The "spray and pray" guns with proper technique bridge the gap between pistol and carbine and perform squarely within that envelope. "Spray and pray" is largely a phenomenon of operator error.
With the AR pistol above I can rapid fire a 25rd, 20 yd group of 7-8." The barrel is being replaced under warranty due to being capable of only 3-4" at that distance. Once I get the replacement those figures should improve markedly.
The stockless shotguns are a bit useless, and unpleasant with any serious load.
Pistol calibers are a lot more practical in the carbine based stockless pistols.
The extension tube only pistol and firearm I own are exceptional. They both have carbine like handling and accuracy. The shorter one is funner as it's smaller and more rowdy, the bigger firearm is a little boring as it shoots just like a 16" carbine.
There's nothing I enjoy more than proving naysayers wrong. This makes me want an SP5K AOW more than ever
Thinking on it, I'd probably rather get a can for the 9mm SBR.
In response, the extension tube-less AR-22 pistol is mostly for fun and suppressed shooting. I've been using it on an SBR lower occasionally, but will likely keep it with its own lower once the 9mm SBR is completed.
The 7" 5.56 pistol is handy and loads of fun. It makes a good backpack range gun. With the right loads it could be suitable for defense.
The other gun in firearm configuration is my home gun. It's extremely capable...being as smooth shooting and accurate as a 16" rifle...just losing a bit of velocity and comfort.
They all have a bit of a niche and I like them all.
Since I've owned the AR pistols my 16" rifle has been largely collecting dust.
Back in the Wild West days, well over a century ago, Carbines with barrels in the 14 inch range were not uncommon. Perfect for the stage coach or saddle holster.
Today the military has gone back to the coach gun size for the same reasons.
But that 12" carbine has not well thought out laws restricting it. Hence....
The AR clone I used to have had a 22" heavy barrel, and fixed stock. ( I was going to replace the stock with a target stock, but gave it away first ) I'd just put 1" "shoot n see" dots ( pasters ) on the targets at the 100 yard range, then try and put one magazine into each.
I tried the Knox recoil reduction stock on a Remington 870 12 ga.
Reduced kick down to 20 ga. levels no problem. But the cheek rest is stock hard plastic M4 collapsible and smacks the face pretty hard if you go for a solid cheek weld. Perfect setup for a red dot or holographic sight with a light cheek contact.
It is long past time to restore the rule of law in America. If a judge refuses to acknowledge basic English, preferring instead to grotesquely contort the law in favor of government authority over the people rather than upholding and protecting the rights of the people against infringement by government, said judge must be thrown off the court. Impeach.
Nice accuracy. ... considering my old Bushmaster Varminter weighed half a ton more and barely fits in an easy rider rifle rack.
The Heavy barrel, fluted or not, in the extra long size probably weighs as much as one of those pistols, alone. Not a mountain hunting rifle. Meant for sitting still and shooting at prairie poodles out near the horizon. Preferably with a bench & bags, or with Bipod. I used a modular Versa Pod model. Quick on & off.
Pluses were the light weight and quick change from prone to seated to standing lengths. Rubber tubing allowed quick aiming, perfect for cleaning a plate rack at range.
Downside of the Versa Pod is it's not as solid as a Harris bipod. At longer ranges you want oak, not willow.
My next AR will have a floating fore end ( a must for precision ) with mounting holes for whatever extra I want. A real Harris is first.
What looks like the good modular hole setup? Keymod?
The AK stock is designed to shoot low. Troops in armored vehicles and a 100 meter designed impact zone. Pinpoint accuracy wasn't on the features list.
Doesn't mean that they can't be accurate, just that Soviet issue isn't sure to be a target rifle. It does fine at "minute of man" shooting. More than enough power and legendary durability in the hands of untrained militias.
Ever seen the slow motion video of AK vs. AR? AK wiggles and bends, AR is stiffer and all one piece?
But even issue ARs are just decent. Free float barrels and civilian target tuning have really made the AR the choice of target and hunting shooters.
It wasn't that long ago that the minute of angle accuracy promised and delivered by bargain Weatherby's, Savage, Ruger, & some ARs was a rare thing.
You'd spend well over a thousand dollars on custom rifles that couldn't equal the "packaged with a scope" sale item at Gander Mt.
The optics are better too.
That said, some Iron Curtain states just make good gear. The Czech stuff, for example. Even their helicopters are improved from Soviet original.
The AK vs AR accuracy myth is largely that. With similar guns (rack grade AK vs M4, for example) and similar sights/optics they're not so far apart. One to two MOA advantage AR. In practical terms it's nearly meaningless.
The AK vs AR reliability is just that as well. The AR's get less crap in them to begin with, the AK's deal with crap a little better. Most mud/sand tests have them relatively even.
One of these is effective to 800 yards. It's not the AR.
The AR is also a reduced power round designed weapon. In military form a true assault rifle. The 5.56 just doesn't carry supersonic at 800. Make that an AR-10 comparison and it's more even. Roughly same ballistics.
There's a reason they use .300 Winchester Magnum for Navy snipers. ( and other weapons )
But your point that rack grade AR vs. AK is close is valid. Arguably the 7.63 x 39 is a "better" round. I'll take the 5.56 out past 200 yards but the 7.62 if I need to shoot a car or take out a door. ( not anticipating either )
My argument is, compared to the AK, or even the Garand, it's easier to make the AR a very accurate weapon. By it's nature. And compared to many others the rail upper AR variants are much easier to mount an optic on.
The SKS is ok with a scout scope IF you get the right mount that replaces the rear sight. The one I had, you needed to remove & re-zero the scope to clean the gas tube. ( not needed daily.... but occasionally ) After I bought mine, better ones came out.
The great FN FAL isn't scope friendly either.
Most AK clones have side mounts that seem better than the old Garand ones. It's not a cut & dried matter.
7.62x39 is popular here, but in military use the standard has been 5.45x39 for some time in the AK-74. Maximum effective ranges are identical in AK vs AR in that case. The Russian round has given up a large close range wound cavity for enhanced penetration.
The AR is certainly more versatile and far more easily customizable.
Their OTM 62 gr. was just about 1" groups at 100 yards. ( in a long heavy barrel varmint rifle ) Winchester white box 55 gr. was about the same. Foreign bargain brands varied box to box, but 4" groups were not a surprise. I didn't try heavier than 66 gr. OTM and that was 2-3" groups so I figured 55-62 was the sweet spot.
Most surplus military ammo, old to new, that I've tried in a variety of guns is just like the civilian stuff. The gun likes what it likes. Stuff a buddy's AK thought was target ammo was junk in my SKS, and vice versa.