# Why do people say the AK is inaccurate?



## TURTLE (May 22, 2008)

*I have heard this all my life and I just wanted to hear what you guys have to say. I have many types and configurations of AK's and I have to say I do not think of them as inaccurate at all. I know I have many rifles that I would say were more accurate but I can get real good groups at 200-300 yards with any given one of mine. For anything past that it's not so good but it's an assault rifle so theres that.*


----------



## Chris V (Oct 18, 2007)

I have found that the ones who say AKs are innaccurate are just like the people who say an AR is less reliable. I'm sure you know what I mean by this.


----------



## scubapro (Nov 27, 2010)

The reliability the AK is famous for is due to loose tolerances in manufacture/assembly. With those loose tolerances comes less accuracy.

There are slow motion video clips available of an AK firing in full auto - illustrating how much barrel flex occurs.

They are good reliable rifles with ok accuracy at combat distances. However, I wouldn't try to make a sniper rifle out of one.


----------



## johnf (Jan 20, 2012)

I figure an assult riffle that is more accurate the minute of bad guy or zombie is just gravy.

If they want something that can split a playing card at 300 yards they shouldn't get any assult rifle with only a few excetions.


----------



## kaferhaus (Oct 8, 2009)

Compared to any of the NATO assault rifles, the AK is "inaccurate". A run of the mill AR will generally put 5 shots into 1.5" at 100M with a semi skilled shooter. A great AK will put 5 into 3" at the same distance.

The vast majority of rifle engagements are under 100M and have been throughout time with the exception of the trench warfare of WWI. 

For that purpose the AK is certainly "accurate enough".

Since the late 60s, the reliability of the AR is every bit as good as the AK. People who say AKs NEVER jam or malfunction are ignorant. They certainly do. I've seen it in the field and at any number of ranges. It does not happen very often for sure, but they do malfunction and even blow apart in certain instances, firing out of battery being one of them.

You tube videos are out there, both military and joe blows showing failed AKs.

The AR outshines the AK in almost every respect and I've owned a bunch of both of them and fought with the AR.


----------



## TheRoguePirate (Nov 3, 2011)

I think most people are sold on the AR-15 due to the history of the M-16 and the stigmatta over the AK being a "Commie" or "terrorist" weapon. Since that may have been the case, it is possible that since most people did not start buying AK's for the masses until the 80's the American population was used to handling the AR/M- weapon and more comfortable for training and shooting. I speculate that since AK's were not widely addopted until recently, the lack of training with them and the illustra with the AR people may continue to speak this way. I have worked a lot with AK's and am average with them, a russian friend of mine who used to be in the Russian Marines can make that weapon a surgical instriment. again, his training on them VS mine, he was only average with an M4. I will say that an AK will handle dirt and sand a lot better than an M4 will.


----------



## kaferhaus (Oct 8, 2009)

In my opinion people bought/buy AKs for 3 reasons. 

They're cheap and cheap to shoot.

They have a "thing" for enemy weapons.

They think they look cool with that long curved magazine sticking out the bottom.

I owned a gun shop in S. florida for many years back in the 80s-early 90s and sold hundreds of both AKs and SKSs. One of the above 3 was always the reason they bought either of them over the much more expensive AR or other NATO weapons. The vast majority bought them because of price. Back then we were selling them (Norinco and Poly Tech) with 3 magazines, sling cleaning kit and oiler for under $300 NIB.

There was not a hundred companies building ARs back then so prices were high for the time.. a basic no name AR was over $600 and a Colt was 750 and up. However, AR ammo was cheap at about $140 per 1,000 rds of LC ammo. the AK ammo was about 25-30 bucks cheaper.

AK prices have pretty much stayed in line with inflation while the price of base ARs has pretty much stayed the same do to the huge amount of competition. Shows you the profit that Colt and Amalite were making back then. I know for a fact that Colt and Armalite both were selling M16s to the Army at that same time for $174 each.


----------



## TURTLE (May 22, 2008)

*Damn, I wish I could get an AR or M-16 for $174 !!!! I can't find a good one for under $900.*


----------



## scubapro (Nov 27, 2010)

People really need to consider the 5.45x39 uppers for the AR. The ammo is SO inexpensive - and the cartridge has wicked properties...

Get one of those and put it on an inexpensive lower for a budget assault rifle.


----------



## Gravity3694 (May 10, 2011)

I think the biggest limiting factor for the AK's accuracy are the sights and ergonomics. I've seen some great shooters get behind an Ak and make excellent groups. They are not the easiest firearm to manipulate compared to an AR. The awkward safety, magazine release and design of the bolt handle make it slow and complicated.

I'm still lusting after an Arsenal SLR-107.


----------



## TURTLE (May 22, 2008)

Gravity3694 said:


> I think the biggest limiting factor for the AK's accuracy are the sights and ergonomics. I've seen some great shooters get behind an Ak and make excellent groups. They are not the easiest firearm to manipulate compared to an AR. The awkward safety, magazine release and design of the bolt handle make it slow and complicated.
> 
> I'm still lusting after an Arsenal SLR-107.


*So what makes the SLR a $1000 AK? Looks the same to me and every configuration I have ever shot feels the same to me except my Tactical set up, it feels like a heavy AR excluding mechanics that is.*


----------



## shootnstarz (May 4, 2011)

I had a 47 and a 74, both were about about 10 moa. Not saying they're all that bad but these were area fire weapons, which is why somebody else owns them now.


Rick


----------



## Gravity3694 (May 10, 2011)

TURTLE said:


> *So what makes the SLR a $1000 AK? Looks the same to me and every configuration I have ever shot feels the same to me except my Tactical set up, it feels like a heavy AR excluding mechanics that is.*


The biggest difference compared to other AKs on the market is the fit and finish. Many other imported AKs are simply pieced together from a random parts bin while Arsenal AKs use matched parts that were made with the rifle. Also, the standard of quality that goes into each build is much higher than say a Century built WASR-10. These AKs are about as close in quality to issued Russian AK74s (before 922 conversion they are made at the same factory in Russia). Not all AR15s are the same either. On a side note the accuracy is also better than typical AKs due to the better fit.


----------



## kaferhaus (Oct 8, 2009)

I've owned two arsenal AKs. Indeed they are a cut above most of what you find out there, they are no more accurate than the early Norinco imports are.

The early chinese imports are the best AKs that have ever come into the country. The Arsenal guns are the "high end" of parts guns..... still a parts gun that in my opinion are way over priced for the actual product quality.

I'd certainly take a AK in a pinch but they don't hold a candle to even a run of the mill AR in the quality and accuracy depts. Never mind the adaptability.

The only advantage an AK has is a very, very slight reliability edge when abused. Which for the vast majority of the uneducated, poorly trained conscripts it was issued too all over the world is perfect.


----------



## kaferhaus (Oct 8, 2009)




----------



## Gravity3694 (May 10, 2011)

kaferhaus said:


> I'd certainly take a AK in a pinch but they don't hold a candle to even a run of the mill AR in the quality and accuracy depts. Never mind the adaptability.
> 
> The only advantage an AK has is a very, very slight reliability edge when abused. Which for the vast majority of the uneducated, poorly trained conscripts it was issued too all over the world is perfect.


In my opinion I would take a quality AR over any AK. ARs edge out AKs in everything except reliability by a slim margin. I only want an AK because I don't own one and would like to become antiquated with one.


----------



## Glockfan (Feb 7, 2012)

That video is probally an ak that was illegally modified.. just saying.


----------



## smithnsig (Mar 28, 2012)

AK's like the other Comm-bloc weapons before it are for peasant armies. It's simple, cheap, and easy to maintain. They are made for fighting the "Imperialist hordes" from the West by semi-trained armies. It's what makes them good, and bad. 

You won't win a bench competition, or bust a buck at 300 yds., but you will have a lot of cheap reliable fun. Good defensive rifle with the right ammo also.

I prefer the 581 series Mini-30, but an AK would be fine. Hornady 7.62x39 SST is and outstanding hunting defensive load for the price.


----------



## Gravity3694 (May 10, 2011)

smithnsig said:


> AK's like the other Comm-bloc weapons before it are for peasant armies. It's simple, cheap, and easy to maintain. They are made for fighting the "Imperialist hordes" from the West by semi-trained armies. It's what makes them good, and bad.


The Soviet Army was a highly trained professional army that centered around highly mobile rapid advances. The AK47 is just a reflection of Soviet infantry doctrine. The AK has always been more of a machine gun designed to suppress its targets while Soviet infantry and armor advanced in for the kill.


----------



## Dixie (Oct 12, 2011)

Not an infantry guy, but the idea of an assault rifle providing suppressive fire to cover armor units doesn't sound realistic. Aren't the infantry units using AKs too? Again... not an infantry guy.


----------



## Gravity3694 (May 10, 2011)

Dixie said:


> Not an infantry guy, but the idea of an assault rifle providing suppressive fire to cover armor units doesn't sound realistic. Aren't the infantry units using AKs too? Again... not an infantry guy.


The Soviets invented a tactic called Deep Battle in WW2 which later carried into the Cold War. The entire plan was to form a break in the front and then to offload infantry from APCs and IFVs through what was called Operational Maneuver Groups. Once behind the front infantry would spread like a disease and wipe out the frontal defenses with ease. The whole key to the operation was massive firepower and rapid advance to make a hole in the front.

Its always been my personal observation that the AK47 is much more like a machine gun due to its sights and that accuracy wasn't a primary consideration during the design. Interestingly, the first movement after safe on the selector is full auto.


----------



## kaferhaus (Oct 8, 2009)

> The Soviet Army was a highly trained professional army.


You're kidding right? The Soviet army and now the Russian army was and is almost entirely made up of conscripted, poorly educated peasants, who do their required time and immediately leave the military.

On the other hand, they do have a decent officer corps who are indeed professionals for the most part.

Their "doctrine" was and remains simple overwhelming force of numbers.

As "Dixie" pointed out, the AK is indeed their infantry weapon. Any "assault weapon" can be used for suppressive fire..... that's exactly why they're called assault weapons. On full auto, the issue becomes effective range. No assault rifle is anywhere near as accurate as a dedicated machine gun at distances over 75M or so. The AK is notably horrid on full auto past about 50yds.

The AK is a great close quarters/urban area combat rifle. Outside of that it's pretty piss poor. Having said that, the above is exactly what it was designed for. So for its intended purpose it's a near perfect gun.

I've owned a bunch of them, most were a blast to shoot and plink with. Still own the first one I ever bought in 1987 which is a underfolder polytech "legend" with the milled receiver and chromed bore.

Hand loaded with match bullets, it's a 3MOA rifle. With anything else it's 3.5 or worse. I bought a bunch of PMC ammo for it years ago that it likes so that's all that I shoot out of it. The newer "bear" stuff makes it a 4-5" gun...


----------



## Gravity3694 (May 10, 2011)

kaferhaus said:


> You're kidding right? The Soviet army and now the Russian army was and is almost entirely made up of conscripted, poorly educated peasants, who do their required time and immediately leave the military.


This has long been a Western perspective if not stereotype of the Soviet Union. The Russian people are not mujiks (dumb peasants) by any means. The Soviets established quite a robust education system, but instead of theory they emphasized prahtiki (practical) or vocational training. The Soviets also boasted very high near 100 literacy rates going back as far as the late 1930s. I find that these are somewhat dubious since the Soviets have a history of distorting statistics at times. However, for the present time and during the latter part of the Soviet Union their statistics probably did show construct validity.

The notion of dumb peasants in the the red army may have been true during WWII since educational reforms were only just established a decade or two prior. By the end of the Soviet union, I believe that decent education levels were long established. Also, by the end many Russians had moved out of the the uncivilized rural population centers into urban populations. The 2002 Russian census records a 73% urban population.

Soviet infantry doctrine traditionally operated under the concept of "we will throw ourselves" (can't find the Russian phonetic). This was most prominently seen in WWII with the 27 million Soviet casualties. It doesn't seem plausable however that the Russians would stagnate and not develop different or better tactics for the 21st century.


----------

