither are the rifles. But for what they were designed to do, the AKs are every bit as accurate as they need to be.
chopinbloc
Member
yup, aks are accurate enough for most purposes but ars are more accurate. as for reliability, well the m16 and m4 might not be the best way to judge it as they are often operated by individuals who don't know what they're doing and armorers that should be hung by their toenails for the abuses that they perform on innocent rifles. these guys aren't gun smiths, they're jumped up supply sergeants. i have never had a problem with an ar or m16 after thousands of rounds through both. the only problem i ever had with an ak was slam firing due to inferior materials used in the fcg. that should not be blamed on the design, but it is, perhaps, indicative of the shoddy materials and workmanship often found in american kalashnikov style rifles. to be fair, you can encounter the same thing in ar rifles as well. the bushmaster failure to adequately stake the gas key on quite a few rifles is a good example. it is my belief that inferior materials and workmanship is more common in the ak type rifle than the ar but the ak is probably more forgiving of that sort of thing. i am really tired of hearing people say the m16 is an unreliable weapon when the person giving that report was dragging the rifle through the dirt or using dented magazines or the rifle has fired in excess of 50,000 rounds since its last organizational level maintainence or was subjected to an armorer who's favorite tool is a "bigger hammer." an ak would crap out too, sometimes under the conditions that soldiers subject their weapons to. it is perhaps more tolerant of dirt but the kind of abuse that some people perpetrate on innocent rifles is downright criminal. i'm not saying that ars have to be kept in a laboratory environment, either. my m16a2 has been kicking around with me in the pashtun region for about six months now. it gets cleaned about once a week, more often if i think it needs it. i shoot it from time to time and it works just fine. i'll let you know if i ever have a problem with it.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
I agree, the AR is generally the more accurate rifle, especially if your a target shooter. I do have a Bushmaster Dissapator that shoots on par accuracy wise with some of my AK's though. I think the biggest problem for the AK's in this respect are the sights, and this is why the Aimpoint type sights bring the AK's into the AR's world and make the issue sights a pretty much moot point. The dot works the same on the AK as it does on the AR, put the dot on what you want to shoot, and shoot it, what could be easier?
One thing about the issue AK sights. I actually find them easier to shoot quickly with at closer ranges, 100M or less. Peeps are great, and I do like them for target or more precision shooting, but they can be a bear in some circumstances. Lighting being the biggest problem. Ever had the sun over your back and try and see the front sight on something just slightly dark through the now highlighted rear sight? What your accustomed to looking through is what your eye is now looking at instead. The AK's sights, as primitive as they are supposed to be, work well as a quick combat sight in low light, or regular light for that matter, by just putting the "globe" around the post on top of the "bar" of the rear sight and then put the globe on what you want to shoot. If you shoulder the rifle and do this quickly, then once on target, slowly roll your cheek down, you will see your front post and rear notch are lined up and on target, or very close to it. Works just like the HK's big notch on their 91's/G3's. We as Americans have been conditioned to believe that the M1, M14, M16, type peeps are the best type sight in the world, and for target shooting with iron sights on a military type rifle, it would be right, but for a best all around combat type sight, especially a close range, fast shooting sight, I'll disagree.
There's no doubt the biggest problem for the AK's is the US made and installed trigger groups. I believe you'll find most of the (US)AK related failures occur do to them.
I own a number of both AR's and AK's, so I'm not really biased against one or the other. Both have good points and some not so good. If you treat your tools properly, they will take care of you for a very long time and most likely your kids and their kids. If you dont, you get what you deserve, simple as that. I've never had any problems with my AR's either. They have always worked, even when shot a lot and shot dirty. I have a Colt SP1 that I bought new in 74' that has tens of thousands of rounds through it at this point, and I can ever remember it having a stoppage.(I'm sure it did at some point, they ALL do, but I'm getting CRS, so I dont right now remember a specific one. ) It has shot more than a thousand rounds at a session too,(multiple times) between multiple shooters, and fired fast enough that you would literally burn the skin off your hand if you touched it, allowed to cool and done again. To this day, its still a good shooter and is still accurate. I think most of this crap about A being better than B is just more internet BS being repeated over and over, by people who, dislike one or the other, have never owned or shot one, or if they did, it was a mag or two off a bench, or worse yet, bumped off the hip, and they never took the time to learn the gun.
One thing about the issue AK sights. I actually find them easier to shoot quickly with at closer ranges, 100M or less. Peeps are great, and I do like them for target or more precision shooting, but they can be a bear in some circumstances. Lighting being the biggest problem. Ever had the sun over your back and try and see the front sight on something just slightly dark through the now highlighted rear sight? What your accustomed to looking through is what your eye is now looking at instead. The AK's sights, as primitive as they are supposed to be, work well as a quick combat sight in low light, or regular light for that matter, by just putting the "globe" around the post on top of the "bar" of the rear sight and then put the globe on what you want to shoot. If you shoulder the rifle and do this quickly, then once on target, slowly roll your cheek down, you will see your front post and rear notch are lined up and on target, or very close to it. Works just like the HK's big notch on their 91's/G3's. We as Americans have been conditioned to believe that the M1, M14, M16, type peeps are the best type sight in the world, and for target shooting with iron sights on a military type rifle, it would be right, but for a best all around combat type sight, especially a close range, fast shooting sight, I'll disagree.
There's no doubt the biggest problem for the AK's is the US made and installed trigger groups. I believe you'll find most of the (US)AK related failures occur do to them.
I own a number of both AR's and AK's, so I'm not really biased against one or the other. Both have good points and some not so good. If you treat your tools properly, they will take care of you for a very long time and most likely your kids and their kids. If you dont, you get what you deserve, simple as that. I've never had any problems with my AR's either. They have always worked, even when shot a lot and shot dirty. I have a Colt SP1 that I bought new in 74' that has tens of thousands of rounds through it at this point, and I can ever remember it having a stoppage.(I'm sure it did at some point, they ALL do, but I'm getting CRS, so I dont right now remember a specific one.
) It has shot more than a thousand rounds at a session too,(multiple times) between multiple shooters, and fired fast enough that you would literally burn the skin off your hand if you touched it, allowed to cool and done again. To this day, its still a good shooter and is still accurate. I think most of this crap about A being better than B is just more internet BS being repeated over and over, by people who, dislike one or the other, have never owned or shot one, or if they did, it was a mag or two off a bench, or worse yet, bumped off the hip, and they never took the time to learn the gun.I bought an AK (Arsenal SLR101) after the senate voted to extend the AWB in 04 and have since developed a very strong preference for the design over ARs.
I've had an AR in one form or another since the AWB first passed in '94 and was always amazed at the ergonomics of it and dismayed by how unnecessarily complex the bolt seemed and how dirty the internals got. I mean DIRTY - not just powder fouling but this hard as nails carbon stuff you've got to scrub and scrub to get off. I was always absolutely anal about keeping it clean because of how intricate the bolt/carrier group parts seemed. After every firing, the bolt and carrier got broken down and all carbon removed, the lower receiver got a blast of compressed air and the barrel was cleaned from the breach. A couple of times a year, the gas tube was removed and cleaned with a pipe cleaner.
The only time my Colt Sporter (purchased used)ever malfunctioned on me was when one of the allen screws that hold the bolt carrier key on broke inside the carrier. when I reinstalled the key, i never felt anything to indicate I had overtightened one of the screws so I couldn't figure out why the rifle wouldn't cycle and it took a trip to the smith to make things right. Since then, I've always been just a little leery of a design that can hide it's broken parts so easily.
The AKs on the other hand, have NONE of the ergonomics of the AR. If you have small hands like I do, everything on it is a reach. Metal magazines are much heavier than AR mags and don't just "snap in" - you gotta learn "rock and roll". 7.62 ammo is heavier than 5.56 ammo. Even shielded handguards get very hot very quickly. Scope mounts are clunky at best.
But they work every time the trigger is pulled. They still get dirty inside but with just the normal powder residue that mostly wipes off with just a dry rag. It has way fewer internal parts that are both less intricate and bigger (so they are harder to lose). I am way more relaxed about keeping the insides of my AK clean. It gets an inside and outside wipedown after each use, a boresnake down the barrel and thats it.
In terms of accuracy, it's a wash for me. Yes I can shoot the AR much more accurately from the bench and a little more accurately in field positions. The feild position group size difference is small enough that I'm not terribly worried about.
They are two completely different animals and you owe it to yourself to at least try each before you decide, but I think having one of each (or more of the design you prefer) is a good idea.
Pig
I've had an AR in one form or another since the AWB first passed in '94 and was always amazed at the ergonomics of it and dismayed by how unnecessarily complex the bolt seemed and how dirty the internals got. I mean DIRTY - not just powder fouling but this hard as nails carbon stuff you've got to scrub and scrub to get off. I was always absolutely anal about keeping it clean because of how intricate the bolt/carrier group parts seemed. After every firing, the bolt and carrier got broken down and all carbon removed, the lower receiver got a blast of compressed air and the barrel was cleaned from the breach. A couple of times a year, the gas tube was removed and cleaned with a pipe cleaner.
The only time my Colt Sporter (purchased used)ever malfunctioned on me was when one of the allen screws that hold the bolt carrier key on broke inside the carrier.
when I reinstalled the key, i never felt anything to indicate I had overtightened one of the screws so I couldn't figure out why the rifle wouldn't cycle and it took a trip to the smith to make things right. Since then, I've always been just a little leery of a design that can hide it's broken parts so easily. The AKs on the other hand, have NONE of the ergonomics of the AR. If you have small hands like I do, everything on it is a reach. Metal magazines are much heavier than AR mags and don't just "snap in" - you gotta learn "rock and roll". 7.62 ammo is heavier than 5.56 ammo. Even shielded handguards get very hot very quickly. Scope mounts are clunky at best.
But they work every time the trigger is pulled. They still get dirty inside but with just the normal powder residue that mostly wipes off with just a dry rag. It has way fewer internal parts that are both less intricate and bigger (so they are harder to lose). I am way more relaxed about keeping the insides of my AK clean. It gets an inside and outside wipedown after each use, a boresnake down the barrel and thats it.
In terms of accuracy, it's a wash for me. Yes I can shoot the AR much more accurately from the bench and a little more accurately in field positions. The feild position group size difference is small enough that I'm not terribly worried about.
They are two completely different animals and you owe it to yourself to at least try each before you decide, but I think having one of each (or more of the design you prefer) is a good idea.
Pig
Last edited:
thereisnospoon
Member
After looking at some of the responses that include pics, I realize whoever did the underfoler really hacked it up.
Also, after going to the range I have experienced a few probs...
When I rack the bolt, it will "hang" on the trunion (I hope that's the correct word) on the stock. I can give it a nudge and it slams home fine. No probs during firing, just when I pull the bolt. :banghead: Any suggestions?
Also, I want to purchase a couple items from Red Star and wanted opinions...first I want to replace the lower forestock with the tri rail synthetic one...any users out there pro or con? I also want to add the mag release lever thingy, again users, pro and con?
By the way, the drum mag works...very well
Also, after going to the range I have experienced a few probs...
When I rack the bolt, it will "hang" on the trunion (I hope that's the correct word) on the stock. I can give it a nudge and it slams home fine. No probs during firing, just when I pull the bolt. :banghead: Any suggestions?
Also, I want to purchase a couple items from Red Star and wanted opinions...first I want to replace the lower forestock with the tri rail synthetic one...any users out there pro or con? I also want to add the mag release lever thingy, again users, pro and con?
By the way, the drum mag works...very well
chopinbloc
Member
i really feel that the stock mag release is just fine. i ninjafied my sar-1 and now i'm gonna have to buy another ak so i have one that's nice and stock and pretty and light..... okay, well maybe i just want an excuse to buy another one but you will find they can get pretty heavy pretty quick.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
It may be actually the carrier hanging on the hammer. My SAR did this before I swapped its trigger group for a RSA group. I've seen some some people on the web who though it was actually a bolt hold open device.
I dont have the extended mag release, on my rifles. Just never saw the need. I dont have big hands and can easily reach and push the release with the tip of my middle finger with my hand on the grip. I always thought that extended release looked like it would tear your hands up with all those sharp edges or drop the mag unintentionally if it bumped something like you or your gear. Then again, I've never used one, so what do I know?
I will suggest that you take a small file, a jewelers file works great, and just "break" the edges of the mag release where it touches the locking piece of the mag. The part is a stamping and the process leaves a sharp edge on it that tends to grab and hold onto the mag. All of my AK's had this edge, and some would bind badly when the release was pushed and make releasing the mag difficult and a two hand process. By just lightly breaking or beveling the edge, the lever moves very easily and the problem goes away.
If your thinking of adding a lower grip on that rail on the lower handguard, just make sure its forward enough not to interfere with your mag change. Most of the European models rake forward to allow for it, but if you use the straight drop type you see on the AR's, you may encounter trouble.
- Status