AK-47 Accuracy... really?

[hiberNative]

Originally Posted by Outlawz

Here's a related question: does anyone even use the AK47 in-game? Whenever I play Chechens, Taliban or Insurgents everyone is using either AK74U or just the regular sights/scoped AK74 anyway.

i use the ak47 all the time since it hits harder and have more pronounced sights. the ak74 sights are still kind of unclear imo. coalition can sometimes take 2 ak74 rounds at a distance and run away. that doesn't happen very often with the ak47. but at close i agree that the 74-series are better cause of the recoil control.

[AnRK]

Originally Posted by deemoowoor

Well, if you mean me, then I have to say I did use Wikipedia among my sources for precise data, along with Modern Firearms - Ammunition - Rifle and machinegun ammunition ballistics which is a great source of information about firearms on the Internet.

Wikipedia isn't it's own sourcing as well obviously, you can make an informed decision on whether particular articles are worth paying attention to by their sourcing and the way they are written.

If you look up a probably rather highly viewed page such as the one on the AK the chances are that it's sources will be fairly solid (*edit* although having actually looked at the page just now there's sourcing from fox to the BBC to the UN, so that seems like a bit of a conflict of interest). If you were looking at a badly formatted and articulated page about a C-list celebrity and it had a section on the cocaine fueled night out where they ****ed a trio of low budget hookers after beating up a taxi driver and it was sourced "The Sun, pg 3, 7/5/2003" then you'd be right to be a tad skeptical.

[Sgt. Ostrander]

Originally Posted by AquaticPenguin

In PR the ak's do a lot more damage than all the NATO guns. Yes they may be inaccurate but you shouldn't be engaging enemies out to 300 metres or so. Besides, PR != RL, in PR the distances are smaller and so everything has to be scaled down a bit. Also, if you use the AK47 up close and personal it completely rips them to shreds.

Insurgents are strong at ambushes + really quite crap at firefights. If you want to be effective on insurgency then get a couple of friends and wait for a nice convoy to come into your killzone.

Exactly

[Masterbake]

The AK47 reins supreme in any kind of ambush, and that's where it's meant to be used. Taking out Marines at close range on full auto before they can engage you, with that nice high damage.

[Solid Knight]

When people talk about accuracy they rarely refer to the human element in the equation. The M16 has superior ergonomics, superior iron sights, lower recoil, and less warping when fired. The combination of these elements makes it so much easier to put rounds on target quickly and consistently. The AK47 requires more skill as a shooter to have the same results.

[Masterbake]

Originally Posted by Solid Knight

When people talk about accuracy they rarely refer to the human element in the equation. The M16 has superior ergonomics, superior iron sights, lower recoil, and less warping when fired. The combination of these elements makes it so much easier to put rounds on target quickly and consistently. The AK47 requires more skill as a shooter to have the same results.

You could argue that, but then it doesn't take as many successful hits to kill an enemy.

[JKJudgeX]

Originally Posted by Solid Knight

When people talk about accuracy they rarely refer to the human element in the equation. The M16 has superior ergonomics, superior iron sights, lower recoil, and less warping when fired. The combination of these elements makes it so much easier to put rounds on target quickly and consistently. The AK47 requires more skill as a shooter to have the same results.

First and foremost, you have to remember that you're shooting people with a really fast .22 bullet with the M-16.

1) Ergonomics
The ergonomics of the AK-47 are only slightly different or arguably worse if you're talking about the safety mechanism and the charging handle positions. These have nothing to do with firing. I regularly fire both weapons in real life. Unmodded, they are the same. If you start putting attachments on one, you can improve its ergonomics, and there is a tiny amount of validity to claiming that US troops have modded weapons while insurgents do not, but in reality, some insurgents have them to, red dot included.

2) Superior iron sights
This is true. The M-16 iron sight mechanism of "look through a hole" establishes an easier mechanism for an identical sight picture every time. The AK's methodology is very old. However, the difference is small, and technically, the M-16 should obscure significantly more of your vision than it does in game with iron sights.

3) Less recoil
This gets exaggerated in every single AR vs AK discussion ever. Yep, there's less recoil. That's because you're shooting a much smaller bullet. Furthermore, you have to remember that the AK is a few pounds heavier than the AR. That extra weight displaces some of the additional recoil. Can an AR stay on target better because of the lowered recoil? Yes. But here's the unspoken truth. It needs to do so more than the AK does.

4) More training
Nah, I'm sorry... acquiring a sight picture properly with the M-16 and learning to use, maintain, and understand the weapon as you need to in order to be a soldier takes a lot longer than learning the simplistic AK-47 system. Plus, there is no amount of "skill" that will give the AK-47 the same amount of accuracy as the M-16. You're propelling two very different sized/weighted projectiles with very similar amounts of gunpowder. However, the AK was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to excel at 300 yards or less (though it can, and does, reach farther than that if it has to). Most engagements in real life and in most PR maps happen within the 300 yard range... wherein the difference in accuracy between the two weapons is ALL WITHIN KILLZONE. In other words, you're able to hit repeat shots within a 1 foot radius at that range, and that's with a crappy AK and novice shooter, while the M-16 would hit within 6-8 inches at the 300 yard mark, they are both killing you... the AK rounds crushing more tissue at that range by far (M-16 penetration drops sharply at longer distance)... anyway...

Just watch some youtube videos, type "AK-47 vs. Monitor" and then "AR-15 vs. Monitor". You can easily see that when the AK hits the monitor, more plastic and glass blow out, and the whole monitor rocks backwards violently, while the AR just blows a hole in it and makes it jiggle a bit. You need almost 2 hits with an AR-15 to equal 1 hit with an AK.

Actually, required viewing if you really want to see the difference between the AK and the M-16 in terms of down-range damage. Project Metropolis results speak directly to Project Reality and other video games, and people who quickly claim absolute superiority for the M-16 (it's an awesome weapon and very fun to shoot, don't get me wrong, and very effective on the field, too judging by American Military results).

However, since no secondary projectiles are calculated in games (they do kill, blind, and maim people IRL), and the actual penetration is generally forgotten, yet the recoil is remembered and magnified, the AK-47 becomes underrepresented in terms of its on-field deadliness.

This is the weapon with more war history than any other, and is arguably the most fearsome rifle of all time... still in use, modernized in the form of the AK-103, and upgradeable... to see it treated as a second-rate rifle is just disappointing. Yeah, it's not as accurate as a rifle that fires a comparatively smaller round (this is always the case unless you greatly magnify the powder)... but it reaches through buildings and dismantles people and machines much more effectively, bullet per bullet...

Plus, my original argument wasn't *just* for the AK-47... even the M-16 is a bit mistreated in PR... ALL weapons should allow much faster follow-up shots in single fire mode, and far less recoil in full auto, in order to be realistic.

I do give benefit of the doubt to anyone who disagrees with these points, that they've actually fired the weapons, but if you haven't, please at least watch some youtube videos... some are extreme rubbish, claiming that the AK-47 or the M-16 is wholly superior to the other, but there are actually some solid comparison videos out there that highlight the strengths and weaknesses of both weapons. Neither is superior at the entire warfare task, and each is superior at a subset of each. You want to kill a squad that's in a building 200m to the SW? AK-47 wins. You want to pop an insurgent that is firing from a window 200+ meters away? AR-15 wins.

Sorry for the wall of text...

tl;dr version:
PR makes the firing task more difficult and inaccurate than it really is by a large margin, I'd like to see this reduced a bit, and the recoil of most weapons is really far off.

[sakils2]

I agree with hiberNative, we have another AK Jesus in here.

[Outlawz7]

JKJudge for hookers and blow award.

[Jaymz]

Wait until you play 0.86. It's not nerfed much at all.