PDA

View Full Version : Saiga 7.62x39 accuracy ???


1lostinspace
04-23-2008, 4:46 PM
Just got mine and wanted to know what size groups I should be expecting if I do my part.

ViPER395
04-23-2008, 4:49 PM
I am looking to get one and would like to know about Saiga accuracy as well.

Are the 7.62s more accurate than the .223 models?

Donut
04-23-2008, 5:06 PM
There should be a factory accuracy report in the paperwork (partially in Cryllic, IIRC).

It will be a three shot grouping at 100m, to to get rough MOA figures, multiply the number by .9144 and then divide by 25.4 = MOA

Nikola
04-23-2008, 7:00 PM
I haven't measured my groups in MOA, but I will say my Saiga is stunningly accurate for a 16" Kalashnikov. My AR barely groups better at 100 yards.

jacques
04-23-2008, 7:05 PM
I haven't measured my groups in MOA, but I will say my Saiga is stunningly accurate for a 16" Kalashnikov. My AR barely groups better at 100 yards.

I would agree with that.

And the accuracy report should have come with it. It can vary from Saiga to Saiga. Must depend on how much Vodka the old man has drinken that day:rolleyes:

I have one that says 100mm, and another that says 94mm.

Fantasma
04-23-2008, 10:26 PM
"Brand New Russian" .223 Saiga is my favorite rifle! VERY very accurate! $300 show me something better....lol

Fobjoe
04-23-2008, 10:40 PM
Dunno about the 7.62x39, but my .308 says "extreme spread of impacts when firing at 100-m range with 4-shot group is 90 mm." ~3 inches at 100 yards with an AK for which I paid less than $400? I can't complain at all.

aplinker
04-23-2008, 10:55 PM
Dunno about the 7.62x39, but my .308 says "extreme spread of impacts when firing at 100-m range with 4-shot group is 90 mm." ~3 inches at 100 yards with an AK for which I paid less than $400? I can't complain at all.

That's a horrible one, too. I've seen the 308s as low as 30mm. By the way, that's closer to 4" ;)

Very very accurate isn't very quantitative. If your Saiga/AK is as accurate as your AR, something is wrong with your AR or your shooting. I've yet to see a quality AR that couldn't pull off sub-moa shooting.

Fantasma
04-24-2008, 12:16 AM
Man my saiga .223 Is very VERY accurate. :p and what!

Of course its not a AR, so i won't even mention them in the same sentence...

Mitch
04-24-2008, 6:32 AM
From what I have heard, the Saiga 7.62x39s are as accurate as the ammunition. 7.62x39mm is not typically loaded for extreme accuracy.

The Saiga .308 performance is stunning, and must make M1A owners cry.

Donut
04-24-2008, 8:21 AM
That's a horrible one, too. I've seen the 308s as low as 30mm. By the way, that's closer to 4" ;)

90mm spread @ 100m = 3.24 MOA

Nikola
04-24-2008, 9:28 AM
Very very accurate isn't very quantitative. If your Saiga/AK is as accurate as your AR, something is wrong with your AR or your shooting. I've yet to see a quality AR that couldn't pull off sub-moa shooting.

I think it's my eyes. For some reason, I actually prefer AK-style iron sights. They feel more natural to me than the AR aperture sights.

FlyingPen
04-24-2008, 9:32 AM
I think it's my eyes. For some reason, I actually prefer AK-style iron sights. They feel more natural to me than the AR aperture sights.

I agree.

mrChiBai
04-24-2008, 9:47 AM
are saiga's legal in ca without the pistol grip and folding stock?

jacques
04-24-2008, 9:49 AM
are saiga's legal in ca without the pistol grip and folding stock?

Yes.

Like I said guys. What is written in your pamphlet probably depends on how much Vodka the old man drank that day. You also have to wonder how the test is done.

1lostinspace
04-24-2008, 9:55 AM
my cert said 120mm
I knew that it was shot using some wolf type .223
so it could very from 1-5"
so to all out there wondering how accurate your .223 can be here is 5 shot not 3 group at 100 yards 77smk 24 gr TAC
1.14" and yes my nail is dirty
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff166/ar15reloader/saiga_group2.jpg

Fantasma
04-24-2008, 12:53 PM
I think it's my eyes. For some reason, I actually prefer AK-style iron sights. They feel more natural to me than the AR aperture sights.


+1 i like the sights also...

ViPER395
04-24-2008, 3:53 PM
Is there any gain in accuracy by getting the 20" barrel as opposed to the 16"?

1lostinspace
04-24-2008, 4:05 PM
Is there any gain in accuracy by getting the 20" barrel as opposed to the 16"?

all being the same yes a longer barrel should yield higher fps and smaller MOA

aplinker
04-24-2008, 5:53 PM
It is closer to 3MOA - I forgot to scale the distance.

all being the same yes a longer barrel should yield higher fps and smaller MOA

NO, absolutely wrong. Velocity will make zero difference out to 200yds.

Theoretically, at 100yds the shorter barrel will be more accurate, as it will be stiffer.

There's a common fallacy that a longer barrel is more accurate.


PS - What is wrong with you people thinking the AK sights are more accurate?! wow, just wow... AK sights are horrible.

Nikola
04-24-2008, 8:57 PM
PS - What is wrong with you people thinking the AK sights are more accurate?! wow, just wow... AK sights are horrible.

I wouldn't call them more accurate necessarily. I just find them easier to use. I feel more natural using AK/SKS sights than using the hole-and-post AR system. It might just be a function of my vision; my glasses are pretty thick. I find I get a much clearer sight picture.

1lostinspace
04-24-2008, 9:04 PM
It is closer to 3MOA - I forgot to scale the distance.



NO, absolutely wrong. Velocity will make zero difference out to 200yds.

Theoretically, at 100yds the shorter barrel will be more accurate, as it will be stiffer.

There's a common fallacy that a longer barrel is more accurate.


PS - What is wrong with you people thinking the AK sights are more accurate?! wow, just wow... AK sights are horrible.

why would a shorter barrel be more accurate?
Higher FPS equals less time for the elements to effect trajectory and higher RPM and what is stiffer are you referring to the barrel harmonics?

this is from riflebarrels.com but to make a long story short a longer barrel is more accurate. A 20" barrel will be more accurate then 16" there is almost 100fps difference in .223.

So now, looking at what I found, the greatest velocity change per inch came with the shorter lengths. Using a 28" long barrel as a practical minimum length, I found that if we increased the length by one inch, on average we could expect a 19 - 21 fps gain in velocity. From the chart we can see that for barrels up to 34" we can expect at least a 15 fps gain per inch. As barrel length increases , the rate decreases. (I ran the numbers for barrels up to 4 feet long.) At the longer lengths, each additional inch is worth 8-10 fps.

If we compare a 48" barrel to the 28" shorty however, we have increased our predicted velocity by at least 250 fps. When launching a high ballistic coefficient bullet of 750 grains or so, that extra velocity translates into big increases in downrange energy and big decreases in drop and drift. For example, if we compare the 750 grain Hornady A-Max bullet with a 2700 fps muzzle velocity from a 28" barrel to the same bullet at 2950 fps from a 4 footer, we see some big changes.

To illustrate my point, I ran those velocities through an external ballistics program that computes drop, drift, remaining velocities, and energies. I used a C7 ballistic coefficient of .520 for this bullet. I prefer to use the C7 BC with the VLD type bullets as opposed to the traditional C1 BC because it was developed for long-pointed boattail bullets. As a result, the
ballistic coefficient changes much less with velocity than the C1 BC. When shooting at 1000 yards and farther, changes in a C1 BC due to decreased velocities down range can cause significant errors. The .520 C7 is roughly equivalent to a C1 of 1.05 at these velocities. We will compare the figures for both velocities at 1000, 1500, 2000, and 2500 yards. For this model I'll use the standard sea-level atmosphere and a temperature of 59 degrees F. Most shooters are going to be firing at higher altitudes, but this compares apples to apples.

I've chosen 2500 yards as the maximum effective range, as that is about the range at which this bullet drops below the speed of sound. (The speed of sound is about 1120 fps at sea-level and 59 degrees F. It changes about 1 fps per degree, with the direction of the temperature change.) Other bullets with lower ballistic coefficients will be effective from about 1500 to 2000 yards.

When the velocity of a bullet drops below the sound barrier, accuracy is often wild. So it is generally accepted this this is the practical maximum effective range for any bullet.

If we compare the Hornady bullet at these two muzzle velocities, we find that the 2700 fps bullet will drop below the sound barrier at just past 2200 yards. The 250 fps faster bullet will remain supersonic out to a full 2500 yards. Almost 300 yards of effective range was added to the bullet because of the higher muzzle velocity. At 1000 yards, either load has plenty of energy, and actual drop isn't as important as wind drift, in my opinion. The 2700 fps load will drift 37.7 inches at 1000 yards, but the 2950 fps bullet will drift about 33 inches, or 4.7 inches less. At 1500 yards the drift figures are 93.8 inches and 81 inches respectively. Converting drop figures (100 yard zero) to true MOA, we find that the slower bullet requires 45.3 minutes of correction. The faster bullet needs 36.8 minutes of up adjustment. Other comparisons can be made referring to the chart.

Using two proven internal ballistics programs, we've shown the amount of velocity increase that can be expected from longer barrels. Depending on where that length is added, we can expect from 10 to 20 fps per inch. Then using an external ballistics program, we were able to show quantitively what that increased velocity meant to downrange performance, including decreased bullet drop, less wind drift, and higher velocity and energy. A high ballistic coefficient bullet combined with high muzzle velocities can result in some very impressive downrange ballistics. And that is what long-range shooting is all about.

tophatjones
04-24-2008, 9:16 PM
One point of contention, all things being equal and within a range where velocity difference is negligible, a shorter barrel will be more accurate. This is because the higher frequency of the shorter barrel will result in smaller wavelengths in the barrel harmonics. Otherwise yes, a longer barrel provides for better ballistics and handling, which make a longer barrel more accurate - practically.

1lostinspace
04-24-2008, 10:25 PM
One point of contention, all things being equal and within a range where velocity difference is negligible, a shorter barrel will be more accurate. This is because the higher frequency of the shorter barrel will result in smaller wavelengths in the barrel harmonics. Otherwise yes, a longer barrel provides for better ballistics and handling, which make a longer barrel more accurate - practically.

why would you say that? then a stub nose is better then a full size hand gun and way more accurate then a rifle.

Everyone knows that an M16 is more accurate then an M4

we are talking .223 right?
a 24" varmint barrel is more accurate then 16" and that is a fact.

deldgeetar
04-24-2008, 11:18 PM
My 7.62 Saiga shoots as well as 3" MOA at 100 yards. I don't often shoot paper, but I can hit small fire extinguishers consistantly at 200 yards or more. You have to use good ammo though - it won't happen with Wolf. I really like Brown Bear myself. It's hotter and much more consistant than Wolf. Winchester is excellent 7.62x39 ammo as well, but I find the Brown Bear performs close enough to it that I won't shell out the extra 20 cents plus a round.:chris:

aplinker
04-24-2008, 11:24 PM
why would you say that? then a stub nose is better then a full size hand gun and way more accurate then a rifle.

Everyone knows that an M16 is more accurate then an M4

we are talking .223 right?
a 24" varmint barrel is more accurate then 16" and that is a fact.

uh, no. You're just making huge incorrect assumptions there.

Who says the M16 is more accurate than the M4? The complaint with the M4 is cycling issues (carbine gas) and effective range (this has to do with velocity). It has nothing to do with accuracy.

To 100yds the shorter and stiffer the better, within reason, of course (you want the rifling to twist the bullet at least once).

With hand guns there are a lot of other issues involved. The biggest being sight radius. They're also short enough that almost all handguns don't twist the bullet once, so length makes a big difference there.

We're talking about the difference between rifles of 16-24"

At 100yds there's no windage for 223.

The biggest mechanical accuracy issue will come from barrel whip and harmonics. These improve by being short and stubby.

tophatjones
04-25-2008, 12:51 AM
I said "all things being equal, a shorter barrel is more accurate than a longer one". Take two barrels, build them to the exact standards of quality, exact same materials, exact same diameter and thickness, exact same crowning, and then fire them; there's no need to actually install them in a gun. Let's assume that the shorter barrel is long enough to spin stabilize a bullet. You'll find that the shorter barrel groups tighter when shooting at distances where the extra velocity from the longer barrel does not impart ballistic advantage (say 50-100yds for .223). You are correct when you say that all of the other factors contribute to the overall system and make longer barreled firearms more accurate in general.

1) accuracy of stubs < full handguns < rifles. You are correct. However, the reasons for this has to do with sight radius, the bullet not stabilizing enough due to such a short spin, and the most obvious one, the pistols are shooting pistol catridges which have much worse ballistics than rifle ammo. Also, the rifle has better ergonomics and stability because it has more contact points with the shooter.

2) everyone knows that the m16 is more accurate than the m4. This has more to do with sight radius than anything else. If you shoot with optics at a distance of 50-100yds, you'll find their accuracy quite close if not equal.

3) a varmint barrel is more accurate than a slimmer profile. The thicker varmint barrel has higher frequencies and therefore shorter wavelength than the slim profile.

However, all things being equal, the shorter barrel is more accurate. Again, this is due to the shorter barrel having a shorter wavelength in its barrel harmonics. Of course, I'm generalizing here, the actual physics are much more complicated.

why would you say that? then a stub nose is better then a full size hand gun and way more accurate then a rifle.

Everyone knows that an M16 is more accurate then an M4

we are talking .223 right?
a 24" varmint barrel is more accurate then 16" and that is a fact.

aplinker
04-25-2008, 2:50 AM
:) Think he'll get it when we both say the same thing?

I said "all things being equal, a shorter barrel is more accurate than a longer one". Take two barrels, build them to the exact standards of quality, exact same materials, exact same diameter and thickness, exact same crowning, and then fire them; there's no need to actually install them in a gun. Let's assume that the shorter barrel is long enough to spin stabilize a bullet. You'll find that the shorter barrel groups tighter when shooting at distances where the extra velocity from the longer barrel does not impart ballistic advantage (say 50-100yds for .223). You are correct when you say that all of the other factors contribute to the overall system and make longer barreled firearms more accurate in general.

1) accuracy of stubs < full handguns < rifles. You are correct. However, the reasons for this has to do with sight radius, the bullet not stabilizing enough due to such a short spin, and the most obvious one, the pistols are shooting pistol catridges which have much worse ballistics than rifle ammo. Also, the rifle has better ergonomics and stability because it has more contact points with the shooter.

2) everyone knows that the m16 is more accurate than the m4. This has more to do with sight radius than anything else. If you shoot with optics at a distance of 50-100yds, you'll find their accuracy quite close if not equal.

3) a varmint barrel is more accurate than a slimmer profile. The thicker varmint barrel has higher frequencies and therefore shorter wavelength than the slim profile.

However, all things being equal, the shorter barrel is more accurate. Again, this is due to the shorter barrel having a shorter wavelength in its barrel harmonics. Of course, I'm generalizing here, the actual physics are much more complicated.

tombinghamthegreat
04-25-2008, 10:39 AM
Could you call a saiga a semi auto AK?

packnrat
04-25-2008, 4:04 PM
"Brand New Russian" .223 Saiga is my favorite rifle! VERY very accurate! $300 show me something better....lol



$300.00 for a saiga.....a local shop just quoted me $600. for one. OUCH.:eek:

talk about mark up................

:TFH:


.

tombinghamthegreat
04-25-2008, 4:30 PM
$300.00 for a saiga.....a local shop just quoted me $600. for one. OUCH.:eek:

talk about mark up................

:TFH:


.

I paid about 350 for mine, 600 is way to much.

tophatjones
04-25-2008, 6:27 PM
:) Think he'll get it when we both say the same thing?

Hi uclaplinker :D

I think this is a slightly more esoteric concept because to most people, it isn't something you can observe easily. Oh well, the more we spread the word, hopefully more people will get it and in turn tell others.

Btw, I need to get my act together and obtain some Saigas before the price goes up too much!

aplinker
04-25-2008, 6:45 PM
Hi uclaplinker :D

I think this is a slightly more esoteric concept because to most people, it isn't something you can observe easily. Oh well, the more we spread the word, hopefully more people will get it and in turn tell others.

Btw, I need to get my act together and obtain some Saigas before the price goes up too much!

Yes, you do! They're fun to shoot and still cheap, for the time being.

The whole AK world is going crazy right now. Saigas are going to be all that's left. I'd actually put them in 2nd place behind the Romys, Bulgys, etc. - those are the ones that will be gone forever. :(

vinny_land
04-25-2008, 7:37 PM
I have to agree with uclaplinker. I mean the Romys are harder to find and when you find them, they are like $150 (maybe more) for kit that is not even in very good condition. So i think i have missed the boat with AK builds so Saiga conversions is whats looking good. DD's Ranch offers the best deal imo and have great service. Add another $100-200 for bullet guide, handguard retainer, FCG, and furniture.....then your Saiga can be up to par or even better than doing a G build (And you'll know everything is brand new).

As for accuracy, with open sights im shooting 5'' groups at 100 yards using wolf ammo benchrested.

1lostinspace
04-26-2008, 11:24 AM
:) Think he'll get it when we both say the same thing?

I hear you and understand what you are saying, I can see where it would be more accurate at 100 but what about 400-600

aplinker
04-26-2008, 12:26 PM
I hear you and understand what you are saying, I can see where it would be more accurate at 100 but what about 400-600

You mean beyond the effective range of the cartridge?

Here's the issue. To maintain mechanical accuracy of, say, a 16" barrel you'll need to increase the thickness a good deal if you switch to a 20". So now you have equal accuracy at short distances, but the extra velocity helps with the 20" beyond, say, 400yds. That's beyond the effective range for the cartridge. Furthermore, you've just made a much heavier and difficult to carry rifle.

So, what's the advantage of longer?

Longer is important if you're actually designing a rifle you want to have an increased effective range. Usually weight is less of an issue here.

Remember effective accuracy is a relative idea - it all depends on what exactly you're trying to do with your rifle. I, personally, wouldn't want a 0.3MOA battle rifle/carbine - I know the price it would take to get one and not just in $$, but in reliability and weight. I'm not trying to hit 2" targets at 400yds with one. I'm trying to hit 18" targets at 500yds, max. It's all a trade-off.

IceMan71181
04-26-2008, 1:22 PM
I used to have this great animated GIF that showed how a barrel flexes and "whips" during fire with different lengths and weights. Can't find it now, of course.

I use it to convince people not to buy 24" barrels.

1lostinspace
04-26-2008, 10:48 PM
You mean beyond the effective range of the cartridge?

Here's the issue. To maintain mechanical accuracy of, say, a 16" barrel you'll need to increase the thickness a good deal if you switch to a 20". So now you have equal accuracy at short distances, but the extra velocity helps with the 20" beyond, say, 400yds. That's beyond the effective range for the cartridge. Furthermore, you've just made a much heavier and difficult to carry rifle.

So, what's the advantage of longer?

Longer is important if you're actually designing a rifle you want to have an increased effective range. Usually weight is less of an issue here.

Remember effective accuracy is a relative idea - it all depends on what exactly you're trying to do with your rifle. I, personally, wouldn't want a 0.3MOA battle rifle/carbine - I know the price it would take to get one and not just in $$, but in reliability and weight. I'm not trying to hit 2" targets at 400yds with one. I'm trying to hit 18" targets at 500yds, max. It's all a trade-off.

Really? I can hit the 600 yard plates all day long at Angeles range
Here is what I use

under 1" at 200 no problem 75gr handloads I have actually shot 1.54" 10 shots before

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff166/ar15reloader/IMAGE_00131-1.jpg

here is my weapon I have a different Scope on it now

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff166/ar15reloader/IMAGE_00126.jpg

At 400 a head shot would be easy for my rifle and 600 to hit center mass not hard at all.

tophatjones
04-26-2008, 11:07 PM
I hear you and understand what you are saying, I can see where it would be more accurate at 100 but what about 400-600

Didn't we already go through this? Yes, at 400-600 yards, the velocity advantage of the longer barrel outweighs the inherent higher frequency advantage that the shorter barrel has.

tophatjones
04-26-2008, 11:08 PM
You'll find that the shorter barrel groups tighter when shooting at distances where the extra velocity from the longer barrel does not impart ballistic advantage (say 50-100yds for .223). You are correct when you say that all of the other factors contribute to the overall system and make longer barreled firearms more accurate in general.

Seems like, yes, we did go over this previously.

Harrison_Bergeron
04-26-2008, 11:21 PM
So, is there any reason to buy a 20" Saiga over a 16"? I mean, they have to make them for a reason, right?

1lostinspace
04-26-2008, 11:44 PM
So, is there any reason to buy a 20" Saiga over a 16"? I mean, they have to make them for a reason, right?

I say get the 20"

aplinker
04-27-2008, 3:12 AM
Are you getting confused? We're talking about AKs, not ARs.

Even my 14.5" barrel AR can ping 600yd metal @ angeles.

AKs are a different matter.

The 20" will have ABSOLUTELY NO USEFUL ADVANTAGE over a 16"


Really? I can hit the 600 yard plates all day long at Angeles range
Here is what I use

under 1" at 200 no problem 75gr handloads I have actually shot 1.54" 10 shots before

here is my weapon I have a different Scope on it now

At 400 a head shot would be easy for my rifle and 600 to hit center mass not hard at all.

1lostinspace
04-27-2008, 9:00 AM
Are you getting confused? We're talking about AKs, not ARs.

Even my 14.5" barrel AR can ping 600yd metal @ angeles.

AKs are a different matter.

The 20" will have ABSOLUTELY NO USEFUL ADVANTAGE over a 16"

I thought we were talking barrel in general

my siaga 16" shoots just over an inch at 100 with handloads a huge scope and allot of luck;)

1lostinspace
04-27-2008, 9:09 AM
Are you getting confused? We're talking about AKs, not ARs.

Even my 14.5" barrel AR can ping 600yd metal @ angeles.

AKs are a different matter.

The 20" will have ABSOLUTELY NO USEFUL ADVANTAGE over a 16"

it will increase the frag range and chanced of a hit at long range

aplinker
04-27-2008, 2:41 PM
Yes, we're talking about barrel length, in general, but we're also talking about AK in specific. You're trying to use an argument that does apply in the limited case of the AR - an extremely accurate platform to begin with.

That argument holds no water with AKs.

it will increase the frag range and chanced of a hit at long range

No, it won't.

The AKs will have no improvement in either going from 16" to 20". Their accuracy potential just isn't there to begin with to be able to gain anything from the increased velocity. Their mechanical accuracy potential is about 2MOA. This means they'll hit well out to about 4-500yds which, not surprisingly, is the effective range of the cartridge. Additional barrel length will cause a decrease in mechanical accuracy, but the velocity increase won't make any real significant differences in the long-range accuracy because there is no long range when it comes to the AK.

1lostinspace
04-27-2008, 4:08 PM
Yes, we're talking about barrel length, in general, but we're also talking about AK in specific. You're trying to use an argument that does apply in the limited case of the AR - an extremely accurate platform to begin with.

That argument holds no water with AKs.



No, it won't.

The AKs will have no improvement in either going from 16" to 20". Their accuracy potential just isn't there to begin with to be able to gain anything from the increased velocity. Their mechanical accuracy potential is about 2MOA. This means they'll hit well out to about 4-500yds which, not surprisingly, is the effective range of the cartridge. Additional barrel length will cause a decrease in mechanical accuracy, but the velocity increase won't make any real significant differences in the long-range accuracy because there is no long range when it comes to the AK.

Well explain this if I can shoot 1moa at 100 then why not at longer ranges
I have shot under 3" at 200

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff166/ar15reloader/saiga_group2.jpg