Why AR's more accurate than AK's?
- Thread starter natural marksman
- Start date
- Status
Because they were designed to be. The AK has very loose tolerances allowing it to function despite mud/dirt/sand .etc Also the action is somewhat stiff in terms of recoil (compared to the AR)As a result of all these factors the accuracy suffers slightly.
The barrel in that video is actually flexing very little. What you're seeing flexing is the cleaning rod immediately underneath the barrel. Since it's no longer parallel with the barrel it makes the barrel appear to flex as well. Try freezing the video and laying a straightedge along the barrel and you can verify this.
You can also easily verify it just by applying common sense. Barrels are not made of spring steel and when you bend them as far as that video implies they do not spring back. If you were to bend a barrel repeatedly in the manner they imply it would quickly develop stress fractures and break.
Yes, there is a bit of flex and oscillation present as there is in any barrel upon firing, but it's not even remotely close to what they depict.
That video is just wrong on so many levels.
The biggest reason the AR is more accurate is because most people can't shoot for squat with notch and post sights, (most can't shoot for squat with peep sights either, but they do a little better).
The number two reason is that most of the AK's sold here are bottom of the barrel models.
A decent AK with decent ammo will shoot about 3 MOA.
A run of the mill AR with decent ammo will shoot about 2 MOA.
Now if you really want an accurate rifle, the AR has some design features that really lend themselves to accuracy. It can easily be free floated, the direct impingement charging system doesn't interfere with barrel harmonics, the bolt locks up to the barrel and optics can be mounted easily, securely and with a proper cheekweld. I also think the linear nature of the moving parts on an AR might enhance its accuracy, but I could be wrong about that.
Get a free floated, flat top AR with a good barrel and you can expect 1 MOA or better with good ammo.
You can also easily verify it just by applying common sense. Barrels are not made of spring steel and when you bend them as far as that video implies they do not spring back. If you were to bend a barrel repeatedly in the manner they imply it would quickly develop stress fractures and break.
Yes, there is a bit of flex and oscillation present as there is in any barrel upon firing, but it's not even remotely close to what they depict.
That video is just wrong on so many levels.
The biggest reason the AR is more accurate is because most people can't shoot for squat with notch and post sights, (most can't shoot for squat with peep sights either, but they do a little better).
The number two reason is that most of the AK's sold here are bottom of the barrel models.
A decent AK with decent ammo will shoot about 3 MOA.
A run of the mill AR with decent ammo will shoot about 2 MOA.
Now if you really want an accurate rifle, the AR has some design features that really lend themselves to accuracy. It can easily be free floated, the direct impingement charging system doesn't interfere with barrel harmonics, the bolt locks up to the barrel and optics can be mounted easily, securely and with a proper cheekweld. I also think the linear nature of the moving parts on an AR might enhance its accuracy, but I could be wrong about that.
Get a free floated, flat top AR with a good barrel and you can expect 1 MOA or better with good ammo.
Another thing to think about is what kind of accuracy you would expect to get if the Romanians built a dirt cheap AR, then had the master gunsmiths at Century modify it and finally you shot the cheapest ammo you could find out of it.
That's literally what you are seeing with most AK's at the range. They're mostly WASR's which are some of the cheapest, crudest AK's ever made. They were reworked by the hacks at Century and most folks shoot Wolf or Hot Shot or whatever ammo they could get the cheapest.
That's literally what you are seeing with most AK's at the range. They're mostly WASR's which are some of the cheapest, crudest AK's ever made. They were reworked by the hacks at Century and most folks shoot Wolf or Hot Shot or whatever ammo they could get the cheapest.
usmc1371
Member
From my experince training 19 year old Iraqi ''combat engineers'' in 2006 I have to say that in good hands a plain ass AK with isue ammo is just fine out to 300 m when shooting at man size targets. I know I had to demonstrate this many times trying to teach these kids there is more than one way to use an AK. This is there idea of marksminship; Insert mag, rifle on full auto, empty mag, laugh, repeat. After a quick zero job at 36 yds I had no problem hitting targets out to 300m from the kneeling position. You should have seen the look on their faces. Would I trade my M16 A2 for one NO. Would I kick in a door with an AK in my hands Hell Yes. IMHO the rifles are way more capable than the hands they are in. be it AK or M16
pleas forgive my spelling I'm an engineer not an english major.
pleas forgive my spelling I'm an engineer not an english major.
OP
OP
natural marksman
Member
Thanks guys.
I don't know if people are still looking at this thread anymore, but I have some more questions, this time about the barrel length of a gun and how it affects recoil...
I heard once that the shorter the barrel, the more recoil you'll feel. Is this right? If so, does that mean carbines have more recoil than the full-length versions of that gun, such as the M4?
I don't know if people are still looking at this thread anymore, but I have some more questions, this time about the barrel length of a gun and how it affects recoil...
I heard once that the shorter the barrel, the more recoil you'll feel. Is this right? If so, does that mean carbines have more recoil than the full-length versions of that gun, such as the M4?
atblis
Member
Well
Shorter barrels are less massive, so yes chances are the recoil will seem greater. Chances are too that a gun with a short barrel has other features intended to reduce mass.
Also the muzzle is closer to your face, thus also increasing the perception of recoil.
Lastly, shorter barrels sometimes do not allow the powder to burn fully, thus increasing muzzle flash and blast, increasing perceived recoil.
Shorter barrels are less massive, so yes chances are the recoil will seem greater. Chances are too that a gun with a short barrel has other features intended to reduce mass.
Also the muzzle is closer to your face, thus also increasing the perception of recoil.
Lastly, shorter barrels sometimes do not allow the powder to burn fully, thus increasing muzzle flash and blast, increasing perceived recoil.
AKElroy
Member
The AK and AR seem to have been designed with different missions. I have no specific data to reference for this, but it looks to me like the AR was designed with an overly-thought out mission to remove opponents from the battlefield, an objective that does not necessarily require fatal wounding with lightweight, accurate ammo a large part of the design imperative. The AK looks to have been designed to run reliably while hot and filthy, full of sand & mud, to be easily disassembled & re-assembled by banged up soldiers wasted on Smirnoff, and to propel a round sufficient to KILL an opponent; screw tactical wounding. In modern warfare, maybe the AR is a good choice. In a down & dirty gorilla insurgency like we have seen time & again, The AK serves seems to serve well. I am searching for video I saw recently of some of our boys in the sandbox clearing a house. They were carrying AK's. Across the room accuracy apparently takes a backseat to man-stopping rounds. Personally, if I want to hunt prairie dogs, the AR is my choice. I am unlikely to ever see battle; but if I did, I would want the AK.
bikertrash63
Member
It's kind of been my expierence that rifle weight has had more effect on recoil then barrel length. I have shot AR15 pistols and HKs that had 8" barrels shooting .308 win and they had surprisingly little recoil, made a lot of noise and I am told the muzzle velocity is far less then a rifle. It's wierd though, I had the misfortune one time of firing a 12ga dbl barrel that was only about 8 inch barrel, it kicked like a Democrat.
Poor East Texan
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 366
^ LOL
Dlc43
Member
The 223 is a flatter shooting cartridge than a 7.62x39 which is a big plus for the AR.
I have an AR and in the past have owned several AK type rifles and a Mak90.
All the AK's I owned shot good enough for their intended purpose. 3 to 4 inch 100 yard groups are about average, same as my mini 14.
I bought a new Romanian AK last fall in anticipation of the new administration thinking at $360 I could turn a tidy profit if the election went as it did.
I'm not sure if I got an unusual Romanian or not but I can consistently get 2 inch groups at 100 yards which is way better than my mini-14 will do and with my aging eyes is almost as good as my AR will do.
It will also consistently hit the smaller center circle on a paper plate at 165 yards which amazes me.
So much for reselling it at a profit.
I will just keep it since it shoots that good.
Both the 223 and the 7.62 are 150 -200 yard maximum effective rounds anyway as far as I'm concerned.
If I need to shoot further I'll use my Garand or my 03A3.
Personally I think the advantages of an AR or an AK kind of cancel each other out.
I wouldn't feel under gunned or at a significant disadvantage with either one.
If I was gopher shooting I'd probably take the AR, if I was after larger game such as deer I'd probably take the AK with it's bigger bullet if I used them for hunting.
If I was in a battle I might pick the AK over the AR simply because the AK will take a little more abuse but I would really feel ok with either one.
I think for their original intended purpose (combat) either will do the job just as effectively.
I have an AR and in the past have owned several AK type rifles and a Mak90.
All the AK's I owned shot good enough for their intended purpose. 3 to 4 inch 100 yard groups are about average, same as my mini 14.
I bought a new Romanian AK last fall in anticipation of the new administration thinking at $360 I could turn a tidy profit if the election went as it did.
I'm not sure if I got an unusual Romanian or not but I can consistently get 2 inch groups at 100 yards which is way better than my mini-14 will do and with my aging eyes is almost as good as my AR will do.
It will also consistently hit the smaller center circle on a paper plate at 165 yards which amazes me.
So much for reselling it at a profit.
I will just keep it since it shoots that good.
Both the 223 and the 7.62 are 150 -200 yard maximum effective rounds anyway as far as I'm concerned.
If I need to shoot further I'll use my Garand or my 03A3.
Personally I think the advantages of an AR or an AK kind of cancel each other out.
I wouldn't feel under gunned or at a significant disadvantage with either one.
If I was gopher shooting I'd probably take the AR, if I was after larger game such as deer I'd probably take the AK with it's bigger bullet if I used them for hunting.
If I was in a battle I might pick the AK over the AR simply because the AK will take a little more abuse but I would really feel ok with either one.
I think for their original intended purpose (combat) either will do the job just as effectively.
- Status
