AK/SK accuracy vs ARs

[Sidewinder]

I believe it's a pretty much proven fact that an AR, say in .223, is more accurate at say 200-300 yards than is the AK or SKS in 7.62 x 39. Without doing hours of research on ballistics, barrel lengths and twists, and the round themselves, why is there such a disparity? Is it the round? Is it the barrel twist? Or is it just the precise tolerances built into the modern day ARs? Also, how accurate is the AK chambered in .223 compared to the ARs? I don't mean to start WWlll here, but I'm willing to be educated! Thanks.

"To anger a Conservative, lie to him. To anger a Liberal, tell him the truth." Theodore Roosevelt

[Guest jimdigriz]

I believe it's a pretty much proven fact that an AR, say in .223, is more accurate at say 200-300 yards than is the AK or SKS in 7.62 x 39. Without doing hours of research on ballistics, barrel lengths and twists, and the round themselves, why is there such a disparity? Is it the round? Is it the barrel twist? Or is it just the precise tolerances built into the modern day ARs? Also, how accurate is the AK chambered in .223 compared to the ARs? I don't mean to start WWlll here, but I'm willing to be educated! Thanks.

To me, the accuracy advantage of an AR is not sufficiently great to outweigh the reliability advantage of the AK. A lot of that extra accuracy will be of little use in a firefight. Additionally, if you get a quality AK (like a Saiga), you will have a very accurate gun.

The AKs (from a good manufacturer) in .223 and 5.45x39 are typically very accurate, but still not as much as as a good AR. I get about 2.5 MOA with my Saiga 5.45 rifle, using an Aimpoint Micro. With a magnified optic, I think I could get around 2 MOA or maybe even better.

[seez52]

I think part of it is the ammo used in the AKs. Usually it's some cheap import stuff. I"ve got a 2x scope mounted on mine via Ultamak mount and the accuracy sucks. Even at 25 yards I can easily tell the difference between it and my AR, or FAL for that matter.

Haven't tried any hand loads in it.

They are what they are. There are some slow motion videos on YouTube showing the barrel whip during firing, I'd bet that's part of the problem. As far as reliability, it runs and runs and runs. When the weather warms up I may run some more tests, but my previous sessions were not impressive.

[1gewehr]

The 5.56mm cartridge is inherently more accurate than the 7.62x39mm. Add in the fact that the same loose tolerances that make the AK reliable also affect accuracy, and you have the easy explanation.

The 5.45.x39mm used in the AK-74 is also an accurate cartridge. It does very well out of bolt rifles (less than 1 MOA). Out of an AK-74, it usually does 1.5-2.5 MOA.

[Guest ab28]

I think the accuracy myth having to do with AK's is mostly due to the somolian ones with the barrel shot out and most of the parts replaced with coathangers and sheet metal. Most of the civvy AKs are 2 MOA rifles. The barrel flex doesn't matter, as it flexes after the round leaves the barrel, and barrel flex happens with all rifles, it's physics. I have only shot mine out to 50 yards, been meaning to get down to that range on Hobson Pike. At 50 yards, though the accuracy is very good. I like ARs, they are good, accurate shooters, lightweight, so don't think I am bashing them. As far as the AR having more long range accuracy, the 5.56 is worthless past around 400 yards, even if you can hit accurately at 600, or whatever range it is. I will take the AKs higher "stopping power" and reliability over an AR, depending on the situation.

Mine is the 7.62x39, by the way.

[Guest 1817ak47]

well if I was in a SHTF situation, I wouldn't want the fair weather ar gun. if you do entensive research on board like gunboarfd forums, sms survivors board, there are people who have been trainers for decades who will say an kk it by far more reliable. now I have been hearing that the newer good ar's can be real accurate, but I would only want one for god/fair weather. now there is alot of nice stuff available for the ar though, and I wouldn't mind having one sometime, but don't be expecting reliability when you are out on foot in the rain in the woods when we have a civil outbreak

[Warbird]

well if I was in a SHTF situation, I wouldn't want the fair weather ar gun. if you do entensive research on board like gunboarfd forums, sms survivors board, there are people who have been trainers for decades who will say an kk it by far more reliable. now I have been hearing that the newer good ar's can be real accurate, but I would only want one for god/fair weather. now there is alot of nice stuff available for the ar though, and I wouldn't mind having one sometime, but don't be expecting reliability when you are out on foot in the rain in the woods when we have a civil outbreak

And I could show you a huge list of some of the best instructors and operators in the world who will take an AR, Sig or HK all day long over the AK. IF they had a choice they would probably want an AK sitting around, but they would take the AR in preference over the AK. By my experience most of these internet commandos who spat these things are people who have little experience with more than one of these weapons if with any. They love to regurgitate what they have heard from others.

Speaking as a person who has a lot of experience shooting these weapons i will call out BS to most of this stuff. I own SKS, AK, NMH-91 and have owned several AR's and just bought another. The AR is very reliable. On a quality AR, being one such as our military uses, you can run them for thousands of rounds w/o even cleaning them. With modern coatings on the BCG they will run w/o even lube for several thousand rounds. Not that I would do it, but others are doing it in tests.

The AR has its weaknesses as does the AK. The AK is no where near as accurate as the AR in gun or cartridge. The argument that the 5565 is not useful after 400 yards is not correct either. i have killed coyotes and prairie dgs at 600 yards with an AR. You would be very fortunate indeed to even hit a prairre dog at 600 yards with an AK.

I don't see our military being decimated because we Americans have handicapped them with the AR over the almighty AK. IF I wnated a 30 caliber round, I'd opt for the 308, 30-06, a M-14, numerous things before the AK. As I said, the AK is a useful tool, and a good one to own. However, for numerous reasons it doesn't simply win a contest with the AR in the minds of most. This conversation is one that I ave and many times over the years and is a favorite debate of military gun enthusiasts in conversation with professionals, military, security forces etc, the AR is the overwhelming favorite.

Again I am also comparing quality v quality. There are bad examples of AR's and AK's. If you gave me a choice between several AR manufacturers and my own AK's, which are well made, I would take my AK. I'll take the AR quality being equal. I just wouldn't buy what is tossed around on survivalist boards.

[Guest 2HOW]

Having owned both, I would say the "average" AK-47 against the "average" AR is an even match under 200 yards. You may have an AR advantage with a .223 chamber and a long barrel under 200 yards, but surely over 200 yards the AR has the advantage. Although the AK 74 may give it a run over 200 yards.

[Alleycat72]

I think the accuracy myth having to do with AK's is mostly due to the somolian ones with the barrel shot out and most of the parts replaced with coathangers and sheet metal. Most of the civvy AKs are 2 MOA rifles. The barrel flex doesn't matter, as it flexes after the round leaves the barrel, and barrel flex happens with all rifles, it's physics. I have only shot mine out to 50 yards, been meaning to get down to that range on Hobson Pike. At 50 yards, though the accuracy is very good. I like ARs, they are good, accurate shooters, lightweight, so don't think I am bashing them. As far as the AR having more long range accuracy, the 5.56 is worthless past around 400 yards, even if you can hit accurately at 600, or whatever range it is. I will take the AKs higher "stopping power" and reliability over an AR, depending on the situation.

Mine is the 7.62x39, by the way.

So when a bad guy, coyote, groundhog is hit at 600 yards with 5.56 does he feel it? Or does it bounce of like sleet? I think you would be hard pressed to find someone to stand in front of one at 401 yards

[BryanP]

And I could show you a huge list of some of the best instructors and operators in the world who will take an AR, Sig or HK all day long over the AK.

Ah, this argument again.

One of the most telling comments I've ever read was referring to a gentleman who had spent many years fighting in African wars and had made extensive use of both AK and AR family rifles. I can't quote him exactly, but the gist of it was this:

"The AR is a lot better than most people give it credit. The AK isn't nearly as bulletproof as those same people will say. Either will do a fine job if handled properly."

[Warbird]

Ah, this argument again.

One of the most telling comments I've ever read was referring to a gentleman who had spent many years fighting in African wars and had made extensive use of both AK and AR family rifles. I can't quote him exactly, but the gist of it was this:

"The AR is a lot better than most people give it credit. The AK isn't nearly as bulletproof as those same people will say. Either will do a fine job if handled properly."

I guess my point was in reference to his stating that some guys on the survival forum said the AK was far better a SHTF rifle than the AR. I take great umbrage with that type of statement. I can find just as many who say otherwise, and that from professional fighters. As I said, the AK is a fine tool, hence the reason I own several. I'm sure there are AR owners who think the AK is crap. I read a lot of AK owners who think the AR is crap. I come down that they are both good rifles for different reasons, with different strengths and weaknesses.

If the SHTF I hope to have both and would feel much better with either than many other choices. I must admit that I do prefer the AR to the Ak for my own reasons.

One thing I am always cautious of on gun boards or anywhere else is people often feel the need to defend their decisions by deriding other choices. Many start out in this area of guns with the Ak, not the AR because they are cheaper, then will defend that decision by saying it is just better is all. Me I know I owned AK's before AR's but never felt them superior. This isn't just prevalent in just the AR/Ak argument but across the gun spectrum in general. you will hear folks say oh I bought a gun for half of what you paid and mine is just as good. In general my feeling is you get what you pay for. A quality AK is cheaper than a quality AR, it just is. If you compare a quality AK to an inferior AR it isn't a good comparison. I have always bought quality and can honestly say I have ever had a major failure of either an AK or AR of mine.

And I will say that in today's market the AR is far more versatile. When Ifirst started shooting AK and AR and owned my first of each, the AR was not nearly so versatile.

I always bought the best I could get and if i couldn't get quality I would wait till I could.

[Guest PatriotCSA]

There's nothing wrong with either. It's like arguing Mopar vs GM in the car world. I have an AK and my best gun friend has an AR. They're both great rifles and will work well when it counts if you keep them well maintained. If the SHTF, I would use my AK until I ran out of rounds for it, then I would pick up an M4 or whatever along the way and start using that as the 5.56 would be more readily available. As far as assault rifles go - when they really become necessary - the argument won't be which one is better, it will simply be which one you have ammunition for at that moment or which one is in your hand when a nasty situation comes up.

[Westwindmike]

I think the original poster was wanting to hunt coyotes with his and wasn't really interested in the combat applications. That is unless the coyotes are shooting back.

[setsdw]

I think the original poster was wanting to hunt coyotes with his and wasn't really interested in the combat applications. That is unless the coyotes are shooting back.

I don't know. Any coyote worth his salt can get hold of a gun. Whether it be a straw purchase from a sympathetic human or a back alley deal on the streets, they'll find them. Plus they run in packs the like the crips and bloods and are constantly practicing tactics. Never know when you'll be surrounded by a bunch of gun-toting 'yotes. Nothing to take lightly.

[Guest ab28]

And I could show you a huge list of some of the best instructors and operators in the world who will take an AR, Sig or HK all day long over the AK. IF they had a choice they would probably want an AK sitting around, but they would take the AR in preference over the AK. By my experience most of these internet commandos who spat these things are people who have little experience with more than one of these weapons if with any. They love to regurgitate what they have heard from others.

(I did a tour in Iraq, not an internet commando. I have shot both weapons platforms. I like the AR, but over there I saw hajs taking 3-4 rounds in the chest before they would drop.)

Speaking as a person who has a lot of experience shooting these weapons i will call out BS to most of this stuff. I own SKS, AK, NMH-91 and have owned several AR's and just bought another. The AR is very reliable. On a quality AR, being one such as our military uses, you can run them for thousands of rounds w/o even cleaning them. With modern coatings on the BCG they will run w/o even lube for several thousand rounds. Not that I would do it, but others are doing it in tests.

(Numerous guys in my unit had problems with them, including me. I don't hate the weapon, but it failed me several times.)

The AR has its weaknesses as does the AK. The AK is no where near as accurate as the AR in gun or cartridge. The argument that the 5565 is not useful after 400 yards is not correct either. i have killed coyotes and prairie dgs at 600 yards with an AR. You would be very fortunate indeed to even hit a prairre dog at 600 yards with an AK.

(Actually it is. I did not say it would do nothing, but it becomes extremely ineffective. I saw people taking hits much closer and have firsthand witness to the effectiveness. Also, being the medic, I saw what it did. I would take it if I could land headshots every time in a firefight though. The weapon platform has a lot of good things going for it.)

I don't see our military being decimated because we Americans have handicapped them with the AR over the almighty AK. IF I wnated a 30 caliber round, I'd opt for the 308, 30-06, a M-14, numerous things before the AK. As I said, the AK is a useful tool, and a good one to own. However, for numerous reasons it doesn't simply win a contest with the AR in the minds of most. This conversation is one that I ave and many times over the years and is a favorite debate of military gun enthusiasts in conversation with professionals, military, security forces etc, the AR is the overwhelming favorite.

Again I am also comparing quality v quality. There are bad examples of AR's and AK's. If you gave me a choice between several AR manufacturers and my own AK's, which are well made, I would take my AK. I'll take the AR quality being equal. I just wouldn't buy what is tossed around on survivalist boards.

My replies are in parenthesis.

[Warbird]

Certainly didn't mean to suggest you or anyone else who disagrees with me is an internet commando. However, on certain boards they are in the majority. I always hesitate to take stock in what many say. So the information that some group of supposed experts says this, does not mean I put much in it. Your experience and mine are different I guess. I do appreciate your point of view though.

It is the AK47, preferred weapon of your enemy. it makes a distinctive sound when fired upon.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Warbird

[Guest jimdigriz]

If the SHTF, I would use my AK until I ran out of rounds for it, then I would pick up an M4 or whatever along the way and start using that as the 5.56 would be more readily available.

If the SHTF, and you were in enough fire fights to expend all of your inventory of ammunition, then you would probably already be dead by then anyhow (unless your store of ammo is vanishingly small).

[I_Like_Pie]

They are all good guns. Honestly the discussions about which one is "best" is pretty stupid without consideration of the person doing the shooting.

Otherwise it is just seeing who can pee the farthest.

[Warbird]

They are all good guns. Honestly the discussions about which one is "best" is pretty stupid without consideration of the person doing the shooting.

Otherwise it is just seeing who can pee the farthest.

Well the AR can certainly pee the farthest with accuracy.

[I_Like_Pie]

"Can" is the operative word...meaning that the potential is there.

I've seen some that couldn't do 6" at 100 yards - wrong bullet, wrong twist, and bad shooter. The gun was capable of 1" if everything fired was done correctly.

[Guest GunTroll]

Whats the use of the weapon decides the value to me. Kind of want to build a benchrest AK now. Just to do it.

[Sidewinder]

Thanks guys. Like I said, I didn't mean to start WWlll. I have a Romy G AK kit that I haven't finished yet, and was just wondering if a significant amount of accuracy could be obtained by using a .223 barrel instead of the standard AK barrel, the purpose to be used in hunting coyotes? Probably best to stick with a good ol' Savage bolt in .223, huh? Thanks again, lively debate!

"To anger a Conservative, lie to him. To anger a Liberal, tell him the truth." Theodore Roosevelt

Edited February 1, 2010 by Sidewinder
Left out a couple of words.

[Guest ab28]

Certainly didn't mean to suggest you or anyone else who disagrees with me is an internet commando. However, on certain boards they are in the majority. I always hesitate to take stock in what many say. So the information that some group of supposed experts says this, does not mean I put much in it. Your experience and mine are different I guess. I do appreciate your point of view though.

It is the AK47, preferred weapon of your enemy. it makes a distinctive sound when fired upon.

No harm done, I do see your point. I do enjoy shooting both platforms. My friends own several ARs, and we all shoot regularly. I usually don't try to engage in deep discussions on the internet, as the body language is missing. Talking to people face to face, you understand more. It is easy to misconstrue something on the net and blow it out of proportion.

[Guest PatriotCSA]

If the SHTF, and you were in enough fire fights to expend all of your inventory of ammunition, then you would probably already be dead by then anyhow (unless your store of ammo is vanishingly small).

Yea pretty much. Money's tough to come by these days. I've got barely enough to fill half a dozen mags and that's about it. No delta force dreams here, just stating that the real point is neither the AR or the AK would be bad if it really came down to it. As long as it gets you to the next day alive, that's all that would matter.

[Smith]

I find it interesting how these types of threads bring out all the seldom to never post guys.

AR's are more "Accurate" for various reasons but mainly due to the round itself. In the same way the x39 is exponentially more powerful (in it's perspective range) due to the round. A kinda "it's strengths are also it's weakness" thing.