4 ms·

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

by 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.

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.