Best AK for the Bucks?

[grit51]

You keep accusing me of not being a shooter. Your post here and the one after shows that you really don't know that much about the subject. The US military has not issued rifles with a 1-12 twist or slower for many decades. In fact, the most common twist rate even in the civilian market for ARs is 1-9. I believe the twist rate of the typical military M4 is 1-7. As for "perfect" environmental conditions for a 300 yard shot. LMAO!!!! A typical 69 grain 5.56 bullet will drift only about 8 inches in a 10mph full value crosswind at that range. That's a torso hit with almost no hold off at all. It's a head shot for anyone that has any clue what they're doing. Marines use the 5.56 and iron sights to qualify on targets out to 500 yards on a regular basis and they don't give a rat's ass about waiting for perfect atmospheric conditions to do it.

As for the "bulk" of a 240gr 44mag bullet not being accounted for, what two elements do you think are used to determine energy? Speed and weight is the answer. What the 5.56 does not have in weight it makes up for in speed and the energy dump from a 5.56 into a target in which the bullet does not pass through is greater than that of a 44 mag. That's a simple fact. I agree that a 44 mag is not a good rifle round, because it has the same problem as the AK, low muzzle velocity. However, I brought up the 44 when you were claiming that the 5.56 is not powerful enough at close range.

As for not needing to take shots at longer distances. It's nice that your enemy will always play so nicely by your rules. Personally, if I know my enemy is armed with AK47s, I'm going to try real hard to set up where they will have to expose themselves to some degree at 200 plus yards to accomplish their objective. That will give me and my little inadequate AR a massive advantage that they can't duplicate. But hey, whatever works for you.

If you'll test the two at close range you will see the difference like Biker Bill said above. The 5.56 is just not as productive as the 7.62.

The 5.56 77 gr. ammo Muzzle Energy: 1293 ft. lbs. compared to the 7.62/39 123 gr. muzzle energy is 1653 Ft. lbs.. That's actually quit a difference at close range.

I regularly shoot orange sporting clays on a berm at 120 yards with no problem. Do you not think I can hit a man at 200 yards? We don't live in the desert here, deer hunters very seldom get shots over 100 yards, I know I'm one and I damn sure wouldn't use a 5.56. I'm not going to waste my time. LMAO - do you think you'll be shooting targets at 300 yards in Georgia?

 

[Bear44]

If you'll test the two at close range you will see the difference like Biker Bill said above. The 5.56 is just not as productive as the 7.62.

The 5.56 77 gr. ammo Muzzle Energy: 1293 ft. lbs. compared to the 7.62/39 123 gr. muzzle energy is 1653 Ft. lbs.. That's actually quit a difference at close range.

I regularly shoot orange sporting clays on a berm at 120 yards with no problem. Do you not think I can hit a man at 200 yards? We don't live in the desert here, deer hunters very seldom get shots over 100 yards, I know I'm one and I damn sure wouldn't use a 5.56. I'm not going to waste my time. LMAO - do you think you'll be shooting targets at 300 yards in Georgia?

I've already said that the 7.62 has more energy than the 5.56, but the 5.56 has more energy than a 44 mag, so stopping ability with modern expanding ammunition on a human being at close range is a moot point. It's like saying that 2000lbs of bricks dropped on your head will kill you better than 1500lbs of bricks will. You're dead either way.

As to range in Georgia, though deer hunting is different than man hunting, you like the analogy, so I'll use it. I killed a deer at 260 yards this past season...in Georgia, so....

Just for the hell of it, I'll point out that even the little 55 grain 5.56 still has more energy at 300 yards than a typical 9mm does at point blank range.

 

[grit51]

Thanks for proving my point all along, the Ak47 is a better rifle within 100 yards.

 

[biker_bill]

Thanks for proving my point all along, the Ak47 is a better rifle within 100 yards.

Hell I'm comfortable with the round at to 200 yards, it's only like a 6 or 7 inch drop the best I recall, with a 100 yard zero.

I remember it was pretty wacked at 300 and it seemed like it dropped a couple feet.

With the .223/5.56 I'm use to just 6" of drop at those distances. In the Marines we shot at an Able target for slow fire at those distances (200 & 300) the target had a 12" bull. If you held at 6 o'clock at the 200, you were point of aim point of impact at the 300. That 6" is considerably easier to keep track of and figure, on a target than a couple of feet.

I own AR's and I own a WASR AK, they'll both always have a place in my safe.
I feel like comparing the two is just not reasonable.
It's like comparing my Browning BAR in .270 to either. They're just too different.

To the OP - I'd buy a WASR again, its never let me down and I use to run it in 3 gun matches, it's dependable, fast to clean, ammo is cheap and if you want an AK for whatever the purpose may be, it'll be worth the money.

 

[Bear44]

Thanks for proving my point all along, the Ak47 is a better rifle within 100 yards.

Which I agreed with long ago. See post #50.

 

[webicknell]

And for those of us than can barely see 100 yards, AK is perfect...
Love the wood over the plastic and Ammo is cheaper...

I don't need all the statistics about one versus the other... I like the AK better....

 

[Bear44]

And for those of us than can barely see 100 yards, AK is perfect...
Love the wood over the plastic and Ammo is cheaper...

I don't need all the statistics about one versus the other... I like the AK better....

And that, my friend, is the best reason to own one. Use what you're confidant in as long as that confidence isn't based in myth.

 

[mgonza]

IO inc

 

[grit51]

Hell I'm comfortable with the round at to 200 yards, it's only like a 6 or 7 inch drop the best I recall, with a 100 yard zero.

I remember it was pretty wacked at 300 and it seemed like it dropped a couple feet.

With the .223/5.56 I'm use to just 6" of drop at those distances. In the Marines we shot at an Able target for slow fire at those distances (200 & 300) the target had a 12" bull. If you held at 6 o'clock at the 200, you were point of aim point of impact at the 300. That 6" is considerably easier to keep track of and figure, on a target than a couple of feet.

I own AR's and I own a WASR AK, they'll both always have a place in my safe.
I feel like comparing the two is just not reasonable.
It's like comparing my Browning BAR in .270 to either. They're just too different.

To the OP - I'd buy a WASR again, its never let me down and I use to run it in 3 gun matches, it's dependable, fast to clean, ammo is cheap and if you want an AK for whatever the purpose may be it'll be worth the money.

I totally agree with you Bill, I hunt big game in Georgia with a .270 and have great results. I would never go to an AR site and tell them that they should buy an AK, there is not a comparison and it really is a ridiculous argument.

I also hear people ridicule the WASR, I've owned several and never have been disappointed with them.

 

[MRH]

Hell I'm comfortable with the round at to 200 yards, it's only like a 6 or 7 inch drop the best I recall, with a 100 yard zero.

I remember it was pretty wacked at 300 and it seemed like it dropped a couple feet.

With the .223/5.56 I'm use to just 6" of drop at those distances. In the Marines we shot at an Able target for slow fire at those distances (200 & 300) the target had a 12" bull. If you held at 6 o'clock at the 200, you were point of aim point of impact at the 300. That 6" is considerably easier to keep track of and figure, on a target than a couple of feet.

I own AR's and I own a WASR AK, they'll both always have a place in my safe.
I feel like comparing the two is just not reasonable.
It's like comparing my Browning BAR in .270 to either. They're just too different.

To the OP - I'd buy a WASR again, its never let me down and I use to run it in 3 gun matches, it's dependable, fast to clean, ammo is cheap and if you want an AK for whatever the purpose may be, it'll be worth the money.

Totally agree with all of this, and yes, an AK is far more capable than 100 yards, with accuracy.