The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

The AK has the look & the myth, I bought one that I love but if I am honest the Vz is probably a cheaper & better rifle.

froggy wrote:The AK has the look & the myth, I bought one that I love but if I am honest the Vz is probably a cheaper & better rifle.

The myth being that they are accurate and the best in the world

The myth being that they are accurate and the best in the world
The AK or the VZ ?

Both are fool proof & perform their intended task perfectly with an adequate lvl of accuracy.
IMO the Vz system has a slight hedge. The weapon & mags are a tad lighter despite having a milled receiver, safety/fire selector is more ergonomic, bolt open on last round, strippers can be fed straight into the mag via the openned bolt, etc... etc...
Both rifles are function best & look great without tarting them up with all sort of the useless tat (that is not really produced anyway) that inevitably find its way onto "superior rifles" & depending where you live the Vz is cheap as chips (in France you get 5 Vz for the price of one AR or in the UK two for the price of an AR). 7,62x39 is also very cheap so one does not have to p*ss around with reloading and blast away without bleeding the wallet. Good mil-surp stuff is miles better that the cheap budget ammo.

Not sure if the Vz 58 is the best rifle in the world but for sure it is probably the best V4M one available on the planet at the moment

Blu wrote:

froggy wrote:The AK has the look & the myth, I bought one that I love but if I am honest the Vz is probably a cheaper & better rifle.

The myth being that they are accurate and the best in the world

I think some of the inaccuracy reports have to be put down to choice of ammo.

Take a 7.62mm NATO battle rifle and shoot it with very old RG. Then shoot it with tailored handloads or Federal Gold Cup Match and look at the difference.

Take a 7.62mm NATO battle rifle and shoot it with very old RG. Then shoot it with tailored handloads or Federal Gold Cup Match and look at the difference.

At least with the old RG it'll still be on paper.

The AKM is a better rifle in some ways compared to the Vz.Mounting optics on a Vz can be problematic due to the angle it ejects at and one of the main reasons the Czechoslavakian military stuck with the Vz was out of national pride not necessarily because it was better.The Russians let them keep it on the condition it was chambered in 7.62x39mm.I think it says a lot when you look at how many countries have adopted or produce their own AK variants compared to the Vz.As a mass produced battle rifle that can be used by anyone from the age of 8 to 80 with little or no maintenance and relatively little training it takes some beating.The accuracy on a target shooting range can be debated all day long but ultimately they were designed for the battlefield, be it the plains of Central Europe, the jungles and paddyfields of southeast Asia or the mountains of Afghanistan and in these environments the accuracy is "good enough" and thats as accurate as it needs to be.

Blu wrote:

Take a 7.62mm NATO battle rifle and shoot it with very old RG. Then shoot it with tailored handloads or Federal Gold Cup Match and look at the difference.

At least with the old RG it'll still be on paper.

My AKM ( Saiga ) was certainly on the paper with milsurp.

breacher wrote:

Blu wrote:

Take a 7.62mm NATO battle rifle and shoot it with very old RG. Then shoot it with tailored handloads or Federal Gold Cup Match and look at the difference.

At least with the old RG it'll still be on paper.

My AKM ( Saiga ) was certainly on the paper with milsurp.

Your Saiga AKM! Sorry my mistake, I thought we were discussing the AK47 which is good for spray and pray and that's about it.

I can't find it at the moment, but I've seen a slow-mo video that featured an AK and the bullet tumbled out of the muzzle, a bit like an american football spinning off axis. It was quite an eye opener and goes some way to explaining the accuracy of the rifle.