Hk VS Colt

[billytehbob]

I'm no expert on Accuracy, so that being said, of course the M16 family will be more accurate than an AK weapon, the AK was meant to be machine gun before a rifle.

 

Just throwing that out there

[Sale]

The primary fire mode of an AK is semiautomatic. That's where the selector slips most easily when you sweep it down. It's a popular belief that it was designed to do this or that, but the fact is that the doctrine of any given military defines how it's used. It is most effective when fired on semi.

 

Jagdraben: A typical M16A2 stays under 2 MOA any day of the week, while an AK-74 can only achieve about 4 MOA.

 

Expvideo: I may have criticized the AK unnecessarily. This is why I'd rather speak with numbers, because we may have a different opinion of what is accurate and what is not. I would like to point out that I did say that the accuracy of an AK is perfectly acceptable for the use in a conscript army. Whether that is enough for a professional soldier is not a question either of us can answer.

 

An AK can be generally expected to provide a mechanical accuracy of 4 MOA, which means 116 mm at 100 meters, 232 mm at 200 meters or 348 mm at 300 meters. These numbers are with a good rest, optics and optimal conditions. The numbers further away are the minimum expected groupings - in practice groupings spread more than that. 348 mm at 300 meters is what I mean when I say the AK is too inaccurate for a demanding user, when modern rifles typically achieve groupings half that big.

 

During my army training, we were expected to be able to shoot ten shots into a grouping no larger than 300 mm from 150 meters to pass the shooting test. For this kind of demand, an AK will suffice. Having a particularly well built SAKO RK95 is a bonus, but you can pass the tests even with the junk Norinco Type56-2s we have stashed up in case of a major conflict.

 

I am not going to explain why the SIG 550 is not an AK. Whoever said that it is should back up the claim with some source material. I already know that the internals operate on the same principle, so no need to bring that up. Otherwise I'm going to compare a BMW and a Lada...

 

-Sale

[Kirby1986]

Kirby1986: I wasn't comparing those rifles against each other for the sake of this argument. I just pointed out that assault rifles such as these are more accurate (mechanically and practically), compared to an AKM or more modern variants of the AK. It has the longest barrel in the group, but we might as well put the 551 to test and it would still beat the AK.

 

-Sale

 

I see. Thanks for explaining it.

[The End]

I personally like the G11.

[expvideo]

The primary fire mode of an AK is semiautomatic. That's where the selector slips most easily when you sweep it down. It's a popular belief that it was designed to do this or that, but the fact is that the doctrine of any given military defines how it's used. It is most effective when fired on semi.

 

Jagdraben: A typical M16A2 stays under 2 MOA any day of the week, while an AK-74 can only achieve about 4 MOA.

 

Expvideo: I may have criticized the AK unnecessarily. This is why I'd rather speak with numbers, because we may have a different opinion of what is accurate and what is not. I would like to point out that I did say that the accuracy of an AK is perfectly acceptable for the use in a conscript army. Whether that is enough for a professional soldier is not a question either of us can answer.

 

An AK can be generally expected to provide a mechanical accuracy of 4 MOA, which means 116 mm at 100 meters, 232 mm at 200 meters or 348 mm at 300 meters. These numbers are with a good rest, optics and optimal conditions. The numbers further away are the minimum expected groupings - in practice groupings spread more than that. 348 mm at 300 meters is what I mean when I say the AK is too inaccurate for a demanding user, when modern rifles typically achieve groupings half that big.

 

During my army training, we were expected to be able to shoot ten shots into a grouping no larger than 300 mm from 150 meters to pass the shooting test. For this kind of demand, an AK will suffice. Having a particularly well built SAKO RK95 is a bonus, but you can pass the tests even with the junk Norinco Type56-2s we have stashed up in case of a major conflict.

 

I am not going to explain why the SIG 550 is not an AK. Whoever said that it is should back up the claim with some source material. I already know that the internals operate on the same principle, so no need to bring that up. Otherwise I'm going to compare a BMW and a Lada...

 

-Sale

I don't think I agree with you about 4 moa with an AK. I have heard of several AKs, specifically the 5.56 variety, that can perform 3 moa or less. Admittedly 3 moa is not 2 moa, but in a combat rifle the difference is not big enough to be measured. A crappy ak will shoot 4 moa or worse. A well built ak will shoot 2-3 moa, depending on caliber. The problem is that it is a common belief that the AK will only acheive 8-10 moa, or minute of barn.

 

Everything else you said I can roughly agree with. Neither one of us can make the decision of whether an AK is accurate enough for a professional soldier. That is a personal choice.

 

As for the Sig 550:

I already know that the internals operate on the same principle, so no need to bring that up.

And that is what makes it as much an AK varient as a Galil, which you admitted to be an AK varient earlier in this thread.

[TheKurodaVagrant]

I personally like the G11.

 

Me too!

[Sale]

I don't think I agree with you about 4 moa with an AK. I have heard of several AKs, specifically the 5.56 variety, that can perform 3 moa or less. Admittedly 3 moa is not 2 moa, but in a combat rifle the difference is not big enough to be measured. A crappy ak will shoot 4 moa or worse. A well built ak will shoot 2-3 moa, depending on caliber. The problem is that it is a common belief that the AK will only acheive 8-10 moa, or minute of barn.

 

Everything else you said I can roughly agree with. Neither one of us can make the decision of whether an AK is accurate enough for a professional soldier. That is a personal choice.

But I'm talking about the average accuracy, not just several good examples. Some AKs may be capable of 3 MOA, while others won't go below 5 and so on. A realistic expected average is 4 MOA, and the comparable number for western weapons such as the G36, SIG, M16A2, L85 and so on is 2 MOA. Out of those, I'm sure we could pick out good ones, use match grade ammo and then go below 1 MOA.

 

My friend who has used a 5.56 Saiga in competitive use for years confirmed that 4 MOA is what he thinks is a realistic average - even though his best grouping with a hand-loaded special cartridge has been 57mm at 100 meters, which is right below 2 MOA. His rifle has had some modifications done to it, so it isn't just a stock AK though.

 

When you have optics on a rifle used by a well trained rifleman, the difference is easily big enough to be measured: 348 mm vs. 174 mm is a significant difference. 300 meters is not by far an unrealistic engagement distance even in urban warfare, even though the average is lower. Some aren't happy even with 2 MOA, which is why better rifles have been produced for specially trained soldiers.

 

As for the Sig 550:

And that is what makes it as much an AK varient as a Galil, which you admitted to be an AK varient earlier in this thread.

I would like you to state a source that names the SIG 550 as an "AK-variant". I'll start with a source, since you seem to be hesitant to do it. This article does not have any mention of the SIG 550: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47_variants

 

Sure if you widen the scope far enough, you can lump them together: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapo...ashnikov_design That was just a list of weapons influenced by the AK-47, not "AK variants".

 

If I have mistakenly called the Galil an AK-variant, then I'll rather withdraw that statement than include the SIG 550 in the list. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

-Sale

[expvideo]

But I'm talking about the average accuracy, not just several good examples. Some AKs may be capable of 3 MOA, while others won't go below 5 and so on. A realistic expected average is 4 MOA, and the comparable number for western weapons such as the G36, SIG, M16A2, L85 and so on is 2 MOA. Out of those, I'm sure we could pick out good ones, use match grade ammo and then go below 1 MOA.

 

My friend who has used a 5.56 Saiga in competitive use for years confirmed that 4 MOA is what he thinks is a realistic average - even though his best grouping with a hand-loaded special cartridge has been 57mm at 100 meters, which is right below 2 MOA. His rifle has had some modifications done to it, so it isn't just a stock AK though.

 

When you have optics on a rifle used by a well trained rifleman, the difference is easily big enough to be measured: 348 mm vs. 174 mm is a significant difference. 300 meters is not by far an unrealistic engagement distance even in urban warfare, even though the average is lower. Some aren't happy even with 2 MOA, which is why better rifles have been produced for specially trained soldiers.

 

I have serious doubts that your friend has done any modifications that would improve his MOA. What kind of "modifications" has he done? I would bet you money that you are just trying to beef up your arguement here by talking about your friend's "modified" Saiga and the most he has done to the mechanics of the rifle is to give it a trigger job. Please, a list of the modifications. Specifically the ones that would do anything whatsoever to his accuracy. I really doubt that you have anything here, so you can just admit that if you want. After all, Saiga rifles are acually very nice, since they are the only commercial AKs that are actually built in Izhmash, which is the factory that Mikhail Kalashnikov still works at. Saiga 5.56 aks should perform very well out of the box.

 

I would like you to state a source that names the SIG 550 as an "AK-variant". I'll start with a source, since you seem to be hesitant to do it. This article does not have any mention of the SIG 550: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47_variants

 

Sure if you widen the scope far enough, you can lump them together: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapo...ashnikov_design That was just a list of weapons influenced by the AK-47, not "AK variants".

 

If I have mistakenly called the Galil an AK-variant, then I'll rather withdraw that statement than include the SIG 550 in the list. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

-Sale

 

You said that a Galil is an AK varient. I would like to see a source of how a Galil can be an AK varient, but a Sig 550 can't. Neither was designed by Kalashnikov. Both are inspired. But you will admit that the Galil is a varient. This confuses me. Please explain your logic here. You can withdraw that statement all you want, the fact of the matter is that they are both based on the AK design. They are improvements on the design, but they are based on that design none the less. They are as much AKs as piston m4s are still M4s.

[Chimpy]

I wouldn't describe something that used the same basic operating mechanism as being a variant anyway. Generally speaking a variant is something that is very close to the original with a few small details that are different (e.g. a folding versus solid stock or using a different caliber). Parts would probably still be interchangeable for the most part between variants. You can even change part of the operating mechanism and it'd be a variant (e.g. piston driven M4) since most of the parts are still interchangeable.

 

Something that is based on a design would be a derivative. So the Galil and the 550 are both derived from guns that derived their mechanisms from the AK. So you can say you can improve on the design of the AK as evidenced by both the Galil and the 550 which share a similar operating mechanism but that doesn't make either AKs or variants of one. The Galil looks much more like an AK than the 550 which is probably why it gets referred to as a 'variant' more often.

 

There is obviously a blurry line about where a variant becomes a derivative and visa versa. However both the Galil and 550 are at least twice removed from the original design and don't AFAIK share common parts with the AK anymore so I think it's fairer to call them derivatives.

 

Here endeth the English lesson.

[expvideo]

With a big enough hammer, all parts are interchangeable.

[Chimpy]

With a big enough hammer, all parts are interchangeable.

 

The less said about the size of your hammer the better!

[0nslaught]

Ya just because some designs are the same doesnt make it a variant..

 

FN SCAR uses gas system design from M2, that doesnt make the SCAR an M2 variant, or vice versa. along with bushmaster ACR as well..

[Sale]

Double post.

[Sale]

I have serious doubts that your friend has done any modifications that would improve his MOA. What kind of "modifications" has he done? I would bet you money that you are just trying to beef up your arguement here by talking about your friend's "modified" Saiga and the most he has done to the mechanics of the rifle is to give it a trigger job. Please, a list of the modifications. Specifically the ones that would do anything whatsoever to his accuracy. I really doubt that you have anything here, so you can just admit that if you want.

Instead of making a complete *albatross* out of yourself, you could have simply asked. I'm trying to be constructive here, and this is what I get? I really don't like your attitude, Aaron, but here are the mods, since you asked so politely:

 

The gas tube fit has been loosened to let the barrel float a bit more freely, and the underside of the bolt carrier has been polished, because they normally scrape the ammo and make the rifle shoot two groupings (because the mag feeds from two columns, so every other cartridge is scraped at a different spot).

 

After all, Saiga rifles are acually very nice, since they are the only commercial AKs that are actually built in Izhmash, which is the factory that Mikhail Kalashnikov still works at. Saiga 5.56 aks should perform very well out of the box.

They do, and my 7.62 Saiga does as well. But I don't say it does things it doesn't. Even the factory booklet states the groupings of each rifle from 100 meters, and they are typically above 100 mm.

 

You said that a Galil is an AK varient. I would like to see a source of how a Galil can be an AK varient, but a Sig 550 can't. Neither was designed by Kalashnikov. Both are inspired. But you will admit that the Galil is a varient. This confuses me. Please explain your logic here.

See my previous post:

If I have mistakenly called the Galil an AK-variant, then I'll rather withdraw that statement than include the SIG 550 in the list. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Are you illiterate, or why are you still asking for a source where the Galil would be included but the SIG 550 excluded? I already admitted that the Galil is not necessary an AK-variant, but rather inspired by the AK. Seems that you lack the testicular substance to back up your claims about the SIG being an AK-variant, or admitting your mistake.

 

I'm still waiting for a source that states the SIG 550 is an AK-variant. Oh, and what kind of groupings you shoot with an AK. Your input to this discussion seems to consist of barking a lot and asking for sources and such, yet you have failed to provide any of this yourself.

 

You can withdraw that statement all you want, the fact of the matter is that they are both based on the AK design. They are improvements on the design, but they are based on that design none the less. They are as much AKs as piston m4s are still M4s.

I mentioned the resemblance a very long time ago in this thread, so you're only telling me things I know already. The SIG is a far more loose adaptation though, and it is certainly not an AK-variant. It is not listed in any list of AK-variants I've seen. I was surprised to learn that the Galil isn't listed either, because it's so closely the same, and commonly accepted as being an "AK-variant", or so I thought.

 

-Sale

[expvideo]

Instead of making a complete *albatross* out of yourself, you could have simply asked. I'm trying to be constructive here, and this is what I get? I really don't like your attitude, Aaron, but here are the mods, since you asked so politely:

 

The gas tube fit has been loosened to let the barrel float a bit more freely, and the underside of the bolt carrier has been polished, because they normally scrape the ammo and make the rifle shoot two groupings (because the mag feeds from two columns, so every other cartridge is scraped at a different spot).

 

 

They do, and my 7.62 Saiga does as well. But I don't say it does things it doesn't. Even the factory booklet states the groupings of each rifle from 100 meters, and they are typically above 100 mm.

 

 

See my previous post:

Are you illiterate, or why are you still asking for a source where the Galil would be included but the SIG 550 excluded? I already admitted that the Galil is not necessary an AK-variant, but rather inspired by the AK. Seems that you lack the testicular substance to back up your claims about the SIG being an AK-variant, or admitting your mistake.

 

I'm still waiting for a source that states the SIG 550 is an AK-variant. Oh, and what kind of groupings you shoot with an AK. Your input to this discussion seems to consist of barking a lot and asking for sources and such, yet you have failed to provide any of this yourself.

 

 

I mentioned the resemblance a very long time ago in this thread, so you're only telling me things I know already. The SIG is a far more loose adaptation though, and it is certainly not an AK-variant. It is not listed in any list of AK-variants I've seen. I was surprised to learn that the Galil isn't listed either, because it's so closely the same, and commonly accepted as being an "AK-variant", or so I thought.

 

-Sale

OK. I agree that they are both derivatives, not variants.

 

Sorry about the tone, I got a little too passionate about the argument. Thank you for answering my question. I am a little skeptical, since my bolt only scrapes my shell casings, not my bullets, but I can see what you are saying. Has your friend considered simply removing the gas tube? That would make it a lot closer to a "free floating" barrel. If he removed the handguard and the gas tube he might be able to get a slightly better group by effectively free floating the barrel.

 

BTW, yes, the AK will function without the gas tube. There is enough gas pressure from the gas block alone to push the piston and cycle the bolt, so the gas tube is really just a guide to make sure that the piston doesn't seat itself incorrectly on the gas block. It will make the AK much less reliable though, and would only be a good idea for careful shooting at the range, not self defense or dumping a mag. But if it's groupings your friend wants, he should give it a try. Make sure he wears eye protection, if he decides to try this.

 

As for my groupings, first of all I have a 7.62 ak which is not the kind of AK we are discussing and is therefore irrelevant to this argument. Besides, I could tell you any size grouping I want, but the fact of the matter is that this is the internet and without pictures from the range, they're just imaginary numbers. Going to the range this week is not an option for me, so let's just not go there. I don't want to get into a pissing contest over who can get better groups with what when we don't have any evidence.

 

Again, I am sorry that I took that tone with you, and I do really appreciate that you answered my question anyway. Despite being skeptical that either of your friend's modifications would actually do anything for the accuracy, you did provide me with an example beyond what I was expecting and I will accept it.

 

It seems to me that this argument would be a lot more fun at the range. You should come to Washington

 

 

edit: spelling

[Sale]

Hmm, arguments over the internet... I'm sure the tone would be much more civil both ways in person. Well, looks to be cooling down and we can head back to debating instead of arguing.

 

Loosening the gas tube of a Saiga is a tried and tested method to improve the accuracy. They have also looked into free-floating the whole thing as far as possible, but there are other things to mind as well. There's only so far it will get you.

 

I am aware that the so-called gas tube of an AK acts primarily to guide the piston, but we want that guide there... And some obstruction to get fingers or clothing from obstructing the movement of the gas piston. The gas impulse is very short, only a few millimeters long. From there it's the inertia that keeps the bolt carrier and gas piston moving. (You can imagine how hard I had to laugh when someone suggested to drill angled vent holes to the gas tube of an RK95 to act as a muzzle break and reduce recoil... And the guy got an innovation award of 4500 USD for the effort. It was a choice between laughing hard or crying and busting my knuckles against a brick wall, so I chose humor.)

 

I wouldn't mind if you just told me some numbers, if you think the AK is more accurate than I say it is. If I were to assume that you make things up, then I would question photos as well. I'm not much of a shot with a rifle - I thought we are comparing the mechanical accuracy of various rifles here, not our shooting skills. It's not a personal challenge when I say that an AK will typically achieve 4 MOA groupings, while an M16 achieves 2 MOA.

 

Cheers,

Sale

[Weirdguy]

Here is an AK accuracy test that I like to point people to. Lot's of my friends think that AK's are super inaccurate and I show them this and it makes them change their mind. Full-auto groups with ironsights at 100 meters on a very beat up AK.

 

http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewtopic...122&t=31796

[expvideo]

Hmm, arguments over the internet... I'm sure the tone would be much more civil both ways in person. Well, looks to be cooling down and we can head back to debating instead of arguing.

 

Loosening the gas tube of a Saiga is a tried and tested method to improve the accuracy. They have also looked into free-floating the whole thing as far as possible, but there are other things to mind as well. There's only so far it will get you.

 

I am aware that the so-called gas tube of an AK acts primarily to guide the piston, but we want that guide there... And some obstruction to get fingers or clothing from obstructing the movement of the gas piston. The gas impulse is very short, only a few millimeters long. From there it's the inertia that keeps the bolt carrier and gas piston moving. (You can imagine how hard I had to laugh when someone suggested to drill angled vent holes to the gas tube of an RK95 to act as a muzzle break and reduce recoil... And the guy got an innovation award of 4500 USD for the effort. It was a choice between laughing hard or crying and busting my knuckles against a brick wall, so I chose humor.)

 

I wouldn't mind if you just told me some numbers, if you think the AK is more accurate than I say it is. If I were to assume that you make things up, then I would question photos as well. I'm not much of a shot with a rifle - I thought we are comparing the mechanical accuracy of various rifles here, not our shooting skills. It's not a personal challenge when I say that an AK will typically achieve 4 MOA groupings, while an M16 achieves 2 MOA.

 

Cheers,

Sale

I don't honestly know what kind of groupings my ak will get. In the spirit of being honest, you could hand me an AR 15 with a 20 inch free floated match grade barrel and custom loads, and I'd still shoot minute of barn groups. Maybe not that bad, but my point is the rifle is much more accurate than I am. My AK doesn't have a scope mount, so it can only shoot as well as the iron sights anyway (gag). If I were to really get serious and sit down with a rest and a clear open range, I could probably shoot 4moa. I'm just speculating though. I have been happy with the accuracy of my AK, but I haven't ever really tested it. Even if I did, the rifle would probably perform better than I would. I would really like to do a test of a stock Saiga 5.56 and a stock Bushmaster 5.56, both with optics and see how well both of them perform, but I really don't have the cash to do that. If I did, I would probably spend it on a suppressor for my 9mm instead

 

I am tempted to get the 5.56 Saiga, just so I can play around with trying to make it more accurate. I didn't know that loosening the gas tube would do anything, so that's kind of cool.

 

The gas tube muzzle break is such a wonderful idea. Give that guy a nobel peace prize.