Garand Thumb: The Czech's took an AK but made it better. The VZ. 58 (smol) Czech

[RSR]

Military Arms Channel argues AK>Vz58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cyy3BSh7K4

[MeatAxe]

Keeping your head down as low as possible on a rifle (with low sights with a low-slung butt stock) was probably a priority during World War I : static warfare over blasted-open flat terrain where riflemen often engaged in sniper duels from trenches and shell holes at long distances or had to dodge getting raked by emplaced, dialed in heavy machine gun fire in No Man’s Land.

Low slung butt stocks are fine on bolt action rifles where you have to pause between shots to manually cycle rounds, but in semi and full auto they cause pronounced muzzle flip and inaccurate automatic fire. As warfare evolved into mobile blitzkrieg warfare during WWII, soldiers had to maneuver and keep their heads up and on a swivel for closer range combat with full and semi auto fire. The Germans developed the StG 43 / 44 with taller sights and a straight line butt stock, along with a medium caliber rifle round with selective fire out of extended mags to press their technological and tactical advantages in combat.

First, I agree that stocks being inline w/ the bore are tremendous mechanical advantage with rapid semi-auto or f/a fire.  Muzzle devices like brakes, comps, and hybrid brakes & comps also can serve to accomplish the same.  Double or triple them up for max advantage...  Also remember the difference between full caliber/power cartridges and the intermediate and small caliber cartridges/caliber that now are general issue infantry weaponry...

Second, I don't think optics have to be cowitnessed with irons in this day and age given improved reliability of optics.  But there can be an advantage in cowitnessing depending on optic/reticle/magnification/etc.  If not cowitnessed, there is also a benefit to having irons and an additional benefit to having your optic on a QD mount.

Third, I think it's worth noting that the Vz58s' build quality and performance appears to indicate a nation that was looking to increase capability and therefor survivability of its soldiers, primarily based upon lessons learned in WW2.

Fourth, your comment's historical take is a pretty big oversimplification...
Like assaulting WW1 trenches, human wave attacks have also occurred in WW2 (look at pretty much all Russian advances pushing Germans out of Russia all the way back to Berlin), Korea, Vietnam, various African conflicts, and up into Afghanistan. 

Temporary and hasty firing positions remain a staple of the US infantry -- effectively a modern trench system whenever possible for cover, not concealment. 

Sniper and counter-sniper battles have occurred in every major conflict -- Juba Sniper of Baghdad for instance in Bush 2 Iraq War.  Sniping in Afghanistan regardless of inherent accuracy has been well document.  Modern fighting positions referenced on previous and their shooting only or primarily to oblique are also to help mitigate the efficacy of snipers...

Machine guns in WW1 like most since but also in bolt action rifle preceding were as much about beaten zones at distance as transversing sectors.  Look to the British's volley fire with Martini Henry and Mad Minute with Lee Enfields, both predating WW1.  WW2, it was the Germans' light and medium machine guns that were widely fielded throughout the war, not the Sturmgewehr, that defined the biggest advancement in German small arm combat and tactics.

While the US hasn't fought a peer or near-peer military since WW2, the US air, sea, artillery, comms, information, tech, etc, dominance in modern conflicts has allowed us to transition to largely a vehicle-borne infantry that has been engaging irregular enemies in 4th gen warfare where there's no clear front lines and no clear enemy and civilian, but such dominance and confusion is far from certain in possible future ones.  In such cases, hard-learned old and forgotten lessons of 3rd gen warfare -- what you're referencing as no longer applicable -- will have to be relearned...

Well, by and large, if you look at modern infantry rifles and sub guns, they’ve all evolved towards the straight line butt stock, heads up, optics ready configuration in a medium caliber selective fire weapon.

The StG44 set the standard when it hit the stage, including being optics ready. If you’ve ever had the opportunity to shoot a StG44 in full auto vs., say a Thompson SMG, which is basically a WWI weapon with its low (ridiculously optimistic) sights and low slung butt stock, the difference is night and day. While both weapons weigh about the same, the StG44, even though it’s cartridge is 3 times as powerful, is pretty easy on the recoil and easy to keep on target, while the Thompson is a hand full - takes a lot of effort to keep its .45ACP slugs on target and not flying off into the sky.

[RSR]

Well, by and large, if you look at modern infantry rifles and sub guns, they’ve all evolved towards the straight line butt stock, heads up, optics ready configuration in a medium caliber selective fire weapon.

The StG44 set the standard when it hit the stage, including being optics ready. If you’ve ever had the opportunity to shoot a StG44 in full auto vs., say a Thompson SMG, which is basically a WWI weapon with its low (ridiculously optimistic) sights and low slung butt stock, the difference is night and day. While both weapons weigh about the same, the StG44, even though it’s cartridge is 3 times as powerful, is pretty easy on the recoil and easy to keep on target, while the Thompson is a hand full - takes a lot of effort to keep its .45ACP slugs on target and not flying off into the sky.

StG44 is locking-block action vs most Thompson SMGs being straight blowback.  So just like 9mm blowback ARs have more recoil than 5.56 ARs at same weight, it's a similar function to what you're describing here -- although 5.56 vs 9mm is more like 4x energy vs 3x you quote for T-SMG vs StG44... 
The Thompson SMG's rate of fire is also about 50% more than StG44's, which also plays a significant role in control-ability given equivalent muzzle devices.

I agree stock angle matters, but I think modern stocks being relatively standardized around M4 stock configuration are really a factor of three functions:
1) Evolution of modern weapon evolutions designed off of Stoner's original M16 platform and then the M4 -- desireable to keep same manual of arms, muscle memory, etc, to sell new weapon evolutions or designs
2) Ubiquity of AR Carbine stocks optimized for M4's sight alignment/height (common to use M4/.308 carbine, or Vltor A5 intermediate, buffer tubes even when weapon isn't an AR--have one on my M92 PAP w/ Arm Brace)
3) The introduction of modern tech like over the ear pro with radios, night vision goggles/attachments, and fractional seconds advantage for shooting sports like 3 gun where weapon is already configured for next to no recoil (lightweight bolt carriers, comp/brake muzzle device, etc) --and also the GWOT's urban/CQB tactics that this and similar shooting sports mimic, but are a unique reflection of this particular type of 4th Gen warfare against insurgents, not near peer army/frontline combat.

The point of my original comments were historical context and believing the Vz58 makes a lot of sense in such analysis (and shared some of what I see relevant in that) -- not that it's optimal and especially isn't modular to suit all needs of modern shooters.  Begrudgingly, I too own a number of ARs, currently even more than Vz58s.  I view them as knockabout and replaceable guns; whereas, I have greater respect and value of the Vz58 and other more "craftsman" or unique guns -- make no mistake, I don't abuse my guns and such feelings are also no reflection on my beliefs about inherent capabilities and effectiveness of each.

As always, YMMV. 

[briang2ad]

RSR:  Thanks for linking the MAC video. If that's his argument, its a bit weak.  Mostly conjecture.  MAC has interesting videos, but I generally don't find them as analytically based as others.  His accuracy and reliability comments in this video are JUST conjecture.  I do think other folks saying that the VZ is more reliable are mostly theoretical like a P226 vs. an M9 - open vz. closed, yadayada. 

I do like the VZ a bit better for reasons of 'quality/workmanship' and nuance.  The mags lock up nicer, the bolt hold open is a GOOD feature, the tad lighter weight is nicer, and I do think it is a tad more accurate which helps at range. 

Yes I think there are AKs out there that are just as accurate - but in general not quite.

I honestly think the recoil is snappier and not as pleasant in the VZ.  (This becomes a real problem with some stocks).

Without the adapter, the VZ is IMPOSSIBLE to change mags left handed without gymnastics.

There are fewer guns out there by a mile, so accessories are fewer, but there are enough.  New more innovative light mounts are needed.

Just to beat the horse deader, the aquilles heal of the VZ is the sight height. The ONLY reason the rifle has a sloped stock system for BOTH the fixed and folding versions is the ridiculously low sights.  For me the fixed setup is brutal unless I hold it just right.  The snappy recoil along with the hump makes is painful.  The folder is LOW enough to be much better, but not ideal.  EVERY stock AK setup is easier to use irons with. 

I will likely SETTLE on the SIG minimalist stock and a rear RS Regulate mount.  (I find the CP rail to be unusable - I know that is generally not the case, but there it is).  In this way, with a prism optic, I can comfortably use the rifle, get a good cheek weld, and have a substantial stock that folds to the right - and detach the optic and use irons in an emergency.  I don't ever want to use a rifle than cannot fall back to the irons in a pinch.  I cringe to see rail setups that eliminate the use of irons.  It seems that people do this all the time to use inline stocks, but the sacrifice of irons use is a fail. 

I do NOT have to have cowitness, but note that it WOULD be a better situation - but you really cannot do this in the AK either without the front mount.  I think driving weight to the rear will be better in the long run, and again, a durable optic that detaches offers an optimum but not perfect solution. 

I think the two latest videos are lacking.  GT has a specialized gun and his comments are qualitative and MACs are just speculation for the viewer.

Overall, the VZ rifle as a system would have been better with higher sights, an ambi mag release, and an inline stock system. 

A SIMPLE fix to the stock system is EASILY achievable - make the 1913 adapter on the SW model ONE notch lower and make the M4 adapter sit lower by .1-.2 inches lower and you have the perfect solution.  I don't understand why this is not already the case, but that's the way it is. 

[RSR]

RSR:  Thanks for linking the MAC video. If that's his argument, its a bit weak.  Mostly conjecture.  MAC has interesting videos, but I generally don't find them as analytically based as others.  His accuracy and reliability comments in this video are JUST conjecture.  I do think other folks saying that the VZ is more reliable are mostly theoretical like a P226 vs. an M9 - open vz. closed, yadayada. 

I don't know if MAC actually believes, at least strongly, that the AK is superior to the Vz58...  MAC has 1.23M subscribers and 53k views of this vid as of now.
Vs Garand Thumb at 1.54 million subscribes and 618k views as of now -- with 400k in first 2-3 days.

It's a play on the algorithm, and even AKOU recently acknowledged the Vz58 is superior to the AK in a lot of ways...

The gun "choking" doesn't ring true with me, but is likely lube induced, at least in part.  The vid's comments from Czechs who used this rifle in Afghanistan, among others, reinforce this...

As to:

I honestly think the recoil is snappier and not as pleasant in the VZ.  (This becomes a real problem with some stocks).

Without the adapter, the VZ is IMPOSSIBLE to change mags left handed without gymnastics.

All weapons that are lighter weight are "snappier"; an AK w/ a steel mag is about a pound and a half heavier.  Again weapon recoil, etc., is largely a function of spring wear, barrel port size, muzzle devices, etc.  Yes, Vz58 cycles faster, but that alone doesn't make it "snappier", especially when it's cycling much lighter components that partially offset -- such as piston going forward while bolt carrier still going rearward...  Don't know exact timing of piston and bolt carrier, but possible piston seats at carrier starts it return forward (think unlikely given widely varying travel distances, but possible).

The single loop trigger guard/non-split with the cow-tongue mag release was effectively ambi.  The split trigger guard with dog-eared mag release wasn't. 

[briang2ad]

  The single loop trigger guard/non-split with the cow-tongue mag release was effectively ambi. 

Do you have pics??? Thanks.

[czgunner]

RSR:  Thanks for linking the MAC video. If that's his argument, its a bit weak.  Mostly conjecture.  MAC has interesting videos, but I generally don't find them as analytically based as others.  His accuracy and reliability comments in this video are JUST conjecture.  I do think other folks saying that the VZ is more reliable are mostly theoretical like a P226 vs. an M9 - open vz. closed, yadayada. 

I don't know if MAC actually believes, at least strongly, that the AK is superior to the Vz58...  MAC has 1.23M subscribers and 53k views of this vid as of now.
Vs Garand Thumb at 1.54 million subscribes and 618k views as of now -- with 400k in first 2-3 days.

It's a play on the algorithm, and even AKOU recently acknowledged the Vz58 is superior to the AK in a lot of ways...

The gun "choking" doesn't ring true with me, but is likely lube induced, at least in part.  The vid's comments from Czechs who used this rifle in Afghanistan, among others, reinforce this...

As to:

I honestly think the recoil is snappier and not as pleasant in the VZ.  (This becomes a real problem with some stocks).

Without the adapter, the VZ is IMPOSSIBLE to change mags left handed without gymnastics.

All weapons that are lighter weight are "snappier"; an AK w/ a steel mag is about a pound and a half heavier.  Again weapon recoil, etc., is largely a function of spring wear, barrel port size, muzzle devices, etc.  Yes, Vz58 cycles faster, but that alone doesn't make it "snappier", especially when it's cycling much lighter components that partially offset -- such as piston going forward while bolt carrier still going rearward...  Don't know exact timing of piston and bolt carrier, but possible piston seats at carrier starts it return forward (think unlikely given widely varying travel distances, but possible).

The single loop trigger guard/non-split with the cow-tongue mag release was effectively ambi.  The split trigger guard with dog-eared mag release wasn't.

Yeah he is the first I've heard from about VZ reliability issues. I haven't had issues with the two I've owned.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[RSR]

  The single loop trigger guard/non-split with the cow-tongue mag release was effectively ambi. 

Do you have pics??? Thanks.

Covered in previous threads in detail.  Search the forum.

And FWIW, I can release mags w/ any mag release left handed w/ just my trigger finger.  Mag release still sits to the left but is ~1/2 uncovered and a slightly larger mag release w/ the first gen setup.

[MeatAxe]

  The single loop trigger guard/non-split with the cow-tongue mag release was effectively ambi. 

Do you have pics??? Thanks.

Covered in previous threads in detail.  Search the forum.

And FWIW, I can release mags w/ any mag release left handed w/ just my trigger finger.  Mag release still sits to the left but is ~1/2 uncovered and a slightly larger mag release w/ the first gen setup.

https://www.gunpartscorp.com/products/868440


Vs

https://www.gunpartscorp.com/products/868430

[Laufer]

My impression of a possible weak point of the VZ -although this might be mistaken - is that a user who is new to Guns might

 forget to...re-install the Locking Device after cleaning, during a distracted or rushed re-assembly (an upset child walking in etc).

I certainly hope that this forgetfulness never happens, and am surprised that nobody seems to have tested this potentially fatal problem (very carefully-behind cover etc) on Youtube.

[briang2ad]

A couple of thoughts:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but NO serious military is using low sight/bore height in their selection of a carbine  - none.  That may be a clue.

While the VZ is touted to have superior ergonomics, some folks have a real problem with the humped fixed OEM stock and the irons.  I did.  I've never heard of folks having problems with AKs in this area.  Also, while I found the standard folder a good alternative, its just not optimum. 

The AK is generally better (TODAY) because of decades of modifications, and now a crapload of aftermarket options that alleviate all the primary ailments.  The aftermarket for the VZ is very minimal. 

A stock AKM and a stock VZ 58 might be a comparison.  The VZ is cooler though.

[RSR]

A couple of thoughts:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but NO serious military is using low sight/bore height in their selection of a carbine  - none.  That may be a clue.

While the VZ is touted to have superior ergonomics, some folks have a real problem with the humped fixed OEM stock and the irons.  I did.  I've never heard of folks having problems with AKs in this area.  Also, while I found the standard folder a good alternative, its just not optimum. 

The AK is generally better (TODAY) because of decades of modifications, and now a crapload of aftermarket options that alleviate all the primary ailments.  The aftermarket for the VZ is very minimal. 

A stock AKM and a stock VZ 58 might be a comparison.  The VZ is cooler though.

Think we've already covered all of this, but:

- The taller optics/sights over bore is primarily a modern requirement due to over the ear hearing pro (w/ integral comms and electronic assisted hearing), night vision, and accessories like PEQ-15, as well as the increase use of thumb over bore.
- The need or benefit for low optics/sights over bore is only of benefit/use at bad breath/CQB distance -- meaning primarily law enforcement and special military units.  For super-close use weapons with low sight height over bore, you need to look at handguns, shoguns, and some pdws.
- Low sight height over bore was standard through M14 in US military weapon history/rifle before M16 & M4.  It is still standard for all hunting and target rifles, etc, where you're engaging at unknown distance -- allows concern just for ranging distance and not additional sight over bore, etc.
- There are many, many complaints about AK stocks for anyone familiar, the under-folders being notoriously terrible.  Just google: ak stock bad cheek weld

Ultimately, the Vz58 was made in the late 1950s and was far ahead of contemporaries at the time.  And just like 1950s automobiles versus today, many improvements and upgrades have occurred in the interim and comparing a 1950s auto to a modern production one using only modern needs/priorities will always result in the older model "losing" as many modern needs/requirements weren't even considerations when those 1950s creations were designed.

If you need a long form re: height over bore for civilian defensive use: https://www.grantcunningham.com/2016/06/the-ar-15-does-a-lot-of-things-well-except-this/

THE AR-15 DOES A LOT OF THINGS WELL. EXCEPT THIS.
Sometimes I think I’m the only person in the shooting/self defense field who’s actually thinking about the average person: the man or woman who doesn’t want to become a soldier or a police officer, doesn’t want to look like one, doesn’t want to spend all their free time on a shooting range, and doesn’t care about a PR in a WOD. (I had to look those up to figure out what they were, too!) I mention this because I take a lot of heat from people who are heavily into the athletic and enthusiast parts of the self defense business, those for whom shooting and training is an all-consuming hobby.

The latest criticism from the hobbyist camp came as the result of a remark I made about guns like the M1 Carbine, Ruger Mini-14, and lever-action rifles and their application for home defense. The responses almost all centered on one common thought: “what can they do that an AR-15 can’t, and for less money?” I was then regaled with tales of the hobbyist: how you can get all kinds of different triggers and stocks and sights and handguards and grips and magazines and accessories for what was their favorite gun.

I don’t deny any of that. The reality is, though, that the guns I mentioned do have some advantages over the AR-15, and one in particular is something the AR does incredibly poorly. It’s also something which is hard for non-hobbyists to understand, and one which trips up even quite a few of the “experienced” shooters. In short, the AR-15 doesn’t always put bullets where the shooter expects them to go at normal defensive distances!

Before you get all upset and call me names, allow me to explain.

This issue with the AR-15 revolves around the fact that its sights sit very high above the bore of the barrel — 2-1/2 inches high, which much higher than in any typical hunting rifle and higher than any rifle which our military had used up to its introduction. The reason for this is because the AR-15 barrel sits inline with the buttstock to minimize the recoil and muzzle flip during full-auto fire — a valid military consideration. The problem, however, is that the barrel sitting so low wouldn’t allow a human head to see through the sights if they were mounted in a traditional manner. The solution was to raise the sights, either optical or iron, in order to meet the eyes.

At normal military-type rifle shooting distances this sight offset (known as height-over-bore) doesn’t present too much of an issue. The problem comes when the rifle is pressed into service at close ranges, because the difference between where the sights are and where the bullets come out can be up to 2-1/2 inches. That means at very close distances the bullet is going to impact the target 2-1/2 inches below where the sights are pointing!

Now this impact difference irons itself out as the distance increases; beyond about 25 yards or so, it ceases to become a major concern. Hopefully, though, you see the problem: I doubt any room in your house is longer than 25 yards, which means if you have that AR-15 for in-home defense you’ll need to consciously remember to aim around 2 inches higher than where you want the bullets to hit!

I’ll concede that if you’re shooting at the upper chest of a home invader the difference in impact point probably isn’t significant; if you need to make a more precise shot, however, you definitely have to take that impact difference into account and choose a different aiming point “on the fly”!

No problem, you say? You’ll just train yourself to do that? You’d be surprised how many rifle students I’ve seen who, even after a couple of days of training and being reminded many times, will still forget to adjust their aim point when they get closer than that 25 yard mark. Mix in the normal mental and physical changes as the result of a lethal threat, and I suspect most people are just going to put their sights on target and pull the trigger without ever considering the sight offset. If people forget to do it on a nice sunny range with only yours truly supplying a little pressure, they’ll almost certainly forget it when the guy with the hatchet comes through their door!

It’s possible, and I’ve heard it suggested, that the user simply sight the gun in to produce the desired point of impact at a very close distance — say, 5 yards/15 feet (some sighting arrangements may not even allow a zero at such a close distance.) This would give the typical homeowner point-of-aim, point-of-impact at a typical room distance. But what if the shot needed is just a little further out — say, in your hallway or garage or yard? At just 30 feet, the bullet would hit about 2-1/2 inches high; at 45 feet, it’d be 4-1/2 inches high; and it gets MUCH worse from there. When you have a high height-over-bore, this is simply a fact of life; you’re going to need to remember to compensate somewhere, and the only question is at what distance you prefer to do it.

As I said, even experienced shooters often fail to remember to adjust for the sight offset at close distances. It takes a lot of training under realistic conditions to do so consistently. The big advantage that guns like the M1 Carbine, lever-action, and Mini-14 have is that they’re designed with conventional buttstocks, which bring their sights up to the eye of the shooter. This results in their sighting arrangements being physically close to the bore line, which means that the sight/impact differential is less than an inch — sometimes much less. The M1 Carbine sight pictured, for instance, has a sight height of only 3/4 of an inch. That’s inconsequential at any self defense distance.

At any plausible defensive shooting distance, then, these rifles will have a point-of-aim, point-of-impact that are essentially the same. The shooter doesn’t need to remember to compensate for the sight offset during critical shots, which means that their job is easier; they can concentrate on dealing with the threat, not on arcane operations of their gun. That’s a huge and almost always overlooked advantage.

The hobbyists will screech “it’s just a training issue!” Yes, it is — that’s my whole point. It’s something that has to be trained, takes a lot of time and repetitions to master, and for the average person may never become an intuitive skill. I’m certainly not saying that the M1 Carbine, Mini-14 and lever action rifles are perfect, and they may or may not be a good choice for a defensive tool for other reasons, but we need to acknowledge that they do in fact have some compelling advantages. The fact that they put their bullets where they’re aimed, every time, is a big one!

– Grant Cunningham

[MeatAxe]

I don’t think the 2.5” low sight to barrel offset of shooting rapid fire at close range with a modern “assault” rifle is going to make much difference to the target, terminal ballistics-wise.

Add all the pros and cons of a “traditional” rifle configuration with low sights (e.g. an M1 carbine) vs. a modern “heads up” “assault” rifle (e.g.: an AR15) and the modern “assault” rifle wins in my book.

It’s evolution, along with optics, lights, lasers, etc. In fact, I can’t think of one modern military rifle that doesn’t carry its gas system on top of the barrel (which creates the 2.5” barrel / sight offset) rather than the traditional M1 type where the gas system lays under the barrel.

[RSR]

I don’t think the 2.5” low sight to barrel offset of shooting rapid fire at close range with a modern “assault” rifle is going to make much difference to the target, terminal ballistics-wise.

Add all the pros and cons of a “traditional” rifle configuration with low sights (e.g. an M1 carbine) vs. a modern “heads up” “assault” rifle (e.g.: an AR15) and the modern “assault” rifle wins in my book.

It’s evolution, along with optics, lights, lasers, etc. In fact, I can’t think of one modern military rifle that doesn’t carry its gas system on top of the barrel (which creates the 2.5” barrel / sight offset) rather than the traditional M1 type where the gas system lays under the barrel.

Of course sights have nothing to do w/ terminal ballistics of a given round. 

Precision does matter if shooting a pistol caliber or subsonic round, hostage rescue, humanely taking an animal/game, needing to account for a round fired w/o a hard backstop (such as home defense w/ bad guy partially concealed), precision-prioritizing shooting sports, zeroing weapons at shorter ranges, etc.

Regardless, I feel like we're needlessly belaboring something that's off-topic. 

Of my last post and the article shared, what specifically are you objecting to?

https://www.grantcunningham.com/2016/06/the-ar-15-does-a-lot-of-things-well-except-this/

THE AR-15 DOES A LOT OF THINGS WELL. EXCEPT THIS.
Sometimes I think I’m the only person in the shooting/self defense field who’s actually thinking about the average person: the man or woman who doesn’t want to become a soldier or a police officer, doesn’t want to look like one, doesn’t want to spend all their free time on a shooting range, and doesn’t care about a PR in a WOD. (I had to look those up to figure out what they were, too!) I mention this because I take a lot of heat from people who are heavily into the athletic and enthusiast parts of the self defense business, those for whom shooting and training is an all-consuming hobby.

The latest criticism from the hobbyist camp came as the result of a remark I made about guns like the M1 Carbine, Ruger Mini-14, and lever-action rifles and their application for home defense. The responses almost all centered on one common thought: “what can they do that an AR-15 can’t, and for less money?” I was then regaled with tales of the hobbyist: how you can get all kinds of different triggers and stocks and sights and handguards and grips and magazines and accessories for what was their favorite gun.

I don’t deny any of that. The reality is, though, that the guns I mentioned do have some advantages over the AR-15, and one in particular is something the AR does incredibly poorly. It’s also something which is hard for non-hobbyists to understand, and one which trips up even quite a few of the “experienced” shooters. In short, the AR-15 doesn’t always put bullets where the shooter expects them to go at normal defensive distances!

Before you get all upset and call me names, allow me to explain.

This issue with the AR-15 revolves around the fact that its sights sit very high above the bore of the barrel — 2-1/2 inches high, which much higher than in any typical hunting rifle and higher than any rifle which our military had used up to its introduction. The reason for this is because the AR-15 barrel sits inline with the buttstock to minimize the recoil and muzzle flip during full-auto fire — a valid military consideration. The problem, however, is that the barrel sitting so low wouldn’t allow a human head to see through the sights if they were mounted in a traditional manner. The solution was to raise the sights, either optical or iron, in order to meet the eyes.

At normal military-type rifle shooting distances this sight offset (known as height-over-bore) doesn’t present too much of an issue. The problem comes when the rifle is pressed into service at close ranges, because the difference between where the sights are and where the bullets come out can be up to 2-1/2 inches. That means at very close distances the bullet is going to impact the target 2-1/2 inches below where the sights are pointing!

Now this impact difference irons itself out as the distance increases; beyond about 25 yards or so, it ceases to become a major concern. Hopefully, though, you see the problem: I doubt any room in your house is longer than 25 yards, which means if you have that AR-15 for in-home defense you’ll need to consciously remember to aim around 2 inches higher than where you want the bullets to hit!

I’ll concede that if you’re shooting at the upper chest of a home invader the difference in impact point probably isn’t significant; if you need to make a more precise shot, however, you definitely have to take that impact difference into account and choose a different aiming point “on the fly”!

No problem, you say? You’ll just train yourself to do that? You’d be surprised how many rifle students I’ve seen who, even after a couple of days of training and being reminded many times, will still forget to adjust their aim point when they get closer than that 25 yard mark. Mix in the normal mental and physical changes as the result of a lethal threat, and I suspect most people are just going to put their sights on target and pull the trigger without ever considering the sight offset. If people forget to do it on a nice sunny range with only yours truly supplying a little pressure, they’ll almost certainly forget it when the guy with the hatchet comes through their door!

It’s possible, and I’ve heard it suggested, that the user simply sight the gun in to produce the desired point of impact at a very close distance — say, 5 yards/15 feet (some sighting arrangements may not even allow a zero at such a close distance.) This would give the typical homeowner point-of-aim, point-of-impact at a typical room distance. But what if the shot needed is just a little further out — say, in your hallway or garage or yard? At just 30 feet, the bullet would hit about 2-1/2 inches high; at 45 feet, it’d be 4-1/2 inches high; and it gets MUCH worse from there. When you have a high height-over-bore, this is simply a fact of life; you’re going to need to remember to compensate somewhere, and the only question is at what distance you prefer to do it.

As I said, even experienced shooters often fail to remember to adjust for the sight offset at close distances. It takes a lot of training under realistic conditions to do so consistently. The big advantage that guns like the M1 Carbine, lever-action, and Mini-14 have is that they’re designed with conventional buttstocks, which bring their sights up to the eye of the shooter. This results in their sighting arrangements being physically close to the bore line, which means that the sight/impact differential is less than an inch — sometimes much less. The M1 Carbine sight pictured, for instance, has a sight height of only 3/4 of an inch. That’s inconsequential at any self defense distance.

At any plausible defensive shooting distance, then, these rifles will have a point-of-aim, point-of-impact that are essentially the same. The shooter doesn’t need to remember to compensate for the sight offset during critical shots, which means that their job is easier; they can concentrate on dealing with the threat, not on arcane operations of their gun. That’s a huge and almost always overlooked advantage.

The hobbyists will screech “it’s just a training issue!” Yes, it is — that’s my whole point. It’s something that has to be trained, takes a lot of time and repetitions to master, and for the average person may never become an intuitive skill. I’m certainly not saying that the M1 Carbine, Mini-14 and lever action rifles are perfect, and they may or may not be a good choice for a defensive tool for other reasons, but we need to acknowledge that they do in fact have some compelling advantages. The fact that they put their bullets where they’re aimed, every time, is a big one!

– Grant Cunningham

[briang2ad]

- There are many, many complaints about AK stocks for anyone familiar, the under-folders being notoriously terrible.  Just google: ak stock bad cheek weld

Never heard of anyone getting cheekslap from an AK with standard setup and decent stance.  I've heard about it and felt it in a big way with the VZ.  The VZ fixed stock profile is uniquely positioned to crush your cheek upon recoil in certain positions.

AK and all current assault rifles designed and fielded before 'ear pro' and other accessories were an issue in design requirements.

I ONLY commented on the folder because it is the ONLY way I can shoot the VZ in standard setup without bruising my cheek.   

AK cheek weld issues arise with optics.  Period.  I suppose some with odd faces and odd shooting positions MAY have issues.  I cannot pick up a stock AK and NOT get a good comfortable cheekweld with irons. 

The VZ58 is hamstrung with a limited aftermarket.