AR versus AK

[Gabe Suarez]

Regardless, the issue is will the AK provide that level of accuracy at 200 yards? My contention is yes it will. At Kalashnikov I, we had folks brand new to the AK hitting a steel gong at 180 yards...and that was with cheapo Wolf training ammo after two days of shooting.

[Wylycoyte]

So I'm not so sure that the Texas Tower incident is so much an argument against a short to midrange rifle as it is an argument FOR the fact that it all ends up being really close in the end.

I think that'd be a really flawed argument.

[Randy Harris]

Guys WITH rifles that we typically think of as LONG range rifles compared to AKs could not end the fight. It took a "boarding party" to climb the stairs and finish the guy off at CLOSE range.

No one here is going to say the Ak is more intrinsicly accurate than their bolt action deer rifle is, but these guys still couldn't hit him with their deer rifles.

So though the AK is not a "long range" gun, even the "long range" guns couldn't get the job done and they HAD to get closer to stop him.

So in a case where an Ak might be argued to not be accurate enough, the rifles that WOULD be accurate enough STILL didn't hit him either.

So what had to happen? Close the distance to mere FEET from the guy where an AK (or a freakin flintlock pistol) would be WELL within its effective range.

That was my point.

We CAN use this as an instance where an AK might not be accurate enough, but remember , Whitman was shot at CLOSE range ON THE TOWER.

[Wylycoyte]

the fact that it all ends up being really close in the end.

Please read that statement and see where someone might find objections or exceptions. That was my point.

[kevinstruemph]

Those of you who were at AK I, or who have combat experience with the AK, do you advocate sighting the rifle at 25 meters/yds, or sighting it at 100 meters/yds and then shoot it to gauge POA/POI at 25? A previous thread suggested sighting it in at 25 or 50, but I was wondering if SonnyP had insight into this matter?

Honestly, when I move and shoot with the rifle my target looks like it's been shotgunned. Is this unusual, or just reflective of my level of training/skill up to this point? This seems even more pronounced than when done with my pistol. Advice is appreciated.

Kevin

[Karl Kasarda]

I think limiting one self to 100 yards or less in regards to training is a potentially dangerous thing. I, personally, am striving to be as well rounded as possible, and that includes CQB as well as long range training.

I agree completely that the AK is a very effective rifle/tool for 200 yards or less, and that it's got a lot going for it.

However, if it were the end of the world as we know it, personally, I'm going to do my best to avoid urban combat.

In the southwestern US, 600 yard distances aren't hard to come by.

This is hypothetical, of course, but if the army of *.* attacked the southern border, I'm certainly going to do my best to engage from as far away as I know I am capable of achieving results. 200 yards is too close for my comfort.

That being said, everything has it's purpose...and the odds of the army of *.* attacking are less than the possibility of just dealing with scum/gangs/home invasion, and there's no doubt in my mind that the AK holds many, many merits for this.

[Section1_Operations]

CHL-

It's no small note that Whitman's end was made possible by those on the ground who provided cover fire to allow the entry team access to the tower. Without that fire who can say how much longer the situation would have dragged out.

In regards to the idea that he wasn't incapacitated from ground fire is a shame but the slats in the parapet he was using gave him the superior position. I doubt any of the on hand rifles used were of the kind we think of today for precision shooting. The fact he wasn't incapacitated from the ground fire isn't hard to believe given the facts of his setup. His position could really only be taken from behind or above.

Gabe-

Out of curiosity what was the size of the gong used for the ~180yrd shots - with Wolf ammo that's good?

As an aside did you observe any increase in the accuracy of those using 5.45x39 or decrease in the Krink style rifle?

[Randy Harris]

Please read that statement and see where someone might find objections or exceptions. That was my point.

I can see where you might make an argument that long distance engagements are not out of the realm of possibility. But even today in military rifle combat the average distance is 25 to 50 YARDS. The days are gone when well trained riflemen engaged each other at 600 yards.

Afghanistan is an anomoly in that engagement distances are ABNORMALLY long due to terrain. But in Fallujah engagement distances were typically at "across the street" distance.

Typically anything we will encounter in the US (short of "End of the World as we know it") will be well under 100 yds. At under 100 (and frankly out to 200) the Ak will be more than sufficient in the accuracy dept.

I have a feeling that you and I just are not seeing exactly what the other is saying. The internet is not exactly the best communication medium. Just that from what my study has shown, actual confrontation distances keep getting shorter not longer.


Ps CeramicGod,
I never intended anyone to think that I was saying that they should limit their training to short distance. Otherwise I'd say just get a shotgun with buckshot and be done with it! By all means, get as good with your chosen system as you can at ALL distances. But spending ALL your time shooting at 100+ yards when the threat will be overwhelmingly likely to be closer, is maybe not optimal use of practice time either.

I find it humerous when guys have targets set up at 15 yards shooting SLOWLY and point to their nice little groups saying they are "READY" when they have ZERO hand to hand skills, never practivce drawing from concealment and have NEVER fired their pistol from retention at contact distance which will be WAY more likely to be what they will really face. I just think it is best to spend the majority of time practicing for what is MOST likely.

And yes for MULTI hundred yard shooting I'd ditch the AK grab my M1A if I had the opportunity.;) Different tools for different jobs.

and PSS- Section1,

I guess what I was trying to get across was that in the Whitman case NO ONE was able to hit him with rifle fire, so the rifle system or accuracy of that system was really a moot point. An Ak would have been perfectly fine to keep his head down. Taking the tower was just "fire and manuever" warfare by civillians and cops. Again the internet doesn't always get the intention across clearly. I agree there COULD be situations where the AK COULD be a handicap, but those are "once every hundred years" events in the US. Sure if I start shooting at you 450 yards away with my M1a, I will be more likely to hit you first than if you have an AK. But in reality WHEN does that happen? That was my point. NO SYSTEM or caliber does EVERYTHING well. There are always trade offs and concessions. But the idea is to try to determine what is most likely in your particular AO and arm yourself accordingly.

[Gabe Suarez]

Accuracy between the two AK calibers was IMHO, comparable. We didn't shoot for groups, but perhaps we'll do that next time.

The "gong" is a man shaped piece of metal, about the size of an IPSC target. We were hitting it with pistols too.

[vlazlow]

Wow, AK vs. AR; with out a doubt, a subject sure to stir the pot.

I think part of the problem is comparing apples and oranges. Comparing an AK to an AR is like comparing a Chevy pick up to a Bentley. Sure, they are both automobiles, can get you from point A to point B, but each has its own abilities and weaknesses.

The AR and AK platforms come from two vastly different cultures and with a different mind set. The Soviet model was to pump out a lot of product using semi-skilled labor and issue the rifle to conscripted troops that may not even speak Russian. The weapon had to be robust, simple, and cheap. Minute of man accuracy was more than adequate for the tactics of the Red army. Study their tactics and Order of Battle and you see what I mean. Remember the Red Army had tremendous losses during WWII and had many new NCOs and officers.

I have a Belarus tractor that is built on this model. Not as fancy or as comfortable as a John Deere but I can still bush hog and plow with it.

Now we come to the AR: a very elegant rifle capable of tremendous accuracy. It was d452130esigned using the latest technology for the time, employing skilled workers under a DoD contract. The rifle was, and is, issued to literate, well trained troops who train in varying degrees in marksmanship. It is a Rifleman’s rifle. The AR is a true mechanical work of art built with close tolerances and an eye on precision.

The AR platform lends itself to a wide array of add on like optics, lights, and other cool stuff that seems to be all the rage today.

The AK platform cannot easily accept optics and some other add-ons. I am still not convinced that an AK is the place for optics. Neither the gas tube nor the receiver cover appear to be well suited for this task. I may be wrong but they don’t appear to be stable enough for the accuracy that optics can give.

All this being the case, I would probably grab my AK for TEOTWAWKI. It’s simple, rugged and can take a fail amount of abuse. The iron sights should be sufficient. The 7.63x39mm will do a job on cinder block and vehicle and should be sufficient to keep the Mongol hordes at bay.