eh 7.62x39 was never the reason why the ak47 etc were not entirely accurate but because of the sights.
The Galil seems to be a good improvement over the AK-47/74.
The charging handle and sights are obviously better. It being 5.56 and 7.62x51 make it more accurate. I am pretty sure it is still cheap to produce as well. Reliability should be similar to the normal AK, but I am not sure.
I disagree strongly with the charging handle, if you just use the propper technique, racking the AK charging handle is no problem, and it can be done with optics mounted just as easy as without.
With the Galil's upswept charhing handle, you can't rack it the "reach behind mag" way, and access becomes a problem if you are using optics on it.
Here's a little tube clip showing how to reload fast and easy: YouTube - Basic Kalashnikov Reload(Medium Speed)
Is he even hitting the mag release lever?
The Galil seems to be a good improvement over the AK-47/74.
The charging handle and sights are obviously better. It being 5.56 and 7.62x51 make it more accurate. I am pretty sure it is still cheap to produce as well. Reliability should be similar to the normal AK, but I am not sure.
I disagree strongly with the charging handle, if you just use the propper technique, racking the AK charging handle is no problem, and it can be done with optics mounted just as easy as without.
With the Galil's upswept charhing handle, you can't rack it the "reach behind mag" way, and access becomes a problem if you are using optics on it.
Here's a little tube clip showing how to reload fast and easy: YouTube - Basic Kalashnikov Reload(Medium Speed)
The Galil seems to be a good improvement over the AK-47/74.
The charging handle and sights are obviously better. It being 5.56 and 7.62x51 make it more accurate. I am pretty sure it is still cheap to produce as well. Reliability should be similar to the normal AK, but I am not sure.
If anything, it is perhabs the Yugo M70's that deserve that title (the stamped reciver versions), they are light, more accurate than the russians, they come with night sigts, can fire rifle grenades (and unlike the Galil, and i assume the RK, does not require tools to remove the topcover), and the internals share the same idiot proof design as all the Russians.
.
Only tool RK needs to remove the topcover is your thumb.
Nah, the shape of the Galil handle makes it impractical to reach it from below, your finger slips off pretty easilly when you do it in a hurry (ofcourse the one i tried was Airsoft, but the shape is the same, so i don't think that makes any difference in the ergonomics of the handle).
It's definately ment to be reached from above, which is normally not a problem, thats as fast as reloading from below, but add optics and you've got a problem.
I guess there isn't much that can be done to modernize the AK. Best to just develop something new.
Not sure about the control layout on the SiG-550/1/2, but those seem to be very accurate while running clean and reliable. If the control layout if similar to the AR-15, I think it would be the superior assault rifle.
I have a question for you Finns, looking at the RK series of rifles I just can't help wondering about the placement of the rear sights. In the pictures I have seen it looks like the rear aperture sight is mounted on the receiver cover.
I can't help thinking that this should cause accuracy problems. As the RK rifles being based off of the AK have the same detachable receiver cover for disassembly. With this receiver cover being removable and not a fixed piece of the receiver it moves while the rifle is being fired. Hence your rear sight will be moving with it, even though the movements aren't huge it will still affect your zero and accuracy.
Can any of you blokes who have handled an RK series rifle shed some light on this? Cause these rifles are said to be the most accurate AK derived rifle, yet that strikes me as paradoxial considering where the rear sight is.
I bet most soldiers can't even hit targets which are 500 metres away, especially when they are moving and without optical sights. So from a theoretical point of view the discussion about the 5.56 rounds being to small gets old ...