Shooting a man-size target with a AK 47 and missing it at 200m(220 yards) - Page 3
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > General Rifle Discussion >

Shooting a man-size target with a AK 47 and missing it at 200m(220 yards)


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-02-2014, 11:47 PM   #21
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,400
Liked 1658 Times on 934 Posts
Likes Given: 715

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaF View Post
A guy shoots five rounds on you tube, misses 4 times and this means no one can hit anything with an AK-47 more than 1/5th of the time?! And all ARs are better? Based on 5 rounds and 1 video?!?!

First things first, when you are comparing the two guns, you have to realise that a .223 round is nothing more than a long .22 round with a lot of gunpowder behind it while an AK-47 round is .3mm BIGGER than a 308.

It takes less less money to make an accurate shooting .223. It's a smaller, lighter round, parts can be made cheaper and still function adequately. Parts that function well are cheaper too. A person can build a fairly accurate shooting AR for under $400.00 with very basic knowledge. There's a million and one places to buy the parts and a million and two guides to put them together.

An AK-47 takes more money. Parts are more expensive. Good parts are harder to buy. Cheaper parts are more prone to fail or have problems.

This means that it is much easier and cheaper to get your hands on an okay shooting AR-15 than it is to get your hands on an okay shooting AK-47.

IT DOESNT mean ARs are better than AKs.
IT DOESNT mean that it's impossible (or even terribly difficult) to find an AK that could do the job at that range.

Both an AR and an AK will shoot man sized targets out to 500 meters if they are well made, well maintained and well handled. They won't be spot on, but they will do the job if nothing else is available and enough rounds are fired. My friends who spent time in the dirt pit tell me the AK will do it better through concrete and brick.

But if we are speaking of junk we spent $400 on at the pawn shop, if you are shooting 200 yards and farther, you probably don't want to be shooting either. Any hunting rifle worth the powder it takes to shoot it will probably serve you better than a mass produced cheap junk AR or AK once you are outside of 150.

In fact your local law enforcement guys are already sending in the guy with the 308, 7mm mag or 300 mag at that range. And they have the money to buy whatever they want for engaging man sized targets. That video says literally NOTHING.


Sent from my iPhone using Firearms Talk
Why does it bother you that some random person with an AK didn't hit much at 200 yards with one? It could mean a lot of things.

Two guys who have shot rifles before tried to hit targets at 200 yards with carbines of the same era with the types of ammunition the carbines were designed to use.

What's the general case for the average AK user? Think they're going to hit a lot at 200 yards with a carbine that was built as cheaply as possible?

Sure, you can spend more money and buy a more accurate rifle/carbine. I think the M-14 and M-16 are proof of that. They are more inherently accurate than comparable eastern bloc weapons. The question is, how much more accurate and what does the accuracy buy you in a combat situation. Russian engineers would have made their weapons more accurate if they had wanted to.

The American military maintains this notion, mostly fictional where snipers aren't involved, that you're going to pick off the enemy with single, aimed shots. The Russians believed, having experienced the Wehrmacht in WWII, that massed fire (aimed, but not precisely aimed) and violence of action would overwhelm their enemies.

Most people I've seen have an easier time with the sighting mechanism on the M-16/M-4 than the sighting mechanism of the AK-47/AKM/AK-74. It doesn't mean the Kalashnikov pattern carbines are inherently inaccurate nor that a user with a M-16/M-4 will hit the target every time.

Most people I've seen who haven't picked up a rifle before have an easier time figuring out how the Kalashnikov carbines work whereas the Stoner pattern carbines are a little perplexing to them.

All that said, you'd think that it would be obvious that a militarized version of a civilian target rifle would be a little more accurate than a military assault weapon that was never designed to be used over 300 yards for which the designer intentionally loosened tolerances between components to enhance reliability, fully realizing that some inaccuracy would be introduced in so doing.

If you put an Aimpoint on both carbines, you'll see that there's little meaningful accuracy difference between the two weapons at that distance, but the AR is still a little more accurate.
kbd512 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2014, 01:26 PM   #22
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DeltaF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Deep South USA
Posts: 3,206
Liked 2452 Times on 1342 Posts
Likes Given: 336

Default Shooting a man-size target with a AK 47 and missing it at 200m(220 yards)

Why does it bother me? ....um.... It doesn't. I don't think it "bothers" anyone including the OP. I was simply trying to explain to him why a 5 shot video using only 2 examples of each is pretty irrelevant as a comparison between the two platforms.

Especially since the price points are pretty different so it's highly likely to be an apples to oranges comparison anyway.

Try to read things before you reply.


Sent from my iPhone using Firearms Talk
__________________
"...it is ...ALIVE!!!"

Last edited by DeltaF; 05-03-2014 at 02:11 PM.
DeltaF is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2014, 02:15 PM   #23
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 19,561
Liked 7097 Times on 3771 Posts
Likes Given: 541

Default

the sole test of becoming a firearms expert for the discovery channel is choosing correctly which is the ak47 out of these 3 objects:

Shooting a man-size target with a AK 47 and missing it at 200m(220 yards) - General Rifle Discussion

Shooting a man-size target with a AK 47 and missing it at 200m(220 yards) - General Rifle Discussion

Shooting a man-size target with a AK 47 and missing it at 200m(220 yards) - General Rifle Discussion

if you picked number three because it scared you and you wet yourself you are now an expert on the ak47 for the discovery channel.

if you picked number 1 your are now an expert on the m16 for the discovery channel.

if you picked number 2 you are now an expert on motorcycles and will be getting an offer from jesse james for employment.

if you picked none of the above you know nothing about firearms and should be put on a government watch list as a suspected threat to society

that is exactly how the discovery channel chooses experts.
__________________
"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

"I crapped my pants to avoid the draft!!" -Ted Nugent

Last edited by JonM; 05-03-2014 at 02:20 PM.
JonM is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 12:45 AM   #24
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,400
Liked 1658 Times on 934 Posts
Likes Given: 715

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaF View Post
Why does it bother me? ....um.... It doesn't. I don't think it "bothers" anyone including the OP. I was simply trying to explain to him why a 5 shot video using only 2 examples of each is pretty irrelevant as a comparison between the two platforms.

Especially since the price points are pretty different so it's highly likely to be an apples to oranges comparison anyway.

Try to read things before you reply.


Sent from my iPhone using Firearms Talk
I read all of your post, you just didn't like my response to you. But hey, it's just the internet.

Pears and bananas. Kiwis and limes.
kbd512 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 12:26 PM   #25
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DeltaF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Deep South USA
Posts: 3,206
Liked 2452 Times on 1342 Posts
Likes Given: 336

Default Shooting a man-size target with a AK 47 and missing it at 200m(220 yards)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbd512 View Post
I read all of your post, you just didn't like my response to you. But hey, it's just the internet.



Pears and bananas. Kiwis and limes.

Considering we said almost exactly the same thing in different ways... (Minus the bit about the price point difference at any rate.) I don't see why or how I would dislike your response.

Just like I don't see why or how I would be "bothered" by the first post.

This is getting very confusing.

All I have to say: AKs and ARs both work just fine for CQB. Neither is ideal for anything outside of 150 yards without a bit of money and/or maybe even a bit of smithing. The end.

No clue what this place has come to. People are arguin' with guys who agree with them now? Jeez. Don't we have enough drama between guys with opposing opinions around here?


Sent from my iPhone using Firearms Talk
__________________
"...it is ...ALIVE!!!"

Last edited by DeltaF; 05-04-2014 at 12:31 PM.
DeltaF is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 12:45 PM   #26
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
7point62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Decisive Terrain
Posts: 2,162
Liked 1535 Times on 769 Posts
Likes Given: 1182

Default

It must have been the caffeine.
__________________
Hijo de mala leche
7point62 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 03:44 PM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 64
Liked 9 Times on 7 Posts
Likes Given: 13

Default

A guy that is not able to hit a man-size target (at least 3/5 hits)with iron sights at 200m (220 yds) with ANY rifle that was designed for distances between 300-400m cannot define himself as "shooter".
MCalig is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2014, 01:33 PM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Great North Woods
Posts: 2,565
Liked 2058 Times on 1075 Posts
Likes Given: 392

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MCalig View Post
A guy that is not able to hit a man-size target (at least 3/5 hits)with iron sights at 200m (220 yds) with ANY rifle that was designed for distances between 300-400m cannot define himself as "shooter".
agreed.

now add to that the ability to shoot standing, sitting or prone.
chloeshooter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2014, 01:57 PM   #29
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mercator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 10,541
Liked 5521 Times on 3699 Posts
Likes Given: 2851

Default

I am not sure some of you realize that the AK 47 is a full auto. It was never designed for single shot hits at 300-400 yards. It is chambered in 7.62. The AR has been a semi- or full auto from birth. A fair comparison would be to a semi-auto carbine based on the AK "74".

I don't know what a "shooter" is, except that its a person firing a gun.
Mercator is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2014, 02:45 PM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Great North Woods
Posts: 2,565
Liked 2058 Times on 1075 Posts
Likes Given: 392

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercator View Post
I am not sure some of you realize that the AK 47 is a full auto. It was never designed for single shot hits at 300-400 yards. It is chambered in 7.62. The AR has been a semi- or full auto from birth. A fair comparison would be to a semi-auto carbine based on the AK "74".

I don't know what a "shooter" is, except that its a person firing a gun.
I think most of us if not all of us realize what an AK was designed for - volume of fire and extreme simplicity/reliability - not as a snipe rifle

the issue here is that most of us also realize also that an AK47 can most definitely hit a man-sized target at 200 meters - time and again - with iron sights. I'm on paper (2' x 2') darn near every time.

what is a shooter? the way I understand the term, it is someone proficient with their firearm, able to get the most out of it. a decent shot is going to hit a human sized target at 200 meters with an AK, a Mosin Nagant, a 1903 Springfield - you get the picture. some guys can't hit the broad side of a barn without a damn lead sled and $2000 optics. Such folks would not be considered shooters lol
chloeshooter is offline  
Mercator Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Shooting 2500 yards 1.43 miles!! Grizzdude General Rifle Discussion 10 09-03-2013 11:57 PM
Shooting 2060 Yards! 1.17 Miles Grizzdude General Rifle Discussion 9 08-01-2013 05:55 AM
Shooting cinder blocks from 1000 yards away! Grizzdude General Rifle Discussion 27 07-27-2013 04:21 AM
trying to decided on a target rifle for 100-500 yards NewGuy89 General Rifle Discussion 35 01-28-2012 02:57 AM
Can a marksman hit a man sized target with a 45 caliber handgun at 400 yards Kruelgor General Handgun Discussion 24 09-24-2009 03:53 AM



Newest Threads