Let the AK go for an AR?

[JustinJ]

You'd be surprised. 3 Gun is still a sport that is heavily dominated by amateur shooters. It's sour grapes to claim that the only people who actually win are the ones who shoot professionally. In reality, there are very few shooters who have all of their costs covered, especially for things like practice ammo.

How are my comments sour grapes? What i'm saying is that available sponsorship will influence how serious competitors select gear and sponsorship certainly can help a competitor improve by allowing for more training and gear as in any sport. Obviously they must prove themselves for a sponsor to even consider them. I also never said all costs were covered but i'm sure free guns are not unheard of. If you don't think the top are heavily sponsored please tell me which of the top 32 lack sponsorship because i couldn't find one:

http://3gunnation.com/shooters/

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

AK 47 speed reload

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqYxhanNimA

M4 Speed Reload

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx0JzYcwUiY&feature=related

Less effort to reload the AR 15 and it's faster.

 

[proven]

justinj, you're missing the whole point. the ar is the choice across the board, among novices and on up. there's a reason for that, and it isn't any of the ones that you've tried to make up in your head to justify your argument for the ak. justin (mod) answered your last post pretty well. i can't help it if you can't comprehend it. cheers.

 

[JustinJ]

I hear this a lot from people who've never actually competed. That serious 3 gun competitors opt for the AR out of patriotism, or because it's an American-made rifle, or whatever. Frankly, that's always been a claim that I find hard to swallow.

I'm not implying that competitors shoot ARs out of patriotism but rather that the US gun culture as a whole is biased to the AR for reasons beyond its merits and this influences shooters, ecspecially as it is often the first sprorting rifle they learn, in and out of the military.

There's a surprising mix of background among the top competitors. Sure, the US AMU shooters all place pretty high, and in the sport itself, there are probably more people with LE and MIL backgrounds than in the general population, but some of the very best shooters are also just regular ol' citizens.

I have no doubt that is the case but the LE and military presence certainly must influence the sport as a whole?

proven:

justinj, you're missing the whole point. the ar is the choice across the board, among novices and on up. there's a reason for that, and it isn't any of the ones that you've tried to make up in your head to justify your argument for the ak. justin (mod) answered your last post pretty well. i can't help it if you can't comprehend it. cheers.

Yet again, repeats the same thing yet offers no real response. Your indignation is exactly why i believe so many of the rabid AR defenders do so out of some sort of misguided sense of nationalism. It reminds me of people rooting for the home team regardless of how good they are or aren't.

 

[giggitygiggity]

Keep the AK. You said you're planning on getting another one down the road. Arsenal AK's are probably the best there are anyways. Save the money and buy and AR and have two rifles.

If you're asking which platform is better, I prefer the AR. The AK is reliable and fun to shoot, but the AR is more accurate, ergonomic, and customizable. Also, the modern-day AR is almost on par with AK reliability. The AR is more prone to failure, but unless you're doing something wild like engaging in firefights in a dusty or muddy area and drop your AR, you probably won't notice the difference in reliability.

 

[proven]

i have no response for someone who comes up with senseless and unfounded arguments to support a platform that has no benefit over the chosen choice of so many. you can create all the grand scheming philosophical reasoning you want. but you haven't pointed out a single thing that the ak holds over the ar for the purposes of 3 gun. you try and argue about how the ak is almost as fast at mag changes, worse, but not horrible ergonomically, the sights can be almost as good as an ar, and the accuracy is pretty close to an ar.....all of this coming up short and yet you still want to argue that people choose the ar over the ak for 3 gun for reasons other that it's simply a better platform for the sport. if by "misguided sense of nationalism" you mean they choose the rifle that better suits the game, then sure, whatever floats your boat.

 

[d2wing]

According to this kid having experience makes you biased, competition makes you biased, research and battle reports are all wrong. AK is a close range volley gun, AR is more general purpose light rifle that fills more roles.

 

[Bobson]

AR's guys been beating AK guys for near 50 years head to head.

Exactly.

"AR guys" have been beating "AK guys." No gun has ever "beaten" another gun. The person utilizing the tool is what makes the difference. I don't believe one weapon is superior to the other, when it comes to the AR vs AK debate. Both weapons have their pros, and both have their cons.

Having said that, if you're looking to get involved in 3-gun, I agree that an AR will serve you more effectively. Its a shame you'll have to get rid of a quality AK47 just to buy another one in the future, but if your priority is competition, switch to the AR platform, and enjoy the versatility.

 

[Justin]

What i'm saying is that available sponsorship will influence how serious competitors select gear and sponsorship certainly can help a competitor improve by allowing for more training and gear as in any sport.

Indeed, sponsorships can help, but they're not nearly as important as you claim they are. Furthermore, the people who get to the point where they have major sponsors invariably got that way after putting an inordinate amount of their own time, money, and resources into becoming top-rate athletes.

Obviously they must prove themselves for a sponsor to even consider them.

I also never said all costs were covered but i'm sure free guns are not unheard of.

In a sport where one can easily spend twice as much on ammunition in a year compared to the cost of a gun, a free gun, no matter how swoopy, is hardly a game changer.

If you don't think the top are heavily sponsored please tell me which of the top 32 lack sponsorship because i couldn't find one:

First off: 3 Gun Nation isn't an actual match. It's an amalgamation of results from the various national-level matches. Pointing to the competitors of one tv show based around a shoot-off and claiming that all 3 gun matches are therefore won by sponsored shooters shows that you're not nearly as educated on the issue as you think, especially when there are three decades worth of match results from various matches to go by.

Furthermore, I've shot with at least one of those people in the days before he was sponsored, and he still won RM3G that year.

 

[Justin]

I'm not implying that competitors shoot ARs out of patriotism but rather that the US gun culture as a whole is biased to the AR for reasons beyond its merits and this influences shooters, ecspecially as it is often the first sprorting rifle they learn, in and out of the military.

If a top-flight competitor's only choice for going with a particular gun is because it is the best rifle for the application at hand, why on earth would they choose to opt for a gun for reasons that have nothing to do with winning?

If there are indeed better rifles, perhaps you should make them and us aware of those choices.

I have no doubt that is the case but the LE and military presence certainly must influence the sport as a whole?

The sport, by and large, is run by civilians. Most of the shooters are civilians, and many of the best shooters are civilians. The sport is somewhat military-influenced, but not nearly so much as you appear to think.

Yet again, repeats the same thing yet offers no real response. Your indignation is exactly why i believe so many of the rabid AR defenders do so out of some sort of misguided sense of nationalism. It reminds me of people rooting for the home team regardless of how good they are or aren't.

You've had at least two other people who are experienced with 3 Gun tell you why the AR is the currently dominant platform, for reasons that are wholly logical and reasonable, but have inexplicably chosen to argue against those people for reasons I don't particularly understand.

Claiming that a "misguided sense of nationalism" is the reason for why the AR is the dominant platform for shooting 3 gun is, quite possibly, the most ignorant thing I've ever seen. Especially given that there have been numerous posts made here explaining exactly why so many people choose the AR.

If you truly believe that there are other guns that would serve equally well, or better, for 3 Gun, that should be fairly easy assertion to prove. After all, the sport has objective rules and goals, so a rational comparison between platforms should be quite easy. Hell, locally we do this once a year at our annual AK vs. AR rifle match.

 

[benEzra]

BenEzra, I've found I actually can view my iron sights through the rail of my BP-02, and through my UTG leverlock mount

What I like about cowitnessing through the lens is that you can instantly verify the optic's zero by lowering your eye a tad to see the dot on the front sight post, and that you have instant, unobstructed backup sighting if the optic were to go down. I've used irons beneath a POSP 4x I used to have on that rifle, and while they worked for bullseye shooting, it was like looking through a keyhole; very hard to pick up new targets.

Also, what mount is that?

It's part of the optic itself. I bought it from Tantal's site, and there are a few pics on that page (mine is the EKP-8-02).

It's very fast and has a 1.8 MOA dot, chevron, dot-chevron, and t-bar reticles (selectable), very clear and holds zero fairly well. But you do have to remove it to clean the gun effectively (I'm not even sure you can get the top cover off with the optic mounted, though it may be possible) and if it quits you have to remove it to use the iron sights.

I posted some thoughts on the Kobra a few years ago here, and another user posted a really good pic through the optic downthread there. Unfortunately, the gen-2 is a little delicate (unusual for Russian optics) and I've had to fix mine a couple of times.

Get yourself a PSL-style stock (they're available as WASR takeoffs for cheap) and pretty it up. I think you'll be very pleased with what it does for the rifle's feel. They have a built-in cheek rest that makes shooting with optics much easier.

That's an interesting idea. Are they longer than the standard stock? I do like the length of the standard stock (a lot of the American made replacement stocks are too long for my taste).

I really do like the balance of an AK without too much on top, which is another reason I think I'd like an Ultimak/Aimpoint better than my current setup. The Ultimak setup sits light, low, and forward, whereas my Kobra is a bit top-heavy and adds bulk.

A civilian -74 is on my "someday list". I am kicking myself a little for not picking up a SAR-2 back when they were under $350. 7.62x39mm is versatile, but heavy as bricks.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Could you try to get a picture of the T reticule? I'm curious of what it looks like.

 

[benEzra]

Here:



I liked the T-bar for close range shooting (most of the match stages in our local "CQB" matches here are 25 yards or less) because it compensates nicely for the sight height offset; you shoot the bottom of the "T" up close and shift toward the top as the range opens up.

There are more pics in this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4591236#post4591236

The reticles are actually red, but the color doesn't show up well in my pic.

One caveat---it does appear that the gen-2 (button cell) Kobras like mine are more delicate than the "gen-3" AA models. The reticles are the same.

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:
What i'm saying is that available sponsorship will influence how serious competitors select gear and sponsorship certainly can help a competitor improve by allowing for more training and gear as in any sport.

Indeed, sponsorships can help, but they're not nearly as important as you claim they are. Furthermore, the people who get to the point where they have major sponsors invariably got that way after putting an inordinate amount of their own time, money, and resources into becoming top-rate athletes.

Obviously they must prove themselves for a sponsor to even consider them.

I never claimed how important they are, just said they are influence and part of an overall bias. How much they help a competitor in any sport will vary by how much of costs are covered. I also stated in my post that they must prove themselves before sponsors will support them but for some odd reason that post seems to have magically disapeared.

If a top-flight competitor's only choice for going with a particular gun is because it is the best rifle for the application at hand, why on earth would they choose to opt for a gun for reasons that have nothing to do with winning?

Training level with a platform is probably gona play an awfully big part in weapons selection. If a guy has grown up shooting one gun but another becomes available with some mechanical advantages are those guaranteed to offset years of experience? If so i'd say the SCAR should be very common at the top as well.

Claiming that a "misguided sense of nationalism" is the reason for why the AR is the dominant platform for shooting 3 gun is, quite possibly, the most ignorant thing I've ever seen. Especially given that there have been numerous posts made here explaining exactly why so many people choose the AR.

Given my posts are missing i guess i shouldnt be too surprised my words are being twisted as well. Ultimately i haven't said a single time the AK is better for three gun, only that the AR is more common for reasons beyond its actual mechanical merits. In regards to comparing the guns point by point that was specifically in regard to a post related to their use in combat as was apparent. A "misguided sense of nationalism" is what drives so many to take it so personally when anything not positive about the platform is mentioned or for others say they prefer the AK. I'd like to thank those who have demonstrated this for me.

 

[Justin]

Given my posts are missing

None of your posts are missing, nor have they been edited by anyone on staff.

Posts don't get deleted or edited unless they break the rules, and your accusation that your posts have been modified is baseless and wrong.

 

[proven]

only that the AR is more common for reasons beyond its actual mechanical merits.

again, plenty of info here as to why the ar is the rifle of choice. you inability to accept those posts from people who have far more experience with the sport than you, is just as ridiculous as your notion of "misguided sense of nationalism".

funny how you talk about people taking criticism of they're chosen platform personally. throughout this thread people with actual competitive experience have stated why the ak can't stack up to the ar in three gun and that the ar is typically the rifle of choice. when you can't retort with first hand experience, facts, or statistics, you turn to what basically is conspiracy theory and act as though someone pushed you down on the playground and skinned your knee.

choose another argument. perhaps one that actually makes sense.

maybe you should consider changing the "ar" in your sig line for "ak". isn't irony great?

 

[rbernie]

None of your posts are missing, nor have they been edited by anyone on staff.

Posts don't get deleted or edited unless they break the rules, and your accusation that your posts have been modified is baseless and wrong.

This is a 100% factual statement, and IMO it does not speak well that the accusation was made.

 

[P-32]

Justin J this is pointed more towards your direction. I am involved with running and calling some of the local High Power matches. My co hearts and I have guys come up to us and say if only I could shoot my SKS, AK or whatever and I would shoot a match. The club decided we were going to have a non-sanctioned match once in a while so these guys could come out. The match is called a C&R match. (Club rules) It is ran just like a High Power National match course would be ran.

The guys who were belly aching about not being able to shoot their SKS or AK's gets thumped pretty hard by the AR guys. Our C&R match is held at 100 yards on reduced targets so the light 7.62 x 39 round is not affected by wind. Also the sighting system on a US weapon historically is very much superior to what the old Soviet Bloc uses. Granted the A1 was hard to adjust but it was solved when the A2 came out. Oh and before your panties get wrapped up, the AK guys can practice just like anyone else. The match schedule is already out for the year.

Justin can you show me a AK which will print a sub MOA or even a MOA group at 100 yards using iron sights day after day? Our OP already found out he was handy capped using what his was using. Most people like to win matches when they can. Generally when I shoot a match I bring the best I have to try to win the match. This includes ammo, weapon, support equipment, diet and being well rested. I do everything I can do to make sure the rifle, pistol or whatever is going to perform 100 % during a match. My AR’s have performed very well over all for the many 88 shot matches I’ve shot. I’ve never had a Fail to fire, eject, feed. I’ve never had a jam of any sort. I did lose a 2 stage trigger during a match one time. But I had a spare for some reason and was able to finish the match.

The other thing match shooters tend to do is watch what gear the guy always in the winners circle uses. We then pick one of those up. I don’t know how many White Oak uppers I’ve sold.

Oh and what is up with your idea of sponsorship? I personally know some big names in the High Power World. Mid Tompkins and family might be supported with bullets but David Tubbs isn’t waving anyone’s banner but his own. I've shot against the boys who shoot for Springfield. Granted they do shoot pretty well but having a job like thiers is not very easy to find.

 

[Robert]

We host an AR vs AK match every year. Guys bring and run their AKs. It is a fun match with a great deal of good natured ribbing. But at the end of the day the top shooters, not me, are all using ARs. And yes we bring the targets in.

 

[mortablunt]

If you get a 5.45 fixed stock AK, then the accuracy is up to AR levels and you can keep the same platform. A cheapo base AK is not a prime accuracy rifle, but optics and getting a well-built AK can compete with the AR and its users in most competitions that you are likely to see.

I support a lot of JustinJ's sentiments. The AR is worshiped as more than it is and is so heavily biased and ingrained into the American gun culture that any sort of rifle which might be suggested as an alternative is automatically dismissed. Fanboys, no matter what their camp, are distinguished as being unable to realize the bonos of anything outside of their limited range of acceptable firearms.It is no different with Garand, Glock, M1911, Mosin-Nagant, or LC-p fanboys. I know that I am AK fan, but I realize that the AR has its own advantages. Kalashnikov is what I know and like, but I will not claim that everything Kalshnikov is good or the best. If I knew more about AR, or had actually fired one, then I could give a more expansive opinion.

@proven: I read the whole thread before posting. I just said my peace because I did not need to reiterate everything.

 

[proven]

If you get a 5.45 fixed stock AK, then the accuracy is up to AR levels and you can keep the same platform.

haha, have you read any of this thread?

 

[d2wing]

I'm not sure which of the AK lovers are more misguided. It is clear that only the inexperienced and uninformed think the AK can match the performance of an AR.

 

[proven]

mortablunt, if you aren't a fanboy then you can clearly recognize that a well built ar with optic will easily beat a well built ak with optic any day of the week with regards to accuracy. and while we're talking about fanboys. i have owned and run aks, arsenal, krebs custom etc. and none of them came close to an ar. that's just my experience, as i noted earlier. i love 1911s. but carry my g19 more, because it's pros outweigh it's cons and it does what i want better than my 1911. i understand what a fanboy is and assure you i am not one, no matter what the topic. however, when you make claims of an ak being on par with an ar in terms of accuracy, i'm not so sure you can eliminate yourself from the ak fanboy club.

eta. just realized you stated that you've never even fired an ar. so what exactly are you basing this accuracy statement on?

 

[mortablunt]

The more modern Kalashnikov designs are more accurate than the old 47's and M's. The AK-74 forms the basis of the 100 series. I had an AK-103. The AK-103 was accurate, maybe about 1MOA for 100M and it was far more accurate than I ever was for anything where I wasn't shooting from a rest. I am aware that the AR is more accurate than any AK. The best summary of the AK is that it is a great weapon but a terrible rifle; great for practical combat applications with a minimum of training, but looks uninspired on the technical specs side.

Here are some other sources where people experienced good accuracy from AK's and some hard numbers about the arms I mentioned.

http://policelink.monster.com/products/products/4823-ak-103
http://www.cruffler.com/review-December-00.html
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=3276.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-103
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM
http://world.guns.ru/assault/rus/ak-akm-e.html
http://world.guns.ru/assault/rus/ak-74-e.html
http://world.guns.ru/assault/rus/ak-103-e.html
http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms/ak74.htm

Just one thing: if the AK were no good at all, then why so many militaries use it and its kin? Russia standard issues an AK variant for almost everything. The Czech Republic is a NATO member and still uses the VZ-58, an AK clone firing 7.62x39. Other modern armies still use Kalashnikovs. Venezuela uses the AK-103, and many ComBloc nations still use the AK, even those, such as the Czech Republic, which are well within their means to overhaul their infantry weapons.

 

[Justin]

The AR is worshiped as more than it is and is so heavily biased and ingrained into the American gun culture that any sort of rifle which might be suggested as an alternative is automatically dismissed.

Again, if it were only a matter of opinion or style, you'd see a wider variety of shooters adopting various rifle platforms.

Fanboys, no matter what their camp, are distinguished as being unable to realize the bonos of anything outside of their limited range of acceptable firearms.

Meh. Then I must not be a fanboy, as there are plenty of posts in the archives where I talk about the benefits of many different rifle platforms.

We've got at least one member here, BrianSmithWins, who makes a fairly strong case for the AK in a number of threads, and much of this is due to his experience running AKs under timed situations.

It is no different with Garand, Glock, M1911, Mosin-Nagant, or LC-p fanboys. I know that I am AK fan, but I realize that the AR has its own advantages. Kalashnikov is what I know and like, but I will not claim that everything Kalshnikov is good or the best.

It's a matter of picking the rifle that is best adopted to the task at hand. For action shooting sports like 3 gun, most people pick ARs. For precision sports like High Power, most people pick ARs. The police and military seem to like them, too, and in any of these cases, while the reasons may be varied, I doubt it has to do with the rifle choices simply being made by people who are fanboys.

If I knew more about AR, or had actually fired one, then I could give a more expansive opinion.

You've never even fired an AR? Have you at least managed to run your AK at a training class or 3 Gun match?