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.
When you think about it. As far as the sheeple and gang bangers are concerned, a gun is a gun.
I doubt they wil be thinking "Hey... that's only a 5.56". They're gonna run like hell.
The odds of us who appreciate ballistics confronting each other are probably slim to none.
I used to carry and shoot an (east) german made AK 47/ KMS 72/ 7,62 mm for almost 18 month. The piece was made in 1969, the same year i was born..: and had seen 15 years of service when i received it as a personal weapon.
Extremly reliable, never jammed even after a day crawling through sand and mud and accurate enough to earn me my marksman-badge with.(4 times)
With a little training we were able to achieve some quite impressive results at man-sized tilting targets(fixed and moving) even beyond 400 m.
Well, back then nobody cared about MOA. Hit the target - enemy out of service...
But honestly, who - with a little brain left and open sights, wants to shoot at someone who's equally armed and trained, at a longer range with an standard infantry weapon like AK, M-16 or such, especially when alone or in a small group.
I don't belive that i'll see some sort of SHTF situation in the "first world" but if i had to pick a weapon for such an case, i'd take this one.
I hate to (love to?) throw fuel on this fire, but seriously if I see 5 guys with AKs headed toward my position, I can pretty confidently eliminate the following from my list of "who might these guys be?" 1) US Army 2) US Marines 3) National Guard 4) Sheriffs Departments 5) Police Departments 6) Every other US Government agency 7) My ******* Family 8) My ******* Neighbors... these are all people I REALLY REALLY DO NOT WANT TO SHOOT AT... and these guys aint on that list! Bad news for them!
That pretty much identifies (tongue in cheek) these 5 guys as one of the following:
A) guys that couldn't afford ARs and want mine!
B) guys that couldn't afford M1As, FALs, HKs, Galils - and are angry and violently bitter about it!
C) Bad Guy Jihadists trying to suicide bomb my vodka still and eat my dogs
I must admit I am a fan of the AK for one particular purpose in a survivalist arsenal. Its the perfect mother-in-law gun. Mustn't forget to put her in the turban as well before sending her out on patrol through my ******* infested countryside!
There are actually units that use AK's for certain missions. They are used when having to make a move on a target in an urban area when you don't want to alert everyone in the town that Americans are present due to the distinct report of the M16/M4. They hear an AK firing and they won't think much.
The fact that so many paramilitary, terrorist, and other undesirable organizations use the AK is mainly because it is prolific and is easy to get a hold of. Unlike the US, the USSR pretty much set-up AK factories in any country that hated the US. The result is a flood of weapons to anyone with the cash. Case in point is the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan. When the war with Russia began they were using Enfield rifles, some of which were supplied by the US, and they were also using AK-47's that the US was supplying from bloc nations (I believe they came from Romania, which though an ally of the USSR they really needed the 30 million of w/e it was we gave them for the rifles). As the Afghans began taking over supplies and those that were left following Russia's withdraw they started acquiring the 74's, including the now infamous AK-74SU Krinkov that Osama is often seen with in his videos. (The Krink's were the rifle everyone wanted to get their hands on, US soldiers share the same infinity towards them ).
i prefer the (german) made side-folding stock over the fixed one and all others i know.
Solid as a rock. No wobble at all. German engineering....:
The folding to the right side is not a problem with this particular model. Enough space to handle and operate whith out any limitations even when folded.
Folded to the right side comes in handy when you are righthanded and need to unfold quick. One click with your thumb,(whithout taking your finger of the trigger) tilt the rifle a bit to the left and here you go. Try this with a left or a stock that is folded under...
Big plus, it's short when needed.
Edit: forget the cheekweld-not needed. It's a weapon that has to fit everyone...
CornCod nailed it. For the Soviet warfare doctrine it is the perfect rifle. I personally do not like th comparison. It is like comparing a 4X4 to a Street Racer. They both do the same thing but have their diferent attributes. Just like their rounds have their different attributes. I have fired a Saiga in 223 and it was just as accurate as my Stag. My Saiga in 308 out shoots my FAL and my CETME out shoots them both. I also feel a major factor is training, you constantly see AK's being fired over the head or on the hip. Ihave had friends who were in Iraq tell me that the men over there consider using sights to be "feminin". I prefer my AR but I do not have ay issues with the AK. It really comes down to the operator.
Given that limitation, you can easily put 2-3 times as many troops (relatives, friends, neighbors) in the field with AKs as you can with quality ARs. And unless your retreat is waaaay into the hinter-boonies, numbers count.
There's not enough of a difference in the effectiveness, accuracy, etc. of the AR and AK at <200m and particularly <100m where most engagements occur (particularly SHTF when IFF could be important, and especially in my AO) to warrant the 60%+ higher price tag to equip. a squad.
More (even just basic) trained folks with serviceable weapons = greater safety.
Sure, a very highly-trained group with high-dollar weaponry could be more effective man for man, but when the odds are 3-1 or more against them and they're looking at attacking dug-in defenders, they're probably going to pass you up and move-on to a softer target.
Here's a question for you, if you spent the exact same money on both guns AR/AK which one is gonna perform better. where do we put the $ limit? 500$...1000$...1500$ All i know is when I bought my AK I paid 126$ out the door ,I couldnt touch an AR for twice that. that was in the late 80's.
I agree with the OP on that one. Put better sights on the AK and it transforms into a different rifle.
Most AK-47s I've shot, even the crappiest, most worn out of Rommies, will hold sub 4 MOA groups at <100m, slow fire - good enough to do the job. I've found a few that will do much, much better.
The AK-74s I've shot will hold sub 2 MOA groups, slow fire.
Inherent design issues with barrel flex will ruin rapid fire groups though.
Actually, we had a ton of crap to do that day, and alot of ammo to shoot. As it wasnt one of my rifles from our base...Never looked into it.
This is a OP 4 enemy fam rifle that everyone in their brother shoots and finger bangs...On auto of course... After about 10 troops gave it a whirl its my trainees turn...She gets it and click...I help her out, re-load it, she fired a few bursts and it stovepiped. And rinse and repeat, did it again, and again. My turn came up, I tapped a few off on semi, then went auto, same thing, stove piping like a dog. Failing to feed as well. We were on the KD range at the 200m line. Accuracy...I hit paper(semi), and backstop, and range floor(auto). Kneeling and standing unsupported(shrug) One of those big ass 6X6 Army bulls x targets. 10 ringer I think it was. I'd compair auto to that of an M14 on auto, just as inaccurate...only the 14 feels better and cycles faster.
By the time we got it, I fig there was 500-600 rounds popped off in about a 15-20 min period. The forend was smoking hot, mmmmm burning wood...I dont know, used, abused, dirty? Old ammo, weak spring? Tired AK...7.62 x 39 BTW. I'll check to see what the exact model is/was.
The "American made AK" is sort of a myth unto itself.
Its more like American made cars.It a game of percentages. Maybe 50% of it will be American made.Maybe more,meybe less,but I have not heard of an AK of 100% American made parts.
The barrel flex thing? Ever see that video of the PSL firing,in super slow-motion?
Yes, I have seen that video. I am not saying that barrels don't flex during firing, I am saying that ALL barrels flex during firing. It is from the vibration caused by the bullet traveling through the bore. It is just one of those things that is blown out of proportion as if Russian rifles are the only rifles in the world with this strange phenomenon. It is total crap. As far as the PSL, it is more pronounced with them as they have a thinner barrel, a more powerful cartridge and a longer (26-inch) barrel.
The shorter 16" and slightly thicker AK barrel is less flexing during firing, and the even thick in comparison to the bore, m-16 flexes less. I would be curious to see how much flex is present from an AK-74 that uses the AK-47 diameter barrel (like the one I own).
I see despite all good intentions this thread has gathered almost as much crap as a full meeting of both Houses of Congress.
1) AR vs AK- Not all of either type are built alike. Deal with it.-*
2) The so called accuracey problem with the AK is one of sights/ergonomics and training. As generations go by most here are used to peeps or scopes.
3) We here in the USA over expect all rifles to be match accurate. Heck we even try to turn shotguns into rifles. But that's another subject. I love accurate rifles but sometimes there is too much of a good thing. Too match tight to work when dirty is one issue.
*4) Now back to the AK, First off a good AK that is reliable can still be had for the cost of a questionable entry level AR. And sometimes cheaper if one is experienced enough to choose wisely and patient.
Let's take my favorite example which I have probably beat to death but who cares.:upsidedown: The MAK-90, these often get a bad rep mainly due to the stupid mods imposed by our political putzes in DC. Like the most noticable the Klinton Butthole Stock; which sucks ergonimically.
These can often be had for under $600 sometimes around $400. Now as long as it's not something that looks like Bubba got his booger hooks into badly most are in good shape. The barrel is chrome lined so in most cases has not been shot out. For under $200 also shopping wisely you can do a 922r conversion and have a decent fighting rifle with a reciever made in a plant that makes real AK's.
Then there is the Arsenal/Saiga, I've not shot one only handled one but they look very promising as well and are brand new. Good quality barrels and the 922r conversion has been done for around the same cost for getting and converting a MAK90 without the elbow grease timeand trouble on your part.
But if you want to listen to them AR lovers don't buy any of them nasty evil looking AK's....that leaves more for me.
Really there are other good ones out there those are but 2 examples.
I am liking it lol, makes it easier for me to find my posts! (seems I been having to do a lot of going back to repost things I had posted previously lol).
A while back I had bought an AK that's put out by I.O. inc., guess what, it will do a 2 inch group at 100 yards from the bench with Brown Bear ammo. There have been no issues what so ever with this rifle and it just keeps on working.
Are there crappy AK's out there, yes, are some shooters better than others, yes, most rifles are mass produced, so you'll get a bad one once in a while.
When Vietnam was going on, your issued rifle was a M-16 A1, they had told us that the maximum effective range was 440 meters with the 55 grain bullet. Now they have a 62 grain bullet and they try to tell everyone that it will reach out there to 800 yards, no, I don' think so. If this were true then you wouldn't have all those complaints coming out of the sand box.
Both the AK and the AR rifles are 300 to 400 yard rifles, that's it, they are chambered in an intermediate range cartridge, that's it. Is the AK more reliable under field conditions, yes, just ask anyone that has used them out in the field under combat conditions.
Can the AR be made better and more reliable, yes, just chamber it with a .243 diameter bullet along with a gas piston system and throw out people in Washington that are unqualified.
I do alot of hunting and have yet to come across someone who has an AK.. but i have seen many people who have AR's .. WEIRD...
If they shot as good , were cheaper and had cheap plentiful ammo you would think the hunting world would be saturated with them.. but it isn't. In fact i have never came across a hunter who was using the 7.62x39 in a hunting rifle because of its superior ballistics or great long range performance..
If AK fans would just be honest and say the reason they have it is just to lay alot of lead out there in hopes to keep the bad guys thinking that there may be an easier target, then fine.. not gonna argue with that.. that is the advantage. you can get lots of ammo relatively cheap, and have alot of mags on hand also for cheap.
but do not try to say it is just as accurate as a M16 its not even close.
An AK is a good shelter in place gun.. where you just have to lay don't fire.. but if i was gonna bug out i would not want it.
plus you would look like a bad guy and someone might see you lurking around just trying to get to safety, but they see the AK and think you are a bad guy,, might even shoot first and ask questions later.. I know that if you were to come walking up to my place and you had one in your hand, even though i know that my survivalist friends have some, i would be a little weary about your intentions. Even though you think it is a myth.. most people think AK=bad guy..
Here's a hunter with an AK, in the woods of Georgia I don't have to worry so much about "long range preformance" it definately will put meat on the table.
One reason that you may not see ak type riles used for hunting is that Game Wardens and other hunters will definately give you more scrutiny and hassle that you don't need. As if your ak has some kind of advantage and over look your friends mini thirty or 30-30 lever action that is ballistically similar.
You are right the looks of a weapon and ignorance often determine how a person feels about it or the persom wielding it. As well as advertizing and accessories. I have never seen a hunter take a shot with a vertical foregrip in a stand but they are a must have when beeing tacti-cool!
Here's a hunter with an AK, in the woods of Georgia I don't have to worry so much about "long range preformance" it definately will put meat on the table.
One reason that you may not see ak type riles used for hunting is that Game Wardens and other hunters will definately give you more scrutiny and hassle that you don't need.[/QUOTE]
i have come across ranger rick hunting with my PSL all they cared about was my license and tags and i can care less what the stinkeyed hunters think, what legal firearm i choose to hunt with is frankly none of their business......
if we are going to put a stop to misconceptions we must be proactive......
I returned from Iraq 3 months ago and will be going back next year. I wont go into the AK vs AR vs FAL vs... BS. I will tell you I love AKs. I will say however, that the sights almost across the board need work. I carried one with a EO Tech that one of our KBR armours had cleaned up and it was a BA weapon. I much prefer a x54 round, or larger, but a x39 in mout is more than enough. I own two of my own a SLR95 and a Romak (truck gun)
i use these products myself and highly recommend them........
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Survivalist Forum
11.6M posts
167.1K members
Since 2007
A forum community dedicated to survivalists and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, gear, DIY projects, hobbies, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!