It's all crap (am I allowed to say that on CNG)
It boils down to personal preference that's it and this debate runs around in my mind atleast once a month. I have No AK as I did not anticipate bill C-68 or I would have kept mine, but still have a couple of sks which are built to similar tollerances.
The bit about An Ar being more accurate. Well Maybe. I suspect it has more to do with the quality of ammo then the AR- being more accurate.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/edu8.htm
Shows groups between .25 MOA to 3.3 MOA. out of a target AR. When you look at the ss109 its 2.7 however Wolf produced a group of over 6 MOA.
My both of my sks shoot into 3 MOA with chec corrosive. Which I suspect is more along the lines of WOLF quality than SS109.
So for me accuracy is a maybe.
For reliabilty. I used to shoot the C-7 on a rifle team for a couple of years and I did not see very many failures to fire during that time. Of course conditions are pretty tame on the range. Lots of failures with blanks but I think that the gun was designed to shoot bullets and not blanks. So reliability against a stock rifle. Its a wash.
Ergonomics I have to say hands down goes to the AR everything seems to be where it should be.
Sight radius seems like this comes up every now and again. Well this one I can be difinitive. It's a wash. 17.5 for a stock AR and .....17 for an SKS.
Often I read something that says the AR is good for 600 yards and AK only 300. Back in the nineties we would zero at 200 yards and leave it there. At 300 you were aiming at IVAN's face (is the army still politically incorrect) at 500 I was aiming at the backstop numbers to allow my bullets to drop the 7 feet or so it took to hit the target.
So accuracy to me is a wash. Both very useful against large fruit to 300 yards or so.
Egronomics I have to give the edge to the AR. Everything is where it should be. Reliabilty wash, Accuracy wash.
Look cool factor well just about everybody likes the AR now. When it came out into service I think most folks would have prefered the FN but 15 years of being told that the C-7 is the best there is maybe has changed peoples minds. For the look cool factor to each their own.
As for the cartridges themselves. Well I have not shot anything besides paper with either of them.
So for terminal ballistic. In the Paper targets that I am shooting, the 7.62 makes a 30% larger hole than the 5.56
Penetration through the paper and Cardboard are adequate. However neither of them make up nearly as big a hole in paper as a 45 ACP.
It boils down to personal preference that's it and this debate runs around in my mind atleast once a month. I have No AK as I did not anticipate bill C-68 or I would have kept mine, but still have a couple of sks which are built to similar tollerances.
The bit about An Ar being more accurate. Well Maybe. I suspect it has more to do with the quality of ammo then the AR- being more accurate.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/edu8.htm
Shows groups between .25 MOA to 3.3 MOA. out of a target AR. When you look at the ss109 its 2.7 however Wolf produced a group of over 6 MOA.
My both of my sks shoot into 3 MOA with chec corrosive. Which I suspect is more along the lines of WOLF quality than SS109.
So for me accuracy is a maybe.
For reliabilty. I used to shoot the C-7 on a rifle team for a couple of years and I did not see very many failures to fire during that time. Of course conditions are pretty tame on the range. Lots of failures with blanks but I think that the gun was designed to shoot bullets and not blanks. So reliability against a stock rifle. Its a wash.
Ergonomics I have to say hands down goes to the AR everything seems to be where it should be.
Sight radius seems like this comes up every now and again. Well this one I can be difinitive. It's a wash. 17.5 for a stock AR and .....17 for an SKS.
Often I read something that says the AR is good for 600 yards and AK only 300. Back in the nineties we would zero at 200 yards and leave it there. At 300 you were aiming at IVAN's face (is the army still politically incorrect) at 500 I was aiming at the backstop numbers to allow my bullets to drop the 7 feet or so it took to hit the target.
So accuracy to me is a wash. Both very useful against large fruit to 300 yards or so.
Egronomics I have to give the edge to the AR. Everything is where it should be. Reliabilty wash, Accuracy wash.
Look cool factor well just about everybody likes the AR now. When it came out into service I think most folks would have prefered the FN but 15 years of being told that the C-7 is the best there is maybe has changed peoples minds. For the look cool factor to each their own.
As for the cartridges themselves. Well I have not shot anything besides paper with either of them.
So for terminal ballistic. In the Paper targets that I am shooting, the 7.62 makes a 30% larger hole than the 5.56
Penetration through the paper and Cardboard are adequate. However neither of them make up nearly as big a hole in paper as a 45 ACP.
Last edited:
