Variations in AK accuracy by manufacturer: Reasons?

[stud40111 1]

Hi. I have a few, interrelated questions regarding what accounts for the differences in accuracy among AKs and AK variants (e.g. Saiga, Mak-90, etc.) from different manufacturers. When answering, understand that all the questions are being asked with the assumption that "all things equal", e.g. same shooter, same ammo, etc. Furthermore, please no general, vague answers like "quality control' or "better materials", etc. If that is part of the answer, expand on it so its much clearer what you mean. Ok, here goes:

 

1) At around how many yards does the difference in accuracy between a "low-end" AK, such as a WASR-10, and a "high-end" AK, such as a converted Saiga, become noticeable? 50 yards? 100? More? Less?

 

2) Which parts of an AK (or AK variant) are most pivotal in influencing its overall accuracy? Receiver? Barrel? Something else? And if it is a specific part or parts, what makes one of a "higher quality" or "more capable" when it comes to increasing accuracy?

[SaigaNoobie 66]

First and foremost, the real accuracy is found in ammo.

 

My Saiga .308 can shoot really well with good .308 ammo, and can shoot really poorly with Brown-Bear cheapo steel cased ammo.

 

I'm talking 1.25" groups with good ammo and 6" groups with crap @ 100 yards.

 

Now, that aside, the things that make one gun more accurate are:

 

Heavier Barrel - Allowing for less expansion when the barrel heats up, thus keeping the barrel more consistent shot-to-shot.

Tighter Lockup - When the bolt locks into the lugs, the more consistent this happens, the more accurate.

Trigger - A better trigger will allow better control and will be easier to release the cartridge when the cross-hairs are at the right spot.

Optics/Optic Attachment Points - A good optic that has a good point of attachment will provide much better accuracy than Iron sights because it allows you to be more consistent on the point of aim.

[stud40111 1]

SN13, how much of a role does the receiver play with respect to accuracy?

 

Additionally, all things (such as operator ability, ammo, etc.) being equal, at around how many yards does the different in accuracy of, say, a WASR-10 and a Saiga become noticeable?

[rob-cubed 74]

Every AK that rolls of a typical factory line is not created equal. I've shot a few WASRs that were surprisingly tight. And a lot more that weren't. Saigas are a little more consistent but still show variation... it's baked right into the AK design. Loose tolerances and tiny manufacturing differences, like the fit of various components and the riveting, add up to differences in accuracy.

 

But the two biggest factors are the ammo and the barrel. A gun does not need a milled receiver to be accurate, but it will almost always benefit from a heavier/better barrel. For this reason the RPK variants (Yugos and VEPRs) are usually pretty good, as well as the "match" AKs that came out of China. No other AK I own can touch my VEPR for accuracy.

 

Good ammo makes a huge difference and will cut your groups up to half, regardless of the gun. Sometimes just switching between various milsurp will make a difference, again the small tolerances add up and some guns just "like" certain ammo more.

 

You will notice a difference in accuracy at 100 yards or less, it just won't be as pronounced. At longer distances groups open up even more. AKs were not really intended to be minute-of-man past 3-400 meters. Most will do what they were designed to do.

[L5K 162]

1) At around how many yards does the difference in accuracy between a "low-end" AK, such as a WASR-10, and a "high-end" AK, such as a converted Saiga, become noticeable? 50 yards? 100? More? Less?

 

2) Which parts of an AK (or AK variant) are most pivotal in influencing its overall accuracy? Receiver? Barrel? Something else? And if it is a specific part or parts, what makes one of a "higher quality" or "more capable" when it comes to increasing accuracy?

 

Given that everything is the same (caliber, shooter, sights) A WASR 10 should shoot just as well as a converted 7.62 Saiga. They are both the same 1mm stamped pattern for the receiver. They are built the same way, and if the sights are on, then they will both exhibit about the same accuracy. This is the AK game, and the design itself is the weak point in making it a target rifle. They are designed to be accurate in battle, as a mass produced, cheaply made, easy to maintain weapon. They all shoot for this purpose. If you want to squeeze accuracy out of a variant, you need to be looking for AK variants with the thicker receivers, heavier and/or longer barrels, and most importantly, a more accurate round. WASR 10 to 7.62 Saiga is pretty much the same rifle. The advantage the Saiga has over the WASR is that it is built out of brand new parts, where as WASR's are built out of demilled rifles that are then rebuilt on single stack receivers. Oh, and the Saiga says "Russia" on the side. Other than that. Differences in accuracy are negligible.

 

Even the Russians know the AK design just doesn't lend itself to accuracy. Which is exactly why they used Dragunov's SVD design instead of Kalashnikov's PSL like the Romanians did for a longer range rifle.

[stud40111 1]

L5k,

 

would you care to expand on how the thickness of the receiver has a bearing on the accuracy?

 

Additionally, you said that " The advantage the Saiga has over the WASR is that it is built out of brand new parts, where as WASR's are built out of demilled rifles that are then rebuilt on single stack receivers." So if the brand new parts don't contribute to accuracy, why are they an advantage? Is it simply because it means it will have a longer life? Or is there some other advantage to it?

 

More generally, I think it would be fair to say, based on everybody's posts, that there is broad agreement that theone part that can definitely contribute to the accuracy of the AK is a heavier barrel. Would everyone say that's about right?

 

I'm surprised to hear that, generally speaking, the WASR-10, all things being equal, including the sights, should be as accurate as a converted Saiga. I guess that the WASR-10 I'm using must have badly canted sights, something that I've heard is not uncommon to find in AKs.

 

I'd still be interested in hearing other people's opinions and insights as well, so please keep chiming in.

[Dudethebagman 222]

Don't overlook the crown. This is not so much a WASR vs. Saiga issue as it is an issue of an individual rifle.

 

Also, within the range limitation of the 7.62 x 39 cartridge, how much accuracy do you need?

 

I mean, if you're limited to a practical range of ~300 yards, whether your rifle shoots 2 or 4 moa isn't really that important. If you're shooting 300 yards, your rifle will hit within 3-6 inches of your point of aim if you calculated correctly for the drop and windage. If you need to make a tight shot at or past that range, you should rethink your choice of cartridge or whether you should even be taking the shot. 7.62 x 39 is not a particularly aerodynamic bullet, and has already bled off more than half of its muzzle energy at that range.

 

If you're talking about defensive scenarios, you aren't going to have time to worry about whether you are shooting for the left eye or the right. You're going to be shooting for center mass without aiming as carefully as you probably would otherwise.

 

Shooter, ammo, and sights will make the biggest practical difference. I know you said "all other things equal," but other things are rarely equal. The same ammo will probably shoot differently in two different rifles. That doesn't mean one is more accurate than the other. It means one prefers a specific bullet shape, weight, speed, etc. Part of the equation is finding a load the individual rifle shoots well.

 

Caliber and barrel twist are also important factors to consider. A 223 AK with a 1 in 7 twist will shoot heavier bullets more accurately at longer range than a 1 in 9 twist 223 AK will. From a practical standpoint, a 308 AK will shoot more accurately than either at long range just because a heavier bullet has more inertia and will be less affected by the wind.

 

I know that's not exactly what you asked, but using the right tool for the job kind of makes the quality of the wrong tool irrelevant.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Dudethebagman

[jimdigriz 580]

I'm surprised to hear that, generally speaking, the WASR-10, all things being equal, including the sights, should be as accurate as a converted Saiga.

 

I'm not sure I believe that...

[joebanda1213 59]

Just a Quote from the magazine Im reading at the moment

 

"The whole accuracy thing is a strange deal. There are things that they do at the factory that screws up accuracy. One is fitting the barrel to tightly. They hourglass the barrel when it is pressed on too tight. I have gotten AK74s to shoot 3/4 moa. How do you accurize an AK? You put a little preasure on the gas tube, you make sure the forend is not too tight fore and aft and you make sure the fittings arent too tight." - Marc Krebs

 

Basically you have two AKs with the same parts I beleive building the Aks right can have a significant effect on variations in accuracy. Thats why I like saigas... been built by the masters in the industry for a while. Russians also have better chrome linings in there barrels than US made barrels due to EPA restraints. Yet I believe chrome lined barrels decrease accuracy.

 

Parts and builder play a big role

Choose wisely My friend

[L5K 162]

Take a look at an AK firing in slow motion. The entire receiver flexes, a thicker receiver will flex less, and thus, contribute to accuracy, just like a thicker barrel. The reason brand new parts are better, is because the more rounds you force down a barrel, the more it wears out. A factory new barrel from Izhmash will have had less rounds forced down it than a barrel removed from a rifle and built into another rifle. New barrel is where you would get any increase in accuracy. In the AK game, more money gets you prettier rifles, or collector rifles, not necessarily accuracy. The AK is not, and never will be a tack driver. They are meant for shooting targets roughly the size of human beings, at ranges between 0 and 300ish meters on average. They do this very well. If you want a bench rifle, any AK design is not the place to start. The weak link is the design itself, not in the manufacturers. Even my Saiga in 5.45 had a canted front sight on it. Let alone the stories of "vodka specials" floating around. Izhmash is just another AK manufacturer.

[YEL13 3]

Take a look at an AK firing in slow motion. The entire receiver flexes, a thicker receiver will flex less, and thus, contribute to accuracy, just like a thicker barrel. The reason brand new parts are better, is because the more rounds you force down a barrel, the more it wears out. A factory new barrel from Izhmash will have had less rounds forced down it than a barrel removed from a rifle and built into another rifle. New barrel is where you would get any increase in accuracy. In the AK game, more money gets you prettier rifles, or collector rifles, not necessarily accuracy. The AK is not, and never will be a tack driver. They are meant for shooting targets roughly the size of human beings, at ranges between 0 and 300ish meters on average. They do this very well. If you want a bench rifle, any AK design is not the place to start. The weak link is the design itself, not in the manufacturers. Even my Saiga in 5.45 had a canted front sight on it. Let alone the stories of "vodka specials" floating around. Izhmash is just another AK manufacturer.

 

That and most Kalashnikov style rifles have the stamped 1mm receiver, which will be a little lighter than your typical milled receiver. Being both lighter and thinner than a milled reciever will cause some extra vibration, its just the name of the game. Another thing I don't think anyone else has touched on yet is chrome vs. non-chrome lined barrel, from all I've come to understand a non-chrome lined barrel when properly cleaned (with regards to shooting corrosive surplus ammuniton) will generally shoot slightly better than a chrome lined one. The reason for this is any imperfections in the rifling, be it slightly "off" twist rate, or bumps or swells that shouldnt be there, even though incredibly miniscule, will be excentuated by the chrome lining. Other than that I think most everything else has been touched on.

[Joesmoe 14]

With some of the range reports I've seen in here regarding the saiga .308's, and what I've seen ar-10's do I'd say that the ak design can be accurate, and I think that what Marc Krebs said in his magazine article is right on with what screws some ak's accuracy up.

[Dudethebagman 222]

Take a look at an AK firing in slow motion. The entire receiver flexes, a thicker receiver will flex less, and thus, contribute to accuracy, just like a thicker barrel. The reason brand new parts are better, is because the more rounds you force down a barrel, the more it wears out. A factory new barrel from Izhmash will have had less rounds forced down it than a barrel removed from a rifle and built into another rifle. New barrel is where you would get any increase in accuracy. In the AK game, more money gets you prettier rifles, or collector rifles, not necessarily accuracy. The AK is not, and never will be a tack driver. They are meant for shooting targets roughly the size of human beings, at ranges between 0 and 300ish meters on average. They do this very well. If you want a bench rifle, any AK design is not the place to start. The weak link is the design itself, not in the manufacturers. Even my Saiga in 5.45 had a canted front sight on it. Let alone the stories of "vodka specials" floating around. Izhmash is just another AK manufacturer.

 

I'm not saying that a stamped receiver doesn't flex and affect accuracy to some infinitesimal degree, but I think people greatly exaggerate the actual effects of this.

 

Most of what you see in those slow motion videos is the cleaning rod and magazine bouncing around, not the receiver. To the extent that the receiver does flex, the bullet's probably long gone, and the bolt has already unlocked and ejected the cartridge. Most of what looks like flex in those videos is the cleaning rod bouncing around and the "rubber pencil effect" from the rifle recoiling into someone's mushy shoulder (mostly water) and bouncing around due to the angle of the stock or a slant brake overcompensating for muzzle rise.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeeeFxA_9nA

 

Here's one where the rifle is being held by god knows what, but the trigger is being pulled with a rope. You'll see the rifle move under recoil and the bolt carrier bouncing around after ejecting the cartridge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X3O6wrKCBM

 

This is invariably then compared to an AR 15, which has a straght-line stock from the bore and fires a lower recoil cartridge. Really that only proves that an AR 15 has less recoil and muzzle rise than an AK 47.

 

No one ever argues that an AR 15 receiver flexes, even though it's made out of aluminum. It would be a silly argument too, but would fly in the face of the conventional wisdom of "AR = accurate but not reliable, AK = reliable but not accurate."

 

One primary difference in accuracy is, like you noted, the slop designed into the AK. Another difference is that people don't expect AK's to be accurate because of the conventional wisdom, so they do mag dumps of Wolf Ammo rather than trying to shoot for accuracy with good ammo when the rifle's not too hot to touch. Another difference is that people are always comparing an abused $350 WASR to a pristine and babied $1500 bench rest AR. That and the damn front sight post of an AK covers about 6 inches at 100 yards.

 

You're right that they're never going to compete with a precision rifle for shooting groups on paper at 900 yards. You're also right that that's not the point. If my scoped Saiga 308 can shoot 1 1/4 MOA and cycle reliably (it can), I'll take it over an AR 10 that can shoot 1/2 MOA and cycle hopefully. How much accuracy do you need? A 1/4 MOA rifle is only a 4 MOA rifle in the hands of a 4 MOA shooter. I'll trade off that .75 MOA for reliability any day of the week.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Dudethebagman

[Dudethebagman 222]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_yLKCHMHlc&NR=1[

 

 

Rubber pencil effect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMGctVBmLzk

Edited April 15, 2011 by Dudethebagman

[rob-cubed 74]

I'd agree that receiver matters less than people think. The AK was designed to be a 1mm stamped receiver gun and the milled versions were a stopgap while they worked some manufacturing bugs out. I'm not a great marksman, but others have taken home-built AKs with 1mm receivers out to 5-700 yards reliably. If flex was a huge issue, you'd think it would really affect a home-rolled build without a hardened receiver. It definitely depends a lot on the individual gun, as any two AKs rolling of the same assembly line will exhibit differences in MOA.

 

As an example of whether a heavier receiver will make a big difference, I've shot my MAK90 next to the VEPR. Both have heavier 1.5mm receivers but the VEPR also has a heavier trunnion and barrel. It's significantly more accurate than the MAK, and measurably better than my friend's Polytech with a milled receiver. Now again, I'm comparing examples of three specific builds and maybe I lucked out and got a good VEPR and an average MAK. But I'm willing to put money on the fact that the heavier barrel on the VEPR makes the difference. I'm really curious to put the VEPR up against a fixed-stock Yugo one of these days since they are both RPK variants.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

I've shot my 7.62x39 Saiga with a scope and hit 18" plates at 600 yards.(With a 3-9x optic). (about 60% of the time i'd hit the plate.)

 

Now, hitting a 12" plate at the same distance was almost impossible. (think i hit it 10% of the time)

 

I'm an average size guy and my torso is only 14" wide. SO i'd reckon that a 400-500 yard Maximum effective range for the 7.62x39 Saiga. (Mine has a 20" barrel Btw)

 

 

 

If you really want better accuracy, buy better ammo. The Saiga already has one of the best Factory AK barrels you can find. Don't waste your money on "Milled" receivers. They add weight and don't do shit for accuracy imo.

[BuffetDestroyer 969]

If you are bench resting and scoping a Saiga (which I have done), you can expect an average of 1.5-3 MOA with most factory ammo. I have tried Lapua, Wolf, Brown Bear & Uly. I have gotten groups down to a third of an inch for 3 shots, but it will not do that repeatedly or for more rounds in a group and again averages between 1.5 MOA to 3 MOA depending on the ammo.

 

For 1 shot hits on targets out to 500 yards, the worst groups that I tested at 100 yards will still be on a 15" plate in ideal conditions. The shooter's ability to hold, judge wind, judge distance are going to play the more important role in being able to do this at this distance from a fully supported position. The real world isn't a gravity-free, windless, dry place set at a constant temperature and atmospheric pressure. These factors are usually negligible out to 250+/- yards, but past that distance become very important to compensate for in order to put the round where you want it to go.

 

From an unsupported position, your rifle's inherent accuracy will be far less important than the shooter's ability to hold it steady with a good trigger squeeze and follow through. I doubt that many shooters can hold better than 5 MOA unsupported unless they are extremely practiced or competition shooters that use precision sights and setups that are ergonomically designed for maximum stability.

 

 

 

Regarding barrel wear, hammer forged barrels (what the Russians use) will typically be more consistent new than button rifled barrels (many new American made barrels use this) will with equal quality steel blanks and equipment. This has to do with the imperfections and sharpness of the cutting tool that makes the rifling. It will leave tiny ridges and bumps (machining marks) that create inconsistent drag on the bullet which will cause copper fouling that changes from shot to shot. A broken in barrel that was button rifled should be more accurate than a new one as it has been smoothed out or fire lapped which wears the machine marks away. The hammer forging process uses a mandrel that forms the grooves in the barrel from external pressure pushing around it and thus has a typically smoother and more consistent internal finish from barrel to barrel as well as the twist rate which will vary slightly on button rifled barrels.

 

Hand lapping is the process of smoothing out a barrel by moving a soft metal rod back and forth through the barrel to manually smooth out/polish these imperfections. Most AK barrels probably don't get this special treatment and the addition of chrome lining creates additional inconsistencies since the metal is no longer homogeneous.

[Dudethebagman 222]

I'm not saying that the bullet won't make it out that far, but past 300 yards it starts to drop like a rock. Where exactly will the bullet hit at 462 yards? You'd better have a rangefinder, a calculator, and some math skills if you're shooting at anything other than a stationary target at a known distance.

 

I'm not saying it isn't possible to shoot at that range, but it isn't practical. Miscalculating 20 yards of distance might result in a complete miss.

 

http://www.shootingt...mm_russian.html

Edited April 15, 2011 by Dudethebagman

[SaigaNoobie 66]

Dude, for the 600 yard target, just set the leaf sight to 600 and it's close enough. (yes i shot the 600 yard target with irons as well but with worse results)

[SaigaNoobie 66]

PLEASE TAKE NOTE:

 

These videos are of Milled receivers... they still flex. Don't waste your money on "Milled" receivers for better rigidity...

 

Take a look at an AK firing in slow motion. The entire receiver flexes, a thicker receiver will flex less, and thus, contribute to accuracy, just like a thicker barrel. The reason brand new parts are better, is because the more rounds you force down a barrel, the more it wears out. A factory new barrel from Izhmash will have had less rounds forced down it than a barrel removed from a rifle and built into another rifle. New barrel is where you would get any increase in accuracy. In the AK game, more money gets you prettier rifles, or collector rifles, not necessarily accuracy. The AK is not, and never will be a tack driver. They are meant for shooting targets roughly the size of human beings, at ranges between 0 and 300ish meters on average. They do this very well. If you want a bench rifle, any AK design is not the place to start. The weak link is the design itself, not in the manufacturers. Even my Saiga in 5.45 had a canted front sight on it. Let alone the stories of "vodka specials" floating around. Izhmash is just another AK manufacturer.

 

I'm not saying that a stamped receiver doesn't flex and affect accuracy to some infinitesimal degree, but I think people greatly exaggerate the actual effects of this.

 

Most of what you see in those slow motion videos is the cleaning rod and magazine bouncing around, not the receiver. To the extent that the receiver does flex, the bullet's probably long gone, and the bolt has already unlocked and ejected the cartridge. Most of what looks like flex in those videos is the cleaning rod bouncing around and the "rubber pencil effect" from the rifle recoiling into someone's mushy shoulder (mostly water) and bouncing around due to the angle of the stock or a slant brake overcompensating for muzzle rise.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeeeFxA_9nA

 

Here's one where the rifle is being held by god knows what, but the trigger is being pulled with a rope. You'll see the rifle move under recoil and the bolt carrier bouncing around after ejecting the cartridge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X3O6wrKCBM

 

This is invariably then compared to an AR 15, which has a straght-line stock from the bore and fires a lower recoil cartridge. Really that only proves that an AR 15 has less recoil and muzzle rise than an AK 47.

 

No one ever argues that an AR 15 receiver flexes, even though it's made out of aluminum. It would be a silly argument too, but would fly in the face of the conventional wisdom of "AR = accurate but not reliable, AK = reliable but not accurate."

 

One primary difference in accuracy is, like you noted, the slop designed into the AK. Another difference is that people don't expect AK's to be accurate because of the conventional wisdom, so they do mag dumps of Wolf Ammo rather than trying to shoot for accuracy with good ammo when the rifle's not too hot to touch. Another difference is that people are always comparing an abused $350 WASR to a pristine and babied $1500 bench rest AR. That and the damn front sight post of an AK covers about 6 inches at 100 yards.

 

You're right that they're never going to compete with a precision rifle for shooting groups on paper at 900 yards. You're also right that that's not the point. If my scoped Saiga 308 can shoot 1 1/4 MOA and cycle reliably (it can), I'll take it over an AR 10 that can shoot 1/2 MOA and cycle hopefully. How much accuracy do you need? A 1/4 MOA rifle is only a 4 MOA rifle in the hands of a 4 MOA shooter. I'll trade off that .75 MOA for reliability any day of the week.

[Dudethebagman 222]

Good catch. I didn't even notice. I guess the dimples do look distinctly different.

[m1lk 26]

its amazing how every little nuance makes a difference in such a simple design.

 

seems assembly makes a big difference as well

[shades_of_grey 1,092]

1) At around how many yards does the difference in accuracy between a "low-end" AK, such as a WASR-10, and a "high-end" AK, such as a converted Saiga, become noticeable? 50 yards? 100? More? Less?

 

2) Which parts of an AK (or AK variant) are most pivotal in influencing its overall accuracy? Receiver? Barrel? Something else? And if it is a specific part or parts, what makes one of a "higher quality" or "more capable" when it comes to increasing accuracy?

 

Given that everything is the same (caliber, shooter, sights) A WASR 10 should shoot just as well as a converted 7.62 Saiga. They are both the same 1mm stamped pattern for the receiver. They are built the same way, and if the sights are on, then they will both exhibit about the same accuracy...

 

That's not exactly true. WASR-10's are AKM pattern rifles, while Saigas are AK-100 pattern. I don't agree that WASR rifles usually shoot "just as well as a converted 7.62 Saiga". While the AKM design should be just about as accurate as the AK-100; I think Izhmash rifle, (unlike shotgun), QC is very good, while Cugir's, (Romanian), is often awful.

 

ymmv.

Edited April 20, 2011 by post-apocalyptic

[WhiskeyMinion 300]

I think Izhmash rifle, (unlike shotgun), QC is very good, while Cugir's, (Romanian), is often awful.

 

Every Romy I've owned, that Century hasn't "assembled", has functioned fine and are as accurate as my Norinco.

 

Cugir has gotten a bad name by dealing with CAI

[rob-cubed 74]

My WASR is less accurate than any of my Saigas. They all run 2-3MOA or better and my WASR is 5-6MOA, about twice that. A friend's WASR (since sold) was even worse, we couldn't get groups under 10" or so. But I've also shot another friend's WASR that did at least as good as my Saigas.

 

One of the issues with WASRs is they build them based on whatever is available: parts from demilled rifles, both matching and unmatching, in various states of wear and spanning a couple of decades--to "cast off" parts that didn't make spec, to virgin parts. Barrels can also vary in condition from used but good to arsenal seconds to brand new. I'd say categorically that the quality of their builds can suffer too, seen a couple of popped rivets and a few that had feed/ejection issues. I wouldn't call them crap rifles by any stretch, most of them shoot just fine but they do exhibit less consistency than rifles built and fitted with all new virgin parts. Older Romy rifles and G kits tend to be more consistent.

Edited April 20, 2011 by rob-cubed

[WhiskeyMinion 300]

Never owned a WASR, although I have been tempted @ FleetFarm. Haven't owned a Saiga rifle yet either though. Going to pick up a 308 to convert sooner or later