National Gun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
well when i went to Kansas to see my sister, bother in law mark, and nephew. i went shooting with mark, he has an AK-47 (semi auto), and a bunch of other guns, but this is about the AK so...

We went to public hunting/shooting grounds AKA middle of the woods to shoot. My first time shooting a AK-47. at 50yds we set up a target in front of a mound of dirt, dead trees and bushes. mark zeroed it, I aimed it perfectly and hit the edge of the target(when i lined it up in the center), i aimed and fired it again still hit the paper but not what i was aiming for. i at the end of the clip only 5 hit out of 30 rounds.
then the next clip i fired it hit 6 out of 30 where i wanted them.
at the end i took two clips of ammo and walked 5 ft to the target and fired away (that was the fun part) the kick is not that bad but thats because of the weight hence a 7 year old can fire it with out getting kicked on his or her ass pardon my language

long story short AK-47 Sucks at accuracy and weight, i would not go hunting with it will probably miss and just spook the game. before i went shooting with mark, i hated the AK-47 and now that I've fired it I'm convinced its not a good gun to heavy and not good at accuracy

Accuracy: 3/10
weight: 4/10
power:6/10
range: ?
over all: 4/10
Grade: D-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
That day me and Mark fired about 200 rounds each.
 

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
55,725 Posts
I can agree with that range report. It mirrors my experiences with the AK47.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
give me a AR-15 over a ak-47
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,456 Posts
The Soviets are famous for designing something to be only as good as it needs to be, to accomplish a specific task. The AK-47 Assault Rifle was designed to be a short, to medium range battle rifle. In this capacity it excels all but perfectly. It gives up accuracy for function ability. Accuracy isn't that important in a short to medium range weapon. It will function in the absolute worst of conditions, that would stop an M-16/AR-15 dead in their tracks. This was proven in Viet Nam as well as the middle east, where M-16/AR-15 stoppages were, and still are, commonplace. It needs little to no lubrication to maintain reliability. Now, we are finding the best way to keep the M-4 running in the sandbox, is to run it dripping with lube. Something else a soldier need not have to worry about, that he now must. You must realize the AK-47 was not designed for hunting, target shooting, or any other type of sporting application. It was designed to KILL PEOPLE in short to medium range confrontations. It does this suberbly, as most all of the names of United States soldiers engraved on a Granite wall in Washington will attest to. It is also the most produced firearm in the entire world. In this regard, in my opinion it deserves an "A+" if graded in the proper way. In the same capacity I would give the M-16/AR-15 platform a "B". mostly because of the higher maintenance required to keep it running reliably. If the M-16/AR-15 has any advantage it would be in it's ability to engage targets at longer ranges because of it's inherently better accuracy. This would give it a major advantage in an ambush type of scenario where as the soldier with it could begin firing at a greater range tipping the odds of deadly hits in his favor over his AK-47 armed opponent. Bill T.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
well, i know it how and why it was designed. and i know that it was made for killing people not hunting or shooting comps. how can you kill somthing if it takes your intire mag to do the job, when you can aim a m16 and hit the target your aiming at.

if I am shooting at some one whom is trying to kill me, i want to get him before he can get me.

the russians took the design from the germens right after ww2.
 
G

·
wardog99s said:
well, i know it how and why it was designed. and i know that it was made for killing people not hunting or shooting comps. how can you kill somthing if it takes your intire mag to do the job, when you can aim a m16 and hit the target your aiming at.
if I am shooting at some one whom is trying to kill me, i want to get him before he can get me.
the russians took the design from the germens right after ww2.
It does not take a full mag to kill 7.62 x 39 has more power than the .223, The M16 is is of the same design, the AK-47 in the right hands can reach up too 200 yards. The M16 in the right hands can reach aroun 250 yards. To each his own I guess, but I my opinion the AK-47 is a far better platform due to its high reliability. The M16 has to be babied to some exstent. In a combat stiuation you do not always have time to clean your rifle after every 1000 rounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
It does not take a full mag to kill 7.62 x 39 has more power than the .223,
i ment it taking that much just to hit what your aiming at.
 
G

·
wardog99s said:
i ment it taking that much just to hit what your aiming at.
The AK-47 is plenty accurate for what it was designed for, close encounter. It was built to withstand the test of time, need an example, look at any 3rd world countries. It is the leading killer of people in firearms the world over, the ak-47 needs no approval rating from armchair commandos that take them to the range and try to shoot past their practical purpose, then go home and clean them. I have seen first hand what the sandbox does to the M16 rifle, the dirtier it gets the faster accuracy goes down, and the higher malfuctions go up, need and example vietnam, desert storm, the iraq war. The ak-47 is a simplistic rifle, less moving parts, fewer **** ups, the M16 is a great rifle dont get me wrong, it is just that the AK is a war horse, the M16 has problems. If you would chose to give up reliability for accuracy then you sir are insane. If any SHTF situation (god forbid) the ak will simply out rank the M16, The M16 has to be some what babied to some extent to keep the reliability up. I want a rifle I can depend on, the AK-47 is my rifle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
50yrds and only a few hit, im not that bad of a shot, even mark had truble and it was his gun, he knows how to shoot before the army it just profected his ability. He is better then me, you are most likely better then me. but i know i dont suck,espeshaly at that range.
 
G

·
You didn't say who made your Ak,some are built better than others.I have a lancaster that will stay inside 2in. at 50 yds.
 

·
Pro Gun Advocate
Joined
·
10,940 Posts
A guy at the range let he shoot his cheap Chinese AK-47 after I let him shoot one of my guns he was asking about.

The darn wooden stock was charred, it got so hot!
 
G

·
wardog99s said:
well when i went to Kansas to see my sister, bother in law mark, and nephew. i went shooting with mark, he has an AK-47 (semi auto), and a bunch of other guns, but this is about the AK so...

We went to public hunting/shooting grounds AKA middle of the woods to shoot. My first time shooting a AK-47. at 50yds we set up a target in front of a mound of dirt, dead trees and bushes. mark zeroed it, I aimed it perfectly and hit the edge of the target(when i lined it up in the center), i aimed and fired it again still hit the paper but not what i was aiming for. i at the end of the clip only 5 hit out of 30 rounds.
then the next clip i fired it hit 6 out of 30 where i wanted them.
at the end i took two clips of ammo and walked 5 ft to the target and fired away (that was the fun part) the kick is not that bad but thats because of the weight hence a 7 year old can fire it with out getting kicked on his or her ass pardon my language

long story short AK-47 Sucks at accuracy and weight, i would not go hunting with it will probably miss and just spook the game. before i went shooting with mark, i hated the AK-47 and now that I've fired it I'm convinced its not a good gun to heavy and not good at accuracy

Accuracy: 3/10
weight: 4/10
power:6/10
range: ?
over all: 4/10
Grade: D-
Hey wardog99 :evil: you said yourself this is the first time you shot an AK.
Probably some century POS, why don't you shoot a quality one (AK) before
you start bashing. As far as weight??? are you serious??? try lugging around
an M-14, FAL, HK93...the AK is lighter than all of them, matter of fact my Bushmaster
was heavier than an AK.

Try on of these on for size and I guarantee you will change your mind!!
 

·
Just Some Dude...
Joined
·
1,142 Posts
wardog99s said:
long story short AK-47 Sucks at accuracy and weight, i would not go hunting with it will probably miss and just spook the game. before i went shooting with mark, i hated the AK-47 and now that I've fired it I'm convinced its not a good gun to heavy and not good at accuracy
Keep in mind... the AK has never been known to be, or claimed to be... the most accurate. It is in no way considered a "hunting" rifle (why would you hunt with an AK?), and compared to hundreds of other rifles I've handled... it's not really a heavy gun. Unloaded, how many rifles of it's caliber are lighter? Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any... though there may be one or two.

It is a sloppy weapon... I agree.
BUT, YOU CANNOT ARGUE IT'S RELIABILITY!
Dirty, full of rocks and mud, beaten, warped, what have you... that AK will still fire!
The AK is an excellent C/Q combat rifle. :---

Besides... you say this is your first time shooting an AK. They do take a little practice to get used to. From a 100 yards, I may not put it between "their" eyes, but I assure you... "They" will CERTAINLY not survive, and not with using an entire mag either!

One last fact (from my experience anyway)... every time I go to the range, my Colt AR15 jams at least once towards the end of the day... and I clean it after EVERY trip. My AK however, has never failed... NOT EVEN ONCE, And it only gets cleaned every few trips out. I love my AR, but remember... a good AK in the right hands... Ain't No Joke!
 
G

·
billt said:
The Soviets are famous for designing something to be only as good as it needs to be, to accomplish a specific task. The AK-47 Assault Rifle was designed to be a short, to medium range battle rifle. In this capacity it excels all but perfectly. It gives up accuracy for function ability. Accuracy isn't that important in a short to medium range weapon. It will function in the absolute worst of conditions, that would stop an M-16/AR-15 dead in their tracks. This was proven in Viet Nam as well as the middle east, where M-16/AR-15 stoppages were, and still are, commonplace. It needs little to no lubrication to maintain reliability. Now, we are finding the best way to keep the M-4 running in the sandbox, is to run it dripping with lube. Something else a soldier need not have to worry about, that he now must. You must realize the AK-47 was not designed for hunting, target shooting, or any other type of sporting application. It was designed to KILL PEOPLE in short to medium range confrontations. It does this suberbly, as most all of the names of United States soldiers engraved on a Granite wall in Washington will attest to. It is also the most produced firearm in the entire world. In this regard, in my opinion it deserves an "A+" if graded in the proper way. In the same capacity I would give the M-16/AR-15 platform a "B". mostly because of the higher maintenance required to keep it running reliably. If the M-16/AR-15 has any advantage it would be in it's ability to engage targets at longer ranges because of it's inherently better accuracy. This would give it a major advantage in an ambush type of scenario where as the soldier with it could begin firing at a greater range tipping the odds of deadly hits in his favor over his AK-47 armed opponent. Bill T.
+100

might be a problem with the gun then. i have no problem cocsistently hitting a human sized target at 200 yd.

they may not be "kill shots", but there is a steel silouette target at 200 yd at the local club, and i can "ring it" about 25 x or more out of a 30 rnd mag.
 

·
Drunk Supernova
Joined
·
6,002 Posts
billt said:
The Soviets are famous for designing something to be only as good as it needs to be, to accomplish a specific task. The AK-47 Assault Rifle was designed to be a short, to medium range battle rifle. In this capacity it excels all but perfectly. It gives up accuracy for function ability. Accuracy isn't that important in a short to medium range weapon. It will function in the absolute worst of conditions, that would stop an M-16/AR-15 dead in their tracks. This was proven in Viet Nam as well as the middle east, where M-16/AR-15 stoppages were, and still are, commonplace. It needs little to no lubrication to maintain reliability. Now, we are finding the best way to keep the M-4 running in the sandbox, is to run it dripping with lube. Something else a soldier need not have to worry about, that he now must. You must realize the AK-47 was not designed for hunting, target shooting, or any other type of sporting application. It was designed to KILL PEOPLE in short to medium range confrontations. It does this suberbly, as most all of the names of United States soldiers engraved on a Granite wall in Washington will attest to. It is also the most produced firearm in the entire world. In this regard, in my opinion it deserves an "A+" if graded in the proper way. In the same capacity I would give the M-16/AR-15 platform a "B". mostly because of the higher maintenance required to keep it running reliably. If the M-16/AR-15 has any advantage it would be in it's ability to engage targets at longer ranges because of it's inherently better accuracy. This would give it a major advantage in an ambush type of scenario where as the soldier with it could begin firing at a greater range tipping the odds of deadly hits in his favor over his AK-47 armed opponent. Bill T.
Good post. The only thing I have to add to this post is that the terminal ballistics of the 5.56x45 far exceeds that of 7.62x39 (in flesh).

For example.
M193


M855


5.45x39


7.62x39


As you can see the final cavity is much larger. But obviously 5.56 does not have as good intermediate barrier penetration as the 7.62x39. But what it lacks in punch it makes up for in volume :). And that gentlemen is why we have crew serves attached.

deth502 said:
btw, an ak-47 is a full automatic machine gun.

you shot an akm.
BTW the AK-47 is not a machine gun. It is an assault rifle (aka battle rifle, aka service rifle), yes the definitions get screwy sometimes. As I said in another post, there are semi only repros of the AK-47. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM

Also, I do not have a problem hitting em out to 200 either.

I would be interested to know what type of targets he was shooting at.
 
G

·
C-D-P said:
BTW the AK-47 is not a machine gun. It is an assault rifle (aka battle rifle, aka service rifle), yes the definitions get screwy sometimes. As I said in another post, there are semi only repros of the AK-47.
.
all true "ak-47"'s were full auto. a full auto weapon, by atf definition is a "machine gun". a milled receiver semi auto clone would not be a real "ak-47". i could argue semantics about the definitions of different buzz word that are usually just media fabrications to frighten the uneducated masses, but i think were on the same side here ;)
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top