Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/14/2006 6:42:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/14/2006 8:28:56 PM EST by KeltechSu16CA]
whats better and why?

Link Posted: 4/14/2006 7:07:28 PM EST
AK-47
The 7.62 has more knock down power.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 7:17:20 PM EST
IMHO

AK74 is like dancing with a redhead
AK47 is like dancing with a fat chick
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 7:20:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By WaMag:
IMHO

AK74 is like dancing with a redhead
AK47 is like dancing with a fat chick




ahaha
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 11:16:44 PM EST
Ak-74 will be more accurate and have less recoil.

Ammunition will be easier to find for a AK-47

Personally I prefer AK-74 for accuracy and follow-up low recoil shots.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 11:34:44 PM EST
AFAIK, the AK-74 was created in response to the fielding of the M16 Assault Rifle, created by Eugene Stoner back in 1957; seeing that the 5.56x45mm round was faster, lighter and could hit at farther ranges than the 7.62x39mm round of the AK-47.



The weapon fires a 5.45 × 39 mm round with a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s. Muzzle energy is 1.39 kilojoules, giving an effective range of around 500 m. Cartridge mass is 10.75 g. Projectile mass is 3.42 g. The new cartridge was designed to give greater effective range, less recoil, and a flatter trajectory than the 7.62 x 39 mm.

The 5.45 mm bullet yaws when striking a soft target such as a human causing it to tumble. This tumbling creates a larger wound in the target than the bullet's diameter. The Afghans who fought the Soviet Union often referred to the 5.45 mm as "the poison bullet" because of the severity of the wound in proportion to its relative anemic size and energy. Reports from Afghanistan suggested that the new bullet might violate international conventions on rifle ammunition. It was suggested that its radical design would create inhumane wounds.

Design of an entirely new cartridge was possibly a reaction to the effectiveness of the 5.56 × 45 mm round in Vietnam. All military rifle bullets will turn or yaw in soft tissue. Small-caliber high-velocity projectiles like the 5.56 mm produce significant wounds because they yaw much sooner in soft tissue, greatly increasing their frontal area.1 The Soviets designed a round that would be similar to the 5.56 mm, but with an increased tendency to yaw. The 5.45 mm projectile consists of a mild steel core in the rear with a lead plug in front. The copper-plated steel jacket of the bullet incorporates an air space in the nose. This empty space has several functions. It moves the center of gravity rearward, encouraging yaw in soft targets. It also streamlines and lightens the projectile resulting in greater velocity, flatter trajectory, and more reliable feeding from the magazine. Finally, this space often collapses and deforms irregularly in soft targets. Despite its complicated design, the bullet fired by the AK-74 fails to reliably fragment in soft tissue making it less effective in this area than similar Western designs. It has also been shown to yaw no sooner than the 5.56mm projectiles.

The development of the AK-74 bullet is often compared to that of the American M16 rifle and its M193 ammunition. This ignores the fact that NATO was in the process of developing the SS109 ammunition at the time and the two were likely developed in parallel with similar criteria. When the SS109 5.56 mm bullet is compared side-by-side with the 5.45 x 39mm they are similar in many ways. They are both composed of a separate jacket, steel core, and lead component. As with the SS109, the 5.45 mm was likely designed as a compromise between penetration and soft-tissue damage. The major threat at the time of development was the American soldier who was increasingly utilizing body armor. Not surprisingly, the 5.45 mm bullet is more effective against Kevlar than the earlier 7.62 mm bullet. The 5.45 mm and 5.56 mm cartridges are considered equal in most aspects with the exception of the Western round having a significantly greater tendency to fragment when fired at close range.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 3:51:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 3:56:48 AM EST by POLYTHENEPAM]
The AKM I don't dance with rifles. I don't fondle rifles. I just shoot them. The 7.62 x 39 cartridge does not rely on the stars to align correctly for it to be effective. It works. Just ask anyone who served in the infantry in SEA.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 4:02:06 AM EST
IMHO the AK-47. Why? For the same reason I like the 1911A1.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 4:24:06 AM EST
People....PEOPLE!!!!


THIS is the AK-47 FORUM!!!


HEEEELLLOOO!!!!

Th­e answer is.............

<­BR>

BOTH!
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:01:10 AM EST
I got both and love them both.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:13:07 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:20:02 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:55:06 AM EST
The 7.62 is better because it looks more evil.

But OTOH, the 5.45 is better because it looks more sexy.

It's good to have both for whatever mood you're in. And don't forget the ammo.

Link Posted: 4/15/2006 8:12:10 AM EST
Well, after WWII Russia adopts the AK47/AKM and their influence reaches around the world. Dictator’s line up to follow the party line, insurgencies spring up everywhere, dominoes fall and the Soviet Union becomes the second greatest superpower on earth. Then they adopt the AK74 and in fairly short order the whole thing falls apart. Now I can’t grantee there’s a relationship, but….

I vote AKM
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 8:28:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By Black-Tiger:
AFAIK, the AK-74 was created in response to the fielding of the M16 Assault Rifle, created by Eugene Stoner back in 1957; seeing that the 5.56x45mm round was faster, lighter and could hit at farther ranges than the 7.62x39mm round of the AK-47.

www.sovietarmy.com/small_arms/ak-74_icon.jpg


The weapon fires a 5.45 × 39 mm round with a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s. Muzzle energy is 1.39 kilojoules, giving an effective range of around 500 m. Cartridge mass is 10.75 g. Projectile mass is 3.42 g. The new cartridge was designed to give greater effective range, less recoil, and a flatter trajectory than the 7.62 x 39 mm.

The 5.45 mm bullet yaws when striking a soft target such as a human causing it to tumble. This tumbling creates a larger wound in the target than the bullet's diameter. The Afghans who fought the Soviet Union often referred to the 5.45 mm as "the poison bullet" because of the severity of the wound in proportion to its relative anemic size and energy. Reports from Afghanistan suggested that the new bullet might violate international conventions on rifle ammunition. It was suggested that its radical design would create inhumane wounds.

Design of an entirely new cartridge was possibly a reaction to the effectiveness of the 5.56 × 45 mm round in Vietnam. All military rifle bullets will turn or yaw in soft tissue. Small-caliber high-velocity projectiles like the 5.56 mm produce significant wounds because they yaw much sooner in soft tissue, greatly increasing their frontal area.1 The Soviets designed a round that would be similar to the 5.56 mm, but with an increased tendency to yaw. The 5.45 mm projectile consists of a mild steel core in the rear with a lead plug in front. The copper-plated steel jacket of the bullet incorporates an air space in the nose. This empty space has several functions. It moves the center of gravity rearward, encouraging yaw in soft targets. It also streamlines and lightens the projectile resulting in greater velocity, flatter trajectory, and more reliable feeding from the magazine. Finally, this space often collapses and deforms irregularly in soft targets. Despite its complicated design, the bullet fired by the AK-74 fails to reliably fragment in soft tissue making it less effective in this area than similar Western designs. It has also been shown to yaw no sooner than the 5.56mm projectiles.

The development of the AK-74 bullet is often compared to that of the American M16 rifle and its M193 ammunition. This ignores the fact that NATO was in the process of developing the SS109 ammunition at the time and the two were likely developed in parallel with similar criteria. When the SS109 5.56 mm bullet is compared side-by-side with the 5.45 x 39mm they are similar in many ways. They are both composed of a separate jacket, steel core, and lead component. As with the SS109, the 5.45 mm was likely designed as a compromise between penetration and soft-tissue damage. The major threat at the time of development was the American soldier who was increasingly utilizing body armor. Not surprisingly, the 5.45 mm bullet is more effective against Kevlar than the earlier 7.62 mm bullet. The 5.45 mm and 5.56 mm cartridges are considered equal in most aspects with the exception of the Western round having a significantly greater tendency to fragment when fired at close range.



what's the difference between ss109 and m855?
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 10:23:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 10:25:05 AM EST by Bachelor_of_Science]
Both are excellent weapons, given the tasks they were designed for. I prefer the AK-47, primarily because I like the "original" Kalashnikov design, specifically, Type III guns.

Either one would be a great choice. Here's a Polish Kbk AK Type III clone. Note the milled receiver:

Link Posted: 4/15/2006 10:40:47 AM EST
I prefer the 74 myself...........for all of the reasons already listed.................
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 10:48:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By NorseBoy:
AK-47
The 7.62 has more knock down power.



The AK-47 has no "knock down power". One of Newtons laws, if the bullet has enough energy to KNOCK someone down, then the recoil would have equal energy and knock the shooter down. Bullets don't knock people down, the disruption to their body functions do. And a higher velocity round has more shock value.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 10:52:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

Originally Posted By NorseBoy:
AK-47
The 7.62 has more knock down power.



The AK-47 has no "knock down power". One of Newtons laws, if the bullet has enough energy to KNOCK someone down, then the recoil would have equal energy and knock the shooter down. Bullets don't knock people down, the disruption to their body functions do. And a higher velocity round has more shock value.





not everything is meant in literal terms, he is talking about knockdown power in the sense of firearms vs people...

just wow, some people amaze me.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 10:58:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dieter122:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

Originally Posted By NorseBoy:
AK-47
The 7.62 has more knock down power.



The AK-47 has no "knock down power". One of Newtons laws, if the bullet has enough energy to KNOCK someone down, then the recoil would have equal energy and knock the shooter down. Bullets don't knock people down, the disruption to their body functions do. And a higher velocity round has more shock value.





not everything is meant in literal terms, he is talking about knockdown power in the sense of firearms vs people...

just wow, some people amaze me.



Yeah, so am I. In the sense of "firearms vs people," (whatever that means) knockdown power is largely a myth unless you are shooting a large caliber rifle. Which the AK is not.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 11:42:09 AM EST

what's the difference between ss109 and m855?


SS109 is the actual bullet (projectile) and M855 is the loaded cartridge (assuming the cartridge is loaded to NATO specifications)
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 12:47:11 PM EST
I prefer the AK74 because it is more accurate. Mine shoots MOA at 100 meters. Follow up shots are more accurate. It all about shot placement. Plus 5.45 is lighter. All valid reasons why the Russians dropped the AK47.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 3:53:16 PM EST
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 4:13:09 PM EST
I love my 47's but If I had to fight with one I would use the 74 because the low recoil and how the 5.45 effects the body after it hits ya
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 4:30:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bachelor_of_Science:
Both are excellent weapons, given the tasks they were designed for. I prefer the AK-47, primarily because I like the "original" Kalashnikov design, specifically, Type III guns.

Either one would be a great choice. Here's a Polish Kbk AK Type III clone. Note the milled receiver:

i2.tinypic.com/vih6ba.jpg




man milled receivers give me a woody
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 4:51:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

Originally Posted By Dieter122:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

Originally Posted By NorseBoy:
AK-47
The 7.62 has more knock down power.



The AK-47 has no "knock down power". One of Newtons laws, if the bullet has enough energy to KNOCK someone down, then the recoil would have equal energy and knock the shooter down. Bullets don't knock people down, the disruption to their body functions do. And a higher velocity round has more shock value.





not everything is meant in literal terms, he is talking about knockdown power in the sense of firearms vs people...

just wow, some people amaze me.



Yeah, so am I. In the sense of "firearms vs people," (whatever that means) knockdown power is largely a myth unless you are shooting a large caliber rifle. Which the AK is not.



OK, would you prefer I say "faster stopping power". I have heard that the Russians fighting in Chechnya prefer the 7.62 because it drops bodies faster. I have never been in combat so I will take their word on it.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:03:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
I prefer the AK74 because it is more accurate. Mine shoots MOA at 100 meters.



Then you'd be the first. Post proof and you'll be a celebrity around here.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:25:36 PM EST
AK-47, because its a freedomfighter's rifle...

When you realize you can do the same exact job with a $300 dollar rifle than you can with a $1500 AR you realize how simple and actually combat efective this rifle is.
Plus, ammo is cheap, available and I bet if you get hit with 7.62x39 you won't enjoy it or at least won't try to shoot back for a little while.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:44:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By Robotizing:
AK-47, because its a freedomfighter's rifle...

When you realize you can do the same exact job with a $300 dollar rifle than you can with a $1500 AR you realize how simple and actually combat efective this rifle is.
Plus, ammo is cheap, available and I bet if you get hit with 7.62x39 you won't enjoy it or at least won't try to shoot back for a little while.




How does the AK-47 group at 300 meters
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:47:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 6:48:34 PM EST by Rampant_Colt]

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
The 74 because the ammo is lighter, flatter shooting and more terminally effective.



and it's easier to control under full-auto fire
my vote is for the 5.45 and AK-74

*edit*
the -74 has a great muzzle brake as well
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:23:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By Rampant_Colt:

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
The 74 because the ammo is lighter, flatter shooting and more terminally effective.



and it's easier to control under full-auto fire
my vote is for the 5.45 and AK-74

*edit*
the -74 has a great muzzle brake as well



I have it on my SU-16CA and my SKS and yes it the best there is
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:26:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By Rampant_Colt:

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
The 74 because the ammo is lighter, flatter shooting and more terminally effective.



and it's easier to control under full-auto fire
my vote is for the 5.45 and AK-74

*edit*
the -74 has a great muzzle brake as well



Not only is it "great", it is also damn effective. Just for kicks I removed the muzzle brake off of my SLR-105A1 and fired a full magazine. BIG difference!

The AK-74 will not shoot MOA due to the fact that the tolerances are very loose. That is why it will always be more reliable than an AR-15.

Also, due to the fact that the tolerances are not tight it will not shoot nearly as well (groups size) as an Ar-15.

Link Posted: 4/15/2006 8:24:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2006 8:25:35 PM EST by MauserMark]
I like both but love the 74 more than any rifle I know of.

The 74 with the brake shooting offhand is recoiless, even more so than ARs I've had. It's more accurate than a 47, goes farther and shoots flatter, but it can't match an AR in accuracy, I think that's understood.

this is my 74K (legal SBR 74 with pinned brake) by AK-USA



-mark
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 8:26:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By MauserMark:
I like both but love the 74 more than any rifle I know of.

The 74 with the brake shooting offhand is recoiless, even more so than ARs I've had. It's more accurate than a 47, goes farther and shoots flatter, but it can't match an AR in accuracy, I think that's understood.

this is my 74K (legal SBR 74 with pinned brake) by AK-USA

i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/markawil/74new2.jpg

-mark



wow
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 8:48:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Beowulf:
Well, after WWII Russia adopts the AK47/AKM and their influence reaches around the world. Dictator’s line up to follow the party line, insurgencies spring up everywhere, dominoes fall and the Soviet Union becomes the second greatest superpower on earth. Then they adopt the AK74 and in fairly short order the whole thing falls apart. Now I can’t grantee there’s a relationship, but….

I vote AKM



I like the way you think!

I'll +1 on the -47 and it's .30 cal round. While M43 isn't a good performer M67 (and other lead FMJs) aren't bad, and they get better with a couple of the softpoint rounds (like the Winchester load).

The fact the 7.62x39 has US production while the 5.45x39 does not, is just another stone in the -47s favor.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 9:25:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By NorseBoy:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

Originally Posted By Dieter122:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

Originally Posted By NorseBoy:
AK-47
The 7.62 has more knock down power.



The AK-47 has no "knock down power". One of Newtons laws, if the bullet has enough energy to KNOCK someone down, then the recoil would have equal energy and knock the shooter down. Bullets don't knock people down, the disruption to their body functions do. And a higher velocity round has more shock value.





not everything is meant in literal terms, he is talking about knockdown power in the sense of firearms vs people...

just wow, some people amaze me.



Yeah, so am I. In the sense of "firearms vs people," (whatever that means) knockdown power is largely a myth unless you are shooting a large caliber rifle. Which the AK is not.



OK, would you prefer I say "faster stopping power". I have heard that the Russians fighting in Chechnya prefer the 7.62 because it drops bodies faster. I have never been in combat so I will take their word on it.



From what I've heard some units are using 7.62x39 because it offers superior penetration: it can go through walls and such much more effectively than 5.45. However, I have not heard any claims that they find 7.62 to be a better man stopper. That's not to say that people haven't made those claims, only that I haven't heard them.

And I would choose the 74, for many of the same reason others on this thread have. My 74 may be my favorite rifle......
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 4:18:10 AM EST
74 All the way- I have 5 of them- 3 of which are here.





My current 5.45 supply...

Link Posted: 4/16/2006 5:21:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
I prefer the AK74 because it is more accurate. Mine shoots MOA at 100 meters. Follow up shots are more accurate. It all about shot placement. Plus 5.45 is lighter. All valid reasons why the Russians dropped the AK47.



Spoken like a man who has never been shot at. Do you really believe you can deliver accurate MOA fire while the target shoots back?
The Soviets changed caliber for the same reason the US did. The small caliber is cheaper to make (and in our case, cheaper to ship halfway around the world). Remember that Robert McNamara was an accountant, not an expert in infantry weapons.
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 6:19:21 AM EST
"Remember that Robert McNamara was an accountant, not an expert in infantry weapons."

Nor an expert in aviation weapons...

Keep in mind that Mcnamara was also the guy that cancelled making the sr-71 a fighting weapon (AF was mounting the AIM-54c on it and was working towards making it a strategic fighter), for economic reasons....he also cancelled the b-70 valkyrie program for economic reasons....

He also tried, for economic reasons, to force everyone (navy especially) to accept the TFX (f-111) as a world class fighter for the Navy and the AF, when the reality was that it was a poor fighter, but made an EXCELLENT strike aircraft (reminds me of Hitlers insistence on the ME-262 as a bomber, when it could have been decisive in the air war if fielded in numbers in late 43/early 44....) His insistence on the TFX program delayed the development of both the AF f-15 and the Navy f-14 (sad to see the Tomcats finally mustered out of service, ugh!!!)

He did do some good in strategic forces, however...

He accelerated production and deployment of the solid-fuel Minuteman ICBM and Polaris SLBM missiles and by FY 1966 had removed from operational status all of the older liquid-fuel Atlas and Titan I missiles. By the end of McNamara's tenure, the United States had deployed 54 Titan II and 1,000 Minuteman missiles on land, and 656 Polaris missiles on 41 nuclear submarines. This was key in forcing the Soviets to accept MAD....
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 7:24:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/16/2006 7:26:28 AM EST by HeavyMetal]
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 11:11:05 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 11:12:17 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 11:50:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:

Originally Posted By Stickman:
You guys can talk stopping power, distance, and MOA all you want. The only AKs that I'll own are all 7.62.




Thats what they all say at first!


Once you go 5.45, you will never go back comrade!




Can someone answer this for me what is an average group with scope at 200 using the 74 and 47?
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 12:09:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By Schulze:

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
I prefer the AK74 because it is more accurate. Mine shoots MOA at 100 meters.



Then you'd be the first. Post proof and you'll be a celebrity around here.



Chris at AK-USA also has stated that he gets MOA at 100 meters. I was using a 9X optic, DN ammo at an indoor range. I don't save targets. Next time I go I will. Might be awhile.
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 12:15:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
I prefer the AK74 because it is more accurate. Mine shoots MOA at 100 meters. Follow up shots are more accurate. It all about shot placement. Plus 5.45 is lighter. All valid reasons why the Russians dropped the AK47.



Spoken like a man who has never been shot at. Do you really believe you can deliver accurate MOA fire while the target shoots back?
The Soviets changed caliber for the same reason the US did. The small caliber is cheaper to make (and in our case, cheaper to ship halfway around the world). Remember that Robert McNamara was an accountant, not an expert in infantry weapons.



I only mentioned target shooting. You get a little emotional don't you. And jump to conclusions. I got out of the military in 1971. I have seen the elephant. BTW, I had no problems with the M16, because I CLEANED it.
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 12:21:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:

Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
I prefer the AK74 because it is more accurate. Mine shoots MOA at 100 meters. Follow up shots are more accurate. It all about shot placement. Plus 5.45 is lighter. All valid reasons why the Russians dropped the AK47.



Spoken like a man who has never been shot at. Do you really believe you can deliver accurate MOA fire while the target shoots back?
The Soviets changed caliber for the same reason the US did. The small caliber is cheaper to make (and in our case, cheaper to ship halfway around the world). Remember that Robert McNamara was an accountant, not an expert in infantry weapons.



I only mentioned target shooting. You get a little emotional don't you. And jump to conclusions. I got out of the military in 1971. I have seen the elephant. BTW, I had no problems with the M16, because I CLEANED it.



with my Su-16 I can fire up to 150-200 rounds before the gun is way too hot
now i am talking rapid fire does the AR heat up like that 2?
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 12:28:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By KeltechSu16CA:

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:

Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
I prefer the AK74 because it is more accurate. Mine shoots MOA at 100 meters. Follow up shots are more accurate. It all about shot placement. Plus 5.45 is lighter. All valid reasons why the Russians dropped the AK47.



Spoken like a man who has never been shot at. Do you really believe you can deliver accurate MOA fire while the target shoots back?
The Soviets changed caliber for the same reason the US did. The small caliber is cheaper to make (and in our case, cheaper to ship halfway around the world). Remember that Robert McNamara was an accountant, not an expert in infantry weapons.



I only mentioned target shooting. You get a little emotional don't you. And jump to conclusions. I got out of the military in 1971. I have seen the elephant. BTW, I had no problems with the M16, because I CLEANED it.



with my Su-16 I can fire up to 150-200 rounds before the gun is way too hot
now i am talking rapid fire does the AR heat up like that 2?



When I dump a few mags through my AR it gets hotter than shit.
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 12:40:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:

Originally Posted By Schulze:

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
I prefer the AK74 because it is more accurate. Mine shoots MOA at 100 meters.



Then you'd be the first. Post proof and you'll be a celebrity around here.



Chris at AK-USA also has stated that he gets MOA at 100 meters. I was using a 9X optic, DN ammo at an indoor range. I don't save targets. Next time I go I will. Might be awhile.

\

Hey, I'm always open minded. I'd like to see at least three 5 shot groups at 100yards.
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 12:42:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By KeltechSu16CA:
with my Su-16 I can fire up to 150-200 rounds before the gun is way too hot
now i am talking rapid fire does the AR heat up like that 2?


The big difference is, that on both the AR and the AK, the barrel isn't attached to the receiver with loctite


- Ice
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 12:45:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By Schulze:

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:

Originally Posted By Schulze:

Originally Posted By DeltaDelta214:
I prefer the AK74 because it is more accurate. Mine shoots MOA at 100 meters.



Then you'd be the first. Post proof and you'll be a celebrity around here.



Chris at AK-USA also has stated that he gets MOA at 100 meters. I was using a 9X optic, DN ammo at an indoor range. I don't save targets. Next time I go I will. Might be awhile.

\

Hey, I'm always open minded. I'd like to see at least three 5 shot groups at 100yards.



I was surprised. Wasn't expecting it. My 74 was built from a new Bulgy kit on a global reciever. Maybe I got lucky for a change. I did clean the barrel between shots and let the barrel cool. It also has an excellent trigger. I'll see if I can do it again.
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 12:51:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By Schulze:
Hey, I'm always open minded. I'd like to see at least three 5 shot groups at 100yards.


Unfortunately you will never be able to tell if he made that group from 100yrds or 10yrds


- Ice
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top