Lets be real about this; How essential are AK irons?

[Paulyski 2,227]

 

 

Taliban in flip-flops & night-shirts using .39s with iron sights are "outgunning" US troops with ACOGs on ARs, simply due to a more effective bullet.

 

 

Bullshit.

I guess you missed that news report a while back.

 

One of the generals said we'd be better off with the .39 on camera in the report I saw.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

http://www.sniperinfo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=709

 

If you're a U.S. Army general with experiences that differ, I respectfully apologize.

[Mephis 82]

x39 carries a lot more energy past 400 yards than the 5.56 does.

 

If you are comfortable with more of an arch than a flat shooting round, and can effectively gauge distances, it's going to work better at extended ranges.

Whether it's more accurate, or easier to shoot, etc is all a matter of subjection. Speaking purely on wounding performance the x39 will work better at extended ranges.

 

5.56 needs to be at 2200fps to frag reliably, for a 16" barrel that's usually 150m or less. Past that it's just poking holes and blowing straight through like a 22lr.

Mk262 was an attempt to extend that maximum range, and it just happened to perform better in all areas but at highly increased cost.

 

Just remember your M193 ball is 55gr and those x39s are 123-124gr generally.

 

 

You might have the accuracy to snip the wings off a gnat at 600 yards, but if you can't produce decent terminal performance, it doesn't mean much. This is exactly why that story mentioned above applies.

[Paulyski 2,227]

I see a disturbing trend.

We seem to think we (americans) are still "the shit" but sadly, I think we're slipping.

 

We've become complacent.

 

Rather than train with "archaic" systems that are infallible if the user knows how to use them we depend upon technology.

 

Sure, it's "easier" for people to sight in their weapon at 100 yards & use the recticle to gauge where their shot will hit, but that leads to problems.

 

Sure it's "easier" to spray a burst of automatic fire at a target & maybe one feels it's effective, but their wrong unless there's many advancing targest in a bunch coming at them.

 

Relying on Optics & auto fire is the downfall of our military IMHO.

 

That technology in the form of optics that we depend on is fragile in comparison to iron sights, or prohibitively expensive to the common man for the good stuff.

 

Full auto is rare & one must jump through hoops to have it in the civilian world.

 

Who though, does it benefit?

 

Well, the government benefits because they don't have to train each rifleman as much which saves money....

 

Some would argue that a government that want's to control the people & ensure the people don't have the skills to stage an effective uprise would benefit also being as when soldiers return home, the cool toys are no longer within their reach for the most part.

 

In a prolonged guerrilla resistance, weapons will be dropped, abused & neglected & high tech maintenance facilities would not be easily available for the guerrilla fighters.

 

In WWII, the main US rifle was a semi-auto M-1 with irons.

Soldiers were making very effective medium-long range hits with Irons.

 

Kill per bullet ratio was absolutely ridiculously better than the current ratio.

 

These men knew how to use their weapons, rather than depend on fragile optics.

 

That generation is what we base our country's reputation on & most of those men are long gone.

 

The Cuban revolution was won by peasants with bolt action hunting rifles.

Most with irons.

 

The Vietnamese AK's had Irons & their snipers using them did have a tenancy to slow us down.

 

The Afghanis had irons & fought off the Russians.

 

IMHO, I feel that a man who knows how to use a rifle with equipment that's virtually indestructible is far more valuable than a firearm that's useless if the optics are damaged, have dead batteries, etc...

[sickness 89]

I see a disturbing trend.

We seem to think we (americans) are still "the shit" but sadly, I think we're slipping.

 

We've become complacent.

 

Rather than train with "archaic" systems that are infallible if the user knows how to use them we depend upon technology.

 

I understand what you're saying, but I have to respectfully disagree. I do think that any military/defense weapon should have irons - if nothing else, for backup. But the idea that our soldiers shouldn't train and use better technology than our enemies.. that doesn't sit well with me.

 

First of all - to the civilian availability point - ACOG's for instance are not out of the reach of the 'common man' price wise. Not at all. Most of us own several firearms, some of us own several MD20's - and dump untold dollars in ammunition out of said drums, etc. If most of us wanted a legit 100% military grade optic we could get it.. AND we could put it on top of a top-quality AR -- but MOST of us would RATHER have bunches of toys/commericial pieces and have fun with them, rather than a single piece of real-deal military equipment. Militia types will have the good stuff.. if others don't, it isn't primarily because of money, it is because of priorities.

 

Second of all, the ACOG is pretty damn rugged.. but I'll allow that irons have an advantage there. But ruggedness is not the ONLY virtue one must look at in military technology.. if that were the case, we'd still be using clubs. Another is adaptability. Irons at night, in the middle of the desert or jungle? Worthless. The ACOG gives up some ruggedness for adaptability - allow users to engage targets at greater distance and in a variety of light conditions more reliably than they can with irons.

 

And as far as I've ever seen, no ACOGs take batteries. The reticles are illuminated with tritium at night, and a fiber-optic collector for illumination during the day.

 

Finally - it isn't due to the ruggedness of irons that those guerilla fighters and peasants won their wars. And it isn't due to optics, or lack there of, for dismal bullet/kill ratios in today's army vs. yesterday's.

 

Those folks knew how to use their weapons.

 

Yesterday, lots of American young boys were shooting guns from a young age. They went hunting with their fathers, and developed skill and familiarity with shooting before they ever went to boot camp. Today, a great deal of soldiers have no experience with a firearm before their military service.

 

The problem isn't technological, it is cultural.

Edited July 8, 2011 by sickness

[sickness 89]

 

I guess you missed that news report a while back.

 

One of the generals said we'd be better off with the .39 on camera in the report I saw.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/...oc=GetTRDoc.pdf

http://www.sniperinf...hread.php?t=709

 

If you're a U.S. Army general with experiences that differ, I respectfully apologize.

 

Well yes - but lets be clear about this. It is the ineffectiveness of 5.56 out of an M4 that is the problem, and the advantage goes to the x39 in that regard.

 

The fact that the x39's have irons and the 5.56's have ACOGs is irrelevant. If ACOGs were breaking, that would be one thing.. but that isn't the case. The Afghan's have an advantage primarily because of terrain, and secondarily because the standard issue M4 isn't suited to that terrain. It has nothing to do with the reliability, or lack there of, of irons vs. optics.. it is about ballistics.

 

AKs are not known for accuracy. It is very likely that those Afghans are firing more rounds than our guys because of the looseness of the gun, and the fact that they are using irons. Most rounds end up in the dirt, and the ones that hit kill because of the ballistic advantage. Our guys might hit far more often with the M4 platform and an ACOG - but kills are more rare, because the 5.56 has shed so much velocity.

 

Also, you can turn this around. In Iraq, in urban fighting .. our guys cut the enemy down. Red dots are faster (quicker to put a dot on target than line up two sights on the gun with the target) than irons.. and at urban distances, the 5.56 still has enough velocity to fragment and get the job done.

[Mephis 82]

 

First of all - to the civilian availability point - ACOG's for instance are not out of the reach of the 'common man' price wise. Not at all. Most of us own several firearms, some of us own several MD20's - and dump untold dollars in ammunition out of said drums, etc. If most of us wanted a legit 100% military grade optic we could get it.. AND we could put it on top of a top-quality AR -- but MOST of us would RATHER have bunches of toys/commericial pieces and have fun with them, rather than a single piece of real-deal military equipment. Militia types will have the good stuff.. if others don't, it isn't primarily because of money, it is because of priorities.

 

Second of all, the ACOG is pretty damn rugged.. but I'll allow that irons have an advantage there. But ruggedness is not the ONLY virtue one must look at in military technology.. if that were the case, we'd still be using clubs. Another is adaptability. Irons at night, in the middle of the desert or jungle? Worthless. The ACOG gives up some ruggedness for adaptability - allow users to engage targets at greater distance and in a variety of light conditions more reliably than they can with irons.

 

And as far as I've ever seen, no ACOGs take batteries. The reticles are illuminated with tritium at night, and a fiber-optic collector for illumination during the day.

 

While the ACOG is cool for some things, it's just as specialized and limited, and bloated in cost as the aimpoint M series. Granted, you can get aimpoints pretty cheap, I picked up an M2 in a mount for $350.

 

But for actual optics, the acog gives you about $400 glass, in a bullet proof shell for $1000. It also restricts you to 1 level of magnification, which makes it pretty rough to use up close or at extended ranges. And even comparing it with $400 glass can be a little unfair, every one I've looked through had a pretty meh sight picture. It does have a very nice and defined reticle though, I will give it that.

 

As far as an acog being as durable as irons, I'm sure it's even tougher. The problem is that glass can get dirty. Once it's too dirty to use, it's not always as easy as wiping out the crud with a finger. Things like that are why decent BUIS are a must when running any kind of optic.

 

Also, tritium is cool, but $1000 for something that will only have a usable lifetime of 10-15 years seems pretty meh to me. Great for pistol sights and stuff, but I don't want a top shelf optic with it.

 

I'm pretty happy with my current set up, and doubt it'd be very easy to damage without purposely trying to destroy it. Has a better sight picture and a lot more versatility, but it ended up around the same price as a used acog. The firedot is sweet for low light. <3 the leupold VXR 2-7x.

[m1lk 26]

i think the rear sight is the only flaw in the AK platform. if anything, a good optic is essential, irons should be a backup. why strain yourself all the time, when there is the means available to assist. still, do not rely solely on modern technology. ideally, train and get used to irons first, THEN buy a good optic. because when the world stars acting goofy, do you really want to go out of your way and risk your life over a pair of fucking batteries??

Edited July 13, 2011 by m1lk

[G O B 3,516]

Irons. Because they ALWAYS work. Like a 3 LB hammer. Like an AK always works, like a 3 LB hammer!

[jimdigriz 580]

i think the rear sight is the only flaw in the AK platform.

 

It's not a flaw. It is a great combat sight for moving targets. (Admittedly, if the main use for your rifle is shooting tiny groups at the range, it is not a great sight).

Edited July 13, 2011 by Jim Digriz

[Mephis 82]

i think the rear sight is the only flaw in the AK platform.

 

It's not a flaw. It is a great combat sight for moving targets. (Admittedly, if the main use for your rifle is shooting tiny groups at the range, it is not a great sight).

 

 

Well I think the biggest downfall of that style of sight is that it covers up a lot of what you're shooting at, unless you're always adjusting it for the correct distance. It's pretty hard to kentucky-windage with a sight like that. Throwing a peep rear sight on one seems like the best compromise to me.

[jimdigriz 580]

Well I think the biggest downfall of that style of sight is that it covers up a lot of what you're shooting at, unless you're always adjusting it for the correct distance. It's pretty hard to kentucky-windage with a sight like that. Throwing a peep rear sight on one seems like the best compromise to me.

 

Those are complaints that have more to do with shooting bullseyes than people, in my view. Again, for shooting moving persons in a close to medium range fight, AK irons are quite capable.

[Mephis 82]

Well I think the biggest downfall of that style of sight is that it covers up a lot of what you're shooting at, unless you're always adjusting it for the correct distance. It's pretty hard to kentucky-windage with a sight like that. Throwing a peep rear sight on one seems like the best compromise to me.

 

Those are complaints that have more to do with shooting bullseyes than people, in my view. Again, for shooting moving persons in a close to medium range fight, AK irons are quite capable.

 

 

I doubt many people on this forum have shot at people before.

 

So since nobody has experience in this, I don't think it's too easy to say what's better for shooting people.

[Scott Kenny 144]

Having trained to shoot people (blessedly never had to), I would rather have a ghost ring than a leaf sight. It's just easier for me to line up quickly.

 

If you spent as much ammo as the Army or Marines do with your iron sights, you'd be able to shoot pretty damn well. But I only know a few people that can afford to shoot 10k+ rounds per weapon per year.

 

And the outgunning in Astan isn't from 7.62x39, it's from x54R or .303. Many engagements in Afghanistan are over 300m, where the 5.56 is about out of steam. So is the x39, for a different reason. So the Afghanis went back to the old boltactions (Mosin or Lee-Enfield), while the US is putting a scoped 7.62NATO rifle into each squad if not each fireteam (and swapping the 5.56 SAW for the 7.62NATO version in some cases).

[jimdigriz 580]

I doubt many people on this forum have shot at people before.

 

So since nobody has experience in this, I don't think it's too easy to say what's better for shooting people.

 

It might be presumptuous to say "nobody" has experience in this. But many people here at least have experience shooting human-size silhouettes, and deer and other prey. AK irons are very good at rapidly presenting, and tracking moving targets.

[TX-Zen 287]

 

Well I think the biggest downfall of that style of sight is that it covers up a lot of what you're shooting at, unless you're always adjusting it for the correct distance. It's pretty hard to kentucky-windage with a sight like that. Throwing a peep rear sight on one seems like the best compromise to me.

 

 

It's really not a compromise, it's a matter of training. If you don't think AK sights are as good as peep sights you probably just haven't spent enough time behind the trigger. I was trained with an M16A2 and spent years qualifying with it and M4's, I can shoot my AKS74 as good or better than I do an M4 out to 300-400m with irons. The reason is simple...I've spent plenty of time behind the trigger and that's really the only that matters on a practical level.

 

All the talk about what sight is better, the inferior sight radius or how hard it is to use AK's typically comes from people who have a cultural background exclusively with AR's and who only dabble in AK's. For people that shoot AK's alot the real differences are minor or non existant. It's all about experience with the rifle. When people complain about the AK it's usually a dead giveaway that either they have very little or are continually trying to make an AK work like an AR.

 

I guarantee if you grew up with an AK the first thing you'd do is complain about the peep sight on an AR. It's natural and very human to prefer what you already know how to use vs what you don't. I don't notice AK sights nor do I wish I had AR sights. I aim and shoot with either and usually do alright out to 300-400m. That's what happens when you get familiar with your rifle, practice makes perfect just like they taught you in the service.

 

Having spent a lot time with both rifles IMO it's really that simple.

 

 

 

 

Z

Edited July 14, 2011 by TX-Zen

[Mephis 82]

I grew up with the AK actually. I found peep sights on AR style guns to be a lot faster but not quite as precise for me.

 

I find typical AK irons to be a lot slower onto target at longer ranges, but that they involve less guess work as it's easier for me to put a pin in a notch than try to center a pin in a large ring. The biggest problem I have with the AK sights is once you push the range out they feel like they cover the target a lot more than a peep style sight does.