Survivalist Forum banner
27K views 117 replies 48 participants last post by  Pinhead 
#1 ·
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'
 
See less See more
#114 ·
I have never known an AK in 7.62 x 39 to do better than 3-4 MOA, particularly beyond 100 meters, it's still a great combat rifle. EOTECH's and Aimpoints seems to work well and this resolves the bad sights AK's have.

The Galil 223/556 is among the most shootable of all military type rifles and it's basically a highly refined AK.
 
#115 ·
AK 4 ever!

The AK does tend to get an undesrved bad-rap. Are they as accurate as an AR? No. But they will knock down what an AR will not. One of the worst travesties in American military history was our forces being saddled with the AR/M-16, in .556. When the last ARs and M-16s are melted down for scrapmetal, AKs built decades ago will still be working! I served in the US Army, but all hail Mikail Kalshnikov!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top