Better all around AK for range time: AK47 or AK74

[youngone]

Go watch the vids.

I don't have to watch videos, I'm out there doin it damn near every weekend along side a Stag Arms AR15. Your statement of AK's bein "spray and pray" and "bullet flingers" is garbage.


Is it a 1" MOA gun? Nope. But it can print acceptable groups.


You like videos, so here you go.

Fast forward to 5:30

Review: Golden Tiger Ammo .223 and 7.62x39 - YouTube

Since you'll probably bitch that he used a scope, even tho more and more people, AR's and AK's alike, are switchin to some sort of optic, here's an AK 74 with iron sights. Not bad for a "spray and pray" weapon.

AR vs AK: Practical Accuracy - YouTube

 

[youngone]

Go watch the vids.

The US Army agrees with me when it comes to accuracy. This is a summary of their 1962 comparison.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Are you ****in kiddin me? You're usin a 51 year old comparison and expect to be takin seriously?

From the same era from a Nam vet ( the stag arms owners dad as he's holdin my AK 47)

"They were killkin us with these and we had those pea shootin, jammin piece's of shit M16's"

But I wouldn't dare use that as an argument because both platforms military and civillian models have progressed greatly since then. Ammo,too.

 

[Katy TX5.0]

The AK hasn't changed as much as an AR. It's even more of a gap now. The problem with the A1 was it was fielded without any training and/or cleaning kits because of a rush. Would I trust my life with an AK? Sure would. I just won't trust it to be accurate.

 

[Katy TX5.0]

I don't have to watch videos, I'm out there doin it damn near every weekend along side a Stag Arms AR15. Your statement of AK's bein "spray and pray" and "bullet flingers" is garbage.


Is it a 1" MOA gun? Nope. But it can print acceptable groups.


You like videos, so here you go.

Fast forward to 5:30

Review: Golden Tiger Ammo .223 and 7.62x39 - YouTube

Since you'll probably bitch that he used a scope, even tho more and more people, AR's and AK's alike, are switchin to some sort of optic, here's an AK 74 with iron sights. Not bad for a "spray and pray" weapon.

AR vs AK: Practical Accuracy - YouTube

I don't know about the 74. Never claimed to. A scope only helps you see the target better, it doesn't help you shoot.

I think our differences stem from definition of accuracy. I don't view anything over sub moa as accurate. An AK is well above that.

 

[Jebadias]

Get the 7.62 now and the 5.45 later. Believe me, once you get one you'll want another and some how a Mosin Nagant will make it's way to your collection too.

:lol:This seems to happen often

Not a chance. I've fired both. If you can't get a mil spec AR to group better you don't know how to shoot.

Interesting. So having shot both, which AK did you shoot? Was it a quality rifle or some used up parts kit put on a crap reciever by trained monkeys? I own both and my Saiga is as good as my Bushmaster at 100 yards, meaning that i can hit target clays set up (not flying) if I do my part.

Go watch the vids.

The US Army agrees with me when it comes to accuracy. This is a summary of their 1962 comparison.

WTF! Are you for real?

Many of the comparisons made here would be laughed off of this site if they were about cars. I think it is funny how performance improvements from car parts can be dismissed here because the results shown are not on the same car, same dyno or even just because they are not done on the same day but, since we are now talking firearms people will argue for thier favorite platform because they happened to shoot one better once. The following is for the two or three people here who may actually have an open mind.

I think AKs get a bad rap for several reasons.

First off is that we still suffer from the fallout of the cold war. In that era we, as a society, were scared to death of the commies even if we won't admit it. We counted on quality to beat out quantity in the event of a war and always tried to one up the Soviets in weapons. The AR platform had it's merits pushed as hard as the AK's faults on our troops in order to try and build up their confidence in the weapon. This was a good thing from a morale point of view especially in light of the very bad publicity that the AR had after it's adoption. An unfortunate side effect was a myth of significant superiority of the AR platform, which is not the case.

This perception was compounded by the superior training of western troops over vietcong guerrillas and the wars in Iraq and Afganistan have only added to it. I don't care what modern rifles you put in people's hands, Highly trained Marines who regularly practice at 500 meters are going to shoot better than kids handed a rifle and some ammo and told to go fight, especially with all of the extra advantages they enjoy.

Many cheap AKs are parts kits. The rifles are built in countries that do not have great quality manufacturing (my SAR2 had tool marks and the serial number had been hand engraved) and the parts are imported. They are assembled in the US with just enough US made parts to make them legal. Individual profits on these rifles are low. The money is in quantity. Quality of assembly often takes a back seat in these rifles. These rifles are not bad, they just need a little TLC. They typically shoot reliably, just not match grade accurate. The finish is often poor and to save money the markings may look like crap. Given the natural tendancy to want to feel the AK is inferior, and given the safety's truely bad ergonomics compared to an AR I can understand why some people lump all AKs into this catergory.

A big part of the appeal of the AK is cheap ammo. Surplus ammo is not made with accuracy in mind. Believe it or not ARs and AKs are not sniper rifles and hitting a plate at 200 yards is more than acceptable accuracy for what the rifles were intended for. 7.62 is not as accurate as .223/5.56 at longer ranges, especially when you compare old military surplus 7.62 to modern civilian .223. Most people who bash AKs don't even realize that the 5.45 exists, let alone how greatly improved it is in accuracy (even in mil surp) or that it has been issued for almost 40 years and is only 'new' to the US. When making comparisons ammo is as important for performance as octane is for cars. At least use mil surp in both or modern quality ammo in both. Most people making these comparisons use 40 year old Polish AK ammo and new off the shelf ammo for the AR.

Finally you have to compare apples to apples. The Russian rifles are excellent in terms of manufacturing and assemble quality (there are other good rifle out there as well). They are not cheap knockoffs. Nobody would take a match grade AR with high quality ammo that the rifle is known to shoot well and seriously compete against it with a high round count low end build from one of the 'poorer' AR manufactures. So why do AR fanboys always insist on doing it with AKs? I think all three rifles (AR15, AKM and AK47) are just fine for what the OP originally asked. Of course what do I know, I only own BOTH platforms and have carried the M16 professionally for 20 years. Go find quality versions of both and shoot them, with decent ammunition, and decide for yourself which you like better. If you live in SE Michigan and want to try them send me a PM.

 

[ford_racer]

I need to myself a 74 at some point in time.

 

[97cobraconvert]

Ive shot a couple thousand round thru both. That being said I chose the ak. You can range it a couple of times before you need to clean it. The only ftf I've ever had was because of the shitty Tula ammo. I've machined parts for both. As far as shot grouping, your talking about a 2-2.5" group at 100 yds for the ar. 2.5-3.0" group for the ak. Besides the ak ammo is $.27 per round.

 

[SVT-BansheeMan]

Havent shot the 74's round. However, i do own a mak 90(ak variant). For me it's far easier and cheaper to find 7.62x39. I only run cheap non-corrosive steel case. Recoil sucks but it's not like im trying to burst or fire full auto.

Since the range doesnt require you to carry your gun all day like hunting or patrol, extra weight doesnt matter.

My cheap ak and cheap ammo still does awesome for the range my eye's and iron sights can handle. I also have a 3-9 scope on it and it does great for what it is. It will always be more accurate than i am capable of.

 

[Badbob2121]

I have both an WASR10 Romanian AK47 and a S&W AR22, but I am an Marine Infantry vet and have lots of experience with the AR/M16 platform and also spent 6 months as a marksmanship instructor.

Both are fun rifles, the AR has its perks in regards to sight adjustment and accuracy past 300m, which is where I would say the AK begins to fall off..

But I bought my AK the day I turned 18 for $300 and has never had a single misfire or stoppage, and I sure as hell cant say that about any AR Ive owned or been issued.

 

[BDF8]

go watch the vids.



The us army agrees with me when it comes to accuracy. This is a summary of their 1962 comparison.

1962

 

[Silverstrike]

Let me ask y'all this:

I was doing some research and a lot of people have high praise for the Finnish made Valmet M62 and M76. Some on the gun forums seem to think they are the best AK based platforms. What do y'all think? Are they expensive, and hard to get? Also I believe they are only made to fire 7.62x39mm and not the 5.45x39mm. I'm I correct on that?

The Valmet and it's Israeli spin off Galil use mostly milled parts over the press stamp AKM version. So they tend to not flex as much and are a more solid platform to shot from. I have shot a couple of Valmets mostly the 7.62X39 and .308/7.62 NATO versions and only once with a 5.56/.223 M-78. Accuracy was a little better over my Egyptian Maddi but nothing that was vastly improved. It has to do how the Finn's and Israeli's moved the rear sight from back of the gas tube to the rear of the dust cover. This increases the sight picture of the front sight so errors in aiming are less dramatic over the shorter radius of the AK and AKM models. I own about 5 different Ak platforms over the years and still have 3 of them

My Maddi which is probably the closest thing out there for a real Soviet era AKM. Since thatr is exactly what the Egyptians did was buy the tooling from the Soviets and set up the Maddi Engineering works on the lower Nile region. It has never done anything except fire every time I pulled the trigger be it Egyptian, E German, Bulgarian, Russian surplus or USA,European, and Wolf commercial rounds. No failure to feed or extract ever.

Then my Romanina CUR-2 which I turned over to the first model AK-74 with currect wood furniture. The 5.45 round is a good performer unless your target is behind something. The small round is no penetrator of barriers unlike the heaavier older 7.62X39 M43 round. It was designed for only one purpose and that was to deliver the biggest wound channel in a body as possible from such a small round. It tumbles upon impact of any tissue.

And finally two years ago I bought a Yugo parts kit RPK in 7.62X39 this is another option is to get a heavier barreled RPK rifle. The bad thing is they are heavier and also having a longer 20-22 inch barrel on them. But if you do a lot of shooting it takes a while longer to heat up the thicker barrel over the thinner AK variants. Plus accuracy is a little better with the heavier barreled versions. Except with the Maddi's as all the Egyptians did was lengthen a standard AKM barrel on their RPK version.