Crosshair
Member
Please don't flame,
From what I understand, the reason for the AK having poor accuracy has to do with some of the first shipments to forign countries/terrorists. These first AK's had seen heavy use by the Russian military and quite a few came with barrels that where nearly shot out and in need of replacement. Instaid of spending the time rebareling them, the Russians simply gave them away as forign aid. Since these worn out samples where the first ones the west got to look at, the rumor of AK's poor accuracy began. This is much like the M-16's poor reliability was established in Vietnam. While I admit that today's M-16's are far better than their earlier counterparts, they still don't come close to the AK in terms of reliability. However the M-16 is more accurate (Though not by an important ammount for combat use.) due to tighter tolerances, however many people do not believe that the tradeoff in reliability in a combat weapon is worthwhile.
When I bought my M1 Garand earlier this year, I was ready to have some fun with it. When I took it out to the range to shoot it, I was having trouble keeping it on the paper. I tried tweaking everything on it, reliability was superb, but the dammed thing wouldn't shoot straight. I thought, "How the hell did we win WW2 with this POS?" I take it to a gunsmith who takes one look at it and says, "Oh, the barrel is shot out on this gun. Better take it back where you bought it." So I take it back to Scheels and they send it away to have a new barrel put on it. Once I get it back it shoots like it is soposed to and I'm satisfied.
Rant time:
People who blather about how the M-16 is doing so well against people with AK's in Iraq really need to shut up. When you have a 1st world military going against a 3rd world milita, (terrorists, whatever ) it is rather obvious who is going to win. Training and technology is what makes the big difference in combat today.
From what I understand, the reason for the AK having poor accuracy has to do with some of the first shipments to forign countries/terrorists. These first AK's had seen heavy use by the Russian military and quite a few came with barrels that where nearly shot out and in need of replacement. Instaid of spending the time rebareling them, the Russians simply gave them away as forign aid. Since these worn out samples where the first ones the west got to look at, the rumor of AK's poor accuracy began. This is much like the M-16's poor reliability was established in Vietnam. While I admit that today's M-16's are far better than their earlier counterparts, they still don't come close to the AK in terms of reliability. However the M-16 is more accurate (Though not by an important ammount for combat use.) due to tighter tolerances, however many people do not believe that the tradeoff in reliability in a combat weapon is worthwhile.
When I bought my M1 Garand earlier this year, I was ready to have some fun with it. When I took it out to the range to shoot it, I was having trouble keeping it on the paper. I tried tweaking everything on it, reliability was superb, but the dammed thing wouldn't shoot straight. I thought, "How the hell did we win WW2 with this POS?" I take it to a gunsmith who takes one look at it and says, "Oh, the barrel is shot out on this gun. Better take it back where you bought it." So I take it back to Scheels and they send it away to have a new barrel put on it. Once I get it back it shoots like it is soposed to and I'm satisfied.
Rant time:
People who blather about how the M-16 is doing so well against people with AK's in Iraq really need to shut up. When you have a 1st world military going against a 3rd world milita, (terrorists, whatever ) it is rather obvious who is going to win. Training and technology is what makes the big difference in combat today.