AK's suck!

People hit prairie dogs at 500+ with AR-15's. These tricked out AK's don't represent the average 6 moa rifle. I like when he said they will go "blow for blow" with AR's. Hitting a large metal gong at 300 m from a rested position is fun. Put it up against paper with an AR and it will lose every time. It is however a decent battle rifle.
 
volkov956 said:
normal western banter against AK nothing new move along...

Nothing wrong with the AK its who is behind the AK or Any Rifle for that matter
Click to expand...

the AK is a battle rifle so it really only needs to hit a man sized target out to 300m I think that's a good trade off for the reliability you get with a proper AK(Russian or other commie bloc AK) most of these complaints of not being able to hit a target or reliability issues are mainly do to the American made AK's. 95% of AK in the US are made there from parts kits every know and then you will see on with a canted font sight because the either the front or rear trunnion was not straight when it was riveted some of the receivers are too thin as well
 
powerbaitron said:
People hit prairie dogs at 500+ with AR-15's. These tricked out AK's don't represent the average 6 moa rifle. I like when he said they will go "blow for blow" with AR's. Hitting a large metal gong at 300 m from a rested position is fun. Put it up against paper with an AR and it will lose every time. It is however a decent battle rifle.
Click to expand...

Only the Rifle Dynamics build could be considered tricked out, the Arsenals are merely recent Russian milspec and the MAK-90 is a typical Norinco offering...

Of course, even the MAK-90 is probably better than the Walmart-spec trash that are the majority of U.S. market AKs.

Anyway, here's a video that compares the G36, the G3, the AK, the VZ58 and the AR from a different aspect.

 
The Type 56 sold here was an excellent quality AK, at least the equal of an Arsenal according to Jim Fuller, largely due to the fact that export T56's were built on RPK receiver stampings and contained largely forged full auto parts (where legal).
 
Note the guy behind the rifle. Reid's an instructor at Tac Response, he shoots and teaches for a living. Not exactly a peasant conscript.
 
dahs said:
Note the guy behind the rifle. Reid's an instructor at Tac Response, he shoots and teaches for a living. Not exactly a peasant conscript.
Click to expand...

if you understand the basics of how to shoot aka know how to use the sights hitting a man sized target at 300m is not that hard even with a AK
 
The AK is a battle rifle(Actually one of two assault rifles ever made.) that was designed to be issued to illiterate conscripts, who could be taught to use it in as little time as possible. A target or hunting rifle it ain't.
Not being able to hit excrement at 50 yards isn't the rifle though.
 
Really isn't all the hard to do.
I do it with my vz rifles at my range. Not to sure what size the gong is but it is at 300y.

Next time I'm there I'll ring some bells for ya guys and video tape that ish
 
enefgee said:
The Type 56 sold here was an excellent quality AK, at least the equal of an Arsenal according to Jim Fuller, largely due to the fact that export T56's were built on RPK receiver stampings and contained largely forged full auto parts (where legal).
Click to expand...

They have some good components but shaky assembly.

The thicker receiver was necessary because of inferior Chinese metallurgy at one time.

That's no issue today but the barrel to trunnion and trunnion to receiver attachment still remain weak points compared to Russian spec guns.

Like the Norinco M-14s they make a pretty good starting point for a custom build but Mikhail Kalashnikov himself never rated the typical Chinese AK as more than middle of the road quality wise, and he was one to admit that there were others who built a better AK than did Izhmash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom