Vultite 57 Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 (edited) This video makes me wonder, The video shows a M16 and AK comparison, they got a slow motion shot of an AK firing and the barrel actually flexing, wondering if saigas actually do the same since its made virtually the same way... Edited January 22, 2008 by Vultite Quote Link to post Share on other sites
devildog1122 0 Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 All rifle barrels flex to a certain degree depending on the caliber and the thickness of the barrel. Saigas probably flexes the same way as the AK-47. If you look at the M16 closely in the video, it also flexes, but alot less than the AK-47. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vultite 57 Posted January 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I wonder if there is a way to reinforce it then? hrm.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SaigaNoobie 66 Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Comparing Apples vs. Oranges imo. 20" M16 16" AK 7.62x39 .223 It's easy to add a peep sight to the Saiga. Look at the http://www.mojosights.com/ which will make up for the crude Iron sights. I'd like to see a stock (not bull barrel / target match grade) but STOCK $800 AR compete with a $350 (including peep sight) Saiga .223 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
devildog1122 0 Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I don't know why people comparing the AK-47 to the M16 for accuracy. They are two different caliber bullet. Is like comparing apples and oranges. The 762 bullet drop almost twice as much as the 223 after 150 meters. A better comparison would be between the AK-74 or Saiga 223 to the M16. All rifles has advantages and disadvantages, but when the world going chaos, I want an AK-47. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
devildog1122 0 Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Barrel flex is cause the the natural harmonic motion of the bullet. You don't want to reinforce the barrel, that's why you hear people talking "free floating barrel" is more accurate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jamesavery22 54 Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I've seen this clip a few times and it has always rubbed me the wrong way. I like how they make the AK round out to be a "brutally simple" solution which made it sound like it was a sub par to the NATO round but immediately turn around and show examples of the kinetic energy and penetration advantages of the x39 round. How could they not once mention the difference between an assault rifle and a rifle? Why would they call it a machine gun? Maybe Im just bias. I thoroughly enjoyed History channels specials on assault rifles which included the sturmgewehr and the AK. In comparison this seemed poorly prepared, again IMHO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Navy87Guy 1 Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 If they really wanted to compare accuracy, why not have the same guy shoot both rifles? Watch the part where they shoot the wood timbers -- the AK shooter slaps the dog shit out of the trigger. No surprise he couldn't hit the friggin' target at 200 yds! Frankly, not many people are going to get good shots with any rifle and iron sights at that distance -- so they threw in another whole element of uncertainty using two separate shooters. The right shooter with any gun can get a bullseye -- and the wrong shooter with any gun can miss. Jim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jamesavery22 54 Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 lol yeah I forgot about that trigger pull part. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Combat Medic 5 Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 ill bet the guy who shot the AK was some sort of M-16 M-4 Elitist and didn't care too much to actually aim that "Communist Junk" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Blackjack_21 0 Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 I always knew there was something fundamentally 'wrong' with this comparison, but I couldn't quite figure out what it was. Now I know. The guy shooting the Kalashnikov must have slept through the 'Trigger Control: It's not the rifle, stupid, it's YOU' segment of his training. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jgillaspy 24 Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Hello, did they even bother zeroing the AK?!?!?!?!?!?!? As these posts point out again and again there is so much wrong w/ the test as to render it completely invalid. I find it interesting that on the "Top 10 Assault Rifles" edition of the Top 10 on the Military channel (a member of the Discovery team) the the AK won hands down! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mr. fudd 0 Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 The video is extremely misleading. The flexing that you see is the cleaning rod whipping back and forth. It lies directly parallel with the barrel and provides an optical illusion of the barrel whipping around. If you block out the cleaning rod and compare the actual flex of the AK barrel with the flex of the M16 barrel you'll notice they're almost identical. If the barrel really were whipping around the way they imply it wouldn't take more than a few magazines before it developed stress fractures and cracked. Barrels aren't made out of spring steel after all. As anyone knows who has ever bent a barrel, when you bend a barrel an inch to the side, it stays bent. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vultite 57 Posted January 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Hello, did they even bother zeroing the AK?!?!?!?!?!?!? As these posts point out again and again there is so much wrong w/ the test as to render it completely invalid. I find it interesting that on the "Top 10 Assault Rifles" edition of the Top 10 on the Military channel (a member of the Discovery team) the the AK won hands down! lol, i just saw that, yea, I posted this up b/c it does make me wonder about barrel flex, and it makes me wonder how much fucking propaganda is running around to keep the "awesome" AR-15 in production, if anyone has noticed AR parts are declining in price and everyone is going to gas piston setups.....wonder why...=D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jack A Sol 2 Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 The video is extremely misleading. The flexing that you see is the cleaning rod whipping back and forth. It lies directly parallel with the barrel and provides an optical illusion of the barrel whipping around. If you block out the cleaning rod and compare the actual flex of the AK barrel with the flex of the M16 barrel you'll notice they're almost identical. If the barrel really were whipping around the way they imply it wouldn't take more than a few magazines before it developed stress fractures and cracked. Barrels aren't made out of spring steel after all. As anyone knows who has ever bent a barrel, when you bend a barrel an inch to the side, it stays bent. +1 fudd!! You need to watch the video again and ignore the cleaning rod flex and focus on the barrels. The way I see it the M16a1 pencil barrel is much thinner than the AK's and is ACTUALLY FLEXING MORE!! this is not why the AK is less accurate. the AK is less accurate because: 1- ammo quality 2- loose tolerances 3- shorter sight base 4- increases headspace to account for crappy ammo in full auto. Mostly tho it's just the first 2. to answer your question tho, NO, the saigas appear to be made a bit tighter than the standard AK. They have heavier barrels and we are getting better ammo now a days. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 One of the reasons that the AK is so reliable, in comparison to the AR, is also one of the big reasons for its accuracy issues, the gas piston. This piston being driven back by high pressure gas it a lot of metal moving around! This will have an effect on accuracy and barrel whip. It comparison the AR uses a direct gas system where the hot propellant gases themselves are ducted from a point near the muzzle of the barrel to directly act on the bolt. There is no traditional gas piston or rod! But those hot gases contain a lot of unburned powder and also interact with humidity to form corrosion. Which is why the AR must be maintained so meticulously clean! Something very difficult to do in most combat environments. Add in a field problem like the very fine dust like sand of the Middle East and you have major problems. The AR is more accurate, the AK is more reliable. There is no conspiracy. Devildog1122 hit the nail on the head, "All rifles have advantages and disadvantages..." Is the AK accurate enough for combat, plenty of dead folks, lots of them good men, think so. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.