why is AK not so accurate as an AR

V

vince weng

New member
I love both rifles. I am so fascinated about the design of AK, one word for all - simplicity. That means it was a state-of-the-art design, but why AK is not accurate? I hardly see anyone trying to accurize an AK because it is not worth puting more money for a $200 rifle or AK's mechanism makes it is not possible to do that. Can someone answer my questions?
 
This question shows the differences in the idealologies of the US and Russian militaries.

AK's were never designed to be precision firearms. Thier tolorances are purposely loose to allow it to function while full of dirt and mud. Also it was designed to be mass produced as cheaply as posible. It was designed to be rugged, simple to operate, and require little or no training to use and maintain. These factors do reduce quality and accuracy.

AR's just like all newer US military hardware,were designed with relitivly tight tolorances. Tight, accurate, and to be used by a comparitivly education and trained soldier.

While the US has more of a "one shot one kill" frame of mind, the Russians lean more towards an "Overpower your opposition with great numbers" way of thinking.

Think about it.

We build 1,000,000 M-16s they build 10,000,000 AK-47s

We build 1000 high tech M1 Abrams Tanks and they build 10,000 T-72's.

We build 100 missiles that can fly through a window to hit a target. They build 1000 missiles that can hit the building.

An AK could be produced that had tight tolorances, high quality parts, high tech designs and quality workmanship, but that would defeat the purpose for which it was intended.

Cheap, easy to make, easy to use.

I do reacall seeing some AK's that we being sold as "National Match" quality in the late 80's. As I remember, what they gained in accuracy, the lost in reliability and durability.

FYI: I love my AR and my AK :)

Just my .02

Chuck


[This message has been edited by chucko (edited July 02, 1999).]
 
chucko:
I like your point. That was what I heard of. It seems reliability and precision/accuracy can not be coexisting. You gain one side and lose the other. Can we have both without paying so much (HK PSG-1)? I mean grab a gun from a mud and shoot it under 1MOA.
 
Actually, some AKs are pretty accurate. The Russian ones are probably the best. The ammo is a problem, though. It is not designed for super accuracy.

As for the U.S. guns, the original AR-15 was not especially accurate, and the .223 Remington has not been an accuracy leader in the civilian world. We have spent millions of dollars in Gov't and private money to make the gun work right and get accuracy out of the gun and the ammo. Anyone who thinks the rifles that win the matches are "rack" M16s, probably believes the NASCAR 500 winner is off the showroom floor.

Jim
 
the other strange side to the coin is that the military determined that a shear volume of fire is more effective in a battle than accuracy

in Somalia the rangers were pinned down by AKs held around a corner and emptied

War is hell, and he who rolls the most dice often "wins"

I think the inaccuracy factor in the AK design comes from the mass of the gas piston operating above the barrel plane. In the AR the mass of the carrier is inline with the bore. Also the AKs trunion block is not as precise of a breachlock as the ARs.

The SVD is more accurate than the AK because of reduced mass in the piston. i think the SVD rather than a sniper arm, is more like a reach out 500 & touch arm for a squad.

dZ
 
AR's are cool and accurate, when they work. They are also modular and made in the USA which makes tinkering and parts easy to get and install.

AK's always work. You rarely hear of an AK failing to feed or extract or eject or anything of the like. I love them.

I really like some of the refined AK designs like the Israeli Galil, Finnish Valmet 76, and the South African R4/R5.
 
Let me tell you - in the right hands - in combat ranges... the AK is plenty accurate enough.

The users skill is the number one factor. An AK can easily do 3 inches at 100 yards from most positions. In a fight - that is enough to get the job done.

------------------
Every man Dies.
Not Every Man Truely Lives...

FREEDOM!

RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
 
I have,shoot, and love both. I agree with what's been posted but I would like to add a point or two. The AK74 is more accurate than the AK47 because the 5.45 has less felt recoil than the 7.62 because of it's smaller size. As for the problems with Johnson/Stoner design, I would refer you to a book entitled "The Black Rifle." It costs an arm and a leg but it is a great book that will set your mind at ease. The eary problems with the M-16 were not the fault of the design. I also think if you take reasonable care of you weapon, the M-16 will keep right on shooting. AKs were designed to function when used by people who will negelect and abuse it. But even an AK will fail if the chamber rusts of gets filled with crud.

The AR is also more accurate because of the better sights and human engineering.

My 2 cents
 
It's been mentioned above, but the gas-impingment action of the AR has fewer parts than the gas operated piston driven AK. The advantage here is a softer action and less shooter interference. Even more important, fewer parts means less things to vibrate upon recoil, thereby affecting the harmonics of the rifle and its barrel. Also mentioned above is human engineering. The AR has a superior rear aperture sight.

Oh yes, one major thing mentioned by Chucko. Tolerances. The looser the gun, the less accurate (harmonics go to he** on an inconsistent gun). What's the tradeoff? Reliability. Probably the most important thing to the infantryman who wields it. Otherwise, we might as well give him a pike. Tight match guns make for poor combat weapons. Says the rifle to the trooper, "Opps, I'm dirty, I don't think I want to work today...sorry soldier."

This doesn't make the AK an inferior weapon. The Russian philosophy described by Chuck has been provened effective by them (and for them) during WWII. Beat the Nazis and the Japanese. Remember Mongolia where Zhukov kicked butt on Japan's Kwangtung Army?

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
I pretty mcuh agree with all that has been said, except that I think we could have had a better design for the U.S. rifle if everyone had been a little more patient. I consider the AR-18 (not by Stoner) a better design than either the AK or the M16. It needed only a better folding stock attachment.

I never cared for gas tube guns or for Johnson type locking, and told Gene Stoner so many years ago. I have not changed my mind, even though the M16 (now - after millions have been spent on it) does work well and is very accurate.

FWIW, when discussing the lack of problems with the AK, don't forget the magazines. M16 mags are thin and fairly fragile. AK mags could probably be run over by a train and still work fine.

Jim

P.S. A second on the Black Rifle book. It needs to be read along with the M14 book to get a good picture of what was going on in the late 50's and early 60's. Neither, unfortunately, covers the personal relationships, which were very important, like Curt Lemay being a hunting buddy of Dick Boutelle, of Fairchild, and Dick being a gun nut who wanted to put Fairchild aircraft material experience into firearms, and John Kennedy being another gun nut who tried out an AR-15 being tested by a Navy seal team and went ape over the thing, etc., etc.

JEK
 
Fewer parts, 4V50 Gary? No way!

AK: firing pin, hammer, trigger, sear, bolt and carrier.

AR: firing pin, hammer, trigger, sear, bolt, carrier, carrier key, ejector plunger.

More mass I will buy, but not more parts.
 
Jim--
You said:
"Actually, some AKs are pretty accurate. The Russian ones are probably the best. The ammo is a problem, though. It is not designed for super accuracy."


Just out of curiosity, my Dad and I fired a few boxes of Norinco 7.62 X 39 through our Oehler a couple of years ago. Believe it or not, we were getting strings with standard deviations of 17, 19, and even (once) 9 fps!! These were 10 shot strings out of SKS and MAK 90. We were shocked, as we reload, and are very proud anytime we consistantly get our standard deviation below 15 fps. Perhaps it was just that run of Norinco ammo-- it's been awhile since we shot the stuff through the chrono. I've been using Seller and Bellot loads lately, and don't know what they're doing. Doesn't really matter, since the best I can get with my SKS is about 4", anyway.

I've read of someone shooting a Savage 110 chambered in 7.62 X 39. Sure would've been interesting to see what that "match" grade ammo would really do in something like that!

Regards,
L.P.
 
First, the AK design can be very accurate. I used to have a Galil, which is just an Israeli mfg AK47 receiver (forged & milled, not stamped like the AKM), in 5.56mm that was a tack driver.
This is heresay, as I just read it, but didn't try it myself. The writer said a large part of the AK inaccuracy was the ammo. Russian quality control standards did not equal US. Now I know that contradicts the last post, but standard deviation isn't the only measure of ammo quality. I understand the bullets were not as concentric and uniform as US standards. Don't flame me if this is wrong. Anyway, this writer used good commercial 7.62x39 and got groups 1/2 the size shooting Russian military ammo.

------------------
Dorsai
Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal
weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the
monarch of all he surveys.
-- Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
 
Perhaps I should digress and qualify my answer when I mentioned fewer parts.

By parts I was thinking of the moving parts which affects the rifle's harmonics and along with it, its accuracy. More moving parts means more work to ensure that those moving parts perform consistently. Consistency, I'm sure we can agree, is what makes for accuracy. By analogy if your 1911 barrel settled differently in an oversized/worn bushing every time after it was fired, your shots would be scattered. That's why on accurized M14/M1A rifles the gas cylinder unit is unitized. Greater consistency.

Turning to the AR, we basically have a bolt carrier, bolt which does most of the functioning work when the gun is fired.

On the AK, we have the bolt carrier, bolt, in addition to gas cylinder tube which could induce wobble. Also, the bolt carrier on the AR serves only as a platform to carry the bolt. On the AK, the bolt carrier also has a gast piston, which must come to rest at the same position after recovering from recoil. It also plays a direct role on the locking and unlocking of the AK's bolt (timing). I suppose a case may even be made for the AK's recoil guide rod and spring and receiver cover and how they play a role in the rifle's harmonics.

The point is that with more moving parts, the greater the work which must be done to ensure the consistency which is required for an accurate gun.

Both designs are vastly different approaches towards the same problem: a reliable infantry rifle. Both enjoy their strengths and weaknesses.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
Hello, dZ -- are you the famous drZox of AR15.com?

You mentioned SVD and made my day! I love my SVD...Russky Dragunov tiger...That's a bad avtomat!

------------------
Yankee Doodle
 
Russian military strategy has always been we have more people to expend, therefore, we can throw more bullets at you. statisitcally, if you fire enough at something, your bound to hit it. so the russian make stuff less expensively knowing that that math is on thier side. inexpensive and accuarate rarely coexist
 
that would be the infamous doc Zox :)

teddy.gif


dZ
 
Hiker,
true math wasn't on their side in afghanastan, but its the way they plan things. Just like they know they always have land to fall back on so the employ scorched earth retreat whenever they are attacked.
 
50 years from now, when all the lunatic's black rifles(mainly AR's and HK's) have rusted shut or broken down, the AK will still be there. End of story. I've seen it with my own eyes, buried in sand and mud, taken out and shot. The weapon will do exactly what you want it to do. Nothing more, nothing less. I would purchase one, but do to pending legislation, it looks like the rifles main diet will be choked off (7.62).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top