TargetTalk

is this what it looks like?

one of many pics on http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=29

Poole

It appears to be. But I have to ask: WHY?

Hanging anything that even hints at accurate, aimed fired on that POS bullet hose is a joke.

The AR15 and SIG 550 yes, anything Kalashnikov NO.

Never underestimate a Russian or their weapons.

RJP wrote:Never underestimate a Russian or their weapons.

Describing anything with AK in the beginning of its designation as an inaccurate bullet hose is not underestimation. It is telling the truth.

BTW, that Polish soldier has a rock solid prone, methinks. Good for about 100 meters, if that.

Jose Rossy wrote:

RJP wrote:Never underestimate a Russian or their weapons.

Describing anything with AK in the beginning of its designation as an inaccurate bullet hose is not underestimation. It is telling the truth.

BTW, that Polish soldier has a rock solid prone, methinks. Good for about 100 meters, if that.

She looks kinda cute though.

I have fired a number of the Norinco AK-47's, with basic run of the mill ammo. They were good for 4-6" at 100 yards. Not great, but certainly lethal.

Also, while it does look like a 7.62 gun, any possibility it could be a 22 clone? Isn't 7.62 recoil a bit much for the laser?

And the girl does look cute!

Jeff

no ear protection, no magazine, no doubt its a training technique to teach new recruits how to work the thing

it was just a cool picture I wanted to share

Poole

Jose Rossy wrote:Describing anything with AK in the beginning of its designation as an inaccurate bullet hose is not underestimation. It is telling the truth.

I'm more impressed with the AK than you are.

I shoot an AR-15 built for me by Frank White as a match service rifle for high power and wanted an AK just because that was the gun the M-16 went up against in Vietnam. So I got a Bulgarian AK with a milled receiver, one of the better examples.

Sure, my AR-15 beats the AK in every possible way including ergonomics, sights and accuracy. My AR is accurate to about 1/2 minute, but considering what the Kreiger barrel on it alone cost, it ought to. The AK is good to about 2 minutes, so it's no custom match rifle, but that's still respectable, it only cost about 1/4 what I spent on the AR, and I can strip and clean it in minutes, compared to about an hour for the AR.

I think the AK is a hell of a gun.

Jose Rossy wrote:

Good for about 100 meters, if that

I have been down range from many AK-47 and they are good out to 300 meters. This is my experience and yours might be different.

The young woman in the photo is obviously in military training. I have conducted many military small arms training exercises, most often using low tech dry firing techniques. We put a small coin on the barrel to accuratly demonstrate trigger control. I have also used military simulators that project a laser beam to a moving projected human target.

There is value in all these training methods. What it really comes down to, is how well any shooter practices the fundamentals of shooting under a strressfull situation.

Nicole Hamilton wrote:

Jose Rossy wrote:Describing anything with AK in the beginning of its designation as an inaccurate bullet hose is not underestimation. It is telling the truth.

I'm more impressed with the AK than you are.

I shoot an AR-15 built for me by Frank White as a match service rifle for high power and wanted an AK just because that was the gun the M-16 went up against in Vietnam. So I got a Bulgarian AK with a milled receiver, one of the better examples.

Sure, my AR-15 beats the AK in every possible way including ergonomics, sights and accuracy. My AR is accurate to about 1/2 minute, but considering what the Kreiger barrel on it alone cost, it ought to. The AK is good to about 2 minutes, so it's no custom match rifle, but that's still respectable, it only cost about 1/4 what I spent on the AR, and I can strip and clean it in minutes, compared to about an hour for the AR.

I think the AK is a hell of a gun.

My comments were in the context of accurate rifles. I think the effectiveness of the AK family in combat is hard to dispute.

I wonder where we (the west) would be now if the US Army had not been so pig-headed in the 50s and adopted both the T44 (US-made FAL) and the British 7X43 cartridge instead of the M14 and 7.62X51.

I bet we would still be issuing them, except they would be covered in 1913 rails for all the modern accessories.

Jose Rossy wrote:My comments were in the context of accurate rifles. I think the effectiveness of the AK family in combat is hard to dispute.

But even in that context, it doesn't seem like they're as bad as you make out. I'm not sure what the accepted threshold of error in POI is for a precise term like "inaccurate bullet hose," but I'd have guessed you had to be worse than 2 minutes.

But I admit, it's a colorful phrase and I'll remember to use it whenever I want to insult some gun I don't like. :)

Nicole, I think you have an exceptional AK if you can hold 2 MOA with it.

The M1 rifle is a far more accurate arm, and 2 MOA is excellent for it using ball ammo.

Well manufactured russian "out of the box" AK 47s will on average do about say 5 inches at 100 meters (110 yds) according to my firing experience. Occasionally one will deliver 3 inch groops, and some will do only 6 inches.

This guns were designed to compete withe the German G43 "Sturmgewehr" type of guns. Witch it did quite well. The AK 47 ate, an still will, eat through dust and mud that made the german arms inoperable.
The AK 47 is the winning "assault auto rifle" of the world (some will restrict this to the "eastern and southern world", I will not.)

The AK 47 was designed to be fairly reliable under severe combat situations. Witch it was and is!. And many other guns of its type (from other contries) were not!
Those of you who have fired the US .30 M1 carabine extensively know what I am talking about...

The AK 47 was never intended for long range target performance, however...

If you all look at the end of the barrel you will see the the muzzle brake is broken off the end. They must be using only in the dry fire mode and not using real ammo

That muzzle does look strange, like it is broken, but not all AK's have flash suppressors or muzzle breaks. Mine doesn't. It came that way from the factory because that's all you could buy in this country during the period of the "assault weapons" (aka evil features) ban.

that half cut slightly off center is a rudementary muzzle break

a friend had such a Kalash in Vietnam and origionally also thought it was broken.

Poole

Accuracy is only one thing needed in a combat weapon - and probably not the first one. I for myself (after 24 years of military service as enlisted and reserve both as a combat soldier and as a shooting instructor) think that reliability is more important to the regular infantry. Most soldiers don't shoot at ranges of over 100 meters, range drills not included. Under the stress of battle it's almost impossible to hit a target that far, if you're not a sniper or a designated marksman - i.e., you already have an accuracy-oriented weapon.

Belive me that I know something about accuracy. I shoot mostly SB prone around and over 590.

Having run ranges for recruit training in my past (as well as competing in ISSF smallbore), here's my 2c.

The interesting thing is the smallbore rifle lying on the firing point next to the firer.

I suspect that what is happening is that the coach is checking the quality of the firer's aim; so, you have everyone with their rifle, and you have a spare rifle with a SCATT fitted, and calibrated. After all, having a SCATT per firer is expensive.

When firer X appears to be having problems, you wander over, hand them the SCATT gun, and watch how they do. This way, you don't have to refit and recalibrate the SCATT for every firer - you're teaching the basics here.

It explains why there's a mix of calibres on the firing point; why the firer is using a rest; and why the AK is obviously not set up to fire live with the SCATT.

Just my suggestion, of course.... :)