AK in 3 gun? Why or why not.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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: :evil:

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 :rolleyes: ) it is rather obvious who is going to win. Training and technology is what makes the big difference in combat today.
 
Since we are talking about AUGs and other guns and I think the gentleman's question about AKs has been answered............

Has anyone seen an M1A used with any degree of success in 3 gun? I'd like to get started in 3 gun shooting, and the M1A is the rifle that I have the most trigger time with and enjoy shooting the most. I know firsthand having shot in highpower matches against the ARs that the M1A is a handicap due to recoil and slightly slower mag changes, but just how competitive could the old battle rifle be?
 
Has anyone seen an M1A used with any degree of success in 3 gun?
Let's remember that firstly it's the shooter and not the rifle that wins, but going beyond that...

In USPSA 3Gun with Major/Minor scoring, the 308 would score "Major" hits while the 223 scores "Minor". This gives an advantage to the 308 for B, C, and D zone hits. 223 AR15's dominate because you can't make enough extra points with the major caliber to make up for the slower rate of shooting the 308. Put another way, you can't make more points/sec with the 308 vs. the 223 for it to be a real advantage.

In the "outlaw" 3Gun matches where there is typically no Major/Minor distinction, many of the matches have started to include a "He-Man" or "Heavy Metal" class in which the shooter must use a 308 or 3006 rifle with iron sights, a 45ACP handgun, and a 12ga shotgun. If you are shooting in He-Man class, the M1A is a good choice. Its only real competition in this class is the AR-10 and FAL.

-z
 
The 7.62 x 39 is at a slight disadvantage to .223. Also, there are some inaccurate or even unreliable AK-47s out there. However, the Chinese Mac-90 and several other quality variants of the AK-47 are accurate and reliable enought to give the AR-15 a run for the money.
For non USPSA/IPSC matches, such as IMGA or independent, there is also a chance that any 30-caliber rifle will be recognized for Heavy-Metal or even He-Man category, in which case the 7.62 x 39 has considerably less felt recoil and noise than the .308.
Richard
Schennberg.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top