4 ms·

Lack of accuracy on AKs is fudd lore at this point. All my AKs are under 2 MOA, shooting old yugo M67. The SAM7 is just beyond anything else, losing only to the

Lack of accuracy on AKs is fudd lore at this point. All my AKs are under 2 MOA, shooting old yugo M67. The SAM7 is just beyond anything else, losing only to the Vz58, which is a different thing altogether. I think it is a mixture of prejudice against "the enemy rifle", "usa made" and other xenophobic feelings, as well as ignorance towards the manual of arms, how to use the sights, etc.

spaceman_2020 4y ago
Is accuracy even that big of a concern to most soldiers? If I'm attacking, sure. But if I'm in a defensive situation, I'd much rather prefer being able to fire anything than being able to fire accurately. Reliability trumps accuracy.
- jakearmitage 4y ago
  You are thinking of accuracy in terms of precise shots in precise targets, but think of it from the perspective of being deterministic. If my rifle is accurate, and deterministic, then I know I can land shots effectively at 600 yards for example using simple calculations. Or 800. Being able to do that has enormous significance in the battlefield.
- snapetom 4y ago
  The thing about the AK is that it really was designed to be a cheap weapon to put in the hands of masses of soldiers. It gives large squads of soldiers the ability to spray-and-pray in devastating fashion. 7.62x39 tumbles pretty well and under auto-fire, does a decent job of eating up concrete to hit targets behind walls. This was the Soviet doctrine of ground war immediately post-WW2. This countered the US Western doctrine which emphasized precision, and more limited resources in terms of soldiers and weapons. So you're right. The AK isn't accurate, and it didn't matter. It does what it's designed to do very well.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    >7.62x39 tumbles pretty well and under auto-fire, Gun wives tale. No bullets are designed to tumble in air - ever.
    - snapetom 4y ago
      Where did I say it tumbles in the air?
      - omniglottal 4y ago
        Precisely where you said it "tumbles". If not in air, then where were you refering to this tumbling occurring?
        SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
        He is (probably) referring to tumbling when it hits a body which is also a ton of misinformation. When a bullet hits, you want it to fragment and dump all its energy into the target and not exit. Or expand and stop, which is better. Leaving means it still had some energy. So because the sectional density and makeup of the cheap 7.62x39 bullets when coupled with their relative low velocity won’t fragment, their only option is to tumble. This is obviously going to happen and not part of the design. “Thing flying through the air suddenly hitting something makes it unstable” isn’t magic. So the claim by AK people is that it tumbles - by design! When really, it failed to fragment or expand. So “it tumbles well” is really bad when they talk about air which is a bad muzzle crown or bad rifling, bad bullets… but not much better when talking about terminal ballistics. There are some decently expanding x93 hunting rounds, but like two maybe. This discussion revolves around military and surplus ammo. It’s wrong either way, but less wrong than air which is a common belief.
- newsclues 4y ago
  Yes, even if your just talking about suppressive fire, accuracy matters. Accuracy being the ability to hit targets in combat that will shoot you, is absolutely something soldiers care about.
- 1123581321 4y ago
  Wouldn’t you rather be able to hit your enemies with your shots before they hit you? Why do you suppose soldiers train so much on shooting, in addition to other tactical skills? War isn’t a videogame or an action movie…
- galacticaactual 4y ago
  Lol. Fucking HN.
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    Cool username, but poor comment. Context-less metacommentary isn't for this place.
    - galacticaactual 4y ago
      Cool.
walrus01 4y ago
one of the problems with accuracy on an ak47 is not so much the mechanism itself, but the more limited and weird options for mounting a modern red dot sight or holographic sight. when compared to a modern nato-spec rifle with fully railed top. very modern AK designs have hinged dust covers with rail on top, you can mount on that. needs tighter fitting more precision rear cover that doesn't slop around as much. older AK designs have limited spots to mount a modern rifle sight on them. some hacks exist to remove the rear sight position and jam a piece of 1913 rail onto it and then mount an optic on that. if you look at photos of russian infantry using their version of the ak104 they have dust covers with 1913 rails on them. other options for a side-rail-mount that extends off the left side of the lower part of the receiver and float a rail above the dust cover are an ugly hack.
- jakearmitage 4y ago
  I really feel like the modern Galil managed to polish all those issues and has nailed the evolution of the platform.
VoodooJuJu 4y ago
It's accurate enough for sure, but I think the "lack of accuracy" lore doesn't come from Fudd's in the general sense, but from comparing it in particular to the AR, which it's true that the AK is measurably less accurate [1]. [1] https://youtu.be/_YNOt-UHIyY?t=652 https://youtu.be/_YNOt-UHIyY?t=652
ackbar03 4y ago
You just have to press ctrl to crouch. It narrows the spray
- sph 4y ago
  And the first shot is always right on target anyway. One just has to aim better.

spaceman_2020 4y ago

Is accuracy even that big of a concern to most soldiers? If I'm attacking, sure. But if I'm in a defensive situation, I'd much rather prefer being able to fire anything than being able to fire accurately. Reliability trumps accuracy.

jakearmitage 4y ago
You are thinking of accuracy in terms of precise shots in precise targets, but think of it from the perspective of being deterministic. If my rifle is accurate, and deterministic, then I know I can land shots effectively at 600 yards for example using simple calculations. Or 800. Being able to do that has enormous significance in the battlefield.
snapetom 4y ago
The thing about the AK is that it really was designed to be a cheap weapon to put in the hands of masses of soldiers. It gives large squads of soldiers the ability to spray-and-pray in devastating fashion. 7.62x39 tumbles pretty well and under auto-fire, does a decent job of eating up concrete to hit targets behind walls. This was the Soviet doctrine of ground war immediately post-WW2. This countered the US Western doctrine which emphasized precision, and more limited resources in terms of soldiers and weapons. So you're right. The AK isn't accurate, and it didn't matter. It does what it's designed to do very well.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  >7.62x39 tumbles pretty well and under auto-fire, Gun wives tale. No bullets are designed to tumble in air - ever.
  - snapetom 4y ago
    Where did I say it tumbles in the air?
    - omniglottal 4y ago
      Precisely where you said it "tumbles". If not in air, then where were you refering to this tumbling occurring?
      - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
        He is (probably) referring to tumbling when it hits a body which is also a ton of misinformation. When a bullet hits, you want it to fragment and dump all its energy into the target and not exit. Or expand and stop, which is better. Leaving means it still had some energy. So because the sectional density and makeup of the cheap 7.62x39 bullets when coupled with their relative low velocity won’t fragment, their only option is to tumble. This is obviously going to happen and not part of the design. “Thing flying through the air suddenly hitting something makes it unstable” isn’t magic. So the claim by AK people is that it tumbles - by design! When really, it failed to fragment or expand. So “it tumbles well” is really bad when they talk about air which is a bad muzzle crown or bad rifling, bad bullets… but not much better when talking about terminal ballistics. There are some decently expanding x93 hunting rounds, but like two maybe. This discussion revolves around military and surplus ammo. It’s wrong either way, but less wrong than air which is a common belief.
newsclues 4y ago
Yes, even if your just talking about suppressive fire, accuracy matters. Accuracy being the ability to hit targets in combat that will shoot you, is absolutely something soldiers care about.
1123581321 4y ago
Wouldn’t you rather be able to hit your enemies with your shots before they hit you? Why do you suppose soldiers train so much on shooting, in addition to other tactical skills? War isn’t a videogame or an action movie…
galacticaactual 4y ago
Lol. Fucking HN.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  Cool username, but poor comment. Context-less metacommentary isn't for this place.
  - galacticaactual 4y ago
    Cool.

walrus01 4y ago

one of the problems with accuracy on an ak47 is not so much the mechanism itself, but the more limited and weird options for mounting a modern red dot sight or holographic sight. when compared to a modern nato-spec rifle with fully railed top. very modern AK designs have hinged dust covers with rail on top, you can mount on that. needs tighter fitting more precision rear cover that doesn't slop around as much. older AK designs have limited spots to mount a modern rifle sight on them. some hacks exist to remove the rear sight position and jam a piece of 1913 rail onto it and then mount an optic on that. if you look at photos of russian infantry using their version of the ak104 they have dust covers with 1913 rails on them. other options for a side-rail-mount that extends off the left side of the lower part of the receiver and float a rail above the dust cover are an ugly hack.

jakearmitage 4y ago
I really feel like the modern Galil managed to polish all those issues and has nailed the evolution of the platform.

VoodooJuJu 4y ago

It's accurate enough for sure, but I think the "lack of accuracy" lore doesn't come from Fudd's in the general sense, but from comparing it in particular to the AR, which it's true that the AK is measurably less accurate [1]. [1] https://youtu.be/_YNOt-UHIyY?t=652 https://youtu.be/_YNOt-UHIyY?t=652

ackbar03 4y ago

You just have to press ctrl to crouch. It narrows the spray

sph 4y ago
And the first shot is always right on target anyway. One just has to aim better.