Getting precision hits out of an AK and my personal theories

[d2wing]

As match rifles, the AR15 displaced the M1a/M14. The last year the USMC used the M14 at Camp Perry for NRA across the course was 1996. I talked to the Armorer's, their standard for accuracy for a match M14 was ten shot three inch groups at 300 yards. They were given barrels, so they had every barrel brand conceivable on the firing line. Only half the team had M14's, the other half had match M16's. Incidentally there was a shoot off between a USMC Marine and a AMU at 200 yards. The AMU shooter out X'd the Marine shooter.

In 1997 I asked the USMC team members how their match M16's were doing. The guys I talked to said "same offhand, better in the rapids, not as good at 600 yards". That was pretty much my experience. A good shooter would have much higher X counts with the AR15 in the rapids. The 223 rifle has a negligible recoil compared with a 308 Win and that is reflected on target. The ballistics of the 223 rounds at 600 yards were slightly inferior at 600 yards to the 308 Win, but the difference between the best long range scores was maybe a point and X's. The winners shot better offhand scores, cleaned the rapids, and did not have train wrecks at 600 yards.

A friend of mine was frustrated, he was a High Master, shot a 200-17X sitting rapid fire, and was not even in the top ten shooters. He asked "what do I have to do!". The 223 round replaced the 308 Win as a service rifle round primarily due to recoil. The service rifle shooters changed the rules so the AR10 was declared a service rifle. This was because, the service rifle teams were tired of being whacked at 1000 yards by civilians with Garands and M1a's. An AR15/M16 with a 20 inch barrel is not competitive at 1000 yards, the bullet floats in the wind.

The USMC was not shooting an issued M14. They were using rifles that had the beefy stocks, heavy match barrels, and all the match modifications. The receivers were original GI, and I remember USMC shooter Julia Watson won the service rifle National Championship with a match M14, and then during NRA week, her receiver cracked near the rear sight, and her rifle began flinging rounds at 600 yards. She was leading the pack till then. At her level of competition, train wrecks are non recoverable.

I have no idea what you mean by saying I could have just as well used an AK. I have no idea what Sa means. I am not up on the latest cool kid slang. I do try to use English. While I have not shot "the actual rifle" (M14), I have shot what I was legally able to shoot.

I assume you are no longer active duty, so you cannot prove your prowess with an actual, real M14 in any paper punching matches. That's a shame, I would like to have seen your score on the standard Across the Course match with an issue M14 rifle and ammunition. Which proves nothing in a combat environment. I pulled many a target with actual combat veterans. NRA precision competition shooting is a game, only dimly related to actual combat.

Nice information but off topic. The discussion is about AK accuracy, I responded with my experience and I don't know. You seem determined call me a lair and go on about match rifles which is not on topic at all. I do not dispute any of your information about civilian match rifles.
You seem to dispute my contention that American issue rifles have always been much more accurate than AK 47's.
So you seem to assert than AK's are more accurate.
So do you agree with what I said or do you say that I am wrong, AK are more accurate. If so I challenge you but you say you don't have one. So why do you argue for them.

 

[d2wing]

As match rifles, the AR15 displaced the M1a/M14. The last year the USMC used the M14 at Camp Perry for NRA across the course was 1996. I talked to the Armorer's, their standard for accuracy for a match M14 was ten shot three inch groups at 300 yards. They were given barrels, so they had every barrel brand conceivable on the firing line. Only half the team had M14's, the other half had match M16's. Incidentally there was a shoot off between a USMC Marine and a AMU at 200 yards. The AMU shooter out X'd the Marine shooter.

In 1997 I asked the USMC team members how their match M16's were doing. The guys I talked to said "same offhand, better in the rapids, not as good at 600 yards". That was pretty much my experience. A good shooter would have much higher X counts with the AR15 in the rapids. The 223 rifle has a negligible recoil compared with a 308 Win and that is reflected on target. The ballistics of the 223 rounds at 600 yards were slightly inferior at 600 yards to the 308 Win, but the difference between the best long range scores was maybe a point and X's. The winners shot better offhand scores, cleaned the rapids, and did not have train wrecks at 600 yards.

A friend of mine was frustrated, he was a High Master, shot a 200-17X sitting rapid fire, and was not even in the top ten shooters. He asked "what do I have to do!". The 223 round replaced the 308 Win as a service rifle round primarily due to recoil. The service rifle shooters changed the rules so the AR10 was declared a service rifle. This was because, the service rifle teams were tired of being whacked at 1000 yards by civilians with Garands and M1a's. An AR15/M16 with a 20 inch barrel is not competitive at 1000 yards, the bullet floats in the wind.

The USMC was not shooting an issued M14. They were using rifles that had the beefy stocks, heavy match barrels, and all the match modifications. The receivers were original GI, and I remember USMC shooter Julia Watson won the service rifle National Championship with a match M14, and then during NRA week, her receiver cracked near the rear sight, and her rifle began flinging rounds at 600 yards. She was leading the pack till then. At her level of competition, train wrecks are non recoverable.

I have no idea what you mean by saying I could have just as well used an AK. I have no idea what Sa means. I am not up on the latest cool kid slang. I do try to use English. While I have not shot "the actual rifle" (M14), I have shot what I was legally able to shoot.

I assume you are no longer active duty, so you cannot prove your prowess with an actual, real M14 in any paper punching matches. That's a shame, I would like to have seen your score on the standard Across the Course match with an issue M14 rifle and ammunition. Which proves nothing in a combat environment. I pulled many a target with actual combat veterans. NRA precision competition shooting is a game, only dimly related to actual combat.

Well I am an actual combat veteran. You are correct that they are only dimly related. Also real issue weapons are not the issue either, I got side tracked. On the OP ridiculous claims. I sharply disagree.

 

[David Hoback]

“I am not up on the latest cool kid slang”

If that ain’t one of the Fuddliest things I’ve heard in a minute!

 

[Varminterror]

Barf… So much of this opening post are delusions, far too far from any sense of truth… super barf…

 

[someguy2800]

So you seem to assert than AK's are more accurate.
So do you agree with what I said or do you say that I am wrong, AK are more accurate. If so I challenge you but you say you don't have one. So why do you argue for them.

I've read the thread twice and nothing of the sort, or even remotely alluding to that was said. Maybe you should start your own thread to bitch about the things you don't like so you can get it all in one place.

 

[d2wing]

I've read the thread twice and nothing of the sort, or even remotely alluding to that was said. Maybe you should start your own thread to bitch about the things you don't like so you can get it all in one place.

I guess I don't understand what you meant by your post. I got the impression that you were arguing with me. Not sure what you meant by all that information. I going to stop digging now. Apologies.

 

[d2wing]

For a long time a guy posted lots of times about how great AK'S are
Turns out he was an internet commando from mom's basement. Never owned, fired or knew anything first hand. Such is the internet. Objectivity is not the object.

 

[trackskippy]

In the same vane, how much time did you actually spend with the AK's to declare them bad shooters? Were they guns in reasonable shape and taken care of, or one that had been mistreated and drug around, beat up, without proper maintenance and care? Are we basing things on apples to apples here, or something else?

Did you put in the time and effort to learn the gun and how it really shoots, or are you basing it on shooting a few rounds or mags out of one here and there and because you didnt do well with it, declare it junk?

No matter what it is you choose, it takes time and effort to learn to shoot any of them well. If all you know is only one gun, then you only know one gun, and likely wont do well with other things, until you take the time to learn whatever that gun is.

Its no different handing a shooter who only learned on an AR, M16, whatever, an M1 or M1A/M14 and expect them to be a great shooter with it. Usually the first response there is, this thing kicks! Wonder why, you're not shouldering it right.

And then you have a lot of the old M14 shooters who declared then, and still continue, to call the M16's junk. At least those unwilling to bother to learn them "new fangled thangs", and they still continue to bitch. I always get a chuckle here when I hear those complaints, when I grew up with WWII, Korea, and VN combat vets who all swore by their M1's and M14's, yet to a one, they all had an AR (one had an M16) with its 782 gear all ready to go for their grab and go guns up until the day they died. Hmmm, what did they know?

The way Ive always looked at things is, learn to shoot and gain experience with as many different things as you can, so youre at least somewhat broadly educated with things and can pick up and be able to shoot pretty much anything you might come across, and be able to shoot it reasonably well. That generally means spending a good bit of dedicated time with each of them, until you do learn them. Its funny too, as you do learn them, most all the perceived bad things about them, usually melt away with a little experience.

People with little actual experience with an AK will scream bloody murder about how bad they shoot, how horrible the ergonomics are, and on and on, yet, if they bothered to actually learn the gun, they will almost always come to find, the LOP of the stock is exactly the same as most other combat stocked rifles (and your cheek weld isnt on the comb ), they can manipulate the charging handle, the selector, and the mag release, without ever taking your hand off the grip, and the rifle shoulders and shoots very quickly, and very naturally, and is plenty combat accurate, assuming you are.

 

[mshootnit]

Soviets got good accuracy out of the Dragunov
https://armedman.ru/strelkovoe-voor...enie/snayperskaya-vintovka-dragunova-svd.html

 

[mshootnit]

I think theres a lot of BS and misinformation on both sides.

I think a lack of any real experience, beyond some basic familiarization, if that, is a big part of the problem too.

If you're a reasonable rifle shooter, then you shouldn't have too much trouble making decent hits with an AK, than anything else at reasonable ranges, as long as you shoot it like an AK. They arent target rifles, but they arent dogs either. But of course, if you cant hit anything with it, its got to be the guns fault, right?

Just as an example, these two targets were shot at 100 yards, from a cross legged sitting position, one with a Springfield SOCOM M1A, one with one of my AK's, and at this point, I cant remember which one, but it really doesnt matter, they all shot about the same. Both guns had a forward mounted Aimpoint on them. Ammo was just basic ball type ammo.


You tell me which one shot which. Im gettng CRS an cant remember.

View attachment 1105044


One thing that I found makes a big difference with any of them, is an Aimpoiint, or other decent red dots. For these types of rifles, they just make shooting them in a more realistic fashion, a lot easier, and making good hits, a lot quicker.

The best mount Ive found for the AK's is the Ultimak forward handguard rail. With the right mount, you should be able to cowitness the irons to the dot, and the optic is up front, out of the way of both your peripheral vision, and any handling issues. The gun shoulders and shoots naturally, like you were shooting just irons, and you get that same cheek weld.

I have both AR's and AK's with Aimpoints mounted on them, and when shooting them in a similar fashion, the hits on target are very much alike. If one was 5.56 and the other 5.45, you probably wouldn't be able to tell which target was shot by which gun.

If I want to shoot a HP type rifle match, with open sights, no doubt, the AR gets the nod, hands down, simply because they have "target" type sights.

But that AR, isnt the same AR as the guns with the red dots on them either. You have to compare apples to apples, if you want fair comparisons. And thats often a whole other argument, even with guns of the same type.

T

I think theres a lot of BS and misinformation on both sides.

I think a lack of any real experience, beyond some basic familiarization, if that, is a big part of the problem too.

If you're a reasonable rifle shooter, then you shouldn't have too much trouble making decent hits with an AK, than anything else at reasonable ranges, as long as you shoot it like an AK. They arent target rifles, but they arent dogs either. But of course, if you cant hit anything with it, its got to be the guns fault, right?

Just as an example, these two targets were shot at 100 yards, from a cross legged sitting position, one with a Springfield SOCOM M1A, one with one of my AK's, and at this point, I cant remember which one, but it really doesnt matter, they all shot about the same. Both guns had a forward mounted Aimpoint on them. Ammo was just basic ball type ammo.


You tell me which one shot which. Im gettng CRS an cant remember.

View attachment 1105044


One thing that I found makes a big difference with any of them, is an Aimpoiint, or other decent red dots. For these types of rifles, they just make shooting them in a more realistic fashion, a lot easier, and making good hits, a lot quicker.

The best mount Ive found for the AK's is the Ultimak forward handguard rail. With the right mount, you should be able to cowitness the irons to the dot, and the optic is up front, out of the way of both your peripheral vision, and any handling issues. The gun shoulders and shoots naturally, like you were shooting just irons, and you get that same cheek weld.

I have both AR's and AK's with Aimpoints mounted on them, and when shooting them in a similar fashion, the hits on target are very much alike. If one was 5.56 and the other 5.45, you probably wouldn't be able to tell which target was shot by which gun.

If I want to shoot a HP type rifle match, with open sights, no doubt, the AR gets the nod, hands down, simply because they have "target" type sights.

But that AR, isnt the same AR as the guns with the red dots on them either. You have to compare apples to apples, if you want fair comparisons. And thats often a whole other argument, even with guns of the same type.

The target on the right was shot with the M1A the other, the AK.

 

[trackskippy]

Maybe, I honestly dont remember which was which, its been a few years.

Not that it really matters, the hits on target are very similar, and who's to say the one on the right, wouldn't look like the one on the left, with the same number of rounds on it?

4 MOA dot on a target that has no fixed aiming point, can have something to do with things too.

My point is, with both using a red dot, and shot in the similar manner, the results are not all that different.

 

[Mizar]

Soviets got good accuracy out of the Dragunov...

The link you shared is in Russian and I don't think that most of the people here can read it... I and a handful of other members can, but that's about it. And the thread has nothing to do with the SVD, BTW...

 

[Varminterror]

Super drive by…

 

[mshootnit]

The link you shared is in Russian and I don't think that most of the people here can read it... I and a handful of other members can, but that's about it. And the thread has nothing to do with the SVD, BTW...

Was English on my phone....
I think most devices will ask at the bottom if you want the page in English, correct me if I am wrong. Speaking of desired accuracy from Russian platforms, I thought memtion of the SVD was appropriate.
Varmint Error: you want to go again? If I want advice on shooting at smallish whitetails with an 11" 6mm pistol, sporting a 2.5 lb scope I already know who to look up.

 

[Mauser fan]

In the right hands it is. Just as the little black rifle is in the right hands.

I have been on the receiving end of an AK and thank the creator that that nut behind that trigger couldn't use it to its full potential. I'm pretty damn lucky and don't want to talk about that anymore.

The AK platform is capable of much better performance than many ppl think (particularly die-hard Armalite fans.)

Truth is, it depends on price, reciever type, type of round.

If you drop enough work and/or money into one, you can get sub-moa results.

The 762 39 round is possibly one of the best battle rounds I think, because it's light and packs a punch, and until 2-300 yards, it's perfectly capable of tack driving. After that, you really get drop off, which can be worked around, but and kind of breeze reeealy pushes the 30 caliber bullet around.

But if you get an AK in say, 308, with a 1.5 mm stamped or milled reciever, you can do the same thing you average AR10 does.

There are AK's in a bunch of calibers now, and if you buy one chambered in 5.56 with a cold hammered barrel from FN, it'll kick the **** out of an AR by being more reliable and matching the MOA.

The side mounted optic **** looks like a horrible option at first, but it works, and it works well.

If you're really into it, you can quad and top rail it out till it's as Lego as an AR-15.

In a situation where I'm going into the extreme unknown for a long long time, I'd MUCH rather have an AK than an AR. Due to it being so indestructible and non-failing, in any environment.

The "loose sloppy feeling" in the action is actually tolerances made really loose on purpose. It literally is self cleaning, and can be shot for decades without being cleaned or serviced at all. Dirt, dust, mud, ice, soot buildup can't jam this weapon.

You could probably just weld the dust cover to the reciever permanently and slap rails on it that way and not need to worry about having any issues.

Can/Could a screw hole in gun metal be tig welded closed and then drilled and tapped?

 

[valnar]

If you drop enough work and/or money into one, you can get sub-moa results.

The 762 39 round is possibly one of the best battle rounds I think, because it's light and packs a punch, and until 2-300 yards, it's perfectly capable of tack driving.

OK, I love the 7.62x39 round for what it is, but your statement is not true. It's been proven many times.

There is something called "inherent accuracy" in regards to every caliber. It's a combination of bullet weight, case design, powder, ballistic coefficient, and some other factors. The 7.62x39 is not a well designed cartridge if accuracy is important. It's just not.

 

[d2wing]

In the same vane, how much time did you actually spend with the AK's to declare them bad shooters? Were they guns in reasonable shape and taken care of, or one that had been mistreated and drug around, beat up, without proper maintenance and care? Are we basing things on apples to apples here, or something else?

Did you put in the time and effort to learn the gun and how it really shoots, or are you basing it on shooting a few rounds or mags out of one here and there and because you didnt do well with it, declare it junk?

No matter what it is you choose, it takes time and effort to learn to shoot any of them well. If all you know is only one gun, then you only know one gun, and likely wont do well with other things, until you take the time to learn whatever that gun is.

Its no different handing a shooter who only learned on an AR, M16, whatever, an M1 or M1A/M14 and expect them to be a great shooter with it. Usually the first response there is, this thing kicks! Wonder why, you're not shouldering it right.

And then you have a lot of the old M14 shooters who declared then, and still continue, to call the M16's junk. At least those unwilling to bother to learn them "new fangled thangs", and they still continue to bitch. I always get a chuckle here when I hear those complaints, when I grew up with WWII, Korea, and VN combat vets who all swore by their M1's and M14's, yet to a one, they all had an AR (one had an M16) with its 782 gear all ready to go for their grab and go guns up until the day they died. Hmmm, what did they know?

The way Ive always looked at things is, learn to shoot and gain experience with as many different things as you can, so youre at least somewhat broadly educated with things and can pick up and be able to shoot pretty much anything you might come across, and be able to shoot it reasonably well. That generally means spending a good bit of dedicated time with each of them, until you do learn them. Its funny too, as you do learn them, most all the perceived bad things about them, usually melt away with a little experience.

People with little actual experience with an AK will scream bloody murder about how bad they shoot, how horrible the ergonomics are, and on and on, yet, if they bothered to actually learn the gun, they will almost always come to find, the LOP of the stock is exactly the same as most other combat stocked rifles (and your cheek weld isnt on the comb ), they can manipulate the charging handle, the selector, and the mag release, without ever taking your hand off the grip, and the rifle shoulders and shoots very quickly, and very naturally, and is plenty combat accurate, assuming you are.

Combat accurate. Pretty stupid remark.I think you're the same guy that made the torso at 200 yards remark. I am a combat veteran and can tell you first hand that I am glad the guys shooting at me had inaccurate short range rifles. You ignorant internet commandos have no idea. You also claim that if you shoot it right that an AK is just as accurate. Bring your AK to my range, let's cut your ridiculous bs and prove it. Of course it's been proven at gun ranges thousands of times and in combat but you don't seem to get it.

 

[trackskippy]

LOL. Ill bet the people on the other side were saying the same thing of you.

In those cases, what do you think the biggest issue with accuracy is, the gun or the shooter?

What I dont understand is, if youre such a good shot, why its so hard for you to make decent hits with one? Ive never found it to be very hard.

And you never answered the question, whats youre actual experience with them?

And yea, Ive shot 200yards with my old SAR quite often, and it shoots like it did in that one target I posted, every time Ive shot at that distance. What? Are you still saying its not possible?

Heres the target I posted before, with another with it, that I shot chasing zero. Romanian SAR1 using the slightly canted iron sights. Are any of those hits unreasonable?




I couldnt care less if youre a combat veteran or not either. Ive known and shot with more than my share of them, and more often than not, they were very not good shots when it came right down to it, regardless the gun. Contrary to what they aways tell you.

Insulting people who dont agree with you, just makes you look desperate. But, you do you. How about you just post up a couple of your 200 yard M14 or M1A targets, however you want to shoot them, so we can judge if its enough better to be a difference? Nobody has to go anywhere.

 

[Bcwitt]

If one were to put a high quality barrel & make good ammo, i have no doubt it would be nearly as accurate. My M70ab will shoot just as good as my Mforgery. Not quite as good as my a2, however. Most AKs just dont use very good barrels. Have you ever seen a Kreiger or Hart Benchrest AK barrel? I havent.

 

[someguy2800]

If one were to put a high quality barrel & make good ammo, i have no doubt it would be nearly as accurate. My M70ab will shoot just as good as my Mforgery. Not quite as good as my a2, however. Most AKs just dont use very good barrels. Have you ever seen a Kreiger or Hart Benchrest AK barrel? I havent.

Exactly. I've heard people say they've built polish kits, yugo kits, russian kits, and none of them are accurate so thats just the way it is. Well I just can't really see how that can be if you actually were able to source a real quality American barrel with a decently cut chamber, rather than just randomly selected soviet combloc era military barrels. For instance the first 7.62x39 AR15 I built had a random $79 barrel off the internet and it shot like 3 to 6 moa with a few different brands of steel case ammo. I could have just given up there and concluded that the ammo was capable of any more, but I knew better from seeing how some of it shoots in the CZ and Ruger bolt actions. The next barrel I tried shoots under an inch. The 3rd one I tried was about 2 moa, and the 4th was also around and inch.

 

[tark]

No doubt the shooter is hearing sweet words of encouragement

That pic is from the late 60s at Ft. Bliss, Texas. And that Drill Sergeant looks VERY much like D.S. Dickerson, who gave me many "words of encouragement" When I went through Basic in November- December of 67'.

 

[tark]

Turns out he was an internet commando from mom's basement.

A chairborne Ranger...

I freely admit I was a REMF so I feel that I can't really say much about carrying weapons in actual combat. All I ever did in the Nam was get drunk, roam around Long My Depot at Qui Nhon stealing whatever we could find and guarding my M-14 with my life. The guys from the 173rd and the 101st would steal them. This was in 68.

Don't know why. The 16 was a very reliable rifle by that time in the war.

 

[d2wing]

A chairborne Ranger...

I freely admit I was a REMF so I feel that I can't really say much about carrying weapons in actual combat. All I ever did in the Nam was get drunk, roam around Long My Depot at Qui Nhon stealing whatever we could find and guarding my M-14 with my life. The guys from the 173rd and the 101st would steal them. This was in 68.

Don't know why. The 16 was a very reliable rifle by that time in the war.

The hate runs deep. I know some guys like that. But I agree. No problems for me in 1969. But I know a Marine that was looking for a real M14. He lost his leg in an ambush and his 66-67 AR jammed. Can't blame him.

 

[d2wing]

LOL. Ill bet the people on the other side were saying the same thing of you.

In those cases, what do you think the biggest issue with accuracy is, the gun or the shooter?

What I dont understand is, if youre such a good shot, why its so hard for you to make decent hits with one? Ive never found it to be very hard.

And you never answered the question, whats youre actual experience with them?

And yea, Ive shot 200yards with my old SAR quite often, and it shoots like it did in that one target I posted, every time Ive shot at that distance. What? Are you still saying its not possible?

Heres the target I posted before, with another with it, that I shot chasing zero. Romanian SAR1 using the slightly canted iron sights. Are any of those hits unreasonable?

View attachment 1105274


I couldnt care less if youre a combat veteran or not either. Ive known and shot with more than my share of them, and more often than not, they were very not good shots when it came right down to it, regardless the gun. Contrary to what they aways tell you.

Insulting people who dont agree with you, just makes you look desperate. But, you do you. How about you just post up a couple of your 200 yard M14 or M1A targets, however you want to shoot them, so we can judge if its enough better to be a difference? Nobody has to go anywhere.

I have posted targets. I don't believe anything you say. I have challenged you to a match. Your posts are really not worth a comment. Bye.

 

[trackskippy]

Feeling is mutual. Bye.