AK Sponsor
Posted: 2/23/2012 8:05:32 AM EDT
|
zzz
|
|
Quoted:
Neat, good work with the range pictures, they put the technical stuff in the OP into more perspective. That is a good way of putting it. I enjoy shooting the various military courses of fire as they at least serve to provide a benchmark for improvement. After I get some better targets made up I'll shoot the actuall COF and see how I do. Would be neat to get a "postal competition" going, too, so-to-speak. Discussing the guns is great but shooting them is better! |
| Looks completely fun, and I totally like your idea, and I may copy it. Just a couple comments, you probably already know all this, but it is what I am thinking. One is that the Finns shoot the RK-95 which is a way different animal when it comes to AK types. In my opinion, it is perhaps the finest assault rifle in the world, Second is that the only reason the Finns have kept their weapons and caliber is because it suits the terrain they live in and the tactics they use better than anything else. A milled Bulgarian is probably the closest thing you can get to an RK-95 here, but we still lack a good supply of Lapua ammo. One final comment; the Finns build and rebuild their rifles many times for a LONG service life, and hold extremely high tolerances when they do it. |
|
Thats really great shooting! Practical field conditions. I make it out to the local range about twice a month, they have a 50 yard pistol, 100, and 300 yard rifle. I NEVER see anyone shooting their rifles off-hand. Always on the bench. I shoot my rifle sitting, prone and standing. Only way I can hit standing is waiting for that minimal arc of movement and break the trigger, I hit, but it is a bit unorthodox if you try and compare it to shooting from a bench.
I shoot the 300 yards prone, and with a 25 meter zero it is dead on at 300 just like the book says. |
| They make things called Optics, that greatly increase the range of these AK's. I personally like the 6x24V Russian POSP type for long range shooting. The irons are only good to about 250 meters give or take. Unless you switch to a narrow front sight post and peep rear sight. |
|
Quoted:
They make things called Optics, that greatly increase the range of these AK's. I personally like the 6x24V Russian POSP type for long range shooting. The irons are only good to about 250 meters give or take. Unless you switch to a narrow front sight post and peep rear sight. Yeah, I'm well familiar with scopes and aperture sights. But neither of them are currently mounted on my rifles and probably never will be. My AK's will never keep up with my scoped rifles and part of the reason, the main reason, I use my AK's is when I do not want a scope on the gun. I've thought about mounting an aperture rear on the rifles or at least one of them, but have never gotten around to it. You are absolutely right, tho, for longer range shooting either of those sighting systems is superior to the issue sights, optically and also in the field for most purposes, but not all. Nevertheless, I'll put the targets together and shoot the COF with guns as-is. As for the irons on the rifle, for the critters I kill, the irons are only good to about 100, but that is about all I need them for, or expect of them. The huge military qualification targets used here are built around general concepts and the limitations of the rifles. For example, if the qualification required shots inside a 6-inch circle the distance the qualification was shot at would be close indeed. |
|
Quoted:
Greg: Thanks. We have shot both of my AK's extensively at 300 m and 400 meters {actually, lasered at 429 yards, close enough... LOL}. Getting a good, repeatable sight picture is always a challenge with the sights on the AK rifles, and 5-shot groups of 4 MOA means a 12-inch group at 300 meters with PERFECT, machine-rest hold and sighting. Practically-speaking from field positions like sitting with elbows rested on knees which is our most commonly used range position, groups open up to allow numerous shots to fall off the US Army M9 sihouette target. At 400 meters the absolute best a 4 MOA rifle will produce is a 16-inch center-to-center group and that is, again, under no-wind, machine-rest, perfect holding and sighting conditions. Thus I see entirely why the Russian COF wayfaerer posted limits qualification shooting to 100 meters, tho frankly, I fnd that too short a distance to really teach the capability of the rifle or build much confidence for the shooter. Regardless the "hit-only" 200 meter stage with a big target demonstrates the basic concept perfectly. As mentioned before, the Finnish method splits the difference, with a more challenging 150 meter basic distance combined with a practical close-range 50 meter stage. I shot at 75 meters in the snowstorm yesterday because I find adding excess distance to the practice of whatever COF we shoot makes the actual shooting of the qualification easy. Thus we practice the Norwegian hunting test qualification at 200 in order to pass at 100. so the 50 meter portion of the Finn COF should be a snap. It also doesn't escape me, reinforced with conversation with a Lt Col in the Finnish Army, of why, in spite of the "target" sights most of their rifles possess, they ceased requiring the 300 meter "hit-only" stage. The AK is a truly phenomenal rifle system. One needs only to use it under difficult conditions to see exactly why it has earned the reputation it has over the years. As a sidenote, the conditions I shot in yesterday produce the following effect on a rifle; Over time, the mild temps and wet subjected to the rifle eliminates all traces, more-or-less, of oil in the action. The gun becomes almost sticky in the moving parts and if it requires good lubrication to function, it may develop problems. The AK chugs right along. Then, if temps drop, the moisture that has built up inside the gun action can freeze solid; no oil to prevent it, no way to stop it. I've had guns freeze up on the trail so hard I had to resort to beating them on trees to open the action {pistols} and bolt gun feeding thru the action can stop, etc. The AK CAN be stopped by conditions it is subjected to...but it takes an immense amount of same to do so. The gun really is an amazing piece of hardware. I wonder if the 'crude' sighting system has something to do with the fact that when you go to war it's not against critters that don't shoot back. Or that there might be a need to engage multiple targets at varying distances, stationary and moving, in a hurry. Do you think the iron sights on AK might have something to do with what its real purpose is for...which might not be varmint shooting while sitting on a tire, or getting the nod of approval from guys at Camp Perry? As far as the US Army COF goes why is it that with your favorite peep sight and an M16 .... most US troops can't seem to hit 40/40? Only 3 of the targets were at 300m as I recall and it was the rare soldier that could hit all targets 100% of the time. People did have a little bragging rights for shooting expert which was 37 out of 40 as you probably remember from your time in the service. But by your logic in this thread you'd think by the COF minimum qualification standards that the Army must be using some kind of crappy rifle with a poor sighting system. After all you only need 23 hits out of 40 to Q1 and most of those shots are under 250m. But this is the same rifle you bring up as having a superior sighting system to the AK, a rifle that is used in match competitions too but yet a rack grade M16 shot by an average recruit only requires about 55% hits. Based on what I'm seeing you say I'd have no choice but to believe that there is something wrong with US Army shooters and the M16. OTOH in the real world, when I was in the Army no one talked about how to use the M16 in competition conditions. No one talked about how superior the peep sight was over anything else, they didn't talk about shooting for tight groups or what happens when you shoot paper, or critters. They talked about fundamentals...trigger discipline, breathing, accuracy at speed and COM shots. I can't think of one time when someone told me I had to be able to hit an enemy troop in the head at 300m. I can't think of one time I sat on a tire either, I don't recall that was part of the accuracy standard of the M16. What did happen was a continual reinforcement to shoot straight, follow the fundamentals and make sure the shots counted. One other thing too...shoot again if you miss. You continually bring up the poor accuracy potential of the AK, the limitations of the iron sights and continually say it' sub par compared to most everything else. And you do make it a point to compare it to the superior sights and accuracy of the M16 or other competition rifles. You have mentioned that the design is a rip off of everything that came before it, particularly the Remington model 8. In this thread you seem to be implying that because the Finnish COF shows 150m or less that's clear evidence the AK is inaccurate just as you say. But you can apply the same logic to the US Army COF, so what's the point of basing your argument off the COF? Do you not see that in military service both the AK and the M16 are not regarded as target rifles...yet they both have a similar mission on the battlefield? You are one of the few people on this side of the forum that seems to be trying to use it in a manner that no one argues that it should be used as... to be a match grade competition rifle. When it doesn't meet whatever requirements you think are important, you set out to prove your low opinion of it with threads like this. What's the point of your posts really? Z |
|
The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with good rifles.”
― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle |
|
Quoted:
While I agree that last thread didn't go well, can we try not derail this thread please? Will do Quoted:
Zen, WHAT IS YOUR POINT? My point is about being honest actually, and discussing a topic in good faith... not using the forum as a way to preach about why the AK does not measure up to someone's personal standard of accuracy. The innuendo gets old Z |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
While I agree that last thread didn't go well, can we try not derail this thread please? Will do Quoted:
Zen, WHAT IS YOUR POINT? My point is about being honest actually, and discussing a topic in good faith... not using the forum as a way to preach about why the AK does not measure up to someone's personal standard of accuracy. The innuendo gets old Z The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with great rifles.” ― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle |
You know, ammo plays a big part. If you want to play Finnish commando pro shooter you're going to have to get your hands on some genuine Lapua Brass and shoot the heck out of it. Only then will you be able to judge accurately. While you're at it, you should pick up a Valmet too! 
|
|
I think there's something wrong with your AK. Those groups at those ranges are awful! No wonder you're opinion of the AK is so low. I'm not picking, but being serious here. I will go punch paper this weekend at 100 and 250 for groups and bring back some pictures of the targets. Perhaps your crown is messed up or something.... |
|
Quoted: I think there's something wrong with your AK. Those groups at those ranges are awful! No wonder you're opinion of the AK is so low. I'm not picking, but being serious here. I will go punch paper this weekend at 100 and 250 for groups and bring back some pictures of the targets. Perhaps your crown is messed up or something.... Sounds good. Edited...VA-gunnut |
|
Quoted:
VA: My point was; would any thinking person believe any post this guy would make after the nonesense he and his "buddies" have posted all over my threads in the past? Seriously, he and a couple of those members have zero credibility at all on any such thread. I shoot MOA w/ the computer, too. Thanks. And you bring credibility...how? |
AK Sponsor