TexasCHLforum.com

So I may pickup a converted S308. It has the 22" barrel. So does anyone have one? Any likes or dislikes? I'm wondering about feeding issues. I can't determine bt this or another FNAR

who converted it? if it was an individual, I'd look it over pretty carefully. When I converted my Saiga 7.62, I did it with the assumption having done the conversion myself would probably hurt resale if I ever got rid of it.

Other than that, heard lots of good things about the saigas in .308. Haven't heard of feeding issues, only gripe I see people express is the cost/availability of .308 mags for it.

I'm wondering how accurate these are also. I can get this one for not much more than parts to build it so that saves me a wknd or two converting it myself

cajunautoxer wrote:I'm wondering how accurate these are also. I can get this one for not much more than parts to build it so that saves me a wknd or two converting it myself

It's an AK in .308.......how accurate can it be compared to an M1A or an FNAR?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

cajunautoxer wrote:I'm wondering how accurate these are also. I can get this one for not much more than parts to build it so that saves me a wknd or two converting it myself

It's an AK in .308.......how accurate can it be compared to an M1A or an FNAR?

Alright, TAM, it is time for us to have THAT conversation.

The basic problem in the black rifle community is this: The AR has gotten its undeserved reputation for needing constant cleaning and maintenance to stay operational. The AK has gotten a reputation for not being able to hit the broad side of a barn.

The ARs reputation is easy enough to sort out....they were issued without cleaning kits, soldiers were told they didn't need to clean them period, dirtier ammo was used than what they were designed for, etc.....this is a reputation that has clung to the AR like a bad perfume since the 1960s.

Regarding AKs and accuracy....2 sources. The primary one in my mind is a guy with a $1,000 tricked out AR with an $800 scope sitting on top who lovingly handloads or buys "precision" rounds for his AR will try out his buddies iron sighted AK, shooting greasy surplus ammo dug out of a field in Yugoslavia somewhere. He doesn't like how it feels compared to the AR, doesn't know how to handle the weapon, and after putting a few rounds somewhere maybe vaguely on paper through the AKs admittedly sub par iron sights, will pronounce the entire rifle line "inaccurate".

In addition, there are a variety of AK manufacturers, (including home gun smiths) building them, using everything from brand new chrome lined barrels, to shot out, ill maintained surplus military parts from Poland. So if you're shooting a shot out, surplus rifle using surplus ammunition manufactured by communists 50 years ago....yeah, good luck being very accurate.

It is not the SYSTEM that is inaccurate. It is cheap owners (admittedly, like me) who use iron sights and surplus ammunition. A few examples for you:
This is from a Saiga in .308 at 100 yards.

It is Gabe Suarez's rifle, from http://www.warriortalk.com. Accompanying this picture, he says the following:

Next was fine zeroing at 100 yards. The Scope I am using is a Burris 3-9x42....This was the group. I fired four shots... . First shot hit center. Second shot was high (that was me I must admit), and the next two are next to the first one.

Including my trigger mash, it is roughly 2". Excluding the errant shot, it is a clean 1" group at 100 yards. Not bad for a 16" barreled third world illiterate commie rifle eh?

I'd argue that 1" grouping at 100 yards with a cheaper scope set up isn't exactly "woefully inaccurate", and perhaps even on par with what an M1A could do?

Even the 7.62 and 5.45 systems can be accurate with a good shooter who knows the rifle and decent ammo. Here are some more links for ya to browse through...
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.p ... -here-goes
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.p ... b-MOA-WASR

and you could dig even more up. A good AK, with a decent optic or just a good shooter who knows the rifle, using good ammo, is more than capable of engaging man sized targets out to 400 yards in a 7.62 chambering, and 600 in a 5.45 chambered rifle.

Which brings me to my next point. There is a difference between paper punching at 600, and effectively engaging a man sized threat at 600. If all you're concerned about is the smallest possible groups from the bench, the AK is not for you. If you want a solid, reliable rifle that can engage targets out to 400-600 yards, then belittling the accuracy of the AK and dismissing it is just silly.

I've seen you use the quote before "only accurate rifles are interesting". I'd agree, but to what degree do you NEED a rifle to be accurate? I would argue that if you can make hits on a 3 foot by 2 foot target at 600 yards, you can hit anything you need to at a shorter range, making the rifle more than accurate enough for my purposes at least, and therefore "interesting" in that it fulfills its role adequately.

In that regard, guns are a little like cars (my other hobby). It doesn't cost a ton of money to get a car to run 12s in the 1/4 mile. Now every second you want to drop off that time is going to cost you exponentially more money and time working on the car. I know guys with cars DEEP into the 8s...and it cost them a lot to get there. So to tie it to this discussion, is it worth the extra money to be able to make 10 ring hits out to 1,000 yards? If it is to you, great. But if you just need it to be "accurate enough" to make reliable, accurate hits at the ranges I was stating, then there is no reason to raise your nose and dismiss the AK. It can do it.

To finish, another quote from Gabe Suarez (I don't like everything about the man, but when you're right, you're right).

To follow on the thread on the 5.45 AK+ACOG, I also took out the PSL Sniper rifle prepared by Jim Fuller. Again....we hear all of the Pilsbury Doughboy Tactical dudes with their size 60 belts bemoaning the "pattern" of those commie-terrorist rifles, as they caress their house payment rifles on the padded bench under the shade cover at the "gentleman's range".

Not trying to call anyone fat or disparage the money you spend on a gun, just thought it was funny.

In summation for those who don't want to read my rambling post, just as I tended to harp on ARs as "unreliable"(which I've stopped doing) when they can be perfectly reliable for our purposes(ie we're not in the sandbox so they'll probably never be dirty enough to stop working), throwing out a blanket statement dismissing AKs as "inaccurate" and therefore unworthy of consideration as a valid defense rifle is just as ridiculous as my blanket dismissal of ARs was.

I agree to everything stated above. My AK's are very accurate in my eyes for what they are. There is no no bi-pod, forward grip, or optic on any of my AK's and they are plenty accurate for paper plates and 100+ yds. I have not attempted any shots past 150yds or so b/c the irons on the AK leave a lot to be desired.

74novaman, did I touch a nerve?

Sorry man, I was just yanking the chain a little bit. I actually think the Saiga .308 is a rifle I wouldn't mind owning, and I can appreciate it for what it is. My belt isn't a size 60, but it ain't a size 40 either. I really like my ARs, but if I had to choose between keeping the AR or the M1A and letting the other go, I'd pick the M1A. I think that .308/7.62 NATO is an ideal round—particularly for someone like me who isn't going to get into a CQB fight if he can help it. Plus, both the M1A and the Saiga .308 make ideal hog hunting guns, which is one of the reasons I bought my M1A to begin with—that, and I've wanted one since the 1960s.

But honestly? I just can't get past the AK47. I can appreciate its reliability, simplicity, and the fact that it will shoot ammo that was stored in a camel's lower bowels for a year, but I still can't stand 'em.


.....and Gabe Suarez is a philistine.

Well since I already own serveral M1As, FNARs, and FALs I feel the need to knock out some must haves off my list. Now for the second half of the yr I'll need to get a Beretta 682 Gold E, AR 300 AAC Blackout upper, maybe a supressor or SBR, AK 54R

The Annoyed Man wrote:74novaman, did I touch a nerve?

Sorry man, I was just yanking the chain a little bit. I actually think the Saiga .308 is a rifle I wouldn't mind owning, and I can appreciate it for what it is. My belt isn't a size 60, but it ain't a size 40 either. I really like my ARs, but if I had to choose between keeping the AR or the M1A and letting the other go, I'd pick the M1A. I think that .308/7.62 NATO is an ideal round—particularly for someone like me who isn't going to get into a CQB fight if he can help it. Plus, both the M1A and the Saiga .308 make ideal hog hunting guns, which is one of the reasons I bought my M1A to begin with—that, and I've wanted one since the 1960s.

But honestly? I just can't get past the AK47. I can appreciate its reliability, simplicity, and the fact that it will shoot ammo that was stored in a camel's lower bowels for a year, but I still can't stand 'em.


.....and Gabe Suarez is a philistine.

Maybe he doesn't like trolls

74novaman wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

cajunautoxer wrote:I'm wondering how accurate these are also. I can get this one for not much more than parts to build it so that saves me a wknd or two converting it myself

It's an AK in .308.......how accurate can it be compared to an M1A or an FNAR?

Alright, TAM, it is time for us to have THAT conversation.

The basic problem in the black rifle community is this: The AR has gotten its undeserved reputation for needing constant cleaning and maintenance to stay operational. The AK has gotten a reputation for not being able to hit the broad side of a barn.

The ARs reputation is easy enough to sort out....they were issued without cleaning kits, soldiers were told they didn't need to clean them period, dirtier ammo was used than what they were designed for, etc.....this is a reputation that has clung to the AR like a bad perfume since the 1960s.

Regarding AKs and accuracy....2 sources. The primary one in my mind is a guy with a $1,000 tricked out AR with an $800 scope sitting on top who lovingly handloads or buys "precision" rounds for his AR will try out his buddies iron sighted AK, shooting greasy surplus ammo dug out of a field in Yugoslavia somewhere. He doesn't like how it feels compared to the AR, doesn't know how to handle the weapon, and after putting a few rounds somewhere maybe vaguely on paper through the AKs admittedly sub par iron sights, will pronounce the entire rifle line "inaccurate".

In addition, there are a variety of AK manufacturers, (including home gun smiths) building them, using everything from brand new chrome lined barrels, to shot out, ill maintained surplus military parts from Poland. So if you're shooting a shot out, surplus rifle using surplus ammunition manufactured by communists 50 years ago....yeah, good luck being very accurate.

It is not the SYSTEM that is inaccurate. It is cheap owners (admittedly, like me) who use iron sights and surplus ammunition. A few examples for you:
This is from a Saiga in .308 at 100 yards.

It is Gabe Suarez's rifle, from http://www.warriortalk.com. Accompanying this picture, he says the following:

Next was fine zeroing at 100 yards. The Scope I am using is a Burris 3-9x42....This was the group. I fired four shots... . First shot hit center. Second shot was high (that was me I must admit), and the next two are next to the first one.

Including my trigger mash, it is roughly 2". Excluding the errant shot, it is a clean 1" group at 100 yards. Not bad for a 16" barreled third world illiterate commie rifle eh?

I'd argue that 1" grouping at 100 yards with a cheaper scope set up isn't exactly "woefully inaccurate", and perhaps even on par with what an M1A could do?

Even the 7.62 and 5.45 systems can be accurate with a good shooter who knows the rifle and decent ammo. Here are some more links for ya to browse through...
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.p ... -here-goes
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.p ... b-MOA-WASR

and you could dig even more up. A good AK, with a decent optic or just a good shooter who knows the rifle, using good ammo, is more than capable of engaging man sized targets out to 400 yards in a 7.62 chambering, and 600 in a 5.45 chambered rifle.

Which brings me to my next point. There is a difference between paper punching at 600, and effectively engaging a man sized threat at 600. If all you're concerned about is the smallest possible groups from the bench, the AK is not for you. If you want a solid, reliable rifle that can engage targets out to 400-600 yards, then belittling the accuracy of the AK and dismissing it is just silly.

I've seen you use the quote before "only accurate rifles are interesting". I'd agree, but to what degree do you NEED a rifle to be accurate? I would argue that if you can make hits on a 3 foot by 2 foot target at 600 yards, you can hit anything you need to at a shorter range, making the rifle more than accurate enough for my purposes at least, and therefore "interesting" in that it fulfills its role adequately.

In that regard, guns are a little like cars (my other hobby). It doesn't cost a ton of money to get a car to run 12s in the 1/4 mile. Now every second you want to drop off that time is going to cost you exponentially more money and time working on the car. I know guys with cars DEEP into the 8s...and it cost them a lot to get there. So to tie it to this discussion, is it worth the extra money to be able to make 10 ring hits out to 1,000 yards? If it is to you, great. But if you just need it to be "accurate enough" to make reliable, accurate hits at the ranges I was stating, then there is no reason to raise your nose and dismiss the AK. It can do it.

To finish, another quote from Gabe Suarez (I don't like everything about the man, but when you're right, you're right).

To follow on the thread on the 5.45 AK+ACOG, I also took out the PSL Sniper rifle prepared by Jim Fuller. Again....we hear all of the Pilsbury Doughboy Tactical dudes with their size 60 belts bemoaning the "pattern" of those commie-terrorist rifles, as they caress their house payment rifles on the padded bench under the shade cover at the "gentleman's range".

Not trying to call anyone fat or disparage the money you spend on a gun, just thought it was funny.

In summation for those who don't want to read my rambling post, just as I tended to harp on ARs as "unreliable"(which I've stopped doing) when they can be perfectly reliable for our purposes(ie we're not in the sandbox so they'll probably never be dirty enough to stop working), throwing out a blanket statement dismissing AKs as "inaccurate" and therefore unworthy of consideration as a valid defense rifle is just as ridiculous as my blanket dismissal of ARs was.

I just picked up a PSL, and finished converting my Saiga 5.45 so of course a 308 should be next

The Annoyed Man wrote:74novaman, did I touch a nerve?

Sorry man, I was just yanking the chain a little bit.

Not at all. I'd seen you tout the accuracy failings of AKs enough that I thought you were misinformed about their capabilities, and decided it was time for a little education.

In the end, it all comes down to use. Would I use an AK for an NRA High Power match or a bullseye competition? No. But I'd be willing to throw it into the ring for a 3 gun competition and I bet it would do alright. I'd call them "functionally accurate" guns.

Besides, with all the AR love around here, somebody's got to defend the liberals most hated weapon of all time (unless Che was using it to murder people, of course...then its cool)

Maybe in the end, that's the real reason to own one: The AK-47....it makes liberals wet their pants.

cajunautoxer wrote:Well since I already own serveral M1As, FNARs, and FALs I feel the need to knock out some must haves off my list. Now for the second half of the yr I'll need to get a Beretta 682 Gold E, AR 300 AAC Blackout upper, maybe a supressor or SBR, AK 54R

The Annoyed Man wrote:74novaman, did I touch a nerve?

Sorry man, I was just yanking the chain a little bit. I actually think the Saiga .308 is a rifle I wouldn't mind owning, and I can appreciate it for what it is. My belt isn't a size 60, but it ain't a size 40 either. I really like my ARs, but if I had to choose between keeping the AR or the M1A and letting the other go, I'd pick the M1A. I think that .308/7.62 NATO is an ideal round—particularly for someone like me who isn't going to get into a CQB fight if he can help it. Plus, both the M1A and the Saiga .308 make ideal hog hunting guns, which is one of the reasons I bought my M1A to begin with—that, and I've wanted one since the 1960s.

But honestly? I just can't get past the AK47. I can appreciate its reliability, simplicity, and the fact that it will shoot ammo that was stored in a camel's lower bowels for a year, but I still can't stand 'em.


.....and Gabe Suarez is a philistine.

Maybe he doesn't like trolls

So I'm a troll now?

Wow.