GunGeek

Re-read what I said...

I personally have never had any issue hitting man sized targets out to 500 with a decent AK. The better ones are more accurate than most realize. The issue is the human engineering, or lack thereof. I personally have no issue scoring well with traditional open sights, but it's clear most do, which is why the US went away from them around 1917.

The government study of M14's in Vietnam found that an amazingly low percentage would pass minimum accuracy standards after one year in the field. That accuracy standard was 5.6" at 100 yards if I recall correctly. Yet, most could still hit targets out to extended range just fine with that horribly inaccurate M14 that had been in the field for a year. Again, because while it didn't have the mechanical accuracy, it had everything else.

Now I have never personally encountered an AK that was 6 MOA, but during the M14's service time, the government found many that were that and worse.

Us civilians are shocked at such a thing, because the semi-auto M14's are known tack drivers...and they are.

But civilians don't do to their $2,000.00+ M14's what soldiers do to them. Once heard an Army armorer say a soldier could break a crow bar in a sand box; I believe it!

Nor do they live in the field for a year in an entire nation that turns into a swamp for 5 months out of the year.

Even with all the flaws the M14 had, they still remained pretty darned reliable, and the good sights, good trigger, good balance, long sight plane, etc, meant that even though their rifles didn't shoot half as good as they thought they did, soldiers still had no problems hitting what they aimed at.

Big difference between bench accuracy, and what a soldier actually NEEDS in the field.

One of my favorite stories I read was David Fortier was talking to a Russian Spetznaz soldier in Chechnya, and he said he didn't care for the AK's accuracy. The solider said something to the effect of...Just a few hours ago, I was shooting down power lines...How much more accuracy do you need. Game, set, match!!

M118LR

All I can do is shake my head.
What was the final score of the Spetznaz vs Mujahideen?
We shall have to wait to get the final score of SOCOM vs Al Qaeda.

GunGeek

Well Chechnya isn't an independent Caliphate. But it should be noted that both sides were using mostly the same small arms.

Back to the AK. My last one was a Russian SGL-20, and with Lapua ammunition I got 5 shot groups all the way down to 1.5 MOA. For comparison sake, and contrary to what most THINK about the M4, the military standard for accuracy for the M4 is 5 MOA with issue iron sights. My cousin was a Marine armorer who served in Iraq, and he informed me that while most would shoot much better than that, your average brand new M4 was typically a 3.5 MOA rifle. Which is VERY coincidental, because I have found your average AK that's built properly is typically a 3.5 MOA rifle...things that make you go Hmmmmm. (again, talking mechanical bench accuracy)


Kevin's SGL-20 topped with M68 CCO (Aimpoint CompM2). I parted with it when someone offered me an obscene amount of money for it. I was very surprised at how pissed off my kids were when they realized I had sold it...I mean they were downright pizzed!!! When I asked why, they said it was just so evil and cool looking that it became their second favorite centerfire...the M1 Carbine is always the most fought over centerfire rifle at the Gibson residence.

With other ammunition my SGL-20 shot around 3 MOA. And another contrary...Hornady and Winchester brass case was not able to out-shoot Wolf steel case 123gr FMJ in my SGL-20 (nor my friend's Norinco). Not only was the Russian steel case more accurate than American brass case 7.62 M43, but it was cleaner shooting. In fact, the batch of Wolf FMJ I ended up buying two cases of turned out to be the cleanest rifle ammunition I've ever used for any caliber, any maker. I could fire 100 rounds of ammo through my AK, peer down the bore and not find any un-burnt powder in the bore...darn thing looked mostly unfired. Past that, then fouling becomes apparent...but to say I was impressed was an understatement.
Accuracy with that batch of Wolf (I believe it was actual military ammunition) ran 2.5-2.9 MOA. Never once shot over that 2.9 MOA and I don't recall it shooting under 2.5 MOA. Honestly for a general issue combat rifle, that's accuracy sufficient to do any reasonable job you could ask of an infantry rifle.

I read an article written by an Army SF soldier where they were wanting an AR in 7.62x39 that takes AK mags for missions where they would be using Their boss (some general) asked why they couldn't just use AK's and the soldiers said that AK's were just lousy rifles. When he asked for the data supporting that assessment, they all just stared at each other.

So they did some research to dig up US military testing of captured AK's and that data showed that AK's used as a control in testing various rifles for reliability, generally kicked most everything's butt in that department (with a few exceptions, scenario's, etc.), and typically ran middle of the pack in the realm of accuracy.

So they decided to test AK's themselves, and as much as they were trying to prove the AK wasn't good enough for the job, they just couldn't make that case. The SF soldier who wrote the article mentioned that their report hadn't been de-classified, but he stated when he became fully acclimated to the AK weapon, the rifle did everything he asked of it. He was a died in the wool AR man...still is, but he couldn't look his boss in the eye and say they needed a new rifle after the test was done.

Personally I find the AK to be a good weapon and in some cases a very good weapon. But it's not my preference if given a choice...unless I get to choose the Valmet/Sako Rk-95 that is.

But like that SF soldier, I have worked with the AK earnestly, with an eye toward mastering the weapon. I'd like to say I did achieve some mastery with the AK, and I am left with the fact that it's a good weapon. I personally think most any well trained soldier is much better off with an M16/M4. It's lighter, generally has an accuracy edge, much more ergonomic, easier to field strip, less recoil than the 7.62's...the list goes on. It's just a "better" weapon in most scenarios.

I will also say that "good weapon" is a lousy choice for an American soldier because American soldiers are just different, and the kind of different they are doesn't mix well with the AK as a general rule.

I'm happy I took the time to become truly comfortable with an AK. Gave me confidence when I found myself in a foreign country doing executive protection and found myself toting a duffel bag with an under-folder Ak in the bag.

M118LR

Guess I'm getting Old, are you telling me that the M4 is going to be replaced with an AK?
Slipped my mind, but I thought SOCOM was arming Tomorrows Warriors with piston driven Battlefield Rifles. Even if they are chambered in calibers that have been proven to be ineffective in actual use.

GunGeek

I was just making points about mechanical accuracy vs. practical accuracy. Point was the AK is often just as accurate as various US weapons, but the US weapons “seem” far more accurate because they have better balance, better sights, better trigger, etc…and that those things play a much more important role toward accuracy in the field than mechanical/benchrest accuracy.

So no, the US most certainly is not considering the AK for anything other than special occasions by special operations.

The two rifles the US seems to be most interested in are the H&K 417 & 417 series, which are top grade piston AR’s in 5.56 & 7.62 respectively.

M118LR

When the firearm (AK) has less of a mechanical accuracy potential than the operator, well somone said only accurate firearms are interesting?

GunGeek

Many US made AK's there is some truth to that. Most are very poorly built to say the least. Shoot a few of those and not only would you think all AK's are inaccurate, but you'd SERIOUSLY question the AK's reputation for reliability as well!

But when they're built right, a proper AK isn't much less accurate than a good M4. Look at the results I got from my Russian SGL-20, and I'm told the '74's are even more accurate. I haven't shot a Russian '74, but I have shot Bulgarian '74's and it was every bit as accurate as my SGL-20 if not more accurate.
(to be honest, I tried to trade the guy; but he wasn't letting go of his 74).

GunGeek

M118,

The M1 Carbine which is beloved by both you and I had a reputation for horrible accuracy. And at times they were pretty inaccurate, but at other times they shot rather well. The first time I took my personal M1 out the best group I could muster was just under 5” for 5 shots at 100 yards with the open sights. And this was back in the days when I still had 20/10 vision. I went back to work the following Monday and asked my boss what he thought. He recommended switching to the late style recoil shield. Well we worked in a warehouse filled with just over 10k M1 Carbines at that moment in time, so I just grabbed one out of the parts bin that had a good finish that I thought would match my rifle, and it matched pretty well. Next trip to the range, my first group was 2.2” from a bench.

When I went through that pile of nearly 11k Carbines I did test many for accuracy and they all averaged around 3.0 MOA which is not inaccurate at all when you consider the role for which that weapon was intended. In fact, often when I tested those carbines, we would have a Garand or two that we were testing too, and it wasn’t uncommon for the Carbines to be more accurate than rack grade Garands.

Still, US military reports from the field reported the little carbine as wildly inaccurate compared to the Garand. And again, I think it comes back to the difference in the “shootability” vs. mechanical accuracy between the two weapons. The Garand has a better trigger, better sights, and I personally think-fantastic balance, especially from the prone position. The Carbine has good sights, triggers are less than stellar for sure, the sight radius is rather short, and balance wise…well, it’s not well balanced for shooting prone that’s for sure…I personally think it’s awesome off hand. So despite mechanical accuracy people shot the Garand much better than they shot the Carbine.

Again back to my point…I personally think the human engineering element is far more important than mechanical accuracy (within reason of course).

M118LR

GunGeek, without taking away from your previous, I wasn't to enamored with the M1 Carbine. It just performed better at the 100 yard mark in most folks hands than the 1911. Now I was enthralled with the M-DEUCE Carbine, but it was a matter of how much it wieghed within the parameters of how far away the enemy was. At 300 yards or more I couldn't carry enough ammo belts to make the M-2 a worthy opponent. But at 300 yards I could eliminate an enemy with only a single round from the M-14 so often that it would become monotonously boring for both of US.

csmkersh

That was the carbine's job; replace the 1911. Rifles are easier to train the non-gun person on than a handgun is.

Skeptic49

Interesting that the US Army turned the carbine M-1 into the selective fire equivalent of the PPSh. That SMG being the WarPact version of a PDW, in the 40's and 50's.

Geoff
Who suspects we are seeing another major change in tactics, technology and force application in the making.

GunGeek

The M1 Carbine may have started out as a PDW for support troops, but it quickly found its way into a LOT of hands on the front line; and stayed there. There were twice the M1 Carbines manufactured during WWII than there were Garands, and I was surprised to learn the Carbines cost the government more than the Garands, so it certainly wasn’t because they were trying to save money. All the services were screaming loudly for more Carbines from day one. Considering it was one of the first real PDW’s, it’s rather amazing what they achieved in an unreasonably short period of time.

GunGeek

Geoff,

You certainly could be right. I like how the Army is thinking of late. They seem to be investigating all avenues and looking at things as a clean slate, considering all ideas both old and new. I think that’s the ONLY attitude to have when it comes to considering the future of warfare and the weapons you choose. For the short term, the futures looks exceedingly bright for H&K with their 416/417 series, as it’s a very logical and semi-cheap way to upgrade/change small arms while disrupting the apple cart the least. H&K recently bagged the new service rifle for France and that’s no small contract (416), the M27 for the Marines (heavy barrel 416), and the G28 (417 variant) has been chosen as the US Army’s new DMR to replace the M110.

But the Army is looking at a family of 6.5 cartridges currently, two commercial and two that they’re developing. And the LSAT program is still quite alive and well in case telescoped (or caseless option). If they ever finish that program, I think it could have a profound effect on battlefield because suddenly a belt fed squad auto with quick change barrels now weighs just under 10lbs, with fairly repeatable accuracy with barrel changes…will that just end up being a general issue weapon? Or will one in 3 carry an LSAT? How will that change the battlefield?