AR vs AK: Let's talk about accuracy
- Thread starter Sturmgewehre
- Start date
I have three Vepr AK rifles,,,one in 308,,,one in 762x39,,,and one in 556. Just this last week I shot the Vepr 308 at the range,,,groups at 100 yards ranging from one to one and one half inches,,,granted with a 3x18 power Leupold scope set on 18 power and 168 grain Federal Gold Medal Match ammunition,,,the rifle could probably do better,,,I am 64 years old and have eye floaters.
I bought a bunch of Lapua 762x39 ammo and have 556 match ammo and with a high magnification scope I will be testing the accuracy of the Vepr 762x39 and 556 rifles which are made in Russia,,,and I expect them to do one to two inches at 100 yards or better.
This is in the neighborhood of my FAL, M1A, PTR91 only my AR10 and AR15's shoot slightly better.
In research of the AR10 platform most manufacturers are quoting 1 MOA,,,only GA Precision in an AR10 quotes 3/4 inch and Les Baer in an AR10 quotes 1/2 inch,,,even GA Precision's best bolt gun quotes 3/8 inch at 100 yards.
So as the video states generally a good AR will be more accurate than a good AK,,,but then the video goes on to quote reliability,,,without going into that debate,,,generally tighter tolerances mean greater accuracy and less reliability and looser tolerances mean less accuracy but greater reliability,,,so any rifle is a compromise at both.
My final conclusion,,,I will keep both my AR's and my AK's!
I bought a bunch of Lapua 762x39 ammo and have 556 match ammo and with a high magnification scope I will be testing the accuracy of the Vepr 762x39 and 556 rifles which are made in Russia,,,and I expect them to do one to two inches at 100 yards or better.
This is in the neighborhood of my FAL, M1A, PTR91 only my AR10 and AR15's shoot slightly better.
In research of the AR10 platform most manufacturers are quoting 1 MOA,,,only GA Precision in an AR10 quotes 3/4 inch and Les Baer in an AR10 quotes 1/2 inch,,,even GA Precision's best bolt gun quotes 3/8 inch at 100 yards.
So as the video states generally a good AR will be more accurate than a good AK,,,but then the video goes on to quote reliability,,,without going into that debate,,,generally tighter tolerances mean greater accuracy and less reliability and looser tolerances mean less accuracy but greater reliability,,,so any rifle is a compromise at both.
My final conclusion,,,I will keep both my AR's and my AK's!
If you look at the title of the vid it reads:
AR vs AK: Practical Accuracy
Practical is the key word there. There is nothing mediocre about the AKs accuracy for its intended purpose.
If your concerned about "mediocrity" maybe you should get a high quality bolt action rifle instead of an AR.
But once again, I will say that yes the AR is in fact, more accurate than the AK. Just so no one gets the wrong idea.
AR vs AK: Practical Accuracy
Practical is the key word there. There is nothing mediocre about the AKs accuracy for its intended purpose.
If your concerned about "mediocrity" maybe you should get a high quality bolt action rifle instead of an AR.
But once again, I will say that yes the AR is in fact, more accurate than the AK. Just so no one gets the wrong idea.
Again, he was advocating SHTF, not competition shooting. Yes, your AR is better suited for 3-gun and whatnot. I am even an advocate of the M4 over the AK as a service rifle, because those 500 yard shots do happen from time to time in the line of duty. And cleaning your rifle is required before you tie your shoes. But as a civilian, the AK platform is as accurate as you will ever need.
The AR wins the argument. Period. As I have stated multiple times. But as a civilian, and for the applications of all civilian uses (aside from compitition), the AK is perfectly accurate. That, along with its reliability makes the AK the superior rifle for SHTF, which was the scenario that Sturmgewehre painted to us in his video. That is all I am saying. Yet the AR buffs seem to think that an AK will completely miss the entire target 29 out of 30 times at 25 yards... Or so you make it sound. I personaly will get a 'kill shot' 30 out of 30 times at 100 yards and in during rapid fire. As would anyone with any practice, be it an AR or AK.
Practical accuracy = Center mass/kill shot
Or at least that is how I interpreted the video. Maybe Im wrong... probably not though.
The AR wins the argument. Period. As I have stated multiple times. But as a civilian, and for the applications of all civilian uses (aside from compitition), the AK is perfectly accurate. That, along with its reliability makes the AK the superior rifle for SHTF, which was the scenario that Sturmgewehre painted to us in his video. That is all I am saying. Yet the AR buffs seem to think that an AK will completely miss the entire target 29 out of 30 times at 25 yards... Or so you make it sound. I personaly will get a 'kill shot' 30 out of 30 times at 100 yards and in during rapid fire. As would anyone with any practice, be it an AR or AK.
Practical accuracy = Center mass/kill shot
Or at least that is how I interpreted the video. Maybe Im wrong... probably not though.
The title of the Post is about accuracy, only. There's no title for the video, it's just a link. The point is to generate hits. It's disengenuous to "allow" discussion and then react defensively when conclusions are questioned.
That aside, stating that one person's definition of accuracy is a center of mass hit at 100m is sufficient isn't based on military need. If military weapons are the discussion, then military use was the design goal, not Saturday afternoon plinking. When competent operators of either weapon face off, then superior accuracy at long range is very important. That's what military rifles do.
AK users in SW Asia refuse to engage our soldiers under 500m, precisely because they will get hit, and they can't hit us. They become incapacitated and cannot fight because they are dead or wounded. Knowing this, they use longer range weapons, or IEDs, or mass attacks against small forces. They recognized their disadvantage, and compensated. By no means are they stupid.
Give me first pick of the two guns when forced to face the other, I'll take the AR. Ask the current Russian commanders, they would too. Despite warehouses full of AK-74's, they are pubicly asking for something better. That means better accuracy, not more reliability. It doesn't get hits.
That aside, stating that one person's definition of accuracy is a center of mass hit at 100m is sufficient isn't based on military need. If military weapons are the discussion, then military use was the design goal, not Saturday afternoon plinking. When competent operators of either weapon face off, then superior accuracy at long range is very important. That's what military rifles do.
AK users in SW Asia refuse to engage our soldiers under 500m, precisely because they will get hit, and they can't hit us. They become incapacitated and cannot fight because they are dead or wounded. Knowing this, they use longer range weapons, or IEDs, or mass attacks against small forces. They recognized their disadvantage, and compensated. By no means are they stupid.
Give me first pick of the two guns when forced to face the other, I'll take the AR. Ask the current Russian commanders, they would too. Despite warehouses full of AK-74's, they are pubicly asking for something better. That means better accuracy, not more reliability. It doesn't get hits.
I would assume that the thread is about the video, comments from the video, conclusions, ect (and yes, the video does have a title). It is not a generalization of accuracy, but rather, geared toward "practical accuracy". My interpretation of this is center mass... I simply cannot comprehend it meaning anything else. I believe the meaning of this video was to show that they both will hit center mass. I have already stated that I advocate the M4 platform as a service rifle for the reasons that you mentioned, although that is not the topic of the video. The video went on to include the topic of SHTF, which indicates we are putting ourselves in the shoes of civilians under matial law. Which would lead me to believe that this topic was not about military applications. That would be for a different thread IMO. Until I know exactly what Sturmgewehre meant by starting this thread, I can only assume. And in my unprofessional yet rational opinion, I would assume that all of my posts were just and very relevant to the topic at hand.
My previous post were not meant to be defensive by any means, only to make a point.
My previous post were not meant to be defensive by any means, only to make a point.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Center mass of what? An e-silhouette? A B-21 silhouette? An IPSC target? the half-giant Texas DPS silhouette?
If the discussion is one of practical accuracy, then it is important to consider that shooting at people is a real good way to get them to minimize the amount of available area for shooting. Center mass of an e-silhouette is a different standard of accuracy than center mass of half a head and one hand sticking around the corner of a stone wall.
I think we're back to this.
Are we speaking purely in the terms of what the guns can do, or what we can do with them, and in what context?
I know I can shoot my AR's in a bullseye target match a hell of a lot better than my AK's, but for me, the AK's are a lot easier and more natural to handle and shoot when shot a little more actively and realistically. The AR's just dont feel right in that respect, even though the guns are very similar in size, LOP's, etc.
I think what it boils down to is, how much time have you spent with the gun in practice to know what youre capable of with it, to know what to expect from it. Doesnt really matter what it is, but you do have to have spent at least somewhat equal time with both to be able to make a reasonable decision as to which is better for you. The fact that one may be more accurate "mechanically" is really meaningless, if the gun isnt a natural shooter for you, when shot the way you intend to use it.
Target shooting is a great way to judge if you have the basics down, but all it really proves is, you have that. Not even getting into the guns or gear, take away things like fixed targets of a known size, with a clear and defined aiming point, at known distances, with known sight settings and adjustments for a certain stage, how well do you shoot when things arent in your little "box"?
This is right up there with "define what the word "IS" means".
How much target you are given in combat is entirely due to chance or bad tactics. The point is to give the least amount possible most of the time. Since most soldiers are taught to conceal themselves by any means possible, and only the survivors that do that well move on to later command and train others, what's lacking in the Minute of Man is adequate argument is any hint of battlefield reality.
Go to a 500m range and try for yourself. Use paper plates - an adequate target reference - and duct tape them to stray dogs on meth. Then try to shoot them.
Of course I'm kidding, but the mental image represents a lot more of what kind of target you get - random and fleeting. NOT anchored to a "borrowed" real estate sign pounded into the ground for the afternoon. Don't forget, that other soldier is trying to shoot you - and you likely won't sit upright at a bench fully exposed, either.
Only one in one hundred have served in the Armed Forces these days, it's no surprise that those who haven't had combat arms training lack the insight to understand why things are much more difficult and what needs to be done. Not accepting the experienced and expert advice is up to them, after the first 24 hours of incoming live fire, an appreciation is rapidly gained. I'd no sooner go into combat with complete novices than I would get prostate surgery from the Maytag Repairman. Remaining in denial of that concept is what too many of us do in our daily lives.
I will again point out that the very people who've committed themselves to improving the AK and using it are now pubicly questioning it's continued issue. They want something "better," the AK is not perceived as the best answer for their use. They ought to know, it's an experienced, knowledgeable, and professional opinion.
Go to a 500m range and try for yourself. Use paper plates - an adequate target reference - and duct tape them to stray dogs on meth. Then try to shoot them.
Of course I'm kidding, but the mental image represents a lot more of what kind of target you get - random and fleeting. NOT anchored to a "borrowed" real estate sign pounded into the ground for the afternoon. Don't forget, that other soldier is trying to shoot you - and you likely won't sit upright at a bench fully exposed, either.
Only one in one hundred have served in the Armed Forces these days, it's no surprise that those who haven't had combat arms training lack the insight to understand why things are much more difficult and what needs to be done. Not accepting the experienced and expert advice is up to them, after the first 24 hours of incoming live fire, an appreciation is rapidly gained. I'd no sooner go into combat with complete novices than I would get prostate surgery from the Maytag Repairman. Remaining in denial of that concept is what too many of us do in our daily lives.
I will again point out that the very people who've committed themselves to improving the AK and using it are now pubicly questioning it's continued issue. They want something "better," the AK is not perceived as the best answer for their use. They ought to know, it's an experienced, knowledgeable, and professional opinion.
http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm
AK vs. AR vs...
AK vs. AR vs...