Just a few things that I notice keep getting posted about AKs around here and frankly I am tired of addressing them individually.
ACCURACY:
"AKs are inaccurate!"
This claim gets passed around the internet faster than a crotch shot of Brittany... I believe this is more Cold-War dogma that just keeps circulating because most people either accept it or they just don't know any better. Are AKs as accurate as a sniper rifle, no, of course not, are they as accurate as an M-16, they very well could be. M-16s are rated as a 2 MOA rifle, most quality AKs are also 2 MOA rifles. In addition to being about the same relative accuracy, AKs also have a longer effective range.
So can we please lay the accuracy myth to rest, please?
MILLED VERSUS STAMPED:
"The only AK worth owning is a milled one because they are better quality!"
Never in the history of firearms has a more untrue statement been made... The idea that a stamped AK is inferior to a milled is completely ignorant of the history and development of the firearm. The AK was not designed to be on a machined receiver, it was originally intended to be on a stamped receiver. The fact of the matter is that the Russian welding and pressing technology was unable to mass produce effectively a stamped AK when they were first made, so as a result in order to mass produce the first runs of AK were produced on a machined receiver. After applying technology from German factories the Russians were able to adapt the machinery to produce stamped AK receivers.
Americans have always viewed stamped receivers in a negative fashion. In fact, American engineers didn't even bother spending much time examining the Stg. 44 following the end of WWII as they viewed it as a 'last ditch' weapon and noted that it looked cheap as it was produced on a stamped receiver. This has been the case in US small arms designs and still is, as M16/4 receivers are forged. The fact is that there is absolutely NO science or evidence to prove that a weapon based on a stamped receiver is somehow less accurate, reliable, or in any other way inferior to a milled weapon. It just simply is not true...
So the nest time someone posts something about the milled receivers being better, you will KNOW better...
Now I know, there will be some out there that will disagree with the above, but I would suggest not getting your information (or at least your primary source) off of the internet as there is oodles of misinformation out there. I have learned more about firearms from books than I have ever from the net.
later-- gofo'
ACCURACY:
"AKs are inaccurate!"
This claim gets passed around the internet faster than a crotch shot of Brittany... I believe this is more Cold-War dogma that just keeps circulating because most people either accept it or they just don't know any better. Are AKs as accurate as a sniper rifle, no, of course not, are they as accurate as an M-16, they very well could be. M-16s are rated as a 2 MOA rifle, most quality AKs are also 2 MOA rifles. In addition to being about the same relative accuracy, AKs also have a longer effective range.
So can we please lay the accuracy myth to rest, please?
MILLED VERSUS STAMPED:
"The only AK worth owning is a milled one because they are better quality!"
Never in the history of firearms has a more untrue statement been made... The idea that a stamped AK is inferior to a milled is completely ignorant of the history and development of the firearm. The AK was not designed to be on a machined receiver, it was originally intended to be on a stamped receiver. The fact of the matter is that the Russian welding and pressing technology was unable to mass produce effectively a stamped AK when they were first made, so as a result in order to mass produce the first runs of AK were produced on a machined receiver. After applying technology from German factories the Russians were able to adapt the machinery to produce stamped AK receivers.
Americans have always viewed stamped receivers in a negative fashion. In fact, American engineers didn't even bother spending much time examining the Stg. 44 following the end of WWII as they viewed it as a 'last ditch' weapon and noted that it looked cheap as it was produced on a stamped receiver. This has been the case in US small arms designs and still is, as M16/4 receivers are forged. The fact is that there is absolutely NO science or evidence to prove that a weapon based on a stamped receiver is somehow less accurate, reliable, or in any other way inferior to a milled weapon. It just simply is not true...
So the nest time someone posts something about the milled receivers being better, you will KNOW better...
Now I know, there will be some out there that will disagree with the above, but I would suggest not getting your information (or at least your primary source) off of the internet as there is oodles of misinformation out there. I have learned more about firearms from books than I have ever from the net.
later-- gofo'