What percentage have handled an AK?

[zZ_denis]

I'm kinda of glad I dumped my AKs when I did (before C68).
They are a mediocre rifle that perform fantastically in short range Assault.

I'm glad the Taliban are armed with them and not real rifles capable of accurate fire. I'd hazard a guess that the majority of the ones they field are so worn out they couldn't hit the broadside of a LAV at 200m...
mho

Did you even read the thread? Is this sarcasm?

Our soldiers in Afghanistan would be FAR better off if Taliban were armed with AR15's. If their rifles actually worked (which they wouldnt.. good luck explaining to them that the rifle has to be cleaned and lubed regularly), a slightly more accurate rifle wouldnt make up for their lack of shooting skills, so they still wouldnt be able to hit anything. And if they did, id rather be hit by a 5.56 than a 7.62.

 

[TeaPot2]

AK was my best buddy while I served in Soviet army in early 80th. The quality and reliability of soviet time made rifle was amazing. Accuracy - never missed a silhouette target at 300 meters in full auto 3-4 rounds burst...Would give my kidneys to re-unite with my old buddy. My friend brought his old Saiga to Canada just before ban it's an excellent gun. Handled new production Russian made Saigas at the gun show in Germany last year they are lower quality. Handled Chinese AK clone at Milarm back in 1998 wouldn't take it even for free...

 

[870P]

AK was my best buddy while I served in Soviet army in early 80th. The quality and reliability of soviet time made rifle was amazing. Accuracy - never missed a silhouette target at 300 meters in full auto 3-4 rounds burst...Would give my kidneys to re-unite with my old buddy. My friend brought his old Saiga to Canada just before ban it's an excellent gun. Handled new production Russian made Saigas at the gun show in Germany last year they are lower quality. Handled Chinese AK clone at Milarm back in 1998 wouldn't take it even for free...

Did you guys do a lot of burst fire training?

Anyway I've heard it said that of all the AKs newly available now, only the rifles gone over by "tuner" outfit$ in the U.S. can match the build quality of actual Soviet produced AKs, if so your "friend" must have been quite the serious piece of gear.

 

[enefgee]

I owned 2 Chinese made AK pattern rifles (the only types widely available here) one in 7.62x39, with under folding stock and another in 5.56, with fixed stock. They went bang, and were in the same ballpark accuracy wise as an older Mini14. Are we missing anything? - I don't think so, the Vz58 is a better rifle that is lighter and better handling, it's possibly not a better weapon, but I don't own any weapons.

 

[beltfed]

Did you even read the thread? Is this sarcasm?

Yeah I read the thread, and yeah I've owned and have used AKs considerably in the past too...I've even shot them at distance.

Our soldiers in Afghanistan would be FAR better off if Taliban were armed with AR15's. If their rifles actually worked (which they wouldnt.. good luck explaining to them that the rifle has to be cleaned and lubed regularly), a slightly more accurate rifle wouldnt make up for their lack of shooting skills, so they still wouldnt be able to hit anything.

Well if from more than a few indications from that part of the world are true, the enemy is largely keeping engagements to ambushes with support weapons at distance and IEDs. Lack of training aside, the AR is vastly superior at engagements past 200m when compared against the AK.

And if they did, id rather be hit by a 5.56 than a 7.62.

Ummmmm.....yeah.

I'm not refering to Call of Duty.

Infantry win firefights with effective fire.
Effective fire is accurate fire.

 

[norlandgeese]

For what its worth, I went on a trip to the far east a couple of decades ago and visited a tourist only gun range (read: they wanted our money). Shot their AKs and was able to pick off beer bottles with iron sights at 50m & 100m easily, they had guys running out to replace the bottles for us.

Asked to see their crappiest & dirtiest most beat up AK, oh yes it jammed like crazy. Any gun can fail in a poor enough shape.

 

[zZ_denis]

Yeah I read the thread, and yeah I've owned and have used AKs considerably in the past too...I've even shot them at distance.

Not only did you not read the thread, but it seems that you didnt even read the post that you replied to... If you have.. Well.. I guess you should work on your reading comprehension skills.

Well if from more than a few indications from that part of the world are true, the enemy is largely keeping engagements to ambushes with support weapons at distance and IEDs. Lack of training aside, the AR is vastly superior at engagements past 200m when compared against the AK.

First of all, most ambushes happen within 200m.

Second, as mentioned NUMEROUS times in this thread (reading comprehension, remember?), AK in decent condition is perfectly capable of hitting man-sized targets at these (intermediate) distances. Rifle will only shoot accurately if the shooter does his part. If the shooter can't shoot/aim, giving him a slightly more accurate rifle wont make him hit more targets. Let me know if this point is STILL not getting through to you, i'll try expand on it even more.

To be honest with you, i've been around a lot of boards full of AR fanboys, seen a lot of "questionable" posts, and this is the first time i've seen someone post something so ridiculous (re. arming Taliban with AR's)

Ummmmm.....yeah.

I'm not refering to Call of Duty.

Funny that you mention Call of Duty. I never played it, but you seem to be quiet experienced with it.

5.56 relies on fragmentation to cause decent tissue damage. Fired from a carbine length barrel the chance of fragmenting goes down significantly. More so at longer distances.
x39 round does not rely on fragmentation, and will do more damage most of the time (even at longer distances (300m+) where the 5.56 retains more energy). Wound channel of the M67 round (especially with newer bullets) is comparable/better to a fragmented 5.56.
The only advantage of the 5.56 is lower weight, and if that's more important to you, you can always get an AK in either 5.45 or even 5.56.

 

[beltfed]

First of all, most ambushes happen within 200m.

Oh really? Do tell.

Second, as mentioned NUMEROUS times in this thread (reading comprehension, remember?), AK in decent condition is perfectly capable of hitting man-sized targets at these (intermediate) distances. Rifle will only shoot accurately if the shooter does his part. If the shooter can't shoot/aim, giving him a slightly more accurate rifle wont make him hit more targets. Let me know if this point is STILL not getting through to you, i'll try expand on it even more.

First off,
1) Seeing as we are discussing Afghan (or any other third world sh!thole our troops or our allies find themselves in) the AKs are in sometimes very poor shape. The ammo issued can be quite poor as well.
2) It takes more than just a good shooter (training) to make a rifle perform. The rifle and the ammo needs to perform too.
3) If a rifle and ammo is capable of 5 moa and the shooter is capable of 5 moa,the total capable as a system is 10 moa.
If another rifle and ammo is capable of 1.5 moa and that same shooter skill is at 5 moa, the total capable as a system is 6.5 moa.
If you don't think this matters at 200m PLUS you are dillusional.

To be honest with you, i've been around a lot of boards full of AR fanboys, seen a lot of "questionable" posts, and this is the first time i've seen someone post something so ridiculous (re. arming Taliban with AR's)

I never suggested the Taliban should arm with anything...I am thankful they are armed with crappy, outdated military surplus and not something better.

Funny that you mention Call of Duty. I never played it, but you seem to be quiet experienced with it.

It's ironic you bring personal attacks into your responses over "reading comrehension" when you yourself have a problem spelling 'quite'

5.56 relies on fragmentation to cause decent tissue damage. Fired from a carbine length barrel the chance of fragmenting goes down significantly. More so at longer distances.
x39 round does not rely on fragmentation, and will do more damage most of the time (even at longer distances (300m+) where the 5.56 retains more energy). Wound channel of the M67 round (especially with newer bullets) is comparable/better to a fragmented 5.56.
The only advantage of the 5.56 is lower weight, and if that's more important to you, you can always get an AK in either 5.45 or even 5.56.

I'm not going to get into the whole 5.56 v. 7.62x39 debate with you - suffice to say it is mostly nonsense.

 

[Curtton]

gone far enough.... locked.