|
|
Post by KaceCoyote on Jan 14, 2005 23:26:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Jan 14, 2005 23:51:59 GMT -5
Impressive Kace....most impressive  |
|
|
|
Post by KaceCoyote on Jan 14, 2005 23:55:47 GMT -5
Thanks  With some more practice I'm hoping to break into 9-10 rings in 5 seconds and dip under from there. Really I'm just miffed about the horrible reputation the AK's sights have. I happen to find it easy to hit what I'm aiming at. Cans never last long at the 47 yard mark. C'mon Stoner surely you have some targets to throw up? |
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Jan 15, 2005 0:03:35 GMT -5
Actually...I only have one, a B-27 I chewed up with a HK UMP45 smg  |
|
|
|
Post by KaceCoyote on Jan 15, 2005 0:04:27 GMT -5
well darnit..
|
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Jan 15, 2005 0:09:20 GMT -5
At the moment I only have one AK myself,The AKSU in the my AK lovers thread. But I plan to get an underfolder in 7.62x39 as soon as I stop buying stuff for my AR15s ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by KaceCoyote on Jan 15, 2005 0:11:35 GMT -5
Be sure to get a double lock underfolder, the good Russian stuff and not the single lock knockoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Jan 15, 2005 0:22:25 GMT -5
Kace I have a question, will Saigas take a military forend in place of the sporter style you have?
|
|
|
|
Post by KaceCoyote on Jan 15, 2005 0:24:54 GMT -5
You need to cut a tab off or so I'm told but to be perfectly honest I find the saiga forestock extremely comfortable. It was going to be the first thing I changed but, man its sorta like an old nasty couch. Sure it may look like sh*t, but it sure is comfortable.
|
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Jan 15, 2005 0:28:07 GMT -5
It really doen't look bad....just I'm a military style geek
|
|
|
|
Post by KaceCoyote on Jan 15, 2005 0:33:23 GMT -5
Its not 'UN' military. Its just what the Saiga comes with. I believe its there because it works. mine sure the hell does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buckshot on Jan 15, 2005 1:59:31 GMT -5
Kace,
Did you do the other mods yourself, or have them done?
Nice looking piece, all told.
What will it do at 200 & 300 yds?
We have not had an AK keep up at 200 or 300 yds. The SKS is not bad at 200 yds. but quickly craps out at 300 yds.
We don't have 600 yds. at the club and I don't know of anyone that has taken one of either type to Camp Perry for the 600 yd. but it seems like 7.62 X 39 is loosing it to the 5.56 X 45 somewhere between 200 & 300 Yds.
Buckshot
|
|
|
|
Post by KaceCoyote on Jan 15, 2005 2:50:29 GMT -5
On the bench, with a clean barrel on the expensive stuff it does 1.5". The sights are the limiting factor here however, at that range anyway. The front sight is simply too large for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buckshot on Jan 15, 2005 21:39:33 GMT -5
Kace,
What I am usually comparing to when I talk about those distances are service rifles fired in the National Match Course. So the comparisons would be with the AR15/M16A2 with IRON SIGHTS.
Buckshot
|
|
|
|
Post by KaceCoyote on Jan 15, 2005 23:35:09 GMT -5
Iron sights: AR wins.
Optics:AK+AR tie
The AR is -barely- more accurate in the same price range. I'll put my 210 dollar, well prolly 280 all togather rifle against any AR under 700 bucks.
I can sit down, with a 1000 rounds and every single time. using the nastiest ammo I can find, I've never had any jams. No stovepipes, no anything. Every single round. 5 minutes later she was cleaned and put away.
I love the AK post for fast shooting at close range, but its really not too great beyond 75 yards. Could I hit a man sized target with an AR at 200 yards with iron sights? Sure could. Could I do it with an AK, sure. Could the AK group as tightly as the AR at that range, sure could with optics.
|
|
With some more practice I'm hoping to break into 9-10 rings in 5 seconds and dip under from there. Really I'm just miffed about the horrible reputation the AK's sights have. I happen to find it easy to hit what I'm aiming at. Cans never last long at the 47 yard mark. 
