Alright, I am new here, and it might be in the FAQ, but realistically, is the AR more accurate than the Saiga .223? I like the AK reliability and would like to know if any one has side by side tested them. Sorry about the spilled can'o'worms.
AR vs .223 Saiga
- Thread starter acme_labs
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I don't have an AK but I've shot a few. On the AK's I've shot I'd say the sights are better on an AR. That makes it easier to shoot small groups at equal ranges. Put a red dot on both and that eliminates that issue.
Also, most AK's are 7.62 x 39 which kicks more than .223 (not bad but noticeable). This intimidates most new shooters. This also impairs accuracy.
Overall, I'd say its easier to shoot the AR accurately. This is not to say the AK is inaccurate, just that you have to work a little harder.
Also, most AK's are 7.62 x 39 which kicks more than .223 (not bad but noticeable). This intimidates most new shooters. This also impairs accuracy.
Overall, I'd say its easier to shoot the AR accurately. This is not to say the AK is inaccurate, just that you have to work a little harder.
I would say that you are capable of getting a more accurate AR than the Saiga. Meaning a free float bull barrel. Now if you are talking same length barrel and the such I don't know.
I think most of the accuracy issues people have are due to the sights, and most of that is due to people not being used to them.
AR sights -are- better IMO, I like them more myself.
We slAKers shoot 5.45 & 7.62 AKs with open sights & hit torso sized steel plate at 250-300yrds quite regularly, pretty much any time we actually aim.
AR sights -are- better IMO, I like them more myself.
We slAKers shoot 5.45 & 7.62 AKs with open sights & hit torso sized steel plate at 250-300yrds quite regularly, pretty much any time we actually aim.
I don't know where to start.
Stock, out of the box with a stock trigger and sights, I would give the edge to the AR if both were in .223 and using the same ammo. The AR has much better sights and has less moving mass.
If you allow some accuracy enhancements, these two rifles are not on the same planet much less in the same league. The AR has been refined as an accuracy platform to an extent that no other semi auto rifle has. You can buy super accurate open sights or build a flat-top that is optics ready. There are multi dimensional adjustible stocks available. Almost every custom barrel maker in America makes a barrel for the AR. Barrels come in a variety of twists from 1:14" to 1:6" to handle every bullet weight from 40 gr to 90 gr. The AK doesn't have that option. I wonder what the response would be if you called Krieger and asked them for an AK barrel. Finally, there are triggers available for the AR that are simply beautiful. You can get a Geissele 2 stage match trigger to break at 1.5 lbs total weight with an 8 oz. 2nd stage. I do not think all of the gunsmithing in the world could make an AK trigger come even close.
In the final analysis, a well built AR in service, match or varmit configuration will dependably shoot 10 shot .5" groups at 100 yds (some better). I don't think you can match that with any other semi auto.
Constitutionlover - I have heard a variation of that statement (gun, ammo, etc. more accurate than the shooter so it is good enough) more times than I can count. I think it is a pretty stupid theory. You should strive to have the most accurate rifle and ammo that you can afford. If you do not, how do you know if it is the equipment or you when you make a bad shot? How do you know when your shooting improves? Perhaps it is acceptable to some to have a ready made excuse when the bullet fails to go exactly where you aimed it. For me, I like knowing that every shot that is outside of the X/10 ring is my fault either because I erred in my aim, did not execute the shot properly or mis-read some condition such as wind. My ARs and ammo are accurate and dependable enough to provide me with that knowledge.
Dan
Stock, out of the box with a stock trigger and sights, I would give the edge to the AR if both were in .223 and using the same ammo. The AR has much better sights and has less moving mass.
If you allow some accuracy enhancements, these two rifles are not on the same planet much less in the same league. The AR has been refined as an accuracy platform to an extent that no other semi auto rifle has. You can buy super accurate open sights or build a flat-top that is optics ready. There are multi dimensional adjustible stocks available. Almost every custom barrel maker in America makes a barrel for the AR. Barrels come in a variety of twists from 1:14" to 1:6" to handle every bullet weight from 40 gr to 90 gr. The AK doesn't have that option. I wonder what the response would be if you called Krieger and asked them for an AK barrel. Finally, there are triggers available for the AR that are simply beautiful. You can get a Geissele 2 stage match trigger to break at 1.5 lbs total weight with an 8 oz. 2nd stage. I do not think all of the gunsmithing in the world could make an AK trigger come even close.
In the final analysis, a well built AR in service, match or varmit configuration will dependably shoot 10 shot .5" groups at 100 yds (some better). I don't think you can match that with any other semi auto.
Constitutionlover - I have heard a variation of that statement (gun, ammo, etc. more accurate than the shooter so it is good enough) more times than I can count. I think it is a pretty stupid theory. You should strive to have the most accurate rifle and ammo that you can afford. If you do not, how do you know if it is the equipment or you when you make a bad shot? How do you know when your shooting improves? Perhaps it is acceptable to some to have a ready made excuse when the bullet fails to go exactly where you aimed it. For me, I like knowing that every shot that is outside of the X/10 ring is my fault either because I erred in my aim, did not execute the shot properly or mis-read some condition such as wind. My ARs and ammo are accurate and dependable enough to provide me with that knowledge.
Dan
Rifle more accurate than the shooter myth debunked.
Attached is a 10 shot rapid fire group shot from prone position using only a sling for support at 300 yds. It measures 3.25" so it is sligntly greater than 1 MOA. I do not believe that an AK is mechanically accurate enough to fire that group even from a fixture. On the other hand, I am fairly certain that my group is about double the size of the mechanical accuracy of my rifle. Further, the fact that the AR sights are so good allowed me to adjust them for the prevailing wind and put the group in the center of the target.
For those who have seen this picture before I apologize.
Dan
Attached is a 10 shot rapid fire group shot from prone position using only a sling for support at 300 yds. It measures 3.25" so it is sligntly greater than 1 MOA. I do not believe that an AK is mechanically accurate enough to fire that group even from a fixture. On the other hand, I am fairly certain that my group is about double the size of the mechanical accuracy of my rifle. Further, the fact that the AR sights are so good allowed me to adjust them for the prevailing wind and put the group in the center of the target.
For those who have seen this picture before I apologize.
Dan
Well, I simply do not think that Saiga or AK type rifles as a whole are not accurate, or that a Saiga is a poorly made firearm.
I definitely think that AR sights are better than AK, in fact I would love have some. I've already conceded this.
Most people are not professional shooters or on par with them. You guys may be, I am not. -For most people- the firearm is more accurate than the person shooting it, unless it is a total POS or has a mechanical problem.
I'm glad some of you great shooters exist b/c it gives me someone to learn from.
I've got nothing else to add to this thread.
I definitely think that AR sights are better than AK, in fact I would love have some. I've already conceded this.
Most people are not professional shooters or on par with them. You guys may be, I am not. -For most people- the firearm is more accurate than the person shooting it, unless it is a total POS or has a mechanical problem.
??
I'm glad some of you great shooters exist b/c it gives me someone to learn from.
I've got nothing else to add to this thread.
AR's are inherently more accurate than AK's.
AK's are inherantly more reliable than AR's.
During Tactical Response Contractor shooting classes the AR owners usually haveto clean their weapons at lunch.
Some AK owners (I do not recomend this) Just don't clean their AK's.
Whatcha doing April 12th?
I'm gonna be over there in Texas with Gomez...
-PS: I'll tell you the results if we run say 1,000 through the guns in a day:
Bounding, peels, break contact drills... get down in the mud and get them dirty...
The AK's (Even the cheapo POS $300 ones) will work, and will hit the man...
The 3x+ the price Ar's will be very accurate. WHEN they work.
AK's are inherantly more reliable than AR's.
During Tactical Response Contractor shooting classes the AR owners usually haveto clean their weapons at lunch.
Some AK owners (I do not recomend this) Just don't clean their AK's.
Whatcha doing April 12th?
I'm gonna be over there in Texas with Gomez...
-PS: I'll tell you the results if we run say 1,000 through the guns in a day:
Bounding, peels, break contact drills... get down in the mud and get them dirty...
The AK's (Even the cheapo POS $300 ones) will work, and will hit the man...
The 3x+ the price Ar's will be very accurate. WHEN they work.
Constitutionlover,
The fact is that the firearm is always more accurate mechanically than the person shooting it. If the firearm is capable of shooting 3 MOA and the person is capable of holding 3 MOA the effect on target is 6 MOA. That is why even a 3 MOA holder will shoot a smaller group with a 1 MOA rifle than a 3 MOA rifle. Conversely, a 1 MOA holder would never know it shooting a 3 MOA rifle because the effect on target would be 4 MOA.
If you are interested in learning about position shooting and live in or are willing to travel to SE LA, we hold clinics and even some semi private instruction. We have all of the equipment you would need. You will find that we are not "professional shooters" and you will be surprised how quickly you can pick up the basics and begin to improve.
Nomad,
You clearly have alot of experience and I certainly respect that. I do have a very clear understanding that an AK is a robust and very reliable weapon. I am not unknowledgable in matters involving firearms. This string, however, strictly addresses accuracy and as you state, the AR is a better platform in that regard.
Like constitutionlover, I do not have anything else to add.
Dan
The fact is that the firearm is always more accurate mechanically than the person shooting it. If the firearm is capable of shooting 3 MOA and the person is capable of holding 3 MOA the effect on target is 6 MOA. That is why even a 3 MOA holder will shoot a smaller group with a 1 MOA rifle than a 3 MOA rifle. Conversely, a 1 MOA holder would never know it shooting a 3 MOA rifle because the effect on target would be 4 MOA.
If you are interested in learning about position shooting and live in or are willing to travel to SE LA, we hold clinics and even some semi private instruction. We have all of the equipment you would need. You will find that we are not "professional shooters" and you will be surprised how quickly you can pick up the basics and begin to improve.
Nomad,
You clearly have alot of experience and I certainly respect that. I do have a very clear understanding that an AK is a robust and very reliable weapon. I am not unknowledgable in matters involving firearms. This string, however, strictly addresses accuracy and as you state, the AR is a better platform in that regard.
Like constitutionlover, I do not have anything else to add.
Dan
I know, I thought I had answered it:
I see nothing wrong with a well rounded answer.
???
Thats what I been saying Pangris.Also is that tiger underwater?
Negitive... Total exageration... I've stood there and watched Bam and I hit strings of 5-10 in a row, followed by 5 misses in a row. It most certainly not "any time" we actually aim....
ETA: Not saying it isn't accurate enough, but at 250 yds (BTW where did you guys get 300 from? Everytime I've paced it off it was 250 yds...) hitting that plate with irons was not guaranteed...
Last edited:
Members online
- FrankEDavis
- DH80-Z28
- Magdump
- scrapiron
- CantThinkPastGo
- DBMJR1
- AK shooter
- Gator 45/70
- kz45
- sethtvaughn
- Tonyaav
- easy_does_it_24
- twinin
- Lost Bayou
- Bayourambler
- Rbahlinger
- do2gomike
- dantheman
- Generalludd
- La26
- tekkaman_tnt
- RagManBR
- buckedup
- Brballistics
- chips
- Evil Zim
- navops
- bwalke1
- highstandard40
- ebert
- Codyjohn61
- 3fifty7
- Sixtop
- Mel633
- Tsmith
- usmc-nav
- West
