The myth of the inaccurate AK needs to die.

[Jagdwyre]

So after this last update announcement I was interested in this in particular:

The MoA on some guns has been adjusted to be more in line with real-world values

Sounds great to me, however after messing around in the test range to get a feel for what the actual accuracy is for things like the M16 and AK(Type 56), I was pretty disappointed with how poorly the AK fared at knocking down the practice target(presumably about the same size a solider in game) at 200 meters away.

The AK is not an 8-10 MOA weapon.
It annoys me greatly that this myth still exists today when there is a mountain of evidence to refute this notion. Most AKs run from 2-4 MOA(for people unfamiliar this means that a typical AK should give you 2-4 inch groups at 100 yards, at 200 yards that would translate to 4-8 inch group, MORE than enough to hit a man sized target). Additionally Chinese AK's are regarded as some of the best produced AKs ever made, they were not "cheap knockoffs."

The typical AK is not as accurate as the typical M16(AR) but the difference is inside a couple of inches at 100 yards, not half a foot!

This all being said there are things that justify poorer accuracy out of an AK, that being the skill of the shooter. AK iron sights are typically harder to use at longer ranges than aperture sights(like ones found on the M16), in addition that sight radius on the typical AK is also noticeably shorter than on an M16(especially on an M16 in fact because of that 20 in barrel).
There's also the fact that 7.62x39 is much harder to use accurately at longer ranges(as in past 300 yards) than 5.56x45 is, the bullet velocity is also lower on the 7.62 meaning more lead is required on a moving target.

Basically my point here is that there are ways to make the AK "feel" inaccurate in the game that mimic reality without making the weapon itself mechanically grossly inaccurate(because it isn't). Using slower rounds with more significant bullet drop doesn't make the gun inherently inaccurate but it does mean more skill is required from the shooter to know how to compensate for that drop depending on what their zero is at, this adds more nuance to the gun in the game and allows people who spent time getting the feel of the bullet trajectory down to really eek out of the potential of the gun.
There's also the idea of sight misalignment with the sight on the AK, it's fine it isn't that accurate while your sight a subtlety wobbling around, but if you're stabilizing your aim and holding your breath(shift) the gun should be able to connect with an enemy out to 300 meters easily if you're on target and you're zeroed correctly(doing this at 200 meters in the practice range still lead to inconsistent hits, hence my frustration).

TL;DR There are tangible reasons why the AK can be inaccurate in someone's hands, but the guns should absolutely be mechanically accurate themselves in game. This adds nuance to the gun that it has in the real world and would help make the gunplay feel more authentic. "Easy to use, hard to master."

So, am I wrong here, is there something I'm missing when it comes to the ballistics in this game? Because from what I've found the AK is definitely a lot less accurate than it should be right now.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Could it be their way of balancing the horrible sights on the M16? I have a small suspicion it might be.

Either way both things need to get fixed, i.e. the AK47 isn't a barndoor shooter (should be perfectly capable of 3 MOA groups) and the M16's sight picture isn't an obstructive pinhole.

Come on devs, show some love for these weapons, please.

 

[Flashburn]

Keep in mind that the US military standard is that an M16/m4 will be accepted into service with 4 MOA or less. No idea about old school M16/m16a1 which are less accurate than the newer sorts. Most legit AK's in 7.62 X 39 are guess what? 4 - 5 MOA rifles. Although AK 100 series is better than old AKM pattern stuff. But that is not relevant here. Like I have mutant saiga in .223 that shoots just larger than 1 moa with selected ammo and a cold barrel. But that is more AK101 and in a more accurate caliber. Ak74 in 5.45mm is more accurate just from that over an AKM or AK103 made on the same production line. But that is a mute point as none of these existed then.

BUT....there is always a but. This is mechanical accuracy using military ball ammo. IE... the weapon is often stuck in a rest and fired mechanically to take out shooter error. This is the only way to test for legit accuracy. It is a rare that a soldier will be shooting to that level of accuracy on a legit range in battle rattle with no shooting bench. It can be done of course, but not the norm. Those that do might get picked for snipers or designated marksmen. Now under battle conditions...forget it. Folks are all over the damned place. To the degree that like 1 million rounds per soldier hit in Vietnam. But that is the other extreme that is full auto in a jungle.

Games have spoon fed insane accuracy in small arms. If a developer is attempting to go semi legit, they use data for mechanical accuracy as a base line. Something that is super rare in combat. Which is why fire fights last way longer in reality than they do in games. Human factor of a legit average soldier is largely removed. And we are pretty much stuck with it I guess as its expected.

But going back to where I started.... AK is not THAT much less accurate than an M16. It is more myth than reality. Even if your M16a1 is shooting 2 inch groups (about 2 MOA) at 100 yards (which would be a REALLY good one). 4 inch groups is still way more than enough to get the job done. Its totally legit out to 300 meters with a good riflemen to make hits in one or 2 shots out there. So a baseline human with rifle in game is frankly more on target than reality. But the AK should not be multiple times less on target than an M14 or m16. That is silly. A rack grade M14 is just slightly less accurate than a well made Russian or Chinese AK type. Although in this case the M14 can be tuned by a gunsmith/armorer to way better accuracy than most 7.62 X 39 AK's.

Some of the domestic US AK myth is do to AK's built from parts kits. That is demilitarized AK's from random places. They take a blow torch and cut the gun into bits and disassemble this and that part. LIke the receiver that is full auto capable is cut in half with a blow torch. The parts are then sold on the secondary market and some company or private citizen builds a semi auto AK using mangled used bits with a new semi auto only US made receiver. This totally fouls up the tempering of the metal. Not good for accuracy to say the least. Or a monkey hammering a barrel out of a trunion. Other times civilian semi auto AK's are made from out of spec military parts from places like Romania. Also not good for accuracy. So lots of crap made semi auto AK's are out there and not all that great. A legit Russian or Chinese made one is way better. Or its just some mall ninja that sucks at shooting and blames their rifle. That too. Although AK sights are freaking hard to get use to when firing at longer ranges.

 

[Jagdwyre]

I'm willing to be that military ball ammo from Russia or China is, at the very least, no less accurate than cheap Tula or Wolf ammo most people feed their rifles in the states.

Games have spoon fed insane accuracy in small arms. If a developer is attempting to go semi legit, they use data for mechanical accuracy as a base line. Something that is super rare in combat. Which is why fire fights last way longer in reality than they do in games. Human factor of a legit average soldier is largely removed. And we are pretty much stuck with it I guess as its expected.

I disagree that they can't justify putting the actual real world accuracy of an AK into the game because we aren't being induced the real stresses of combat. Suppression mechanics exist in the game so you aren't going to be returning pinpoint accurate fire in that situation even if you wanted to. I also think sight sway/misalignment can have a larger effect on AK iron sights to emulate them being harder to use accurately at longer ranges and justifying a "inaccurate" feel. However, if I go prone or use a supported position and then hold my soldier's breath to make that sight picture rock steady for a second my AK should ABSOLUTELY be able to hit my target out to 300 meter pretty easily if I have my zero right. Right now this isn't the case as far as I can tell, and I'm disappointed by it.

The AK should be "hard" to shoot at it's maximum potential accuracy, but it SHOULD be possible under the right circumstances imo. It's more authentic to it's real world counterpart and it adds more nuance to the gunplay.

 

[Gladius]

I'm all in for a realistically portrayal of the guns ingame. Does anyone have hard facts about how the Type 56 performed with the prevalent ammunition of the vietnam war? I mean actual historical sources and not what a youtuber gets out of his Norinco nowadays.

Also I doubt that accuracy should be much of an issue on the usual engagement distances in this game. Especially when there is an asymmetrie in equipment to begin with. Fading out that the M-16 had some problems at the beginning...

 

[Flashburn]

Try a stress shoot sometime Jag. =) Its eye opening. And that is not even combat environment.

Just put on enough weight of your average battle rattle of this war (maybe what 20 or 30 pounds at most), grab your boom stick and sprint at least 400 yards. Do some push ups and try and shoot something at range using a knee, prone, and or offhand. Its crazy. Combat is worse as your heart feels like its going to burst out of your chest and your lungs are going bonkers from the fight or flight response.

I am not making excuses for doing odd things with AK accuracy VS M16. And I agree that mechanics to over come sight alignment and all that are golden. But just the human with a rifle in combat is always way more on target than your average soldier is going to do.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

We'll never be able to simulate the human's response to stress under fire, thats a lost battle no game will ever win, cause to win that battle the players need to genuinely fear for their lives - and then there goes the fun factor lol

Thus we should focus on the things we can simulate, such as the authenticity of the way the weapons handle & perform as the instruments of war that they are - then we can call it an emotionally-numb-soldier-with-realistic-weapons-handling-simulator and call it a day LMAO XD

 

[Jagdwyre]

Try a stress shoot sometime Jag. =) Its eye opening. And that is not even combat environment.

Just put on enough weight of your average battle rattle of this war (maybe what 20 or 30 pounds at most), grab your boom stick and sprint at least 400 yards. Do some push ups and try and shoot something at range using a knee, prone, and or offhand. Its crazy. Combat is worse as your heart feels like its going to burst out of your chest and your lungs are going bonkers from the fight or flight response.

I am not making excuses for doing odd things with AK accuracy VS M16. And I agree that mechanics to over come sight alignment and all that are golden. But just the human with a rifle in combat is always way more on target than your average soldier is going to do.

I'm well aware of what even shooting under the stress of a timer can do your effectiveness at shooting, and I don't disagree with you about it being much different to fire under physical and mental stress and to fire on a bench at a range.

My problem here is that we're still talking about a video game, even if it's one focusing on authenticity, so trying to replicate the difficulty of firing accurately in the real world is pretty hard to get right in a video game. And while I understand the concept of lowering the accuracy of weapons to give you a sense of the "practical" accuracy you'd have in a firefight I still would much rather a game first make the mechanical accuracy of the weapon itself authentic, then moving on to other factors that could help simulate stress.

And even if I said "fine, I get it, you wouldn't be pin point accurate with an AK in the middle of combat most likely anyway" there's still the problem that ONLY the AK has this huge MOA out of all the rifles. If the devs wanted to simulate "practical accuracy" in the middle of a firefight you'd think that even weapons like the M14 and M16 would have pretty mediocre accuracy as well, but they don't(at least nowhere near the discrepancy that the AK has). Which, again, leads me to the notion the devs just think the AK is inherently inaccurate, which is false.

I just want each gun done proper justice in this game, and given the accuracy and ballistics they actually have(or very very close to) in the real world. They're almost there in my opinion, but this accuracy on the AK needs to change.

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

Keep in mind that the US military standard is that an M16/m4 will be accepted into service with 4 MOA or less. No idea about old school M16/m16a1 which are less accurate than the newer sorts. Most legit AK's in 7.62 X 39 are guess what? 4 - 5 MOA rifles. Although AK 100 series is better than old AKM pattern stuff. But that is not relevant here. Like I have mutant saiga in .223 that shoots just larger than 1 moa with selected ammo and a cold barrel. But that is more AK101 and in a more accurate caliber. Ak74 in 5.45mm is more accurate just from that over an AKM or AK103 made on the same production line. But that is a mute point as none of these existed then.

The AK is not an 8-10 MOA weapon.
It annoys me greatly that this myth still exists today when there is a mountain of evidence to refute this notion. Most AKs run from 2-4 MOA(for people unfamiliar this means that a typical AK should give you 2-4 inch groups at 100 yards, at 200 yards that would translate to 4-8 inch group, MORE than enough to hit a man sized target). Additionally Chinese AK's are regarded as some of the best produced AKs ever made, they were not "cheap knockoffs."

The typical AK is not as accurate as the typical M16(AR) but the difference is inside a couple of inches at 100 yards, not half a foot!

I can't resist rising to this one

Per Mil Spec MIL-R-63997B from 1986 (I don't have one from the Vietnam era), as well as MIL-R-45587: The M16A1 was required to perform to an effective 4.8 MoA, using target-grade ammo, when rested/locked in place. Not 4... not 1... 4.8, in order to be accepted into service. Where it was then used by a bunch of 19-year-olds, using "adequate" field-grade ammo, in a dirty, sweaty jungle. Until it failed. They weren't re-tested by the armorers on a regular basis or anything else. And after being used by one unhappy 19-year-old, it was turned in, check for basic function (no formal accuracy tests) and handed over to another unhappy 19-year-old to use again.

Now don't worry - all M16s in game are actually performing within the relevant mil specs and no worse!

As for the AK-47... take a weapon which does (in mass-production, 1970s form) perform less accurately than an M16. Hand it to a moderately-trained NVA regular, or a pretty-much-untrained VC guerilla fighter. Lump it around through the jungle, swamp, rice-paddies... store it underground in damp, sweaty tunnels... fire a ton of shitty Soviet or Chinese ammo through it (and go on, be honest - would you shoot MODERN Russian ammo through any weapon you value? We long since banned all Russian-made ammo from any weapon, unless there is absolutely no alternative - makes for a pig of job cleaning after only a couple hundred rounds) and guess what? It does NOT shoot the 4-5 MoA that a modern, brand-new, well-maintained AK, firing modern, high-quality rounds will achieve. The AK, when used on a bench rest, target ammo etc etc, comes in at around 6 MoA (http://www.krtraining.com/KRTraining/Archive/PracticalRangeSmallArms.pdf as an example). In the hands of a VC guerilla fight, who has been using the cleaning rod as a cooking spit - not so much!

 

[Thom430]

It's an interesting discussion, but as Wilsonam points out, the mechanical accuracy of some rifles may be overestimated. Supposedly, current US Issue M16A4 rifles are 4.5 MoA weapons, if the Marine Corps Times is to be believed.
"A free floating barrel could improve the M16A4 from a 4.5 minute-of-impact rifle to a 2 MOI rifle, putting it on par with the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, which uses a free floating barrel, said Chief Warrant Officer 5 Vince Pope, the Marine gunner who directs the Marksmanship Doctrine and Programs Management Section at Quantico."
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto.../02/16/deadlier-rifles-ammo-may-way/23369675/

So the 4.8 MoA number for the A1, that doesn't sound so crazy, and if we go with the common knowledge the AK is less accurate, 6 MoA for a Vietnam-Era AK with god knows what quality ammo, that sounds very reasonable to me.

 

[Jagdwyre]

Wilsonam;n2287211]



I can't resist rising to this one

Per Mil Spec MIL-R-63997B from 1986 (I don't have one from the Vietnam era), as well as MIL-R-45587: The M16A1 was required to perform to an effective 4.8 MoA, using target-grade ammo, when rested/locked in place. Not 4... not 1... 4.8, in order to be accepted into service. Where it was then used by a bunch of 19-year-olds, using "adequate" field-grade ammo, in a dirty, sweaty jungle. Until it failed. They weren't re-tested by the armorers on a regular basis or anything else. And after being used by one unhappy 19-year-old, it was turned in, check for basic function (no formal accuracy tests) and handed over to another unhappy 19-year-old to use again.

Now don't worry - all M16s in game are actually performing within the relevant mil specs and no worse!

As for the AK-47... take a weapon which does (in mass-production, 1970s form) perform less accurately than an M16. Hand it to a moderately-trained NVA regular, or a pretty-much-untrained VC guerilla fighter. Lump it around through the jungle, swamp, rice-paddies... store it underground in damp, sweaty tunnels... fire a ton of ****ty Soviet or Chinese ammo through it (and go on, be honest - would you shoot MODERN Russian ammo through any weapon you value? We long since banned all Russian-made ammo from any weapon, unless there is absolutely no alternative - makes for a pig of job cleaning after only a couple hundred rounds) and guess what? It does NOT shoot the 4-5 MoA that a modern, brand-new, well-maintained AK, firing modern, high-quality rounds will achieve. The AK, when used on a bench rest, target ammo etc etc, comes in at around 6 MoA (http://www.krtraining.com/KRTraining/Archive/PracticalRangeSmallArms.pdf as an example). In the hands of a VC guerilla fight, who has been using the cleaning rod as a cooking spit - not so much!

Thanks for the information that's being used for the game, and hey, this is exactly why I put;
"So, am I wrong here, is there something I'm missing when it comes to the ballistics in this game?" at the bottom of my post.

I can live with assuming subpar conditions on rifles impeding their accuracy so long as all weapons get a fair and consistent shake in the accuracy department. The test range with your popup targets only goes to ~200 meters so it was hard to tell what the MOA on the M16 or M14 was(the AK was the only rifle not getting consistent hits), but if they're 3 or 4 MOA in game then I'm alright with that too.

I will say that a modern, brand-new, well-maintained AK, firing high quality ammo, can give you 2-3 MOA, not 4 to 5 MOA. That and those Chinese norincos and polytechs we got back before the import ban were almost certainly used on a lot of the same machines those guns made in the 50s were, so I'm not convinced those were all 6 MOA guns back then. That doesn't mean all the info you've brought up isn't valid, I just don't think it's an absolute of what an AK could or couldn't do in terms of accuracy(before they're beat to all hell that is). But for it being enough of a basis for the accuracy being used in the game, yes, I accept it.

 

[FR4NCH3K]

The current MOA value of the AK platforms in game is 5 MOA. That is acceptable, in my opinion, though I think 4 MOA would be far more fair. AKs aren't 10 MOA rifles, but they're certainly not 1-2MOA rifles.

 

[Jagdwyre]

The current MOA value of the AK platforms in game is 5 MOA. That is acceptable, in my opinion, though I think 4 MOA would be far more fair. AKs aren't 10 MOA rifles, but they're certainly not 1-2MOA rifles.

What's the source for the 5 MOA in game claim?

 

[FR4NCH3K]

What's the source for the 5 MOA in game claim?

Owning a 1964 production AKM and putting thousands of rounds through it.

 

[Jagdwyre]

Owning a 1964 production AKM and putting thousands of rounds through it.

And?
I hope you realize how nonsensical it is to respond with anecdotal real world experience when I asked for a source on the MOA values of an AK in a video game. I mean I had someone else tell me that MOA values were 4.5 for the Type 56 and 5 for the AKM so it's not like you're even wrong about it as it happens.
I own a Bulgarian milled parts kit gun that has 2-2.5 MOA and have seen pre-ban Chinese imports pull easily better than 5 MOA. Those are guns made in the 80's and not the 60's, sure, but I'm willing to bet they were made on virtually identical(if not literally the same) tooling.

But again this is in context with statistics on a rifle in a video game, not real world examples.

 

[FR4NCH3K]

And?
I hope you realize how nonsensical it is to respond with anecdotal real world experience when I asked for a source on the MOA values of an AK in a video game. I mean I had someone else tell me that MOA values were 4.5 for the Type 56 and 5 for the AKM so it's not like you're even wrong about it as it happens.
I own a Bulgarian milled parts kit gun that has 2-2.5 MOA and have seen pre-ban Chinese imports pull easily better than 5 MOA. Those are guns made in the 80's and not the 60's, sure, but I'm willing to bet they were made on virtually identical(if not literally the same) tooling.

But again this is in context with statistics on a rifle in a video game, not real world examples.

Oh, I thought you were asking me about my source for the belief that the AK is a 4-5MOA rifle in real life. It's a 4.5 and 5MOA rifle in game and these values can be found in the SDK files. I'd have to ask someone exactly where they are because it's been a couple days since I messed around in there, but they're in there.

I own a Bulgarian parts kit AK74 that is 2.5-3MOA all day, but that's far different from an AKM. I have seen Chinese imports with inconsistent accuracy because of the fact that China often switched the way they built their AKs without changing the designator of the rifle (designations were saved for the variant, not for production changes, which is why the Type 56 is both a milled and stamped AK). I've got a buddy who owns a registered F/A Type 56-2 and that thing is about 3.5-4MOA from what I remember.

The reason I am quoting real life accuracy is because the values in game, which can be found in the SDK files, are pretty accurate in this instance. AKs are not inherently accurate rifles.

 

[Jagdwyre]

Oh, I thought you were asking me about my source for the belief that the AK is a 4-5MOA rifle in real life. It's a 4.5 and 5MOA rifle in game and these values can be found in the SDK files. I'd have to ask someone exactly where they are because it's been a couple days since I messed around in there, but they're in there.

I own a Bulgarian parts kit AK74 that is 2.5-3MOA all day, but that's far different from an AKM. I have seen Chinese imports with inconsistent accuracy because of the fact that China often switched the way they built their AKs without changing the designator of the rifle (designations were saved for the variant, not for production changes, which is why the Type 56 is both a milled and stamped AK). I've got a buddy who owns a registered F/A Type 56-2 and that thing is about 3.5-4MOA from what I remember.

The reason I am quoting real life accuracy is because the values in game, which can be found in the SDK files, are pretty accurate in this instance. AKs are not inherently accurate rifles.

As long as we're on the same page again. And I will admit I was surprised when the game files stated the AKM had 5 MOA, it feels noticeably worse than that. Not sure why(even when the holding breath and the sights are dead steady).

Personally I'd be happy with a 3.5 MOA Type 56 and a 4 MOA AKM.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

My only experience with AKs have them shooting 3 MOA groups, albeit they were 1960's soviet manufacture. But I'd be satisfied with 3.5 MOA ingame too, 5 MOA seems abit extreme IMHO.

​​​​​​Also a 2.5 MOA average is not uncommon for M16A1's, but ofcourse there will always be outliers and the military acceptance standards were there to account for that and make sure an extreme of 4.8 wasn't crossed. Thats far from saying that the majority shot 4.8 MOA groups however, the majority were obviously somewhere in the middle.

 

[Trotskygrad]

My only experience with AKs have them shooting 3 MOA groups, albeit they were 1960's soviet manufacture. But I'd be satisfied with 3.5 MOA ingame too, 5 MOA seems abit extreme IMHO.

​​​​​​Also a 2.5 MOA average is not uncommon for M16A1's, but ofcourse there will always be outliers and the military acceptance standards were there to account for that and make sure an extreme of 4.8 wasn't crossed. Thats far from saying that the majority shot 4.8 MOA groups however, the majority were obviously somewhere in the middle.

the M16 in game is 1.5 MOA

IMO it should be around 2, as all the guns tend to lean towards more accurate.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

the M16 in game is 1.5 MOA

IMO it should be around 2, as all the guns tend to lean towards more accurate.

1.5 MOA isn't unrealistic for some the best examples, but considering that the AK apparently shoots a whopping 5 MOA ingame then I think 2.5 MOA for the M16 is more appropiate, esp. since this was probably the mean accuracy with military ammunition.

Ideally though I'd have the M16 shoot 2 MOA and the AK47 3.5 MOA ingame, then we have a slightly better than mean example of both.