Why I learned to stop hatin' and love the AK!
- Thread starter fireside44
- Start date
- Status
Rob G
Member
I absolutely love the AK platform and I think it's great for its intended purpose which is as a fighting rifle. My personal AK, and sadly I have only one, is an Arsenal SGL 31 which is a great carrying and shooting rifle. I've never weighed it but it definitely has a good bit of heft without being too heavy to carry all day, and I bet you could buttstroke somebody pretty good with one.
My Arsenal has shot 2 moa for me on a rest and a friend of mine, who's a much better shot, has done 1.5 moa. He thinks with handloaded ammo he might be able to pull off 1 moa but that's pure speculation. Either way the rifle is more than accurate enough for combat and you can hit 15 inch plates at 400m all day long using irons.
Mostly though I just love the reliability of it. If there's a way to make my AK stop shooting I haven't found it yet. I have other rifles and they're all great weapons but if I had to pair down my collection to just one I would keep the AK without a second thought. There's a lot of value in a gun that just works when you need it to.
@ifit What's with the upper handguard on your M+M M10? It looks vaguely tantalish in the way that it's darker than the lower. I can't see enough detail in the photo though to make out what's different about it.
My favorite commentary on the AK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4ngiQ8BH2U
I especially love the statements at 0:50.
My Arsenal has shot 2 moa for me on a rest and a friend of mine, who's a much better shot, has done 1.5 moa. He thinks with handloaded ammo he might be able to pull off 1 moa but that's pure speculation. Either way the rifle is more than accurate enough for combat and you can hit 15 inch plates at 400m all day long using irons.
Mostly though I just love the reliability of it. If there's a way to make my AK stop shooting I haven't found it yet. I have other rifles and they're all great weapons but if I had to pair down my collection to just one I would keep the AK without a second thought. There's a lot of value in a gun that just works when you need it to.
@ifit What's with the upper handguard on your M+M M10? It looks vaguely tantalish in the way that it's darker than the lower. I can't see enough detail in the photo though to make out what's different about it.
My favorite commentary on the AK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4ngiQ8BH2U
I especially love the statements at 0:50.
aka108
Member
I own a Arsenal SA M7S and use a Kobra red dot sight on it. Our range is 100 yd max. We toss some orange clays on the berm and it will hit them all the time. Then we shoot the pieces until the remnant are no longeer visible. Also own two stock Saigas. One 7.62x39 the other 223. One has a Kobra sight and the 223 now has a Lyman Alaskan 2.5 scope mounted. None has ever had a operating failure of any type. Read one time that the AK is a weapon that was designed by a peasant for use by peasants. I love the design, does so much so well with very few parts.
Cosmoline
Member
I'm liking my AK more and more. The controls are ur-simple and intuitive. There are no complex drills to learn, and it's more than accurate enough for its uses. The political issues tied to it should have no bearing on its technical merits.
tahunua001
Member
ok first of all thank you for taking the time to make such a detailed writeup. now I am an AR guy through and through but I'll try not to make this about ARVSAK.
1. Irons. you won't get any argument from me there. they are crude and not fun to use. I feel the same way about any commie gun. I hate the sights on my mosins and I upgraded my SKS to use a peep sight. I just can't use them well and even as far as leaf sights go they are not anything to write home about.
2. ease of use. I kindof disagree with you there. it has a charging handle, a safety, a trigger and a mag release. just about any other paramilitary design up to that point and since has the same basic layout. take it apart and it has a recoil spring, a bolt carrier/piston group and bolt. the same number of major components that most others guns have. I hate when people tote the "simplicity" of AKs when I operate and take apart an SKS, AR15, or heck, a marlin model 60 with the same level of difficulty. that's just me but in the defense of my position, I have spent a great deal of time with all of the listed models. some people may not like a particular model so it's difficult to look objectively at models you haven't spent much time with because you don't like them.
3. accuracy. my AK was horribly innaccurate. I see a lot of guys that have gotten accurate AKs and my brother claims his is accurate but every group I've ever seen him post were equivalent to what I was getting with mine. in the AKs defense both models are WASRs so perhaps saigas are better but I'm nto about to spend my hard earned dollars on another AK when I never liked the one I had.
4. one thing you didn't touch on was recoil management. I have come home with a bruised shoulder more often from AKs than any other gun(and I shoot a lot of guns with steel buttplates). you would think with a round as small as x39 it would not kick too hard but... it didn't matter whether it was a wirestock, side folder or fixed wood.
my own personal experiences with the AK have left me biased against them. I don't decry anyone for owning one and if you really like them then that's great but they just aren't for me.
1. Irons. you won't get any argument from me there. they are crude and not fun to use. I feel the same way about any commie gun. I hate the sights on my mosins and I upgraded my SKS to use a peep sight. I just can't use them well and even as far as leaf sights go they are not anything to write home about.
2. ease of use. I kindof disagree with you there. it has a charging handle, a safety, a trigger and a mag release. just about any other paramilitary design up to that point and since has the same basic layout. take it apart and it has a recoil spring, a bolt carrier/piston group and bolt. the same number of major components that most others guns have. I hate when people tote the "simplicity" of AKs when I operate and take apart an SKS, AR15, or heck, a marlin model 60 with the same level of difficulty. that's just me but in the defense of my position, I have spent a great deal of time with all of the listed models. some people may not like a particular model so it's difficult to look objectively at models you haven't spent much time with because you don't like them.
3. accuracy. my AK was horribly innaccurate. I see a lot of guys that have gotten accurate AKs and my brother claims his is accurate but every group I've ever seen him post were equivalent to what I was getting with mine. in the AKs defense both models are WASRs so perhaps saigas are better but I'm nto about to spend my hard earned dollars on another AK when I never liked the one I had.
4. one thing you didn't touch on was recoil management. I have come home with a bruised shoulder more often from AKs than any other gun(and I shoot a lot of guns with steel buttplates). you would think with a round as small as x39 it would not kick too hard but... it didn't matter whether it was a wirestock, side folder or fixed wood.
my own personal experiences with the AK have left me biased against them. I don't decry anyone for owning one and if you really like them then that's great but they just aren't for me.
Last edited:
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
4 MOA with irons off the rail of the patio and not taking my time. 3 MOA with irons off the rail of the patio taking my time. Haven't run a scope, probably never will. It screams for a red dot IMO, because it's tougher to do fast follow ups accurately because you have to find the irons. Like I noted, what's the difference if you have two different rifles, one an AK, the other not, and both your targets come back with the center blown out of it? If it's accuracy level was as ineffective as some claim it would've never made it as an infantry weapon. It is accurate enough.
Glad to see some legitimate criticisms. I hated the sights on my Mosin, sold it. The AK has similarly crude sights though I would say a little better than the Mosins. I hemmed and hawed about getting new irons (tech sights, TWS, etc) when I took mine out the first time or two. I'm gonna be honest, you can't use them well because you haven't used them enough. They are actually quite effective. Yes, a longer radius would be nice, but for someone who puts the time in with his weapon, they are completely usable as well as durable. This gives me cause to re-examine the Mosin next time I have the chance too.
It doesn't have a bolt hold open release, a slightly confusing concept to a newb or youngster. It's internals are accessed very easily. Yes, it is very easy to access an AR, but not if you're 8 years old because you can't just push that big old button on the back of the weapon. The AR is a bit more refined, it's not stupidly easy to figure out how to get it open. It's easy to rack the bolt, some rifles have too much spring tension for the little feller to operate. My wife can't rack the FAL nor a G3/Cetme nor C93/HK33, neither can my son, they don't have the strength.
It is a very basic and simple weapon.
I can see how a rifleman would prefer a different type of weapon. The genius of the AK isn't that it's particularly accurate. It isn't refined. Neither is warfare. War requires something that works under horribly adverse conditions. That is how it shines. You have admitted not spending a lot of trigger time with yours, which may have contributed to the accuracy as much as your low end AK variant. I was more critical of the AK myself until I started taking it out every weekend and putting some rounds downrange. It's somewhat dishonest to knock a type of weapon until you've put in some trigger time with it and learned it's ins and outs.
This I can agree with you somewhat. Some AK's seem particularly recoil heavy at times and for different shooters. A metal buttplate never helps. I tamed the recoil quite well just adding some ounces up front and now it's a softy with the MI handguards.
Last edited:
tahunua001
Member
I never said I didn't spend much trigger time with my AK. I put well over 1200 rounds through it before I got tired of trying to adapt to it(or adapt it to me) and sold it. I was just saying that if you have your favorite model and that's all you ever want to shoot and you decide to rent another model and only put a box of ammo through it before deciding you want to go back to your favorite gun then it is not easy to develop an objective opinion.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Recoil?
(And a free plug for AIM Surplus! http://www.aimsurplus.com/catalog.aspx?groupid=33&name=5.45x39)
(And a free plug for AIM Surplus! http://www.aimsurplus.com/catalog.aspx?groupid=33&name=5.45x39)
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
Sorry, I misread. My bad.
I can understand. There are certain features on any given gun that will require some adaptation. Some will take to those features, others will not. Nothing is perfect. If I wanted to complain it'd be about the safety and the sights. They could all be better. Everything is a tradeoff. You can upgrade what you don't like in many cases, others you are forced to jump ship for a different gun altogether. Welcome to the world of firearms and gun collecting, lol.
This thread is for us who haven't jumped ship. Appreciated the feedback though, can't say I disagree with you a whole lot, just that I have learned to live with it's drawbacks and some of it's features I have grown into a fondness for, though they be considered drawbacks by others. I find it's drawbacks more tolerable than most other SA rifles that I have spent some time with. I don't see them as things that can't be overcome.
tahunua001
Member
on that we can agree. I was simply adding my two cents without trying to step on too many toes. I'm sure if I made such a thread regarding SKS or AR15s then I'm sure that there would be a number of things that AK guys could take issue with.
thanks for the good read!
thanks for the good read!
Cosmoline
Member
It's a fair point. A complete teardown of an AK is not actually simple. The trigger group in particular, unless upgraded, tends to be pretty complicated and you can shoot parts across the room. The "simplicity" idea comes from the fact that you never need to mess with that stuff, or really do much of anything with it beyond very basic cleaning and upkeep. And from the fact that it's simple to operate with very few drills to memorize. But as a technical device, it's still pretty complex. Not to turn this into one of *those* threads, but the AR is more simple in many ways. A bendy straw for a gas system, very few parts, and the ability to swap uppers and lowers.
The AK-74 improved this problem quite a bit, though it's still no tack driver. A pencil barrel with a gigantic piston slamming back and forth are inherent limits on accuracy. One reason the sights are fairly crude is that they're only a guide post, not to be taken too seriously. The idea is to get full auto rounds on target quickly and reliably not to pick off enemies. To some extent this is why the semiauto AR's make a lot more sense as a weapon than the semiauto AK clones. A semiauto AK-47 concedes a large part of the original's merits. That, again, is one thing the '74 improved upon.
Last edited:
leadcounsel
member
The nod goes to the AR sights for adjustability and accuracy over long distances, but I find the AR peephole to give me a headache after squinting through the irons for an an afternoon at the range...
I like the more open style of the AK for QCB and combat...
I like the more open style of the AK for QCB and combat...
Rob G
Member
As a further commentary to the setup of the AK's sights and the weapon's general accuracy, you have to understand that firing the gun was meant to be as simple as possible. This is where the concept of the 400m AK74 zero (or 300m with an AK47) comes in. Basically you sight in the rifle to be zeroed at that range with the leaf sight on the battle setting, which is actually done at 25 meters using a particular target/procedure. Then in combat the gun is aimed at center mass, which in Soviet doctrine means the belt buckle. Depending on the exact range to target the rounds will impact somewhere between the shoulders and the belt line. It's a simple technique to score torso hits out to a significant distance without adjusting your sights and it's easy to teach. The sights don't need to be all that complicated for it.
I've also heard that part of the choice in sight design, and in fact overall control layout, is familiarity. The rear leaf sight was common on hunting rifles in use at the time, and in fact is still found of many today. That made it more familiar for new troops. The control layout would have been similar to the SKS and realistically the whole concept of running the gun with your right hand is familiar to anybody who's shot a bolt action. I'm not saying that makes it "the best" setup, just that if you're trying to train a whole lot of troops, having something that feels familiar to them makes it a lot easier.
My personal views on the sights, I don't mind them really. They're essentially identical to the ones on all my hunting rifles and I've been using that style for 20+ years now, so it's easy for me. The sight radius is also not bad being roughly the same as on my Win '94 or the M4gery's I've shot. I really think it's more a question of what are you used to and what do you prefer?
I've also heard that part of the choice in sight design, and in fact overall control layout, is familiarity. The rear leaf sight was common on hunting rifles in use at the time, and in fact is still found of many today. That made it more familiar for new troops. The control layout would have been similar to the SKS and realistically the whole concept of running the gun with your right hand is familiar to anybody who's shot a bolt action. I'm not saying that makes it "the best" setup, just that if you're trying to train a whole lot of troops, having something that feels familiar to them makes it a lot easier.
My personal views on the sights, I don't mind them really. They're essentially identical to the ones on all my hunting rifles and I've been using that style for 20+ years now, so it's easy for me. The sight radius is also not bad being roughly the same as on my Win '94 or the M4gery's I've shot. I really think it's more a question of what are you used to and what do you prefer?
tonytor58,
Your homework is tell us all about that Chaos rail on your Saiga! How easy was it to install? How does it fit and feel? Does it add too much weight to the front of the rifle?
I'm seriously considering one if I can ever find another 7.62x39mm Saiga for a decent price.
Your homework is tell us all about that Chaos rail on your Saiga! How easy was it to install? How does it fit and feel? Does it add too much weight to the front of the rifle?
I'm seriously considering one if I can ever find another 7.62x39mm Saiga for a decent price.
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
Operation? How so?
The AR has a bolt carrier. bolt and gas piston. Just on a AR the gas piston is formed by the bolt and bolt carrier. On a AK the gas piston is riveted to the bolt carrier, effectively making them one piece.
I'll give you that the AR is more modular. AKs do require hand fitting of parts.
BSW
Fishbed, I just installed it on Friday it bolted on well without any filling! I had some trouble with the receiver hole at the back for the hand guard, thought I might have to file it but just pushed it down hard and it slid into place. I heard that choas is going to extend the rail to go all the way back to the receiver, don't know when but when they do I will be on the list for one. I find that rail to be the nicest one out there for Ak's and it makes it look sick. Great quality and finish, and also counts as 1 922r part! Added a pic close up
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
