I wonder what is being referred to as AK-47 here? This was a prototype designation for a rifle that was built in 1949. The platform name is just AK, and that could mean anything from AKM (first variant that really became a mass produced service rifle) to AK-74M, and even more modern ones, such as AK-103 or AK-12. Also, what's the origin of the gun in question? Different makes, models and variants were produced by more than 30 countries.. Are we talking about a good quality Soviet/Russian built rifle or a Chinese or Pakistani produced copy? They are not built equal in all regards at all, so if someone served in Afghanistan and picked up one of these knock-offs, then no wonder that person preferred an SKS..
That's why you choose AK
- Thread starter PECHENEG
- Start date
- Location
- Nova Scotia
I'm disagreeing with you that the AK is only better based on just the cleaning rod. And debunking your reasoning. Not saying its better or worst. But to prove your rod theory wrong. I talked to someone that carried one overseas for over 3 years, and taught many to use them. He agrees that the cleaning rod are shorter, and he never seen a AK get a stuck case in combat or overseas. But did see some AR do on courses he taught. This is someone that had many AR15s, Couple VZ58, A SKS and used and taught AKs for many years ( on 2 way ranges ) So he's not bias.
i do not know about your experience but i can tell you in the most recent wars in europe the people i know sold their aks to get sks and i do not know why maybe for the money but except one all get rid of them and even the one that kept an ak he still has sks. those guys were all trained with ak and sks so again i cant tell the reasons and there is certainly a lot.
between ar and ak there is also a propaganda war ... what was not working in the 60s may work today and certainly like ak there is a difference between ar available for us and the ones given to the soldiers and im pretty sure that even among soldiers the ar they have are not equal depending the army you belong: as a soldier most of the time you use the tool given not the one you like ...
i never liked the FAMAS but seems some will die for a TAVOR ...
It looks like they didn't really need a full auto capability then. May be they were short on ammo or may be the way how they operated didn't really require an assault rifle, so they decided to trade a full auto option for some extra rigidity of an sks? The fact that they did it doesn't mean that AK is worse than SKS in general, it's just could be that this rifle was a better choice in that particular situation..
if you ever use a full auto mode you will see how accurate you are ... and you re right it was specific to that situation.
- Location
- Newmarket,Ontario
Touché !
You are only supposed to use it in full auto in CQC, normal way of operating the rifle is 2-3 shots bursts. All riflemen are trained to shoot it this way, even though there's no dedicated selector position for it. You will definitely not get any good full auto accuracy from a 7.62 AK, but it is definitely possible to shoot a 5.45 AK accurately in full auto. It's just not worth it - you will run out of ammo in a few seconds..
So what I'm hearing is that person's mission requirements didn't require a full auto mode and SKS was a better option. May be he was in a local militia unit or did hit and run missions - fire a few shots and disappear.. SKS is a perfectly valid choice in these kind of cases. There are situations when I would choose a bolt action rifle over AK/AR, it doesn't mean that any of these platforms is bad. Afghani fighters used bolt action Lee Enfields during Soviet campaign in Afghanistan and, surprisingly, PU Mosins (not even SVD) were used on Soviet side in some cases too. It all really depends on the mission requirements..
Question PECHENG, so to decide on what is better, what did you find when you fired both the AR and AK with irons at 100, 200, and 300 yards?
Just curious, as I have seen this test done many times at the range on targets, and frankly I question what good is a weapon if you cannot hit the target consistently. And yes I have both types of platforms with their different cartridge and sighting systems.
And lastly, have you tried 3 shot rapid fire groupings at 50 yards with each platform?
As I personally like both platforms, but that video of the Brit using a dust cover optic mounting system made me just shake my head.........
indeed.
you may have heard that the sniper rifle used and preferred in Yugoslavian wars was the mauser zastava48 with a small scope and the 8mm caliber.
yes i think it was more ambush than assault most of the time. and also that you do not have to worry about the logistics of magazines ...
we are all have been trained in full auto but let s say that the burst mode is working better.
you may have heard that the sniper rifle used and preferred in Yugoslavian wars was the mauser zastava48 with a small scope and the 8mm caliber.
yes i think it was more ambush than assault most of the time. and also that you do not have to worry about the logistics of magazines ...
we are all have been trained in full auto but let s say that the burst mode is working better.
There might be few reasons for that. One I see is that they were going to put a scope on SKS and engage enemies from 300-400 meters. Or they have plenty of 7.62 and low supply of 5.45. Or not enough AK magazines. Or their AKs were really beaten up and they had SKS in very good condition. Or maybe they had aksu which are next to useless for fire fights.
On a different topic, if we consider a more realistic use case for the most of this forum's audience and look at how AKs/ARs do at target shooting at a civilian range rather than in combat.. 
These two videos are from one my favourite youtube channels, they have dozens of different rifles tested there. I picked two close competitor ones - 5.45 AKS-74 and 5.56 M4A1, both iron sights, shooting up to 500 yards. The shooter is very competent, ex US Army officer. Definitely worth watching end to end, listening to his feedback and also checking out other videos on the Cold War playlist..
These two videos are from one my favourite youtube channels, they have dozens of different rifles tested there. I picked two close competitor ones - 5.45 AKS-74 and 5.56 M4A1, both iron sights, shooting up to 500 yards. The shooter is very competent, ex US Army officer. Definitely worth watching end to end, listening to his feedback and also checking out other videos on the Cold War playlist..i ve seen sks with scope and they called that sniper rifle as well ... but maybe dragunov was not easy to get or the ammo i do not know, civil wars are harder to understand on any logical side anyway. never seen a 5.45 ak in the field at the time.
Nice videos, now the question is how many AKs in 5.45 are in use as opposed to 7.62.
I still do not believe a ramp sight with a shorter sight radius, in 7.62x39 will outshoot a peep sight longer radius sighting system, in 5.56, unless my time with SKSs and T81s, was a just a dream?
I still do not believe a ramp sight with a shorter sight radius, in 7.62x39 will outshoot a peep sight longer radius sighting system, in 5.56, unless my time with SKSs and T81s, was a just a dream?
5.45 AK-74 series is a standard service rifle in all ex-soviet countries since 1979 and was/is built in millions.. so it's definitely not a rarity. But it is probably outnumbered by 7.62 variants across the world.. You can check out that channel, they do tests of 7.62 Chinese AK as well.
For me personally, peep is easier to use. But I can do pretty well with ramp too. I believe, you can be proficient with either one, it's just a matter of having enough trigger time with one or the other. Ramp also seems to be easier to clean, if covered in mud, while in the field.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
I only have 40 years trigger time on ARs, and 30 on ramps Ak style.
Just do not like ramps being so far forward with my glasses, even with my old K98.
K98 sights are a PITA to shoot, unless you got a big bull eye target.
