In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

AK accuracy

Winnebago WarriorWinnebago Warrior Member Posts: 40 ✭✭
edited July 2003 in Ask the Experts
Ok, my other topic was locked just before I remembered to get my last question in. I wanted to know how accurate AKs are. What kind of MOA do you get at say 100 yards? Can you consistently hit silhouette targets from 300m? Thanks again guys.

Comments

  • rldowns3rldowns3 Member Posts: 6,096
    edited November -1
    I don't now the MOA you can get with an AK at 100 yards but I do know that with mine you can hit a "man" sized target at 100 yards pretty consistantly but from my AK the shots kind of spread across the entire chest area.

    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
    annoyaliberal.jpgnotmyfault.gif
    nopolitics.gif
  • Der GebirgsjagerDer Gebirgsjager Member Posts: 1,685 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    And that, I would say, pretty well describes the average accuracy from the average AK! 8"-10" groups at 100 yds. Naturally the heavy barrel, bipod models will do better; but an M1-A it's not.[:D]
  • Winnebago WarriorWinnebago Warrior Member Posts: 40 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Aren't AK-74s supposed to be more accurate than the 47s.
  • gap1916gap1916 Member Posts: 4,977
    edited November -1
    The SAR 3 in .223 does better than the SAR 1 or the SAR 2. My grouping at 100 yards prone is about 5 to 6 inches. With a scope much much better. My 2 cents [8D]

    Greg
  • rldowns3rldowns3 Member Posts: 6,096
    edited November -1
    If you want something that sprays lead downrange and is reliable, the AK-47 is what you want. Get you a few of those drum magazines and hopefully, statistically speaking, you should be able to land a shot or two on your target at 300 yards when you throw 75 rounds down range with an AK-47.

    If you want something with better accuracy I'd suggest something different. I am not an AR-15 fan at all but I do not deny that their accuracy is a damn bit better than the AK though. My personal preference would be something in .308 like a M1A or FAL, Cetme, SAR ect...

    Although you can find or build yourself a better, more accurate AK variant but why bother spending that kind of cash when you can take the same amount of cash and get something else that's already put togeather and ready to fire?

    But, you also have to consider what's better.....spraying 75 rounds of lead at a target and MABYE hitting it once or twice or having a gun you can fire 1 or 2 rounds from and nail your target? Although.....hosing 75 rounds can be a lot of fun.[:D]

    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
    annoyaliberal.jpgnotmyfault.gif
    nopolitics.gif
  • James LyleJames Lyle Member Posts: 57
    edited November -1
    I've seen a 223 Valmet version group 1 MOA, with the iron sights. The typical AR, with a trigger job, scope and match ammo, will crowd 1 MOA all day, and some of the HBAR'S are guaranteed .5 MOA, and some of those at least occasionally shoot .2" at 100 yds. With the right ammo, the 223 AR is fully competitive with the 308, all the way to 600 yds. In fact, the AR 223's own the 600 yd line at the Service Rifle matches, and that's been true for many years now.
  • leeblackmanleeblackman Member Posts: 5,683
    edited November -1
    There is alot of AK's from many different places, made to very different qualities. Though it has a "overall" reputation for not being very accurate, the ones I've shot were suffeciently accurate.

    Also don't forget that accuracy has a large amount to do with both the shooter and the ammo used.

    Now with that said, to answer your first question. I can't really tell you what kind of accuracy to expect from a general Type of gun such as the AK. What brand of mfg, and model of AK are you looking at getting? What type of ammo are you going to be shooting thru it?

    For your second question, hitting a silhoutette at 100 meters is hard enough for most shooters without a scope, to worry about hitting one at 300 meters is a waste of time, unless you are a seasoned marksman.
  • drobsdrobs Member Posts: 22,236 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by James Lyle
    Why would I be, punk? I just happen to have a very wide level of interest and expertise, that's all. keep watching. I've posted more gun topics today than everyone else combined. The reason that they dont is that they dont KNOW enough.


    22925whocarespg.JPG

    You are posting crap!

    Regards,
    190191.gif
  • James LyleJames Lyle Member Posts: 57
    edited November -1
    only in response to crap by you punks. YOU are the one who drug it all over here, all should notice.
  • Winnebago WarriorWinnebago Warrior Member Posts: 40 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Ok, I don't know what those last two posts are, but please do not bring any feuds on my topic. Anyway, leeblackman, I was thinking of the SSR-74-2s over at globaltrades.com. I don't know what make of 5.45x39, but I would probably put mid to high qual ammo thru it for accuracy. I have about a 50% hit rate at 300m with an M16-A2 at silhouette targets. I am just looking for a good target rifle that has decent consistency as far as accuracy goes.
  • Delta514Delta514 Member Posts: 440 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    An AK or MAK 90 do exactly what they are supposed to do and do it well. The AK is designed to be a Close In Assault Weapon. If you are a reasonable shot; At 300 yds from the Bench, you may be able to get a 2' Group, which is good enough to hit an Opponent in the chest area. Standing? I think the "Spray and Pray' method would suffice (if you didn't run out of ammo?) Notice the "North Hollywood Shootout" how many Police Officers were killed (and at close range)?

    During the 'Missiles of October' I had to re-qualify. Assigned to a Top Secret outfit, (Which most in our very small company were Prepys), the M-1 Carbine was the weapon of choice. We were taken to a Range just out of Washington , D.C. - They unknowingly stuck an M-2 in my hands (believe it or not = This class of Soldier didn't know much about Rifles or Guns in General, they did have Missiles Down Pat. Nikes, Titans, Wacs, Bomarcs, Hawks, These men knew how to hit a target at 3000 miles and couldn't hit a target at 300 feet. But anyway: After I scared the Hell out of a Bunch of them, I fliped it back on Semi-Auto. Qualified "Sharpshooter" at 300 yards. At 300 yards the dinky little .30 cal projectile was equivalent to a hard slap upside the head, but sufficed to punch a hole in Paper (but not thick Paper). Don't get me wrong! The M-1 Carbine is nice and light, very dependable and the M-2 had a cycle rate of fire beyond the Full Auto AR. 850 rds per min, the AR struggled to get 450 in inclimate conditions. We had a lot of Jams in the early days, because the AR was supposed to fire 750 per min. After cutting them back to cycle at 450 and with a Barrel twist change, the AR started to become viable, but had the bad reputation to overcome.

    But for those arguing the accuracy of the 5.56 vs 7.62x51, add energy at 1000yds to your equasion. [;)]

    Ronnie G. Perkins
Sign In or Register to comment.