Wouldn’t carefully assembled reloads be more in the ammo then the platform?
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
I was trying to get the highest level of precision out of a mini30 without modifying the rifle. The rifle was being used to hunt smallish black tail deer. The mini30 was horid with steel cased east german and Chinese mil surp. 7-8 moa scoped groups. Not enough firing pin energy to ignite the hardened primer cups of combloc ammo. Out of 20 rounds 5 would require a second trip through the chamber to fire.
It turns out that the mini30 is a bastard of a compromise. Uses a 311 throat to feed milsurp ammo but the bore is 308. Once I found out about the 308 bore I began constructing taylor made reloads featuring the bullets that we americans enjoy. I ended up using nosler 120 ballistic tips for most of my hunting after months of experimenting.
You’ve got patience. I would have thrown that thing away a long time ago
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
I was a college kid at the time and enjoyed the challenge. Proved to be a healthy distraction from course work. I ended up selling rifle as package deal with dies, magazines, etc. Broke even and ventured into the 6br world. Bought a hart barrel and new rem700 action. Gunsmith made a benchrest rifle for me.
I have a stock LE6920 and a stock WASR. At 100 yds using irons on both and shooting cheap Ammo in both I get slightly smaller groups with the WASR. It’s mostly because of the triggers. The mil spec in the Colt sucks worse than other mil spec triggers I have. The stock Tapco in the WASR is pretty light and crisp. Also I shoot better with the WASR’s post and notch sights.
I prefer my AR’s with Geiselle’s over both.
I took out a circa 2006 6920 today that is bone stock. I’ve had this rifle for years. Despite the shit trigger, I did shoot one MOA group, but averaged about 2 MOA with handloaded ammo.
How many of us actually scope AKs the same way we do ARs? How many of us buy a quality AK and feed it quality ammo?
We treat ARs and AKs so differently. When I tell you I shot 5 MOA with wolf and irons in my AR today, how many would suggest that the poor accuracy is due to the wolf and irons?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This guy has no trouble hitting plates at 150-300 yds standing with Wolf Ammo.
https://youtu.be/aSuAPjw2Jgw
This is an excellent explanation of what I’m describing. A single 3 or 5 shot group isn’t enough to reliably tell you how big a group your firearm produces. It’s only part of a group.
On the precision pages, we either say five five-round groups are a good idea. The 20 or 30 round groups start to cause things like barrel heat, mirage, etc that cause problems that are not related to the mechanical accuracy of the firearm.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
disregard
…and magically his AK was the first combloc AK to be zeroed out of the box. What are the odds? 
[video=youtube_share;aSuAPjw2Jgw]http://youtu.be/aSuAPjw2Jgw[/video]
Submachine gun? AK? I was under the impression sub guns were basically hand gun loads in a rifle. Have I been misinformed?
“very powerfull submachine gun”. What I mean is the gun (AK-47) was designed to be used by tank crews and guards and such. It had a submachine gun-type role but can work as a rifle as well for short distances. Sub-gun first, rifle second. The M16 was sort of the opposite. A rifle first, carbine second.
But generally, a submachine gun is a short, full-auto weapon chambered for a pistol cartridge.
Actually the Russians classify it as a submachine gun (or did at one point), but they clearly use different criteria than we do.
In the west submachine guns were always chambered in pistol ammo. Soviet infantry doctrine developed differently from their experiences in WWII. The Soviets were unique among armies of that era in their mass issue of submachine guns (PPSH and PPS) in far greater quantities than the Allies or the Germans. Whereas in most armies only a few submachine guns would be issue to a platoon (PLs and SLs) in the Red Army often the majority of soldiers would be issued with submachine guns if not entire units. Although this give Soviet infantry a great deal of firepower in the close fight, their infantry was lacking in engagements over 100M.
So when the Soviets developed the AK in the late 1940s, they thought of the AK as a submachine gun with better range/hitting power. Whereas in the west, the Assault rifle was more of a rifle with select fire capability.
That’s not really true.
This is more true.
The AK (the Soviets only referred to it as the AK, not AK-47, that was something done by Western intelligence) and AKM was developed as a replacement for the Airborne, Motorized, and Mechanized infantry squad’s weapons, which were chiefly PPSh-41s and PPS-43s. Doctrinally, strategically, the AK was a “submachine gun”. The Soviet experience in WWII had taught them the benefits of a squad being able to provide their own suppressing fire in an assault by hosing objectives at range with 7.62 Tokarev, making the AK-47 truly an “assault rifle”. Like any true assault rifle, the AK was designed to be fired semi-automatically at range and fully-automatically in close quarters.
The SKS was developed simply to replace the Mosin-Nagant in its various guises and was chiefly to be issued to regular infantry units. However, the AK proved to be capable of doing everything they wanted the SKS to do and to do it better, and with cost-savings for standardizing on one rifle instead of two, they ultimately went with AKs service-wide.
The PPS-43 was still used for armored crews (and others who needed a defensive firearm where space was at a premium) and wouldn’t fully be phased out of service until the adoption of the AKS-74U.
(It might also be worth noting how handguns were treated totally different in the Soviet Union: In the US, we wanted a fighting handgun in a fighting cartridge. In the Soviet Union, they wanted a compact, last-ditch, defensive handgun with just enough power to get the job done.)
And none of that had anything to do with reverse engineered StG-44s captured on the Eastern front. 
I think it is more form following function. You could make an argument that the AK-47 in terms of operating system is closer to an M1 than STG 44.
AK’s are fine accuracy wise from the better manufacturers; Saiga, Izhvesk, Arsenal etc.
7n6