Jump to content

test fired my new Saiga .223


Recommended Posts

Man this thing is real accurate once you get the front sight adjusted right. I'm used to 7.62 x 39 and was really surprised by the low recoil. I thought the AK had a light recoil!

If this thing had a buffer and a solid stock it wouldn't kick any harder than my .22! Sighted it in from 25yds to fine tune the front sight both ways and then consistantly shot 1" or less groups of 3 with iron sights. I'm stoked. Cant wait to try it from 100 next.

 

Pic 1 Progression from the bottom up:

Pic 2 She's ready to move back now!

post-1293-1118809597.jpg

post-1293-1118809705.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know, I was so thrilled with mine after the first time out, I eventually bought another.  It has become my favorite plinking or grabit gun.

 

 

You two have hit on a question I was thinking about last night. Is the AR-15 or M-16 inherently more accurate than the Saiga .223, and if so why is this so?

 

Nice shooting COBRA. Very tight groups.

 

Wolverine

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats on the Saiga 223 Cobra. I love mine too.

 

I'm in the process of trying to sell it, but I still love it anyway...

 

It eats brass like there's no tomorrow though. Leaves HUGE dents in the case bodies and... yeah.

 

It's very accurate though. I'm considering (if it doens't get sold) ordering one of the M16 magazine adapters (for the Galil, but that can be fixed right?) and seeing if I can get it to work. That would be awesome... except for the price, $165 + shipping... uck...

 

Ok.. that's it for me.

 

Too much Margarita..

 

Bye bye.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the AR-15 or M-16 inherently more accurate than the Saiga .223, and if so why is this so?

 

I think what you have to realize is this...

 

The AR is built to tighter tolerances than the saiga, just by design... you wont drag the AR thru the mud behind a truck, run it over and then grab it, load it and shoot... I *WOULD* with my saiga... not my AR...

 

Also...

 

I think that the majority of "accurate" AR's, and the ones that you always hear about "great accuracy out of" are due to the fact that you have match grade barrels installed on them... that or heavy barrels, or the long 24" varmint barrels, ETC...Etc...etc....My buddy has a Vulcan AR with a 16" barrel... and trust me... my 16" saiga .223 will OUTSHOOT THAT RIFLE ANYDAY... ALL DAY!!!! So let that help to DISPEL THE MYTH... they are *NOT* all great shooters... just the ones DESIGNED TO BE....

 

The saiga .223 has a 16" barrel.. THATS IT... you got what there is to have.... I dont think it was EVER machined to the tolerances the AR barrels are spec'd to.... ITs GOOD... its just not made to be a target grade barrel... ad thats why it shoots the way it does... its a plinker... not a target rifle... it will do ya right... as long as you dont ask it to be a super sniper rifle...

 

:smoke:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually my 223 Saigas are roughly equal to my AR-15 with a 16" Hbar.

 

The 20" varminter is probably 3 times or more consistently accurate with expensive ammo. But it isnt all that much better shooting cheap stuff.

 

Some of the things Saiga 223s have in their favor for accuracy, the round itself, a 3 lug bolt and a fairly heavy barrel compared to the 7.62x39.

 

I have made a free float forearm from a AMD one, I have yet to really bench it, but it would be interesting to see if it has the same improvement the AR does when you free float them.

 

The G2 trigger is better than my ARs, I would suspect shooting some fairly decent surplus ammo the Saiga may well have an edge on the CAR. Probably not enough to brag about, but even now I think they are real close set up stock.

Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Onepoint @ Jun 15 2005, 12:41

 

You two have hit on a question I was thinking about last night. [B)

Is the AR-15 or M-16 inherently more accurate than the Saiga .223, and if so why is this so? [/b]

 

Nice shooting COBRA. Very tight groups.

 

 

Wolverine,

That's the same question that was bounced back and forth all over the place when I was in the Army except then it was a comparison between the M-16A1/A2 and the AK-47.

 

You could also ask which is more accurate -- the AR-15 or the AR-15? The reason I put it that way is that the AR-15, like the M-16A1, M-16A2 and the M-4, comes in a number of different configurations such as standard vs. heavy barrel vs. target weight barrel, differing rates of rifling twist (one rate works better with the 55 gr bullet while the other gives poorer accuracy with the 55 gr but better with the 62 gr bullet), even barrel length (don't expect much accuracy from a CAR-15 over 100 meters -- barrel's short and lessens the accuracy at distance). Even cleanliness and degree of lubrication enter into this equation.

 

I don't know what the rate of twist is for the Saiga .223/5.56 mm. This means I don't know what weight bullet would tend to give better accuracy.

 

Yes, the rounds are interchangeable but there will be a slight difference in pressures and velocity. These also affect the accuracy. There will also be differences between ammo of different manufacturers and even between lots of ammo from the same company.

 

Outdoor temperature and humidity enter into this as will the temperature of the barrel (as you know, a cold barrel doesn't shoot to the same point of impact as does one that is warmed up.

 

Properly sighted/zeroed in and properly cleaned and lubed, coupled with a load that particular rifle likes? The AR-15/M-16, I believe, has a slight edge in accuracy. However, there won't be enough practical difference to any living target holder downrange to make much difference to the target holder.

 

My experience in the Army was with the M-16A1 and later the M-16A2. Never fired a Russkie rifle until Cobra graciously invited me to try his brand-spankin-new Saiga .223. All I can say about it is... SWEET! True, I missed the familiar peep sight of the M-16 but the open sight was far superior to the sights on my Italian Carcano rifles. We were firing 55 gr bullets. I suspect that 62 gr bullets would further improve the groups fired.

 

The Saiga is quite accurate and at a fraction of the cost of an AR-15... and not nearly as sensitive to over/under lubing or dirt. It is a far more forgiving rifle that (and I loved this) didn't have that SPROING! sound that the AR-15/M-16 has when fired.

 

I would highly recommend the Saiga .223.

Edited by Aethelbert
Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Onepoint @ Jun 15 2005, 12:41

 

You two have hit on a question I was thinking about last night. [B)

Is the AR-15 or M-16 inherently more accurate than the Saiga .223, and if so why is this so? [/b]

 

Nice shooting COBRA. Very tight groups.

 

 

Wolverine,

That's the same question that was bounced back and forth all over the place when I was in the Army except then it was a comparison between the M-16A1/A2 and the AK-47.

 

You could also ask which is more accurate -- the AR-15 or the AR-15? The reason I put it that way is that the AR-15, like the M-16A1, M-16A2 and the M-4, comes in a number of different configurations such as standard vs. heavy barrel vs. target weight barrel, differing rates of rifling twist (one rate works better with the 55 gr bullet while the other gives poorer accuracy with the 55 gr but better with the 62 gr bullet), even barrel length (don't expect much accuracy from a CAR-15 over 100 meters -- barrel's short and lessens the accuracy at distance). Even cleanliness and degree of lubrication enter into this equation.

 

I don't know what the rate of twist is for the Saiga .223/5.56 mm. This means I don't know what weight bullet would tend to give better accuracy.

 

Yes, the rounds are interchangeable but there will be a slight difference in pressures and velocity. These also affect the accuracy. There will also be differences between ammo of different manufacturers and even between lots of ammo from the same company.

 

Outdoor temperature and humidity enter into this as will the temperature of the barrel (as you know, a cold barrel doesn't shoot to the same point of impact as does one that is warmed up.

 

Properly sighted/zeroed in and properly cleaned and lubed, coupled with a load that particular rifle likes? The AR-15/M-16, I believe, has a slight edge in accuracy. However, there won't be enough practical difference to any living target holder downrange to make much difference to the target holder.

 

My experience in the Army was with the M-16A1 and later the M-16A2. Never fired a Russkie rifle until Cobra graciously invited me to try his brand-spankin-new Saiga .223. All I can say about it is... SWEET! True, I missed the familiar peep sight of the M-16 but the open sight was far superior to the sights on my Italian Carcano rifles. We were firing 55 gr bullets. I suspect that 62 gr bullets would further improve the groups fired.

 

The Saiga is quite accurate and at a fraction of the cost of an AR-15... and not nearly as sensitive to over/under lubing or dirt. It is a far more forgiving rifle that (and I loved this) didn't have that SPROING! sound that the AR-15/M-16 has when fired.

 

I would highly recommend the Saiga .223.

 

Thanks guys for the feedback. I too fired the M-16 in the military......and not particulary well. That friggin spring sound drove me to distraction. I could shoot marksman with a handgun but couldn't come near that with the M-16. I have never touched a AR clone since and that is over 30 years ago now. I like the Saiga. It is a quality rifle, reliable, cheap to shoot and seems to be reasonable accurate. And as pointed out it is a fraction of the cost. My first 7.62 cost ne $199 plus 6% state tax. Where the hell can you buy a quality built rifle that is relible under all conditions and uses military ammo for that kind of price? Even at $300 OTD for the .223 it is a good deal. The only thing I am working through now is the hi cap issue for the .223. It ain't necessary but it would be nice. Besides it is the challenge. Half the fun is the quest. The other is shooting the rifle. You all make good points. And really I bought them as plinkers. I just had a hunch that the Saiga out of the box is nearly as accurate as an average AR clone out of the box.

 

Thanks again.

 

W. :smoke:

Edited by Wolverine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the AR has one major advantage, at least to my preference, the sights. That was the 1st thing I changed on the Saiga was the rear sight, I can't stand a blade slot that is almost twice as wide as the post. I have SKSs that have an nice fine slot, and the semi buckhorn style on the lever actions are all no problem to shoot, but I could never get consistent with the Saigas.

 

I went to a Mojo / KNS front crosshair style on one, and the next one I built a AR style peep for the cover. That was the only major issue I had. Other than the gripless configuration anyway but that didnt effect the accuracy of the rifle, just comfort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Saiga like mil spec AR's have a chrome line barrel which will automatically make it hard for these rifle to be moa guns because the chrome lining creates wave's in the barrel, not to say some won't but far and few, The AR's that are super accurate usually have chromemolly or stainless steel barrels that are held to as another post mentioned to far greater tollerances plus other fine tuning's of the rifle. I can get on a good day with a scope a true 1.5" group with 2 shots, but shoot 5 or 10 shots at 100 yrd's and it will open up to 3" or mabe more. Saiga's are military rifles and are ment to hold 4" at 100 yrd's. so be happy and enjoy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can agree with most of what has been said, except for the thing about "waves" in chrome-lined barrels. Yes, it is hard to control the thickness of the chrome plating throughout the barrel, but I believe that the accuracy difference between the two lies more in "attention to detil" than "quality of materials".

 

I'm not up to date on the current barrel-making technology at use in Russia, or anywhere for that matter, but I'm near positive that if there was a way to solve (even partially) the problem of lining thickness, it would have been found by now. The real question is whether or not anyone thought it was worth it to do. There are a lot of countries that use chrome linings for their military barrels. Unfortunately, I believe that the perception among those making the barrels tends to be one of: It's chrome lined! Who cares what the tolerances are?

 

That said, I'd also like to point out that I've gotten great accuarcy from both my 223 and 308 Saigas. I tend to believe that this is mostly due to the quality of the workmanship (making sure the barrel is straight in relation to the receiver, fitting the gas piston to the right depth, etc.). Indeed, I think that with better sights and ammo, the Norinco AK47 and the Russian SKS that I shoot could do much better than they have been. I kind of laugh everytime I here someone say that these are just "plinkers". Either their standards are too high, they can't shoot well with their saiga (for whatever reason), or they just don't do anything except "plink" (whatever that means, for accuracy). Well, that's my opinion anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of chrome lined barrels that are MOA shooters. The US military designated marksman rifles are chrome lined I believe. The bigger factor is the chambering than the lining, SAMMI vs Nato. But the uber accurate ARs do have non chrome lined barrels as well as matched and lapped bolts etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I kind of laugh everytime I here someone say that these are just "plinkers". Either their standards are too high, they can't shoot well with their saiga (for whatever reason), or they just don't do anything except "plink" (whatever that means, for accuracy)

 

I will jump on that.... :)

 

 

When *I* say plinker... I guess I need to define what *I* personally consider a plinker rifle.

 

To me, you have a target grade rifle, then you have a plinker grade rifle. thats it, just the two...

 

If you can shoot a rifle, and acheive 1/2" to 1" groups with 5 shots at 100M consistently.... thats a target grade rifle.

 

If your rifle shoots over 1" groups, I call it a plinker... as you arent going to be winning many competitions with it. It may function perfectly well for hunting, accuracy, and shoot well for you... but TO ME... in MY opinion... its a plinker...

 

maybe I am too hard on a rifle, and label it thus... I dunno... I just know that I own rifles capable of 1/4" groups with 3 rounds... THATS a target grade rifle... and NONE OF MY SAIGAS are among them... but... those rifles are my Savage .204 Ruger, and my Marlin .17 HMR. both laminated stocked, bolt action.

 

I think of a plinker as a gun you take out and BLAST shit with... milk jugs and soda cans at 100M or less... where you just want it to have fun and blast away with ammo... I dont do those things with my two "target rifles" they are sighted in for deadnuts accuracy... so that when I stick the eyeball of a woody-ma-chuck in the crosshair... I *know* that its going to take his head off...With my Saigas... I would aim for center of mass at 100-200M... and feel confident he will PROBABLY be dead... TO me thats the difference between a plinker and a target grade shooter....

 

again... JUST my personal speculation....

 

 

:smoke:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider all of my guns plinkers because thats what I do with them. Even if I had a super sniper-matic sub moa rifle that got 0" groups to me its a plinker. I dont hunt, I dont compete, I just go kill paper or whatever is at the end of the range. I am a plinker. I shoot for fun. Yes it would be nice to have bragging rights for super accuracy, but I dont really care. Also anything base on the AK action will never get the respect anyone wants because of what it was originally designed for and the reputaion it already has. Thats laying down fire at max 400yrds. If you can get 1-2" groups with them thats great. I just dont think anyone should expect any of these rifles to be sub moa guns. If you can show up AR guys and make them cry more power to you :lolol:

 

Also you cant really compare AR's and AK's becuase the US and russia have different design philosophys. The AK's were designed to be simple and work in any condition throwing lead like crazy. The AR's are a more complicated, tighter toleranced, and from what Ive heard are touchy about being clean. But by the tighter tolerances you are going to have an inherently more accurate weapon. Which is better? Well depends on what you use it for. I personally will have one of each someday. I know if for some unknown reason the crap hit the fan and the world went into anarchy I would be glad I have my AK because it will always work were as I dont know if I would count on the AR.

 

Just my 2 cents :smoke:

Edited by stokstad
Link to post
Share on other sites
I know if for some unknown reason the crap hit the fan and the world went into anarchy I would be glad I have my AK because it will always work were as I dont know if I would count on the AR

 

 

You can bet your ass on that, I agree 100% bro!!!!

 

Siaga to the rescue!!!!

 

 

:smoke:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Siaga to the rescue!!!!

 

Well until you grab that mag that you haven't tweaked enough to work right yet. :)

 

I dont think I would feel under armed with either one if I had to rely on it myself. BVesideds there is something to be said for cross training on as many weapons as you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Siaga to the rescue!!!!

 

Well until you grab that mag that you haven't tweaked enough to work right yet. :)

 

I dont think I would feel under armed with either one if I had to rely on it myself. BVesideds there is something to be said for cross training on as many weapons as you can.

 

 

Theres nothing wrong with cross training. It's good to know as many weapon systems as possible. But after everything is said and done and there are no more cleaning kits and you have nothing but dirty crappy mudstained ammo. Ho will the Saiga /AK Fsir then? They will whoop any AK on the market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... I think the only people who would disagree are hard-core target shooters. They might, maybe, say that you should use the same stock configuration, sights, and a similar weight trigger, (compared to your competition gun that is) as often as possible (regardless of the action of the rifle) to hone your skills. Even then, most of them like informal shooting too. But I doubt that too many people actually put emphasis on "training" with a weapon. For most, a gun is just something that's fun or useful to have, not a tool to be used when its needed. That, would be too much like work. That said, I agree that knowing different weapon systems is a great idea.

 

In fact, I would go so far as to say that you don't even necessarily need to have ever fired a particular weapon to be familiar with it. I try to read as much as I can on different weapons: disassembly, controls, history, design, reviews... There is a lot to be learned, and it doesn't ever hurt to know more about this stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, I dont think you need to train as in "qualify as expert". But it doesn't hurt to have at least handled and shot one. You can read about it and look at picturtes, but the first time you hear the spring sound on an AR its distracting. Not so sure I would want that to happen when I am trying to kill something. Much less know where the bolt release is and have some knowledge of what to do when field stripping, reference material is good, but it doesnt replace hand on experience.

 

I have not found any gun to be 100% reliable if the ammo isn't good, so the theory that an AK will function always could be a serious mistake if your life depends on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh, I dont think you need to train as in "qualify as expert".  But it doesn't hurt to have at least handled and shot one.  You can read about it and look at picturtes, but the first time you hear the spring sound on an AR its distracting.  Not so sure I would want that to happen when I am trying to kill something.  Much less know where the bolt release is and have some knowledge of what to do when field stripping, reference material is good, but it doesnt replace hand on experience.

 

I have not found any gun to be 100% reliable if the ammo isn't good, so the theory that an AK will function always could be a serious mistake if your life depends on it.

 

Not always Just more often then an AR in similar conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

stokstad-

Not always Just more often then an AR in similar conditions.
In my expereience using both side by side, same conditions same ammo they both suffered the same when it was ammo related. A stove pipe is a stove pipe, whether its a single shot or a SAW ;)

 

I don't own weapons for some possible scenario, I own them because I use them. And I try not to dismiss a weapon from what I hear 2nd and 3rd hand. I live in a semi desert, we have sand and grit that gets in everywhere, I shoot dirty ammo and don't clean the AR at a specific round count and haven't had failures from it being simply dirty. So from experience, I dont have anything against the rifle myself.

 

 

 

but it sure as hell could help

 

No doubt, but it still isn't the same as doing it, even once. When you absolutely need to know already, its not the time to be learning. Not that reference material is bad. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
It aint always the rifle....

Biggest problem with the Saiga and the AK, as was said earlier is the sights.

 

 

Sights, I thought you were going to say something about the shooter!!!

 

:lolol::lolol::lolol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
It aint always the rifle....

Biggest problem with the Saiga and the AK, as was said earlier is the sights.

 

 

Sights, I thought you were going to say something about the shooter!!!

 

:lolol::lolol::lolol:

Well you have a point there sir :lolol:

Combine the Saiga rear sight, with it's wide notch, with a poor shooter and you get really poor groups. :haha:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apples to apples. . .I use both in my IDPA club's rifle and 3 gun matches. I prefer my Saiga AK-101 clone. The AK trigger is inherently of a design that is user and performance friendly. The Colt M-4, like the Saiga, is the state of the art current mil issue for both countries. The Saiga is simply an AK 100 series rifle that has been dressed up and modified to sell in the sporter market. After you put her back the way she was intended tp be, it's a 100 series minus the receiver dimple.

 

The AR uses a sear ledge on the hammer that is a 600 year old technology. Matchlocks used it. You have to pull the trigger out of the notch in the hammer. The AR makes it worse by cutting the ledge less than 90 degrees so the trigger must tear itself out of the notch to release the hammer. In the AK, the hammer naturally rolls out of the hooks. Nothing is smoother for tactical firing with accuracy.

 

Both rifles have Kobra optics and a '74-style brake, which is very effective, although the one on the AR is of a slightly different design. They both are roughly 2.5 to 3 MOA guns as they sit. When I recrown the AK, I expect that to improve noticeably. I am kicking ass on the AR crowd with all their ninja attachments and their carbine class diplomas (I don't have any).

 

28817101_front_flatmuzzle_down.JPG

 

28817ar_right_front.JPG

Edited by inparidel
Link to post
Share on other sites

The G2 trigger is much nicer feeling that the milspec AR trigger, but it is not as good as the Rock River 2 stage match trigger is. The red star trigger is roughly the same though.

 

Matches are interesting but a lot of times it has more to do with who has practised more than who has the better riflke. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The G2 trigger is much nicer feeling that the milspec AR trigger, but it is not as good as the Rock River 2 stage match trigger is.  The red star trigger is roughly the same though.

 

Matches are interesting but a lot of times it has more to do with who has practised more than who has the better riflke. ;)

 

It's the old, "is it the arrow, or the Indian" argument. These guys throw thousands of rounds downrange at all sorts of carbine courses and classes. I don't have the time or the inclination to do that. I only shoot at the matches, and I still finish in the top three consistently.

 

As far as the arrow or Indian goes. . .I used to finish in the top five to ten out of 30 to 40 shooters with the AR, so I guess the Indian has some talent. The AK gave me the boost to top three. So, I guess that passes for some kind of empirical test, eh? Maybe?

 

Having said that, roger that on the standard mil AR trigger group. I never bothered to "upgrade," but then again as far as the arrow goes. . .I never had to with the AK.

Edited by inparidel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

IndyArms,

 

I keep getting distracted by your great avatar. :super:

 

Anyway, in my limited experience the Saiga .223 can be as accurate as a stock AR15. A long time ago I posted about a competition we had involving a bunch of the boys and a few of the parents from my neighborhood. It was the stock Saiga .223 vs AR15 with muzzlebreak.

 

The highest scores from both the boys and the parents came from the Saiga. The Saiga didn't group as consistantly, but was on target more often.

 

Since then I've converted the Saiga to pistol grip, and we're looking at doing a rematch sometime in the next two months. Now that I have the G2 trigger and a pistol grip setup (more ergonomic for me) in the Saiga, I'm really looking forward to it's performance against the Bushmaster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...