Home Forums Hunting & Shooting AR and Tactical Rifles 6.8 vs. 7.62x39 vs ???

I can't say that I have any love for the look of the AK either. And I typically don't care much.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't own or shoot one( I have since the 80s...)

It's Post-Modernist Industrial Art

They do look pretty nice, and mine shoots sub 3MOA, which is perfectly adequate for anything I�d ever want from an AK. I�ve yet to try it with Lapua ammo. The barrel is well made so I�m betting with very good ammo it�s a sub 2MOA rifle.

When I look at the current SGL line of Russian made AK�s, I just can�t see any of the slip-shod second rate manufacturing that the �experts� talk about. There are precious few machine marks on my rifle, and everything fits together perfectly.

Now I know this wasn�t always the case. But I do recall playing with a Vietnam capture Russian 2nd model (milled receiver) AK back when I worked for the Class 3 importer and it was also built very well.;

The Romanian AK�s look bad mostly because of the very low quality Parkerizing job that Century puts on them, along with the horrendously ugly wood. Clean one of those up cosmetically and you�d have a good looking, good working AK.

I think the AK is an excellent weapon for the kinds of engagements that most infantries find themselves involved in. I must admit, the two times that I found myself in a foreign land in need of arming myself, both times I chose an AK. Both were under-folders which was needed because I was operating in and out of vehicles, and in and out of areas where I needed to be very discreet. An under-folding AK tucks away nicely in a duffle bag or tennis racquet bag with a 40 round RPK mag laying alongside it. That�s a whole lot of firepower in a very small, very discreet package. There�s no wonder in my mind why the under-folding AK was the choice of terrorists around the world. It�s an extremely potent CQB weapon, utterly reliable, and remarkably compact.

My biggest complaint with my Arsenal/Izmash SGL-20 is the fixed stock. I�m a firm believer in, �if the design accommodates a folding stock, then it ought to have one.� You�ll notice that ALL Soviet/Russian AK�s made since around �89 are standard equipped with a very well designed folding stock now.

My only other complaint with the AK is the fact that they�re very front heavy. Most military arms are rather front heavy but the stamped AK�s just tend to seem a little more front heavy than most other rifles. The AR has very good balance for a military arm; that is as long as you don�t put a 2lb barrel, and hang a bunch of chit off the rails.

The gas piston is a large contributor to the front heaviness of AKs. Then add the upper & lower wood.

3MOA really turns the sniper rifle crowd off and as well most bolt gun aficionado's. In life nothing is perfect, some stuff however just works.

Yeah, and it's the size and mass of everything. The barrel isn't exactly skinny. The gas block and front sight base are both rather robust, and made of steel. The '74 style muzzle brake is anything but small. I think the biggest contributor isn't so much of what's up front, but what's not in the back. With a 1mm thick stamped receiver, there just isn't any significant mass behind the magazine well.

The AR's use of aluminum on the receiver, and then putting the recoil spring mech (with a heavy buffer plunger) really made the AR balance well for a military arm.

Still, the AK isn't horrible especiall when compared to all of the gunked up AR's. I opt for the side mount for my Aimpoint on my AK so as to put a little more mass toward the back, and I don't put any gadgets on the front. If I need a weapon light, I put my little Streamlight on the handguards with rubber bands made from old bicycle inner tubes. Works great, weigh's nothing.

I�m convinced that much of the true gun nuts in America these days are wannabe commandos who read far too many gun magazines, and spend WAY too much time at the shooting bench. Just yesterday I had a guy tell me he won�t tolerate a rifle that isn�t .5 MOA. Most people I talk to seem to think MOA is a requirement for any rifle, even a military one; when the reality is, few can hold 1.5MOA under the best field conditions.

A WWII vet will tell you that a Garand is a fantastic shooter and wicked accurate. Acceptance requirements for the Garand in WWII were 6MOA, but most will shoot just under 2.5 with good ammo. But in WWII the US fielded some of the lowest quality ammo (accuracy wise) of any of the major combatants. Seriously, you need to shoot some �06 with about a �44 head stamp; completely reliable, horrible accuracy. During WWII a sub 4MOA Garand was a rare item indeed (remember, that�s shooting �40�s ammo, not today�s stuff).

So even with 4MOA rifles, our soldiers had NO accuracy complaints with the Garand. That�s because they had FAR more practical experience than the bench-shooting �experts� of the day. They knew that their horribly inaccurate 4MOA Garands would do anything they asked of it, and they were right.

3 MOA on an infantry rifle is more than sufficient for 95% of what any battlefield soldier is likely to encounter. The Russians were big believers in giving the specialty jobs to the specially equipped. That�s why the Russians have used the DMR concept since before WW II and it has worked very well for them. It�s only taken us about 50 years to finally catch on. Something tells me when our current conflicts are over, the Army will give serious thought to integrating DMR�s into every squad; just makes so much sense.

Every internet commando thinks he�s a sniper, and since they never leave the bench, MOA is a requirement. I wield my 3MOA AK with complete confidence. I like the reliability edge and I�ll always err on the side of greater reliability. Few things could be more arse puckering than a non-functioning weapon in a firefight.

It�s no target rifle, that�s for sure. I may not take an enemy�s head off at 500m, but I seriously wouldn�t recommend allowing me more than one pull of the trigger. I can't count how many shots I've made with an AK that an AK supposedly can't make.

Still doesn't mean I can't ask/demand better accuracy than what I "should settle for" either.

Yep, .5 moa isn't required, but its dang sure nice to have on 300 yard head shots and such. I know that I impart more error to the gun, than the accuracy does, so I need and want every bit I can get....

Wow... that was a very informative read and good arguments by both sides.

But... it still seems that the 6.8 and 7.62x39 are pretty much in the same "30-30 class". Pick either for hunting within 200 yards, but neither is a deathray at 300 yards.

To be honest, I'd rather not shoot either at 300 yards. Both are rather wimpy, even when compared to a 300 Savage. I know the 300 Savage won't fit into an AR, but it looks like a freaking magnum compared to the 6.8 and 7.62x39. And not many people claim that the old 300 is an uber-deathray.

almost daily there is a new cartridge created to be shoe horned into the AR platform. You can only do so much with the space constraints. Its a good thing in a way as there are as many opinions as there are Azzholes. Someone wants a flatter shooting more powerful loading, 6.X fills the bill, someone wants more than a 5.56 but is paranoid about bolt heads, magazines, platform longevity, and subsonic so whisper, BO, the next guy feels under gunned unless its a 400 grain chunk of lead as big as your thumbnail and there are 45 and 50 caliber guns. Then someone wants to shoot russian/commie ammo and there are uppers for that. Pick your poison if you can shoot, then any of them will work. Montana Marine did a quick load calculation on the Blackout with supersonic ammo, the muzzle pressure is 5,000PSI vs 11,000 PSI for a 5.56. To me this says lower dB's if even a supersonic load is fired inside a dwelling.