Replies

The biggest problems with the AK is the short sight radius and the blade type rear sight. I didn't realize how much of an issue this was until I put a Texas Weapons Systems picatinny rail dust cover with rear peep sight on my Arsenal SGL-21. I was immediately able to shoot slightly under 2MOA at 100 yards with it, which shocked both myself and my spotter. That was with just surplus warsaw ammo too.

That modernized AK with an aluminum C-More is my favorite rifle. Originally I just got it to learn the platform while shooting 3-gun matches.

"The biggest problems with the AK is the short sight radius and the blade type rear sight."

I have a lot more trigger time with the M1 Carbine than the Kalashnikov family, but would submit that they both vary widely in production quality from cobbled together parts kits to heavily 'smithed and accurized examples. Most collectors of the WWII surps will extol the virtues of one maker over another, but even if you can find an "all original" chances are your looking at least a few parts that came from different contractors and were slapped together at the factory that stamped it. I've either owned, fired or at least known of both dogs and diamonds from most of the WWII manufacturers. A lot of the post-war civilian production versions were garbage. Right now, I only own two - a WWII Inland and a recent Auto-Ord which I've tricked out. The inland will generally give me 3-4" at 100 yards, but the bore is somewhat worn. The Auto-Ord (which I have a Sig red dot on) will, with Prvi Partizan ammo, which it seems to prefer, generally get me right around 2" at 100 yards a little under on a good day, a little over on bad one - which I could most likely tighten up with another sight as the Sig has a 4 mil dot.