Seriously...how innaccurate are AKs?

[Titan6]

When the Defense Department offered M-16s to the Iraqi police and army, they refused. They wanted AKs which had to be bought from Jordan (the weapons actually were made in Germany). Indeed, like their brethren in Vietnam, many US soldiers are using AKs in Iraq despite official sanctions against the practice.

Max100- The IA have been begging for ARs since the get-go. The Iraqi's all even used to prefer Berrettas to the Glocks they were issued. Many still do. They finnally have started to get M-16s after four years of begging and are thrilled.

Show me a conventional US soldier using an AK over an AR, even one... much less "many" and I will show you a poor soldier.

 

[jlbraun]

The IA have been begging for ARs since the get-go.

...because that's what the Americans had and what the Americans have is automatically better.

The Iraqi's all even used to prefer Berrettas to the Glocks they were issued

...because that's what the Americans had and what the Americans have is automatically better.

Just because the Iraqi army prefers something doesn't make it better.

 

[elmerfudd]

dstorm,

What do you usually charge for one of your Yugos and do you have a website?

 

[ndh87]

I imagine most inaccuracy accounts come from ****ty ammo being put through ****ty wasr 10s

hey be nice.

I have a ****ty WASR-10 and i use ****ty cheap ammo, even before i changed the brake and put the mojo sighs on it worked just fine.

I think it has alot more to do with the shooter than the ammo and the firearm.

 

[SSN Vet]

it is what it is ..... a battle rifle... 2 to 3 MOA

the bad rap comes...in my opinion....from people who insist on comparing it to an M16/AR15, which is an exceptionally accurate rifle.

 

[mljdeckard]

jlbraun is absolutely correct. The IA know little to nothing about arms. My little brother is in Talafar/Mosul with 1st Cavalry, and just spent 6 mos training them. The vast majority of them didn't know how to use the sights on the rifle at all. They all thought that Americans have miraculous technology, and this is why we are impossible to defeat. And while I will admit that in some cases (M1A2 vs T-72) this is absolutely correct.

Any AK I've ever fired is minute-of milk-jug accurate at 100 yards. for quick, short range shooting, any accuracy difference between an AR and an AK is negligible. Placed in the hands of soldiers who know or care little about maintenence, I would tell them to keep their AKs.

 

[jpwilly]

+1

the bad rap comes...in my opinion....from people who insist on comparing it to an M16/AR15, which is an exceptionally accurate rifle.

Also, I have found with both my SKS's and AK that Wolf produces inconsistent ammo...nearly 1 in 5 will be flyers and you can count that 1 in 10 will be a flyer. The SilverBear I have shot only shows about 1 in 10 to be flyers and sometime very few. I've not handloaded but sure I could eliminate most flyers by doing so. The rifles shot consistant 3-4 MOA overall but can do better.

 

[atblis]

Why no poll

Depends on the AK
Depends on the shooter
Depends on the ammo
Depends on lotsa things

2-3 inches at 100 yards is really good for an AK

"ya do not test any rifle for MOA accuracy in Full auto in the first place"
First, tell me where this is carved in stone and why can't you.

Because you're not using the same point of aim for each shot. That doesn't tell you the accuracy/precision of the gun, but rather the controllability under full auto. Accuracy/precision would figure into that, but would not be distinguishable.

 

[Omaney]

I can't say that I've ever tried to hit anything smaller than an armadillo with my WASR 2 (5.45 x 39). But that armadillo is dead and the WASR was plenty accurate. BTW Tapco FCG installed is pretty clean.

 

[Guitargod1985]

AKs are about as accurate as they need to be IMO. I'm not exactly a marksman as of yet, but I can hit an eight inch plate 4 out of 5 times at 100 yards and 3 out of 5 times @ 200 yards with open sights. No bench rest by the way. That's good enough for me. Think about it - I mean if it were a man-sized target, he/she would be in some serious trouble

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

A lot of it has to do with the ammo, the individual AK (believe it or not, there are varying degrees of quality between AK's), and the shooter. Also, caliber can play a part. The 7.62x39 is not particularly accurate at ranges over 200 yards. It is heavy and slow, and therefore has a bit of a rainbow trajectory.

They are not an inherently accurate semi auto and weren't meant to be.

 

[wisocki]

you don't test the accuracy of an AK with a WASR 10. Do you people know that WASR 10'S are some of the ****tiest AK's you can buy?

 

[sturmgewehr]

Some aks, but not all, are capable of ar accuracy.

False. I would like to see the AK that could shoot 1" at 100 yards with factory ammo. It would be 1 in a million whereas the AR's can regularly do it. Let's keep it real, AK's are good for 3 inch groups at 100 yards if you have a good one.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

False. I would like to see the AK that could shoot 1" at 100 yards with factory ammo. It would be 1 in a million whereas the AR's can regularly do it. Let's keep it real, AK's are good for 3 inch groups at 100 yards if you have a good one.

Ohhhhh reeeeeeeeeeeaaallly.



This group was shot at 100 yards using 1982 British produced, de-linked machine gun ammunition. Center to center the three furthest imacts are all 1.25 inches apart.

Seriously, AR fanboys... get over it. The AK platform is not that inaccurate.

 

[Prince Yamato]

I think some of the "AK is inaccurate" crowd are the same crowd that cries about "chicom guns" and "never ownin' a ter'rist rifle". Latent cold-war fear.

I like my chicom ter'rist guns. They do what I need them to do and could probably do a whole lot more if I was a better marksman.

Personally, I'm more scared of M-1s and M-14s chewing off my piano-playing fingers than the AK. And as far as the AR-15... bah... too expensive and too capitalist for this peasant.

 

[swingset]

Three things about AK accuracy (as the owner of many many variants over the years).

1. They are not universally "anything". I have had examples that shoot 1.5" groups with good ammo, and some that couldn't shoot 12" with ANY ammo. That kind of inconsistency isn't common with most western service rifles, IMHO.

2. Ergonomics, to include sights and triggers, do much to inhibit shooters with the AK. Some shoot them well, but most do not. This is where rifles like the AR, a very tolerant rifle, on the whole have it whipped for accuracy.

3. I've never owned a semi-auto service rifle (and I've owned a bunch), that has such a wide range of ammo available, and that quality of that ammo make such a difference in accuracy as with an AK.

I love much about the AK, but I count it's accuracy to be a detriment....then again, it's not supposed to be a tackdriver right?

 

[elmerfudd]

Quote:
False. I would like to see the AK that could shoot 1" at 100 yards with factory ammo. It would be 1 in a million whereas the AR's can regularly do it. Let's keep it real, AK's are good for 3 inch groups at 100 yards if you have a good one.
Ohhhhh reeeeeeeeeeeaaallly.



This group was shot at 100 yards using 1982 British produced, de-linked machine gun ammunition. Center to center the three furthest imacts are all 1.25 inches apart.

Seriously, AR fanboys... get over it. The AK platform is not that inaccurate.

I take it that was shot with a Saiga .308. Mine doesn't shoot quite that well, but I can regularly get groups under 2" with ammo that it likes. My Saiga .223 does even better and even my SAR3 will easily shoot groups under 3". I honestly can't see any practical reason to go the AR route. My AK's are more than accurate enough for their intended purpose and if I have a need for tack driving accuracy I have bolt actions. Others may disagree, but for a defensive/SHTF rifle I'd rather have the reliability of the AK over the ergonomics of the AR.

I know that not all AK's are accurate and I did once have a MAK90 that was a 6 MOA rifle, but the design itself is capable of far better accuracy than it is given credit for.

 

[atblis]

Huh

This group was shot at 100 yards using 1982 British produced, de-linked machine gun ammunition. Center to center the three furthest imacts are all 1.25 inches apart.

So a guy makes a statement about AKs and the rarity of a 1" gun , and you put up a single 1.25" 4 shot group. What does that prove?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

So a guy makes a statement about AKs and the rarity of a 1" gun , and you put up a single 1.25" 4 shot group. What does that prove?

Well first off, his claim was that a "good" AK is good for a three inch group. Well there you are, a 1.25 inch group out of a fairly cheap AK. In fact, one of the cheapest you can buy here in the US. 1.25 inches is < 3.00 inches so I don't think that point needs to be further contested. Don't worry about the .25 above a one inch group. Given a calm day, some non-corroded twenty five year old de-linked ammunition and a shooting rest I'm sure that .25 inches can be reduced. Now, either I have a one in a million rifle as per the posters claim, or the inaccuracy of the AK platform is being exagerated.

 

[goon]

It depends on the caliber and I think that is because of the varying quality of ammunition.
The 5.56 VEPR I had would probably have more than less kept up with a comparable AR but I've never shot a 7.62x39 version that even came close.