RANGE REPORT: Saiga AK47 vs. Colt 6920
Date 12-14-09 and 12-15-09
VS
during this test I took the 3x magnifier off the weapon to make it a fair contest.
Just to start this is not a thread to bash either weapon. But I decided to see which weapon was best for me at the range. Rather than just go off assumptions. On 12-14-09 I fired several types of rounds from a bench in the Saiga to see which was the most accurate. That turned out to be Federal American Eagle at 1.70
Then on 12-15-09 I took out my Colt 6920. I used reloads loaded with BLC2 powder, Military primers and military 62 grain bullets (SS109) . A while back I got these bullets at a great price on line. This is not military ammo but it will have to do. The specs are close as I could get as a reloader. The results for this test was the Colt averaged 1.41
Here are a few range pics
Earlier in the month I fired a variety of weapons in a simple CQB drill. (Start from low ready and fire 2 rounds at 3 USPSA targets spaced 3 yards apart and 7 yards from me.
Here are the results from the Saiga vs. the Colt.
The AR had a slight accuracy advantage from the bench at 50 yards with similar optic set ups. On the speed drill both rifles were pretty much dead even with .01 of a second going to the Colt. These guns are a fair comparison in my opinion because both represent some of the best in their breed. (Russian AK vs. Colt AR) and both have similar upgrades in optics and triggers. The AK has a 2 stage trigger that is one of the better ones I have used.
I still need to do a long range shooting exercise. But at close range of 50 yards or less I feel that these weapons are about equal. I never gave the AK full credit before but if you set one up with a good optic and put an extended safety on it its not too bad. I also need to do some tests including reloads and other gun manipulations. The AR has the edge at long range and at speed of reloading but I want to document it. This report is not meant to be a slam on either gun. I like both systems a lot.
Actually I was just having fun. These arguments come up on the net all the time and someone criticized me for comparing an AR with Match ammo to a plain AK. I wanted to see if both guns were set up similar how different the results would be. They are both far closer than I thought they would be.
Pat
Good on you for trying something like this to see for yourself.
Iron sights to iron sights with quality ammo, off hand shooting might give a slight edge to the AR, simply because of the sights.
Off hand or dynamic shooting with quality optics and ammo, and a speed safety on the AK, and you quickly see that there is very little if any difference in hits.
AR’s will still win the ergonomics contest, especially with mag changes, but someone who knows what they’re doing with an AK can still be pretty competitive.
The AK is not as inaccurate as some people think, and the AR is not the delicate flower some people think.
So long as you know how to handle an AK (don’t hold it like an M4 let it beat you to death) when running drills it’s pretty decent. The real difference comes into play at longer ranges (300m or so) where the AR (with similar setups–ie 1x RDS’s) comes into its own.
Dave could you elaborate on the “don’t hold it like an M4 let it beat you to death” for me? Sorry for the stupid question, I’m not an AK guy, but I like to shoot them from time to time. And I’d like to get a little more proficient. Thanks dude.
The AK has higher recoil, partially due to the caliber and partially due to the long stroke piston & heavy carrier. As such, you need to shoulder it differently than you would with an M4.
You need to be far more aggressive. Put your support foot out in front (farther than you would with an M4), tuck your head in, and rotate your strong shoulder more forward. That support hand is going to be physically pulling the rifle into your shoulder, keeping everything in tightly. Felt recoil will be significantly reduced and your follow-up shots are gonna be a lot faster.
Pat, I spent all of 2008 shooting an AK instead of an AR. The biggest lesson I learned in that time is that it’s the indian and not the arrow. I consistently beat shooters running ARs in competition, I came in first loser at a Pat Rogers class doing the Modified Navy Qual. The Modified Navy is 5 standing, 5 kneeling, 5 prone at 50 yards, emergency reload at each level change, and as such is reload-intensive for such a short drill which should mean that the AR shooters should have cleaned my clock.
But, I still prefer the AR for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that I’m faster and more accurate with it (even with RDS on both, even after a year of practice) and I find it less fatiguing over time due to the reduced recoil, lighter weight, and better ergonomics of the AR.
But I think more and more “AR guys” are doing experiments similar to yours and finding out the truth of things for themselves, which is a good thing. I’m not smart enough to switch back and forth so I have to pick one and stick with it and for me it’s the AR, but I would not feel shortchanged with an AK in a match, class, or a fight.
I agree that the shooter is the most imporant variable. I know this thread is not scientific. I am just having fun with it and it gives me a reason to train with my guns even in the cold while making it fun. I prefer the AR myself but I have gained a healthy respect for the AK.
pat
during this test I took the 3x magnifier off the weapon to make it a fair contest.
