US Army finally admits AK more effective than M4

[BrutalGardener 205]

I'm going to have disagree with your assessment of accuracy. There may be a handful of AK's out there that are capable of hitting center of mass at 200+ yards, but no Saiga I've ever owned has ever gotten below ~4" at 100.

 

You seem to have been unlucky with your Saigas. My old sporter 7.62x39 mm did 3" groups. Both of my Legion Saigas consistently shoot 2.5" groups and my record is a 1.75" group of 5 rounds. For some reason, my Saiga .308, which is supposed to be the most accurate, only groups 4" though.

[darkblue 9]

I think the easy and cheapest answer is to supply the troops with the 7.62x39mm upper conversions. No time would be needed to retrain the troops the mags are relatively cheap and easy to come by they would be better to have a piston type upper such as the POF. They would get the best of the AK round with the accuracy of the M4. Besides being able to use the enemy's ammo.

Another great option would be simply switching out with and Ar-10 in 308 as far as training or retraining goes. Stoner I believe origianally designed it in .308 but the materials at the time were not good enough to take the torture. The 308 is a round already widely used and is very effective at long and mid ranges it is true it is much heavier to carry the rounds but you really need less of them the damage factor of the 308 is incredible. ( I have seen its wrath on a human body with my own eyes)

In a perfect world they may have been issued a better gun to begin with.

I think the Military has overlooked many great weapons because of politics and senators owning stock in gun companies I never really understood the overlook of the FAL besides it working better in metric then inch 90 countries still use it. It carries the moniker "the right arm of the free world" It is easily updated lighter, simpler and more ergonomic then the m14. To field strip it takes seconds and is very durable and easy to repair if needed. The only draw back was the weight which is more than an m4 but still less then the M14. Full auto could be tamed a little by switching to a three shot burst, to make the full auto more controllable.

The FAL makes a good squad sniper weapon and the short versions would make an awesome everything else weapon.

But I think the idea that the m4/ar-15/m16 in 5.56mm is the ultimate do everything gun is B.S. if they give senators $50 rolls of toilet paper they should take a better look at the weapons and ammo that our troops should have. There are many better weapons out there including our favorite Saigas and updated AK variants

Edited May 28, 2010 by darkblue

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

Good info guys.

 

For some reason 4MOA seems to be looked down on while it is the standard for military marksmanship for a very long time. 4MOA at 250 yards will yield very effective fire. I can see nothing wrong with any rifle that performs at that level. So far the Army is more inclined to use the NATO x51 round as supplies already in the system and remaining stocks of 223 can be routed to other services if desired. I highly doubt any x39 will make it into the inventory it is just not gonna happen.

 

Now as for getting the most accuracy possible out of any rifle you must invest a lot of time and be able to reload. The 308 responds well when you find the right ammo just as the x39R does.

[saigalupo 1]

Explosive ordnance disposal technicians with 2nd EOD Platoon, 1st Marine Logistics Group with Navy EOD Augments.

 

I see AKs and FALs!

 

 

I want to make my dsa FAL a sort of DMR, just need fixed 4x or 6x and its good to go.

Edited May 29, 2010 by saigalupo

[jimdigriz 580]

Explosive ordnance disposal technicians with 2nd EOD Platoon, 1st Marine Logistics Group with Navy EOD Augments.

 

I see AKs and FALs!

 

 

I want to make my dsa FAL a sort of DMR, just need fixed 4x or 6x and its good to go.

 

Looks like the guy with the AK on the lower right has an SKS-style folding spike bayonet on his AK. Pretty cool. I want one like that...

[leadslinger 37]

I'm going to have disagree with your assessment of accuracy. There may be a handful of AK's out there that are capable of hitting center of mass at 200+ yards, but no Saiga I've ever owned has ever gotten below ~4" at 100.

 

You seem to have been unlucky with your Saigas. My old sporter 7.62x39 mm did 3" groups. Both of my Legion Saigas consistently shoot 2.5" groups and my record is a 1.75" group of 5 rounds. For some reason, my Saiga .308, which is supposed to be the most accurate, only groups 4" though.

 

I agree with you SpetsnazGRU, the targets i posted were 5 1/2 inch black circle and it was the first time i have tried 200yards with that weapon with some 20 year old Yugo corrosive primed rounds and new iron sight front and rear combination. I am sure with practice my shots are going to get tighter. Bizzarolibe must have had some bad luck with his Saigas. I am completely confident that COM hits at 300 yards would be well within this rifles capabilities. If i put optics on this weapon then i am certain that 200 and 300 yard shots would be very tight clusters. I don't think most people put forth the effort to learn what these weapons can actually do. I am continually impressed every time i go to shoot this weapon.

 

all i can say is Practice practice practice......

Edited May 29, 2010 by leadslinger

[Nailbomb 10,221]

I'm going to have disagree with your assessment of accuracy. There may be a handful of AK's out there that are capable of hitting center of mass at 200+ yards, but no Saiga I've ever owned has ever gotten below ~4" at 100. My AR will do about 1 inch with decent ammo. Not to mention, shot placement is everything right? So isn't it much better to have a rifle capable of making *headshots* rather than body shots at 200+ yards?

 

And yeah, I'm also going to have to disagree with your assessment of weight. I think you're definitely in the minority on this one. Weight is one of THE most important factors to consider in any fighting weapon. A lighter weight weapon gives you greater mobility, not to mention it's much faster to get it on target from a lowered position.

 

Regardless, like I said before, both weapons have their places...in my safe

 

P.S. Can you tell I've been spending some time over at ARFCOM lol??

Shot placement is everything? How many soft armored targets are we engaging? None? Theres still loads of our troops relying on iron sights. They're going for body hits, not head shots. Why would you tacticly limit yourself to a smaller target like that? Your AR isn't a sniper rifle, and the average grunt carring one isn't a sniper.

 

Me personaly? I'm going to crack off as many center mass rounds, as fast as I can.

 

I've depended on M-16s. That said, I carried a 20" barreled A2 that was WELL broken in, with 11 mags loaded with 28 rounds(basic load was 6 mags of 30). Optic? they never trained me to use one, nor issued me one. I BOUGHT my own red dot befor going over to the sandbox.

 

That said we have to look at the nature of the round. Its simply innefective over 50 yards out of a M4. out of a 20" barreled A2 its good out to about 300, past that its somewhat acceptable to have decreased effectivenes. After all, if I'm beyond your range to effectivly engage, but i can still punch holes in you, I still win right?.

 

Is the extra length/weight going to help you in CQC? No. But no One weapon does it all, and we all have to pick our own list of Pro's/Cons.

 

Truth be told, I never felt better than when I was lugging a 240G, or on a truck behind a M-2. Theres a lot of confidence that comes from being behind one of those.

[uzitiger 193]

The US Army had a good reason to reject the FN FAL. In the 1967 and 1973 Middle East wars the Israeli soldiers threw away their FALs and Uzis and used AK's from the dead Arab soldiers. The FN-FAL failed miserably in desert warfare and sand clogged it up. Another reason was that thirsty soldiers used their magazine lips to open bottles and bent magazine lips will cause failure. I don't know whether this is the reason the AK magazine lips are double thickness but they are harder to damage. The Uzis while being ultra reliable lacked range due to the 9mm round. The wartime failures are the reason the Israeli army replaced the FAL. After the 1967 Six Day War, Life Magazine shows an Israeli soldier swimming in the Suez Canal with a brand new AK in his hand. The AK was more reliable in desert battle conditions and that's why the Galil was based on the AK.

 

Modernizing the M-14 may be a good idea but not in full auto. It's reliable and is based on the M-1 Garand which was reliable and General Patton called it "the greatest fighting implement". The US Army tried to use the M-14 to replace the M-1 Garand, the M-1 carbine, the Thompson and M-3 sub-machine guns and the BAR with one rifle which did not work out but it was a good fighting rifle.

 

One Russian who lives in the US said that when he served in the Israeli army, he preferred the Glilon (short Galil) to what he called the "shitty M-16".

[saigalupo 1]

The US Army had a good reason to reject the FN FAL. In the 1967 and 1973 Middle East wars the Israeli soldiers threw away their FALs and Uzis and used AK's from the dead Arab soldiers. The FN-FAL failed miserably in desert warfare and sand clogged it up. Another reason was that thirsty soldiers used their magazine lips to open bottles and bent magazine lips will cause failure. I don't know whether this is the reason the AK magazine lips are double thickness but they are harder to damage. The Uzis while being ultra reliable lacked range due to the 9mm round. The wartime failures are the reason the Israeli army replaced the FAL. After the 1967 Six Day War, Life Magazine shows an Israeli soldier swimming in the Suez Canal with a brand new AK in his hand. The AK was more reliable in desert battle conditions and that's why the Galil was based on the AK.

 

Modernizing the M-14 may be a good idea but not in full auto. It's reliable and is based on the M-1 Garand which was reliable and General Patton called it "the greatest fighting implement". The US Army tried to use the M-14 to replace the M-1 Garand, the M-1 carbine, the Thompson and M-3 sub-machine guns and the BAR with one rifle which did not work out but it was a good fighting rifle.

 

One Russian who lives in the US said that when he served in the Israeli army, he preferred the Glilon (short Galil) to what he called the "shitty M-16".

 

 

Which is why they have sand cut carriers now. Id take a FAL over a M1A/M14/AK any day of the week.

Edited May 31, 2010 by saigalupo

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

This rifle HERE would be my front runner.

[patriot 7,197]

You lose too much velocity with the M4. The M16A2 was much better, except for the 3rd burst "feature".

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

That burst mode was added to slow down rate of consumption of ammo in theory making the rifle more manageable. The problem is that first burst may be from one to three rounds.

[firerain24 1]

AR bullet is way too small.

[auburn2 1]

"A million dollars would buy the Army about 10,000 Mosin-Nagants and plenty of surplus ammo. Then they wouldn't be outgunned. "

 

LMAO

You are laughing but if you read the article it says the "AK-47s are not the problem" but rather that the US Army is outgunned by the guys with "sniper rifles". Most of those "sniper rifles" are Mosins and Enfields.

Edited June 5, 2010 by auburn2

[Azrial 1,091]

I'm going to have disagree with your assessment of accuracy. There may be a handful of AK's out there that are capable of hitting center of mass at 200+ yards, but no Saiga I've ever owned has ever gotten below ~4" at 100. My AR will do about 1 inch with decent ammo. Not to mention, shot placement is everything right? So isn't it much better to have a rifle capable of making *headshots* rather than body shots at 200+ yards? ....

 

Look Bizzarolibe', there are plenty of MOA AKs! You will find a lot of them here at Saiga-12.com and other places on the Internet. The problem is you just never seem to find them in the real world!

 

Certainly none have ever showed up at a large Saiga Shoot where their MOA prowess can be verified.

 

I like the AK, but it is not a very accurate rifle, and I last qualified with a .308 AR-10 by putting 5 shots in an area a little bigger then a quarter at 160 measured yards.

 

All the "practice" in the world will not fix the idiosyncrasies of the this design. It is a great rifle for what it is, it is not the best rfile in all areas ever made. No rifle ever will be.

[Ermac 8]

I'm going to have disagree with your assessment of accuracy. There may be a handful of AK's out there that are capable of hitting center of mass at 200+ yards, but no Saiga I've ever owned has ever gotten below ~4" at 100. My AR will do about 1 inch with decent ammo. Not to mention, shot placement is everything right? So isn't it much better to have a rifle capable of making *headshots* rather than body shots at 200+ yards? ....

 

Look Bizzarolibe', there are plenty of MOA AKs! You will find a lot of them here at Saiga-12.com and other places on the Internet. The problem is you just never seem to find them in the real world!

 

Certainly none have ever showed up at a large Saiga Shoot where their MOA prowess can be verified.

 

I like the AK, but it is not a very accurate rifle, and I last qualified with a .308 AR-10 by putting 5 shots in an area a little bigger then a quarter at 160 measured yards.

 

All the "practice" in the world will not fix the idiosyncrasies of the this design. It is a great rifle for what it is, it is not the best rfile in all areas ever made. No rifle ever will be.

In a real life situation, do you need to be able to put 5 shots in a quarter sized group at 160 yards? Maybe your expectactions of accuracy are a bit unrealistic.

[Azrial 1,091]

In a real life situation, do you need to be able to put 5 shots in a quarter sized group at 160 yards? Maybe your expectactions of accuracy are a bit unrealistic.

Actually this was in response to Leadslingers claim, that the only thing one needed to shoot an AK well was practice.

all i can say is Practice practice practice......

No matter how much you practice, an AK is not built nor will it deliver, the kind of accuracy that many folks on here claim. Yon get an honest guy like Bizzarolibe reporting the real world accuracy of the AK and then you get a half dozen that want to claim that there is something wrong with him or his rifle, because of course theirs is a one-hole wonder!

 

You will also notice that I never claim anywhere that a rifle needs that kind of accuracy to be a good combat rifle. It does not, unless like in the case of the AR-10, your job is as a precision marksman. I like AKs, I have shot many of them and have 5 currently, but they are not a do-it-all rifle, no rifle is. I have never seen one, "in real life" that was capable of the kinds of accuracy that folks on here regularly claim ,

 

But to get back to your statement about what my expectations are and whether they are realistic? I have to ask, have you even traded lead with someone with deadly intent? If not, you are probably not in a position to lecture me on what I should expect under real world conditions, having never experienced them yourself.

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

The Saiga is one of the most accurate AKs which is why I bought these things. 4 MOA is completely serviceable for any MBR mine shoots better than that if I do my part and much better if I invest in excellent ammo. As for trading shots, yes but its not something I care to think on much as it was not in the military but still I know exactly what adrenaline does to marksmanship, it can be pretty bad. This is how those fire fights on youtube occur when opponents are almost close enough to touch and yet hit nothing. One very basic problem is most people miss on purpose though its an unconscious matter.

[mgconnor13 206]

I like my M2 unfortunately I could never carry it on my own.

 

There's two ways to go about picking weapons. you can find a weapon that is pretty good at most things or you can find several weapons that are more specialized and take the one you think will best suit what you think you will be doing.

 

The M16 is a decent all around gun, so is the AK. The M4 is great for close up work and is really nasty with the proper ammo. 7.62x51 is over kill in almost any situation and is best left in the hands of a SDM. Best option is to have troops carry a mix of weapons. Have a couple guys carry AR-10s with optics, every one else carry M-16A4s, SAWs, and M4s w/M203s. Ideally you use vehicles to provide support by fire with medium and heavy weapons like the 240, M2 and Mark 19 and mortars.

 

A gun won't change every thing. You have to use all your tools to their max effectiveness and use your other tool to cover their limitations.

 

I've found in most cases I'm the limiting factor when it comes to the accuracy of a weapon. Few people have the skill to out shoot their guns just like few people have the skill to out drive their cars.

[mav 459]

 

 

I've found in most cases I'm the limiting factor when it comes to the accuracy of a weapon. Few people have the skill to out shoot their guns just like few people have the skill to out drive their cars.

 

 

 

+1

[auburn2 1]

Explosive ordnance disposal technicians with 2nd EOD Platoon, 1st Marine Logistics Group with Navy EOD Augments.

 

I see AKs and FALs!

 

 

I want to make my dsa FAL a sort of DMR, just need fixed 4x or 6x and its good to go.

What is the guy on the far left holding over his shoulder with the drum and pistol grip?

[auburn2 1]

On a side note if you have ever watched videos of the Middle-East soldiers in combat they are pretty much point and spray missing every damn thing.

Your average middle-east conscript and the hard-core insurgents in places like Afghanistan, Chechnia and Albania are very different things. Sure the enemy uses the untrained idiots too (often for suicide attacks) but they mostly just die in large numbers. The core experienced guys are the ones "outgunning" US troops and they are quite disciplined, battle hardened and well trained.

[Ermac 8]

In a real life situation, do you need to be able to put 5 shots in a quarter sized group at 160 yards? Maybe your expectactions of accuracy are a bit unrealistic.

Actually this was in response to Leadslingers claim, that the only thing one needed to shoot an AK well was practice.

all i can say is Practice practice practice......

No matter how much you practice, an AK is not built nor will it deliver, the kind of accuracy that many folks on here claim. Yon get an honest guy like Bizzarolibe reporting the real world accuracy of the AK and then you get a half dozen that want to claim that there is something wrong with him or his rifle, because of course theirs is a one-hole wonder!

 

You will also notice that I never claim anywhere that a rifle needs that kind of accuracy to be a good combat rifle. It does not, unless like in the case of the AR-10, your job is as a precision marksman. I like AKs, I have shot many of them and have 5 currently, but they are not a do-it-all rifle, no rifle is. I have never seen one, "in real life" that was capable of the kinds of accuracy that folks on here regularly claim ,

 

But to get back to your statement about what my expectations are and whether they are realistic? I have to ask, have you even traded lead with someone with deadly intent? If not, you are probably not in a position to lecture me on what I should expect under real world conditions, having never experienced them yourself.

I wasn't lecturing you. If you don't mind me asking, are you in the military or a LEO?

Edited June 7, 2010 by Ermac

[saigalupo 1]

Explosive ordnance disposal technicians with 2nd EOD Platoon, 1st Marine Logistics Group with Navy EOD Augments.

 

I see AKs and FALs!

 

 

I want to make my dsa FAL a sort of DMR, just need fixed 4x or 6x and its good to go.

What is the guy on the far left holding over his shoulder with the drum and pistol grip?

 

 

 

 

 

I have no idea

[t3mac21 1]

They're taking potshots from long distance. .303 british and x54r is far more effective at range than 5.56

Edited June 7, 2010 by t3mac21

[leadslinger 37]

In a real life situation, do you need to be able to put 5 shots in a quarter sized group at 160 yards? Maybe your expectactions of accuracy are a bit unrealistic.

Actually this was in response to Leadslingers claim, that the only thing one needed to shoot an AK well was practice.

all i can say is Practice practice practice......

No matter how much you practice, an AK is not built nor will it deliver, the kind of accuracy that many folks on here claim. Yon get an honest guy like Bizzarolibe reporting the real world accuracy of the AK and then you get a half dozen that want to claim that there is something wrong with him or his rifle, because of course theirs is a one-hole wonder!

 

You will also notice that I never claim anywhere that a rifle needs that kind of accuracy to be a good combat rifle. It does not, unless like in the case of the AR-10, your job is as a precision marksman. I like AKs, I have shot many of them and have 5 currently, but they are not a do-it-all rifle, no rifle is. I have never seen one, "in real life" that was capable of the kinds of accuracy that folks on here regularly claim ,

 

But to get back to your statement about what my expectations are and whether they are realistic? I have to ask, have you even traded lead with someone with deadly intent? If not, you are probably not in a position to lecture me on what I should expect under real world conditions, having never experienced them yourself.

 

 

I beg to differ sir, I never said that my weapon was a one hole wander nor do expect it to be. i do know that the only way to get better with any weapon is practice. I am completely aware of the AK or siaga's limitations and never claimed it to be a do everything weapon. I am also aware that under real world situation all bets are off and that includes 1 moa weapons. My only claim is that at the range with slow fire careful aim I am always surprised at what this weapon is capable of delivering and there are days when i am not at my best. My point is that if you train your eye to constantly achieve same sight picture, same check weld and trigger pull one can become more accurate then just pointing the weapon in a direction and pulling the trigger for shits and giggles. I want to become as accurate as i can with my particular weapon configuration so much so that shooting with relative accuracy will become 2nd nature. The next transition would be to take what you have established and begin to train with movement etc. 200 yd COM shots with this weapon are most definitely achievable. No matter how accurate a weapon may be either out of the box, having a competent armorer work on it or how many optic Doodads you have on the weapon will all be waste of time unless you Practice.

Edited June 7, 2010 by leadslinger

[elia.jon1 1]

even though i dont think it will help the argument i'll add my .02

 

i have built several ak's owned a few saigas, and have a decent midlength ar-15

 

my ar i built on a tactical innovations lower it has a wilson non chrome lined barrel.....

 

my aks were military guns(mainly i'll be talking about a remade polish underfolder) except for the saiga.....

 

 

my ar is accurate, much more so than me.....i run cheap 55gr loads, and while i havn't been people shooting with it, coyotes drop dead when they get "touched".....it will put holes thru holes.....

 

if i shoot my ar fast at say a 1/3 scale idpa target at 100 yards it will at least be hitting the paper(if i'm blasting) if i'm careful or prone(or sitting) it scores body hits no problem.....say with me prone, no bags just me prone i can get like 4 inches...make that 100 into 50 and it drops to like an inch

 

my polish gun can keep it in the chest of a full size idpa target at 100 yards shooting quick, if i play more careful they still stay on the chest, or maybe the head(according to what i'm trying to hit my eyes are bad) ...again a prone me can get 4-6 inches no rest just me....

 

my saiga shoots better than my polish gun, but still puts rounds in the target where i try and aim(100 yards idpa)....again drop the 100 to 50 and it drops to like 2 inches

 

the aks run wolf, or whatevers cheap, the ar runs the same...whatevers cheap....

 

 

my middy has been shot side by side with a dpms m4gery(red dot), a rock river m4gery(irons)...it is better i give this to the extra inches of sight radius.....

 

 

but now what i want people to do is sit a 7.62x39 next to a 5.56x45 and look at the difference in bullet size.....the 30 is way bigger, more than double...

 

but as far as effectiveness pull a bullet from each, stand a few yards away from a good buddy and let him throw them both at you(equally hard) can you tell that one hurts more?....you probably cant tell....

 

 

they are both good rifles....i dont see why the m4 was the size to go with, the middy (9inch gas system with 16 inch barrel) seems like the way to go....

 

the sights are different on my ar than my ak and i think most americans shoot ghost rings better....

 

 

 

but back to the point...if you read nothing from my post read these 3 things i'm about to say

 

1.

if you dont think an ar is effective past 300 yards, then let someone shoot you with one at 600......i bet you wont...

if you dont think the ak can hit shit at 300 yards, then walk 700 yards downrange and let someone shoot at you with one....

 

i bet you change your fucking mind on both counts.....

 

2.

if a 55 grain bullet doesn't tumble past a certain distance it doesn't take the gunshot wound out of the picture.....

if an ak bullet hits you after it has "dropped" 10 feet you still got hit with over 120grains of bullet.....

 

you still have a gunshot wound...

 

 

3.

if you take a rod(spear maybe? however you want to think about it) thats .22 inches wide and stab someone with it(run them thru) and then take another rod that is .30 and stab the same guy will he be able to tell the difference in the .08 of an inch????

 

answer me that...(this is what my friend will uses for the 9vs40vs45 argument)

[Azrial 1,091]

I wasn't lecturing you. If you don't mind me asking, are you in the military or a LEO?

I am an old cop, I am waiting on my 3rd deployment overseas and it is taking forever.

 

Please re-read my posts, you seemed to get the idea that I was saying that a rifle had to shoot like that AR-10 to be of use, which is very incorrect. I like the AR-10 for a precision rifle, but they are way to prone to fowling and stoppage for general use in my book.

 

.... There's two ways to go about picking weapons. you can find a weapon that is pretty good at most things or you can find several weapons that are more specialized and take the one you think will best suit what you think you will be doing.....A gun won't change every thing. You have to use all your tools to their max effectiveness and use your other tool to cover their limitations......I've found in most cases I'm the limiting factor when it comes to the accuracy of a weapon. Few people have the skill to out shoot their guns just like few people have the skill to out drive their cars.

Really, everything that he said. Good post!

[Azrial 1,091]

I beg to differ sir, I never said that my weapon was a one hole wander nor do expect it to be. i do know that the only way to get better with any weapon is practice. I am completely aware of the AK or siaga's limitations and never claimed it to be a do everything weapon. I am also aware that under real world situation all bets are off and that includes 1 moa weapons. My only claim is that at the range with slow fire careful aim I am always surprised at what this weapon is capable of delivering and there are days when i am not at my best. My point is that if you train your eye to constantly achieve same sight picture, same check weld and trigger pull one can become more accurate then just pointing the weapon in a direction and pulling the trigger for shits and giggles. I want to become as accurate as i can with my particular weapon configuration so much so that shooting with relative accuracy will become 2nd nature. The next transition would be to take what you have established and begin to train with movement etc. 200 yd COM shots with this weapon are most definitely achievable. No matter how accurate a weapon may be either out of the box, having a competent armorer work on it or how many optic Doodads you have on the weapon will all be waste of time unless you Practice.

There are really damn few 1 MOA service rifles in "the real world." Most any rifle that tight has little use on a battle field. You see some real tight rifles in use by Law Enforcement, buy due to the limited usage and far better support possible there is no comparison to a military type environment.

 

I will not engage in a useless debate about how accurate your AK is, or is not. But here is what an seemingly honest fellow is reporting with his rifle, that will normally shoot circles around any AK, using service ammo. Custom ammo will help any rifle, but your expectations seem inconsistent with my observed reality.

 

I know that this is always an unpopular subject here, for obvious reasons, it is however the truth.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Azrial

[leadslinger 37]

This is my last attempt to clarify my point. Again i am not looking to get ragged holes out of the 7.62 ammo. I am looking to be reasonably consistent and have acceptable accuracy when i shoot using off the shelf ammo.

 

Bizzarolibe's statement was that there were maybe a handful of AK's that would be able to hit 200 yard COM shots. if you look back at my pic's i posted on the 1st page of this discussion. Those targets were at 200 yards iron sights. Those targets would definitely show proof that 200 yard com shots are achievable. I would only imagine that the more one would practice the more accurate one would get. Again we are not talking target accuracy or bolt action accuracy.

 

 

Stay safe in country.

 

 

lets agree to disagree

Edited June 7, 2010 by leadslinger