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

Discussion in 'General Rifle Discussion' started by MCalig, Apr 25, 2014.

  1. MCalig

    MCalig New Member

    64
    0
    0
    Recently a friend of mine sent me a youtube where discovery channel made a comparision between the m16 and the AK 47.Two guy were shooting them at a indoor range.The guy with the AK 47,who is a gun expert,shot 5 rounds but only one hit the target.Since this means that you can hit only the 20% of the targets you're shooting at.So...the question is:How the hell is that possible?
    When I was serving in the SLO army, we were equipped with the M70.To qualify, you had to hit the target(fatal wounds, center of the mass or head) at least 25/30 times-at 200-250m(220y-275yds).And I was at 28/30.So how is it possible that an expert(experienced shooter) wasn't able to place 4/5 or even 5/5 on the target?...IMO he should switch to another job
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2014
  2. John_Deer

    John_Deer New Member

    6,624
    1
    0
    People swear the AK is a great deer rifle, just as good as a 30/30. That is not my opinion, but I have seen 5 and 6 pages of experts swearing that the AK is a fine deer rifle.
     

  3. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,343
    217
    63
    There are AKs, and AKs. Do not know condition of rifle or ammo in the test. I have a 91/30 that would be a good 500 meter rifle, and an M38 that shoots a 3 ft pattern at 200 meters.
     
  4. chloeshooter

    chloeshooter New Member

    2,565
    0
    0
    ^ +1 on that

    An 'average' AK in a decent shooter's hands will group 4-6 inches at 100 yards, open sights. That equates to an 8.4" to 12.6" spread at 200 meters.

    Milled-receivers and the heavier Yugos lacking chrome-lined barrels are capable of better.

    either way, accurate enough to hit a human-sized target 60% or more of the time at that distance
     
  5. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,924
    49
    48
    Were they shooting full auto? The AK tends to walk and climb pretty quick if folks havent practiced countering it's particular recoil, or using controlled bursts. Teh only auto fire I did with an AK took me about 1-20 rounds to figure out my burst control and being able to stay on a target at 100 feet. In semi-auto torso hits were managable at least 80% of the time at the 200 yd line. I did find full auto or auto-bursts to be much more controllable with the M16 at the same range session.

    But, as C3 said, condition of the gun may have a lot to do with it. The sights may have been way off.
     
  6. John_Deer

    John_Deer New Member

    6,624
    1
    0
    I have yet to see an AK worthy of beating a mule with. I do have a pair of SKS Norinco 56 rifles that are just as accurate as a Model 60 marlin. Yup, they suck as a deer rifle too. Maybe, it's not the rifle that sux but the 7.62x39 cartridge.
     
  7. BillM

    BillM Active Member Supporter

    1,144
    1
    38
    "The guy shooting the AK-47 was a gun expert"

    Self proclaimed on Youtube? Expert on the AK?
    Or maybe it was the Airsoft? Some of the gun
    experts that TV shows come up with I wouldn't trust
    with my Red Ryder. They might put an eye out.:cool:
     
  8. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,027
    47
    48
    If someone can't hit a man size target at 200 m with a A/K they need to practise more.
     
  9. kryptar19

    kryptar19 New Member

    1,774
    0
    0
    Expert in knowledge does not mean expert in practice.
     
  10. MCalig

    MCalig New Member

    64
    0
    0
    No, they weren't shooting full auto.I don't know anybody who would be able to hit a target at 200 m(220 yds) while shooting an AK 47 on full auto.I personally would use the full auto mode only for distances between 50-80m(55y - 87yds).As I said, I'm an average guy...

    Anyway:You're right.The M16 performs much better in terms of accuracy.
     
  11. MCalig

    MCalig New Member

    64
    0
    0
    The two shooters were chosen by discovery channel, so I guess they weren't the first 2 rednecks met on the street.
     
  12. MCalig

    MCalig New Member

    64
    0
    0
    True.But....how can you define yourself a true gun expert if you don't know the basics of marksmanship?Hitting a man sized target at 200 m is not something exceptional.
    If they guys of Discovery Channel want to make a realistic accuracy comparison between two rifles, they should look for skilled people and "pristine-conditions" weapons.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2014
  13. kbd512

    kbd512 Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,725
    66
    48
    From personal experience, my forged/milled receiver Arsenal SLR-101S consistently shoots between 3" and 3.5" at 100 yards with iron sights using Golden Tiger FMJ ammunition. From personal experience, my forged/milled receiver Colt AR6720 consistently shoots between 2.75" and 3.25" at 100 yards with iron sights using Federal XM193.

    I don't shoot the AK a lot a 200 yards, but from experience the width of the front sight post and the sighting mechanism poses some problems for me at that distance.

    With my Colt AR6720 (lightweight AR-15 variant, same barrel diameter as the M-16A1 and same type of sighting mechanism and front sight post width but approximately the same distance between front/rear sight as the AK), 200 yards is not a problem.

    The SLR-101S and AR6720 are about as close to apples-to-apples as one can get in a comparison between the two carbine types. Both have relatively thin 16" barrels with birdcage flash suppressors with roughly the same sight radius, both were properly constructed and assembled, and they both cost around 1K. Neither has had any special trigger modifications or other machining to enhance accuracy.

    The only real difference between the two, apart from the obvious, is the width/shape of the front sight post and the rear sight aperture. The notch and post, for many people, myself included, is more difficult to precisely align than the ring and post. Perhaps it's a training issue, but the width of the AK's front sight makes precise shooting at distances over 150 yards or so problematic for me.
     
  14. Eagle1803

    Eagle1803 New Member

    1,273
    0
    0
    IMO, the wrong rifle for the task at hand. Also there are a lot of expert shooters on you tube.:D
     
  15. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    Why do people so love to compare

    ARs and AKs.

    In general terms (which specifically means

    NOT talking about 2000 $ AKs and top-

    end ammo[hello, lurkers]) the standard

    meat and potatoes AK and milsurp ammo

    is, to be kind, well-tested at 200M. That's

    the reason mine's a safe queen, and the AR

    usually makes it on the bus.
     
  16. Pasquanel

    Pasquanel Proud to be an American Supporter

    1,926
    160
    63
    I have a WASAR 10-63 and while I cannot guarantee I could shoot an apple of your head with one shot at 200 yards I'll bet I could shoot your head out from underneath said apple with one shot.
    When SHTF its about ending hostility as soon as possible!
     
  17. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    Yeah. Which is wonderful IF EVER the SHTF. They've been TALKING

    about it since WWII, over 65 years, and we're still waiting. Unless

    we got bored, in which case we figured manufacturers would also

    lose big, in a SHTF, and we decided to happily muddle on through

    life without it...
     
  18. DeltaF

    DeltaF New Member

    3,210
    0
    0
    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
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2014
  19. jem375

    jem375 New Member

    18
    0
    0
    indoor range that has a 200 yard distance, where is this at??
     
  20. MCalig

    MCalig New Member

    64
    0
    0
    I don't know...type "discovery channel ak 47 m16 comparison" on youtube and you'll find the video