Comments on: Josh Rushing on the AK-47

By: crust

crust — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 13:27:36 +0000

Who the fuck is Andre? The "A" in "AK" stands for Avtomat. You don't even know what the name means so your credibility = shit. Only Video game queers and airsoft fags call it a "banana clip".

By: avenger

avenger — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:22:27 +0000

AK 47 is designed to take a life on 100 yards. The caliber 7.62 is able to penetrate a concrete block, and steel core round can go through 0.5 inch steel plate. A full jacket round can go through 1/8 inch steel plate. This is not the case for caliber 5.45. The round stuck inside a concrete block and smashed in front of 1/8 inch steel plate. This caliber is deadly against people dressed in pajamas, but 7.62x39 hollow point makes a lot of damage, same as 5.45 caliber.
I bought a Yugoslavian AK 47 with parts of Military Zastava, and receiver produced by Century and assembled in USA. Under folded stock is a must. The slant muzzle brake is for amateurs, and worsens the accuracy. I replaced it with a Bulgarian with 4 side windows; the flash can’t obscure the sight. Added a recoil buffer, and replaced the steel wire with a steel plate at the trigger system. With open sight, front sight at 1, distance 100 yards I group 20 rounds at 4 inches. You have to know how to support the stock, on your shoulder, how to handle your body by bones, not by muscles and more. A have 26 years experience in army with AK 47 and now, I can use the Yugo one, with the same accuracy. No mater, that is only semi auto, the strength of recoil system is for auto, and if you are fast, can fire up to 8 rounds in a second. Tula or Wolf rounds are cheap, but one in 100 rounds misfire. It is a good idea to load the magazine’s first 3 rounds to fire, with Winchester 7.62x39. AK 47 is not for haunting. AK 47 is a self-defense weapon, to take a life on 3 to 100 yards in self-defense. I hope never to use it, but I prefer to die with my AK 47 in my hands.
Adding a scope you can increase the accuracy, but you can’t find fast the target in short distance, and in self defense half of the second means life or death.

By: avenger

avenger — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 21:40:35 +0000

THEY BOTH ARE MECHANICALLY VERY SIMILAR.

By: Laughing Gull

Laughing Gull — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:25:53 +0000

On this second post I just want to say I find this forum very interesting and helpful. It’s great to hear what others say about the AK when they obviously know some of what they’re talking about.
If you shoot from the hip, crank off more than 1 round every couple of seconds, don’t know how to shoot, or are trying to see how fast you can shoot, don’t talk about accuracy.

By: Laughing Gull

Laughing Gull — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:21:20 +0000

Very interesting flick, and posts. I'm going to make a couple of posts. First, I served a couple of tours in the Marines where I became very familiar with the M14, M16 and various other weapons. I purhased a Hungarian made AK47 about a year ago to begin a pursuit in 'riflery as a hobby.' It's not the best rifle for this hobby if you're shooting (no pun intended)for consistency in accuracy, but I'd definitely take it into combat if I had to (unlikely at my age). I can get consistent bulls at 300 yards both with iron sights and using a 9x scope. I'm using a 12" diam. bull. Some days they're tight groups, other days they're not. Probably more dependent on my skills on the particular day of shooting as well as my skill in using a scope. My preference is, hands down, using the scope at that distance because it's a lot easier to adjust the scope than the iron sights. I've found the iron sights difficult to calibrate when you're faced with different wind conditions/distances. The scopes are far easier to use to adjust the impact zone. If I can consistently fire and score a 'head shot' at 300 yards, this rifle is fine in my humble opinion. Trash talk about it being no more than a 75, 100 or 150 yard rifle is just that, trash. I'm referring more to posts on other forums mostly, not on what I've read here.

By: will

will — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:28:02 +0000

i would like to comment on all of the “soldier, cleaning his weapon crap” yes, it is very important to take care of whatever piece of equipment that you have to rely on.…no matter what your proffesion. lets all be practical and stop trying to be hardasses. while in iraq i cleaned my weapon daily whenever possible, and applied a very light coat of oil, because dust sticks to the oil.…after me being a “soldier” and taking care of my stuff, it really irritates a person to be trying to unjam your sh*t after all your efforts, while you are being shot at from some guy that just picked his weapon up out of a ditch. i will take the ak any day. and im far from unamerican, thats just my experience. you can have a hand in it, but you cant associate reliability in every aspect on your care of a weapon, if thats the case we would all by high points and just keep them really clean.

By: TH

TH — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:17:42 +0000

My nieces husband just got back from Iraq, he’s done two tours with the Marines. I asked him about their weapons the M4 and the Navys version of the AR10 that the Navy seals sniper teams use and the AK47. He told me he’s seen men he shot in the arm with the 5.56(223), back in the fight the next day when they finally killed him. The AR10 shot the 7.62 Nato(308) he thought that was the rife they should have been issued, he didn’t have any complaint about the AR10. He thought the AK47 was deadly some are using them as sniper rifles, confirmed by HQ Intel sources.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:26:20 +0000

I own both rifles, and I have to say, if the shtf, I’d grab them both. They both serve a purpose. The ar (m16) can help you reach out and touch somebody on the first shot. I trust mine to do just that. Now, that said, if I want to tear a man down inside 100 meters, or need to shoot thru something to hit my target, I’d use my cheap but reliable romanian wasr 10/63.
By the way, the guy who said the ak and ar are equally reliable is either misguided or ignorant. (no offense buddy).

By: T Trimper

T Trimper — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:34:41 +0000

Americans have not and cannot grasp what makes the AK-47 the better combat weapon. It’s not a better gun, but is a better weapon because of its reliability and the mentality of those who carry each weapon (the AK-47 and the M-16).
Americans aren’t willing to die for their cause. It doesn’t matter how much the US and its citizens and soldiers talk about “home of the brave”, Americans are petrified of being martyrs. Consequently, Americans obsessively want and expect weapons (rifles or otherwise) that insulate them from the dangers of combat.
In all the countries where the AK-47 has been widely used, it’s holders have been part of ideologies where the individual was insignificant compared to the cause. Whether it’s blind obedience to communism, blind obedience to islam, or an unwillingness to surrender one’s home to an invading force, those who carry the AK-47 are willing to die and in vast numbers. In Iraq, 4,000 US soldiers have died while over 500,000 Iraqis have died, and the US is still nowhere near quelling the resistance.
(It is not an “insurgency”, it is a resistance. An insurgency is a battle against a legitimate government, a resistance a battle against an invading and occupying army.)
The US and its soldiers think of weapons and armour in terms of survival, not winning. This is why the US has never been able to force its ideology on other countries. Superior technology without an unflinching will to do whatever it takes to win is useless; the inferior technology of the AK-47 and its ease of use and repair, combined with the kamikaze-like willingness to die of its users, is next to unstoppable.

By: Sgt Peck

Sgt Peck — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:53:07 +0000

Ten years(1983–1993) using either the M16, M16A1 or M16A2. I was happy with the overall performance. Last week I spent 5 days in a very remote area accompanied by a friends Romanian made AK47. My first experience with the AK47.With fully loaded mags it did seem pretty heavy (maybe I’m just getting old). I was quite impressed with the accuracy and the penetration through various matter densities and thicknesses. Impressed enough that I’ll be adding one to my collection for the inexpensive cost and availability.