PDA

View Full Version : AK-74 vs AR-15


Minator
April 23, 2006, 04:44 PM
5.45 and 5.56 are almost exactly the same yet operate totally different. On one hand since 5.56 is manufactered domesticaly so there is almost an endless supply and loadings but costs a little more.

Since 5.45 isnt made here there is a limited amount of types and supply but its cheaper.

Its proven the Ak handles adverse conditions and excessive abuse, but Its accuracy is limited. An AR preforms just as well if kept In a decent condition and they also make a gas piston upper so the way the system operates doesnt matter anymore because they are close to mimicing eachother.

Magazines are abundant for both and are around the same price.

An AR has an endless amount of accesories and parts, but so does the 74
which is one of the reasons I cant make up my mind I only want one type of midsize semi-rifles so If I pick an AR im staying with AR's so I dont have an excessive amount of mags and ammo other than for the one type. Ive owned both I know how to clean and build both.

Does anyone have any experiences or preferences that would push them in one direction more than another if they were in the middle of a decision similar to this.

Syntax360
April 23, 2006, 07:45 PM
Unfortunately, I don't have any constructive input, but I do have a newb question. What is the advantage/difference between the 5.45 and the 7.62? Before I had any interest in long guns, I always assumed all AK's were 7.62. Now I know better, but I don't have the slightest idea what advantages one caliber has over the other or the physical differences in contruction of both rounds. A little enlightenment would be greatly appreciated :D

Jguy101
April 23, 2006, 08:20 PM
AK. I don't know if 5.45x39mm is on par with the .223, but they're reliable as heck. Dip 'em in mud, pull 'em out, and empty a mag onto a target. They'll do it.

Impact of Reason
April 23, 2006, 08:38 PM
difference between 5.56 and 5.45 are that 5.45 typically comes with lighter bullet weights, but seems to have a tendancy to tumble moreso that the 5.56 on impact. i'm not sure how they compare in terms of accuracy or flight characteristics. the ruskies had a type of 5.45 round refered by the afghans as "poison bullets" because they were so deadly, since they were FMJ but had a hollow space inside the tip which made them tumble like crazy on impact.



difference between the 5.45 and the 7.62?

5.45 would recoil less, have a flatter trajectory, higher velocity, more accurate at closer ranges, lighter weight.

7.62 penetrates more through objects, has heavier bullet weight which allows it to go a little further.

which one is deadlier? i'd think that the russian "poison bullet" hollow tipped 5.45 would be more deadly than a standard FMJ 7.62, but that 7.62 would be more deadly than a standard, FMJ 5.45.

Lycanthrope
April 23, 2006, 10:19 PM
If you want a gun that runs in any condition, but shoots patterns get the AK.

If you want a gun that runs when clean, and shoots tight groups get the AR.

Both make big holes with the correct bullet with the AR being a better long range weapon (better accuracy and flatter shooting).

Modifications? AR by A LOT.

Syntax360
April 23, 2006, 10:28 PM
But isn't tumbling a pretty bunk thing altogether? We're not talking about magic buzz-sawing bullets, are we? When a lot of people are describing the effects of a 5.56 on a target, I hear them refer to how the bullet tumbles at like 15k rps, but even at that rate the bullet might spin once going through the target's body. Oh - thanks for the response!

Minator
April 23, 2006, 11:46 PM
The differences that I know of between 5.56 and 5.45, is that the 5.56 was made to fragment which it does but you haft to send out of at the very least a 16" barrel. The only difference in the 5.45 is its smaller yet has a tendancy to tumble more than the 5.56 fragments.

The only draw back of the 7.62 is its range.

Thats pretty much why I didnt care about wether it was 5.45 or 5.56 I just want to be sure when I get the 74 wether I ll have ammo and accesories.

Also does anyone know of a manufacture that sales 74s other than aresnal someone told me you can get them about the same price as a romanian but they rise in quality and price like the normal 7.62

Zebulon Batty
April 24, 2006, 12:09 AM
I would say AR-15.

I have two 5.45 rifles; a Romanian Sar-2 and an Arsenal SLR-105 and I also have a Rock River AR-15. Comparing my 74s with my AR, I would have to say that I prefer the AR. About the same kick but the AR is more accurate plus it's more ergonomic.

The 5.45 ammo is cheaper for now but I keep hearing that it's going to go up in price because there isn't much demand for it. Last time I talked to someone at Arsenal, they said they discontinued their 5.45 rifles because most people want AKs in 7.62 or 5.56. Also, there is a wider variety of loads for the 5.56 and all of my shooting friends have at least one 5.56 caliber rifle.

I like my 5.45 rifles and I've spent alot of money on accessories for them so I won't be getting rid of them any time soon. But if I had it to do over again, I would just stick to my 7.62 AKs and my 5.56 AR.

Demon5Romeo
April 24, 2006, 11:55 AM
If you are only going to choose one I would get the AR-15 because 5.56 is made domestically and very common. I have used the M4 extensively in combat without any trouble. 5.56 does its job.

With that said, I am a big fan of the AK-74 and 5.45. It is accurate, extremely controllable, and a joy to shoot. I do believe that 5.45 is more effective than 5.56 because of the bullet design. It doesn't rely on velocity to fragment or tumble. 5.45 x 39mm is a much more accurate round than 7.62 x 39mm. I would put my AK-74 clones up against my standard 16" AR any day as far as accuracy. The drawback of the AK-74 is the sights. The sights on an AR-15 are much better. 5.45 is fast becomeing one of my favorite rounds.

rangerruck
April 26, 2006, 07:11 PM
if accuracy is not your bag, or cheap rounds, the 545 round has it all over the 223, plus the ak gives you an ooh ahh factor.

Lycanthrope
April 26, 2006, 07:29 PM
.....plus the ak gives you an ooh ahh factor.

Only in rap videos. :D

Limeyfellow
April 26, 2006, 07:35 PM
It would have to be the ak. I just couldn't consciously join the Ar fanboy crowd where everyone and their pet has one because like the military have a version of it.

Chaingunner
April 26, 2006, 07:37 PM
from what I understand, no bullet actually tumbles in the sense that it spins end over end over end like a saw...The most they'll really go is around 180 degrees, at which point they're going butt-end first through meat (or whatever you're shooting).

Lycanthrope
April 26, 2006, 07:44 PM
The .223 bullets fragment at closer ranges in FMJ and will fragent at almost any range with a varmint bullet. The wound channel is nasty.

BUSTER51
April 26, 2006, 07:53 PM
The 5.56x45 is a very slightly better preformer than the 5.45x39 with the ammo you can curently get now ,the real deal rusky stuff is damn good at it's job and a great anti personal round . they are not going to import the good stuff any more so its a moot point . I say get them both an AK and an AR .:D

Rimrod
April 26, 2006, 08:37 PM
I pulled a 5.45 bullet years ago. It measured about .224 inches in diameter. This didn't surprise me since their 7.62 is a .311, I figured the 5.45 would be bigger than it sounds. Now if someone would start making brass cases I can start reloading for this thing and push it to the extreme.

ke6ziu
April 27, 2006, 05:55 AM
I do have experience with the AK74, and I can tell you that the 74 is superior to the M16. You have the legendary reliablity of the AK family, plus the hard hitting accuracy of the M-16. The best part is that the 74 feeds better than the 16, you don't have to seat the rounds in the magazine (those of you that have used the M16 in combat will know what I'm talking about; remember tapping your helmet with your mag?), and best of all, it's as accurate as an M16; no joke... If you can get ahold of a variant chambered for 5.56mm, commonly known as the ak103...you've got the best of all worlds. I just wished that when they built the mags for the M16, they'd have left them straight or did something to improve feeding with the 30rd mag.

ranger dave
April 27, 2006, 05:59 PM
the round is for the most part a 22 ppc i know they are not the same round. a few years ago i got a boult gun from sog in 5.45x39 and after i got rid of the scope that came with it was the best out of the box rifle i own. now here is where you will all lose it i reload the steel case i recut the primer pockets and neck size only ( its a bolt gun ). i got the dies from rcbs . ilove it i have killed more ground hogs then i can remember

Tuckerp229
December 31, 2009, 10:55 AM
Food for thought on this old assumption and old thread. I was very surprised after watching both videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8SSQ_wIG4o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo5WhVvtYak

I never would've guessed these results.

RockyMtnTactical
December 31, 2009, 03:28 PM
I like the AR15 better.

M4Sherman
December 31, 2009, 03:32 PM
Just an F.Y.I the AK-74M is accurate out to 585m if I remember right so as far as accuracy is concerned it is on par with a M-16

DanThaMan
December 31, 2009, 04:40 PM
Let the gun pick you. Both have their strong points, as you made clear. So go to the range, go to the shop, and handle both. If you believe they are equally suitable guns for what you want.. then why it comes down to whicever gun feels best in your hands.

However, that's not what you wanted to hear. So I'll cast my vote for the proven and robust AR 15. Go with a good manufacturer, and observe yourself never grow tired of it because you can readily transform it to meet more than one purpose.

Instead of having a rifle for my every need, I only need my reliable RRA Carbine length AR 15 and a plethera of parts and accessories that I can switch out in a couple minutes. The rest of my rifles are for kicks :cool:

And please disregard anyone who submits to internet rumor abou the reliability of an AR 15. the tolerance levels of ARs and AKs are very similar (http://thesurvivalpodcast.com/forum/index.php?topic=1731.0)

RT
December 31, 2009, 05:02 PM
My Arsenal has failed more often than my 6920-- Crappy AK promag versus Magpul PMag. My Arsenal SLR106's accuracy in on par with a AR-15. Choose whichever you like, use quality parts and accessories, and feed it quality ammo

erwos
December 31, 2009, 05:23 PM
Notably, you CAN get an AR-15 in 5.45, so if your love of 5.45 over 5.56 is what's pushing you towards an AK-74, that's something to consider.

SeattleGunNut
December 31, 2009, 05:47 PM
Eh, bad idea. The biggest benefit of the 5.45 cartridge is the fact that it's slung from a Kalashnikov. I own the S&W M&P 5.45 AR-15, and while it's a great training gun, the feed reliability leaves MUCH to be desired. The magazines are absolutely terrible for 5.45x39 on an AR-15 platform.. The only ones available (to my knowledge) are made by C Products and they are some of the worst built mags I've ever had the displeasure of using. Poorly made doesn't even begin to describe how bad they are.

allons
January 1, 2010, 01:40 AM
WOW!! seattle, I've had just the opposite kinda luck with my 2 S&W uppers and the CProducts 5.45x39 mags. I've got 20 of them and only had to tweek the feed lips on 1 to get 100% out of it! You must have got some real duds!

You probably know already, but CProducts mags are guaranteed for life. Just send them back and you'll have new ones in about 2 weeks. IMHO Larry at CProd. is a real gentleman.

SeattleGunNut
January 1, 2010, 03:53 AM
The feed geometry of the AR platform just doesn't lend itself well to dense mags full of sharply tapered cartridges. I own four of the C Products magazines, and they're all terrible. Sure, on a bench I can often go several mags without a failure to feed, but they do inevitably happen. Especially if the mag isn't sharply whacked against my palm like a pack of cigarettes. There is just too much front-to-back play in the magazines for my taste. Unless the primers are pretty much flush against the back of the mag, you will run into feed issues.

If it were a rifle I was banging around through brush, dragging through muck, and otherwise entrusting my life to, the S&W M&P in 5.45x39 would be the last rifle I choose. Great range gun or short-to-midrange varmint rifle, but definitely not a SHTF gun by any stretch of the imagination.

I own two Tantals, one from CAI, and another from Interarms, and both have chewed through nearly 10,000 rounds apiece without a single feed issue. That sort of reliability is virtually unmatched. If I were buying a 5.45 today, there is no way it would be anything but a Kalashnikov platform, unless of course the entire gun were designed around feeding and firing 5.45.

I even have one 5.45 magazine which, for whatever reason, rubs against the bolt carrier in both guns. There is so much friction that it makes charging the gun a laborious task, yet both rifles operate perfectly with that iffy mag in there. That is the sort of reliability legends are built upon. I love my ARs, owning 3 of them, but the nature of their operation will never, ever allow them to be that reliable.

allons
January 1, 2010, 05:29 AM
Sorry seattle, I thought you were saying in your previous post that you had problems with the 5.45x39 CProducts mags & S&W AR specifically. I kinda thought maybe you had some bad mags because I'm over 7,000 rds of Bulgy surplus thru my 3 ARs in 5.45 with only 4 failures, all were due to bad primers.

I see now that you are saying the M-16, AR platform is not, can never be reliable due to it's design. Thats good to know, I'll have to remember that. Darn, then I can probably expect problems with my other 14 ARs, that is good to know. Guess I've just been lucky so far, they all run 100%. Of course all my AKs do too.

Thanks again for the "heads-up", Ken

Firepower!
January 1, 2010, 05:34 AM
I have quite a few of both. Apart from Kirinkov AKS74U, when chosing a 22 caliber high velocity weapon I will always lean toward the AR design; hence I have a few M4s and M4A1. However, when 22 caliber high velocity is not a consideration, I always lean towards the AK platform for it realibility and 7.62x39 punch. Thus, if one is limiting himself to 5.45 or 5.56, there is much you can get in AR based gun than an AK.

SeattleGunNut
January 1, 2010, 05:45 AM
I've nothing against the AR platform. It just inherently sucks at feeding tapered Russian cartridges. If one was to purchase an AR for SHTF duty, they would be best served by sticking with the 5.56 and 6.8s of the world. The 5.45 ARs were never meant to be anything other than a training gun which can capitalize on the steady supply of cheap Russian 5.45x39 ammunition.

stubbicatt
January 1, 2010, 08:01 AM
I really enjoyed the 5.45 round when I messed around with it a few years back. I remember chronographing the round from the Kalashnikov barrel (16") at a velocity higher than I was getting from RG ammo in the 20" AR15 barrel. Bullet weights are about the same +/- 3 grains.

I used to resize the .224" bullets and seat them in the steel cases and get some pretty respectable accuracy and downrange performance from them.

I dunno. I guess it just comes with the territory of being a gun crank.

Mutatio Nomenis
May 23, 2010, 06:49 PM
I'm pretty sure AK-74>AR-15. They both have similar accuracy and such. However, the 74 is more rugged, cheaper, and a more devastating round, even in military FMJ. Forgive me for digging up an old topic, but I had to put in my 2 cents.

hagar
May 24, 2010, 09:13 AM
I have a Sar-2, a Wasr, and a 20 inch AR15 5.45 upper. They all shoot great, but so do my AR15's in 5.56. If I had to use FMJ ammo for self defence, I probably would go with the 5.45, but the 68/75 grain Hornady bullets are much superior to anything in 5.45. I would pick the AK74 above the AK47, my prior experience with the 47 was pretty dismal, most of them could not consistently hit a 12 inch plate at 100 yards, and are at most a 250 yard very inaccurate cartridge. The 5.45 on the other hand could hit small rocks as far as I could see them.

JohnH1963
May 24, 2010, 11:47 AM
The current authority on the web is Nutnfancy and he says the AR is *the best* by far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcWCkmocbLI

TRguy
May 24, 2010, 01:25 PM
General George S. Patton Jr.'s famous quote; "In my opinion, the M1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised."


I for one think the '06 was a better round than the 8mm, however the M1 had that nasty "CHING" at the end of a clip....huh?....what? you say this thread is comparing the AK74 vs the AR15....hum oh okay....Carry on folks....nothing to see here.

Quit your rubber necking

thesheepdog
May 24, 2010, 04:10 PM
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8SSQ_wIG4o[/URL]

We don't need another debate here on which gun is better.

Some points of interest for fans of the AK and the AR:

1. AR is a lot more reliable than most people want to believe. I think a lot of people who trash talk the AR need to get out of Vietnam times-when corroisve ammo and non-chrome barrels were used-and look at how well the AR type rifles have served in the war on terrorism. Modern Day AR's are much higher quality and as you can see in the youtube video, the AR is more reliable than the AK. A good bolt will fix most issues of reliability, even though i have personally never seen an AR jam due to the operation of the gun, rather, a bad magazine caused a few jams.
2.The AR is a long range weapon. It doesn't have the punch of the AK, but it still has deadly ballistics, out to farther distances than the AK.
3. 5.56 ammo complaints-not dropping assailants. This issue is a two sided issue due to the Geneva convention and some past enemies being on drugs during combat. The military is stuck using armor piercing FMJ's that basically punch holes in stuff rather than cause terminal damage. A hollowpoint would fix that issue in a heartbeat. Regardless, i wouild not want to be shot by either.
4. Ak's are not accurate and are not ergonomic. AR wins in the accuracy contest-which is how war is won, accuracy, not the toughest gun.
5. AR's are more customizable than Ak's.
6. A friend of mine is an ex-Ranger who served in several operations and he trusted his life with the AR, but always carried an AK in his humvee in case he needed to penetrate harder targets.

There are multiple torture tests on youtube that prove the AR is very reliable with the DI gas system. If you still are worried about DI operation, get a GP setup and prepare to lose some accuracy.

Original Username
May 27, 2010, 05:28 PM
I don't know I shoot an ak-74 with a 4x scope and hit targets in a 1-1 1/2 inch grouping reliably (similar to an ar's 1 inch) The only negative is the iron sights which only have a 15" distance from front to rear... thus why it's more innacurate with basic shooting...

Meanwhile the ar piston system (short stroke, not a ak systems long stroke..) precision part don't allow function with dirt or gunk in the reciever.. thus lessening reliability....

to me an ak-74 is a more versatile firearm for way less money...

RT
May 27, 2010, 07:48 PM
AR carbines and Aks have the same sight radius.
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n443/thorm001/Guns/IMG_0001-5.jpg

Kmar40
May 27, 2010, 07:50 PM
I've never fired an AK74 or AKM/AK47 type rifle that was anywhere close to an AR in accuracy.

Just because the 5.45 is higher velocity and theoretically more capable of longer shot doesn't mean that the AK74 is just as capable. It still has the loose clearances, stamped receiver, and other features that means much less accuracy.

It's still an AK afterall. Criteria such as cheapness, ease of manufacture and reliability were the most important to the designers.

Kmar40
May 27, 2010, 07:52 PM
AR carbines and Aks have the same sight radius.

But not the same type of sights. The AK sights are still rudimentary leaf designs. Far less accurate than a peep sight.

5.56RifleGuy
May 27, 2010, 08:31 PM
I figure the AK and AR are both about the same level of reliablility. How many off us are really planning to bury our rifles in the mud and pick them up and fire them anyway?

I like my Ar more than my ak, but I love both. Im picking up my 74 on saturday, so we will see how i like that. Ive never had any problems with either rifle, and I dont really expect to.

Volucris
May 27, 2010, 10:53 PM
But not the same type of sights. The AK sights are still rudimentary leaf designs. Far less accurate than a peep sight.
I fare better with the open leaf design than aperture designs because I grew up around the leaf styles of rimfire rifles and milsurps.

Original Username
May 28, 2010, 10:35 AM
Next time I go to the range I'll show my groupings... 1"-1 1/2" at 100 yards. My friend has an ar and they pretty well both stay at that grouping....
which leads me to believe that if you're a good shot, it doesn't matter which rifle it just matters who's shooting it...

Meanwhile this recent article quotes our own general bashing on the m4's reliability and deadly effect... It also mentions nine US soldiers dying in afghan due to their m4's locking up all in 1 firefight... Which is probably why alot of our soldiers are starting to prefer ak's(47) over ar's...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/25/military-reconsiders-armys-use-m-rifles-afghanistan/?test=latestnews

thesheepdog
May 28, 2010, 11:01 AM
Next time I go to the range I'll show my groupings... 1"-1 1/2" at 100 yards. My friend has an ar and they pretty well both stay at that grouping....
which leads me to believe that if you're a good shot, it doesn't matter which rifle it just matters who's shooting it...

Meanwhile this recent article quotes our own general bashing on the m4's reliability and deadly effect... It also mentions nine US soldiers dying in afghan due to their m4's locking up all in 1 firefight... Which is probably why alot of our soldiers are starting to prefer ak's(47) over ar's...

The article doesn't explain what type of weapon the enemy was using nor does it state the reason for the M4's locking up. You need to understand that the typical infantry in the military may shoot 5,000 rounds out of an M4 before the rifle ever gets serviced/lubed/cleaned, you name it. Those M4's get the tar beat out of them while in combat because firefights may last a day or so while infantry are dumping a full battle load in a matter of minutes. The they restock on ammo, and do it again, till the enemy is defeated.

If the M4 was so bad, we would losing a lot more troops everyday in firefights. It says that 9 US troops died because of an M4 lockup. So what happened? An "all the sudden" catostrophic lockup occured to all 9 troops at the same time? It doesn't say what happened, other than "the M4 locked up".

I am not saying the M4 is the perfect gun, I am saying that you really have to look at the environment the weapon is currently in at the moment-when you read artciles on how unreliable the gun is.

If the US was issued the AK right now, you would hear the same complaints.
"the AK isn't accurate enough for long range, hard to control in auto fire, over penetration concerns for CQB" blah, blah, blah.
It's media, and they never get the full story out there.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 28, 2010, 11:11 AM
Meanwhile this recent article quotes our own general bashing on the m4's reliability and deadly effect...

Did you notice the general was also quoted as recommending the XM8 - another 5.56 rifle; but with a 2" shorter barrel than the M4. If he really thinks that 5.56 has a problem with regards to deadly effect, it seems strange he would recommend another rifle launching the same round even slower. Kind of makes you either question his motives or the reporter's ability to accurately report, eh?

It also mentions nine US soldiers dying in afghan due to their m4's locking up all in 1 firefight...

It says nothing of the sort. What the article you linked to actually says is;

"Problems with the M4 locking up were also cited in a study last year on a July 2008 firefight that left nine U.S. soldiers dead in eastern Afghanistan."

Nine soldiers died in the firefight, not nine soldiers dying as a result of the M4 locking up. As it turns out, I've read that history of the battle and it cites only 2 M4s out of 43 locking up (due to overheating). In this same battle, 2 M249s (beltfed machinegun) also "locked up" from overheating due to the high rates of fire being put out.

You can find a step by step discussion of the Fox News story you quoted in this link: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=410949

Original Username
May 28, 2010, 11:17 AM
Fact is this locking up on the m4 happens more than we appreciate, it doesn't matter whether conditions are fair or not in war there is no time out for that... We need a more reliable weapon...

Some of the enemy's ak's have not been lubricated and/or cared for in months even years through thousands of rounds... Still shooting like a charm... To me that says something... Also their troops aren't trained worth s*** and don't have a 100th of the resources we do.. Thus why they're losing so drastically. I thank god every day that our troops have the advantage, I just hope we find a more reliable weapon before we don't...

Original Username
May 28, 2010, 11:20 AM
2 out of 43 is still too many... a shorter barrel doesn't lag the round.. Usually it does the oppsite thus why when using a lever action with a 44 mag you don't want a 20 inch barrel you want a shorter 16 inch one so the bullet doesn't lag in the barrel and lose velocity...

thesheepdog
May 28, 2010, 11:24 AM
Bartholomew Roberts, thanks for your imput.

As i mentioned earlier, infantry will dump a battle load in a matter of minutes. And as B.Roberts stated, a study found the 2 M4's failed due to over heating. I can fully understand that. The gov issue barrels and the high fire power that infantry usually deliver, makes a barrel get really hot! Hot enough to make the barrel burst. That's why Navy Seals got the M4A1 with Hbars to give them more fire power.

thesheepdog
May 28, 2010, 11:34 AM
How many Taliban have died because of a gun that can't shoot the broad side of a barn?

Just because you can shoot 1,000's of rounds through an Ak without it failing doesn't mean the gun serves any purpose in the hands of US military.

You need to watch this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqRwx4wtmms

The guys serving in the military who complain of the M4's unreliability, want a gun they never, ever, ever have to maintain. It sounds lazy to me. If you fail to clean your gun, and maintain it, and it fails, that is not the guns fault. The M4 has some slack to spare with cleaning frequencies, but, you can only take it so far before, it can no longer operate. I mean, war is not a torture test for your gun. You maintain your gun, your gun will maintain you. End of story.

Original Username
May 28, 2010, 11:36 AM
it mentions the m8 could be revised and improved meanwhile the whole time he's talking alot of finding an intermediate cartridge which leaves alot of room for "a different cartridge" I know the military has been looking into the 6.8 as a standard and i read it has a better terminal/knockdown effect than the .223.. so yes he may have reccomended revising the m8 however he made no mention of maintaining the .223

Original Username
May 28, 2010, 11:39 AM
Now you see all the rigged tests you want however that's one civy test vs. hundreds of military tests/conflicts saying the opposite... I tend to believe more qualified sources...

thesheepdog
May 28, 2010, 11:41 AM
I though AK's were reliable. That vid states otherwise.

Original Username
May 28, 2010, 11:42 AM
And with my wasr (yes i said the peice of s*** romanian knock off) I can hit a man sized target at 100-175 yards reliably in the kill zone... Seems to me it's the poorly trained soldiers more than the firearm...

Original Username
May 28, 2010, 11:51 AM
the ak has been proven time and time again to be more reliable find me an official source stating otherwise and i may reconsider however a vid made from a civvy on youtube tends to make a foul stench towards truth... find at least half of offical sources from military tests that say otherwise and I'll reconsider my argument but show me something official not something off youtube...

Bartholomew Roberts
May 28, 2010, 11:58 AM
2 out of 43 is still too many...

I'll make you a deal. I'll have a conversation with you and give your opinion due respect when you read the link to the actual TFL discussion of the Battle of Wanat - pretty clearly, you haven't done that.

In the meantime, you can just list for me all the suitable alternatives to the M4 that can be fired at a cyclic rate that will kill an M249 SAW and not have overheating problems.

a shorter barrel doesn't lag the round.. Usually it does the oppsite thus why when using a lever action with a 44 mag you don't want a 20 inch barrel you want a shorter 16 inch one so the bullet doesn't lag in the barrel and lose velocity...

I think you should reconsider your example and it will become apparent why it is a poor choice for this argument. In the meantime, I would be interested in learning of all the 5.56mm cartridges that develop more muzzle velocity as barrels get shorter.

thesheepdog
May 28, 2010, 11:59 AM
I honestly don't have a problem with an AK. I do have a problem with the fact that people bash the AR's in every form and fashion imaginable. I own an AR (2 actually) and i have never, ever had an issue with reliabilty (even in hot, sandy environments), or lethality in taking medium sized deer at 185 yards.

The AK is what it is. I am sure a lot of people can shoot accurately with it, including myself. But in terms if who is shooting it, that makes a huge difference in the weapons acceptibilty. Yeah the taliban like the AK, because it does one thing for them, it sprays bullets non-stop. But being that most of them can't shoot worth a darn, that changes the subject. Now if you put an Ak into the hands of good shooters, you may see the acceptability change. Good shooters want the most accuracy out of a weapon. Soldiers want a reliable weapon that shoots accurately. Does the M4 suit their needs? Yes! In many ways. Is the M4 bulletproof? Absolutely not. Like all pieces of equipment (vehicles, guns, machinery) eventually something will require a touch of maintenance. AK's included, unless you just don't give a crap about your firearms (preaching to the choir)

If you shoot best with an AK, i respect that. I shoot best with an AR and i trust my life with it. If the gun fails (for whatever reason) I am prepared to act accordingly, even in a self defense scenario.


Now, do you think we should go to the AK for a general issue weapon?

thesheepdog
May 28, 2010, 12:04 PM
the ak has been proven time and time again to be more reliable find me an official source stating otherwise and i may reconsider however a vid made from a civvy on youtube tends to make a foul stench towards truth... find at least half of offical sources from military tests that say otherwise and I'll reconsider my argument but show me something official not something off youtube...

I mean, shouldn't an AK be reliable REGARDLESS? What in that video states that the AR is unreliable?

Original Username
May 28, 2010, 12:09 PM
I don't neccesarily think we should get an ak in our military I personally however believe in finding ways to make it more dependable I also think we should revise the cartridge for knockdown/terminal effects...(looking alot into short stroke piston ar's) I knew someone who was in the iraq war and he said alot of our soldiers were having to put multiple rounds into one enemy soldier to kill them which ended up in several fatalities...

Original Username
May 28, 2010, 12:11 PM
It's the fact in that video that you have no clue what they did to the rifles prior... I wan't something other than "Youtube Fact" to prove your arguement..

thesheepdog
May 28, 2010, 01:18 PM
It's the fact in that video that you have no clue what they did to the rifles prior... I wan't something other than "Youtube Fact" to prove your arguement..

Well, if the AR is unreliable, it should have failed that torture test in the youtube video. I mean, you can't make an AR more reliable by "doing anything to it". And it obviously doesn't have a GP system, so, in itself the AR side of the video is proof or reliability. Now on the Ak side, they could have done something to the weapon, but, i highly doubt it.

Yeah the military has crap ammo for terminal performance. Green tip SS109 is junk ammmo incapable of dropping larger targets with single or double tap, but we also go back to "shot placement is key". You also need to understand, a lot of Iraqi's are on crack and whatnot before going into battle. Some are so high that they don't feel any pain when shot. Even with .308's sometimes.

rickyjames
May 28, 2010, 01:46 PM
ar's and ak's are like comparing apples to bowling balls. an ar is a sophistocated piece of machinery. most ar's are extremely accurate, target grade right out of the box. you can hang more stuff on them than a swiss army knife. maintaining them is more complex. there is a greater variety of ammo available also.

ak's are extremly tough and reliable. accuracy is combat acceptable, few if any are target grade. maintaining an ak is much more simple than a ar. ak's are the most plentyfull combat rifle in the world for good reason.

ak's are fine rifles as long as you can buy one they way they were meant to be...and that is cheap! an ak is meant to be cheap. you should be able to buy 2 or 3 ak's for the cost of one ar but lately this isn't so true. the cost of ak's seems to be rising while the price of ar's seems to be falling. as long as you can find an ak cheap they are a great value. when they approach the cost of even the cheapest ar then i would go with the ar.

Original Username
May 28, 2010, 05:15 PM
I never said the ar system was completely unreliable, just not to my specs... ak's have been dug out of the ground by our troops after several years under and fired off a full mag... I'd like to see an ar get mud slapped on/in the reciever and still fire, I've seen an ak drain a full mag afterwords thus why I have trouble believing that a little dirt would stop it...

With my 74 I get 1-1 1/2 inch groupings at 100 yards that's not innacurate.. infact it's not half bad at all... So overall the 74 to me has the best of both worlds (my own opinion of course..)...

stubbicatt
May 28, 2010, 06:22 PM
The Sheepdog saith: Yeah the taliban like the AK, because it does one thing for them, it sprays bullets non-stop. But being that most of them can't shoot worth a darn, that changes the subject.

Things must have changed a lot in Afghan marksmanship since the 80s when I visited that place. Those guys could shoot GREAT distances with stunning effect. Also seems I read some internet story somewhere that talked about the Taliban outdistancing our guys by shooting at them at distances beyond which the M4s were effective.

Guys the AK is not inaccurate and the M4 is not unreliable.

But IMO the AK74 is superior in most any way to the M16, for a rifle firing a comparable round.

Original Username
May 28, 2010, 11:58 PM
allow me to specify my specs, "if a red dawn situation or anything where I cannot acquire reasonable care for my rifle I want it to work reliably.." thus an ak is my preference...

Ignition Override
May 29, 2010, 01:50 AM
thesheepdog:

When people often bash :) the SKS, Enfield or Yugo Mauser 'dinosaurs', it is a joy for me to read such opinions, because this can make others reluctant to buy them and their ammo.

If a much larger segment of shooters decided now to buy their first AR-15 at the same time you wanted to shop for one (or components, ammo etc), it would not help keep prices stable, would it?

Although I shoot at very short distances and prefer .30 caliber rounds, a friend's Colt AR ('89) is a very interesting weapon, with no recoil, almost no muzzle rise, nice iron sights (will buy a rear peep for my SKS) etc. He left Germany twenty years ago and will never sell his AR.

I'm so thankful that we have such a wide choice of affordable guns for civilians in this country. Germany and many other lands have very severe restrictions, and Canada is planning to outlaw several popular calibers used in semi-auto rifles.

Mutatio Nomenis
May 30, 2010, 12:18 AM
@ thesheepdog: Yes, yes we should. The AK-100 series comes in our caliber round, and is about as accurate as the current AR-10 series. They're cheaper and more reliable as well. I am an AK guy, but I will say that the AR platform is pretty reliable. However, I dare you to keep an AR-10 family gun in a swamp for 16 days loaded, and then drag it out an empty an entire 100 round drum without a hiccup. The accuracy of the weapon is largely to do with the quality of the soldiers using it. Just about any rifle used today by any military can score a kill at 400+ yards. That's 1200 feet and a good chunk of a mile. Most combat occurs in under 300 meters, and so if you can hit a target with an AK-103 (that's an AK-47 rebuilt on the AK-74 platform) at 500 yards, then it's accurate enough for today's military.

Original Username
May 30, 2010, 04:11 AM
I'm not too sure about an akm (47) or an ar-15 reliably scoring kills at 400 yards the ar's and the ak's effective range is within 300 yards, the .223 loses too much velocity and the 7.62 by 39 all be it accurate enough within 200 yards it would sway too much to reliably get a kill at 400... Of course shoot enough rounds and you might hit them.. But if you run out of ammo in the process, sucks to be you....

JohnH1963
June 1, 2010, 12:39 AM
In regards to AR-15 reliability, could you throw the AR-15 into a pile of wet sand or mud then pick it up and fire off a 30-round magazine without any issues whatsoever?

Imagine hiking for several hours holding the weapon. Is it possible that it could be dropped on to the ground and into the muck?

Original Username
June 1, 2010, 09:11 AM
The main reason I prefer an ak-74 is my thought on reliability is that it needs to function, period... At the range I've seen several (around 5):confused: ar models fail and never an ak... NEVER:D... Some haven't been cleaned ever through 7000+ rounds... However mine are cleaned every time I go to the range....

Kmar40
June 1, 2010, 09:30 AM
In regards to AR-15 reliability, could you throw the AR-15 into a pile of wet sand or mud then pick it up and fire off a 30-round magazine without any issues whatsoever?
Yep. At least for the first few thousand rounds.

I did it many, many times. Fine sand is worse IMO. It's hard on everything, including AKs, 1911s, and M9s. The pistols were basically single shots after you spent some time in a convoy (or riding an open vehicle like an ATV) in the desert.

Honestly, silly studies about guns going 10,000 rounds without clean is irrelevent to my world. A combat load is 210 rounds (7 mags x 30 rounds). We sometimes carried more but ammo still gets heavy in a hurry. A slow soldier is a dead soldier.

As far as I am concerned, if the weapon will do 1000 rounds without cleaning, it's fine. I think the video game warriors are the only ones who think battles rage for thousands and thousands of rounds. The first thing a good soldier does when there is a break in the action-- not eating, not sleeping, not anything else-- is clean his weapon.

BTW, M1/M14 requires a fairly detailed cleaning procedure with oil in some places and grease in others. (At least that's the way we were taught.)

thesheepdog
June 1, 2010, 09:35 AM
Yep. At least for the first few thousand rounds.

Amen to that!

tirod
June 1, 2010, 09:52 AM
The AK isn't unfailingly reliable, as most Century owners constantly post. Build an cheap AK and it will have problems. Comparing apples to apples, build a cheap AR and it will have problems too.

What is it about the AK design that keeps them shooting? A lack of malfunctions becaused the magazine is designed to be very durable. It's a complete radius, too, which keeps the cartridges feeding.

The AR? Not so much, it was designed for a STRAIGHT 20 round magazine, and somebody screwed it up by ADDING a curved section under it for 10 more rounds. So you get a thin, cheap, dogleg magazine with the fourth generation follower design as a bandaid fix for feeding problems.

Magazines cause the majority of all malfunctions in most rifles, and bad ammo comes next. If anything, don't use 30 rounders in AR's, buy the best mags you can afford, and the #1 source of AR malfunctions is cured. Then the choice between AK and AR is which operating interface you prefer.

1) The AR has a bolt hold open
2) The AR has a safety that stays ON when loading.

Those two items make it the superior tactical carbine it is. LOCK THE BOLT BACK WHEN LOADING, the AR is easier. Press the bolt hold open with the support hand, switch the safety off with the trigger hand ON THE GRIP.

That cannot be done with the AK, and that's why the AR is easier to use in combat to put down more fire on target quicker.

The majority of professionals use weapons with trigger hand safeties and loading protocols that avoid jamming loaded magazines against chamber bolts. Given a choice - which most free nations have, including their LEO's - they avoid the AK like the plague. Why? Operator controls are stuck in the Curio and Relic stage of firearms development - 1947. They are a tactical and legal liability.

If you can't easily load the weapon, reload it in combat, safely do it around team members or in public, and do it rapidly, then it's not an efficient choice of weapon. Three gun competition isn't exactly combat, but very few show up in the winner's circle with anything but an AR.

It's really about operator's controls and reliable magazines. Hopefully the Improved Carbine has both.

Original Username
June 1, 2010, 10:21 AM
I can load an ak mag almost if not as fast as an ar the difference is technique one handed mag release is actually a sinch aim down and release with the trigger index finger mag drops...

Chambering the mag using the left hand is one swift motion, rotate the rifle and slide the handle with the left hand, charged, period.

To reload is just technique if you're clumsy and not mechanically inclined then maybe that causes the slow reload however if you know how to use your rifle, this shouldn't even be brought up...

Original Username
June 1, 2010, 10:25 AM
Also with an ak you don't have to bother tapping your mag, it's gonna fire 30 rounds regardless...

JohnH1963
June 1, 2010, 10:37 AM
Sure, the AR-15 is a nice weapon if you are primarily riding in a vehicle with it or doing law enforcement work. If you are working in a relatively clean environment then you have no issues. However, when I speak of unreliability, I am talking about getting out there in the muck. Sorry, riding around in a vehicle across the desert does not qualify as "muck". Any Boy Scout knows about the trials, tribulations and dirt that comes with a hike out in the wilderness several miles in length. There are quite a few times that you stumble, rain comes at virtually any time and the weather changes without warning.

Those folks who did their basic training at Fort Knox know of what I speak about. You are in this moutainous environment where one day its sunny short sleeve type weather and then the next day its snowing and you are clammering for a coat. One second the sky is clear and the next day its raining. Mud seems to be everywhere constantly and the terrain so hilly that stumbling and tripping is a guaranteed reality. No matter what you do or how hard you try, your rifle is going to land in a pile of mud. Mud will get into your weapon.

American weaponry was made to withstand controlled conditions as no one ever thought that American soldiers would have to go on long forced marches through unpredictable terrain. Therefore, they came up with these weapons that were very good in controlled conditions, but could not stand up to the abuse a Boy Scout would put it through during a routine hike in the mountains. Today, I see many American soldiers wondering about the unreliability of the M16/AR because it hasnt happened to them. Well, if you stepped outside of your vehicle and actually did some soldiering performing a 10 mile march through mountainous terrain then you will figure out quickly just how unreliable the weapon is.

The Chinese and Russians know about unpredictable terrain and as that is what they have to deal with when they are soldiering. All of the Russian gear is weatherized while the American gear needs care and conditioning. Thats just a fact of life.

A weapon is not accurate unless it works. I understand the replacement of the M16 will probably cost some Americans their jobs at the gun factories. Some politicians may not get re-elected or whatever deal they struck with the manufacturer. However, I know that if they went with any of the H&Ks weaponry then we would not be having these same issues that keep coming up year in and year out. These problems of unreliability have been reported now for over 40 years. H&K knows how to build a rifle that will not jam up if thrown in the mud. The M16 is an outdated design much like the black powder rifles are an outdated design.

Too much emphasis is placed on creating new and better weapons for helicopters and armored vehicles. How about focusing on giving the infantry some reliable and accurate weapons? I think this can be accomplished by switching to H&K. I know its not patriotic to swing away from Colt and the Springfield Armory...but H&K is simply the better weapon and lives will be saved by switching over.

Original Username
June 1, 2010, 10:41 AM
A wasr is a refurbished rifle, Do you inspect used rifles? I'd hope so... Upon a proper inspection if the wasr ak passes then you've got a quality ak...

Now if it was all new and right off the assembly line I'd be more concerned.

However I inspected my wasr, shoots like a charm 2000+ rounds through it and no jams get a 3 inch grouping at 100 yards it's my mud gun and I have to say I can abuse it without worry....

tirod
June 1, 2010, 10:50 AM
Considering I spent 80% of my training in the field at Ft. Benning, and never suffered stoppages while in the snow, heat, dust, and humidity, I cannot fathom where the idea the US serviceman and his rifle are pampered comes from at all. And yes, it did snow the first field exercise. That was late March of 82.

For the rest of my 22 years, anyone carrying an M16 did so in the field, living there in whatever climate was existent, and we didn't suffer stoppages. The idea that the M16 wasn't designed as a dirty battle rifle is ludicrous. I expect as much from the general public now, only one in a hundred ever served any more, the rest are clueless. They live a pampered life in the Mall and never bother themselves with real hardship.

The unreliability of the M16 is ignorant superstition.

thesheepdog
June 1, 2010, 11:04 AM
A wasr is a refurbished rifle, Do you inspect used rifles? I'd hope so... Upon a proper inspection if the wasr ak passes then you've got a quality ak...

Now if it was all new and right off the assembly line I'd be more concerned.

However I inspected my wasr, shoots like a charm 2000+ rounds through it and no jams get a 3 inch grouping at 100 yards it's my mud gun and I have to say I can abuse it without worry....

Good for you.

I have dumped my AR in mud/water/sand and shook the obstructions out of the barrel and the gun dumped a 30 rounder flawlessly.

I used to be an AR hater until i shot one, and eventually bought one and found out that the reliability is not as much of an issue as MOST people claim.

If abusing you weapons in your how you do things, then, cool, go for it. But for me, i like to take care of my weapons. Even if i had an AK, i still would not want to abuse it. Even if i had to tromp around in mud, i would still do everything in my power to keep my action clear. If you remember any pictures of D-Day and the beach boys storming the beach, you can see that all weapons were covered in plastic wrap to keep the sand/salt water out of the actions. And this applied to Garands too.

An AK isn't a God of reliability. It is inherently very reliable, but yet, it's not 100% fool proof.

My brother-in-law served in the Navy and his M16 never jammed in bootcamp. He said it got covered in mud, drug through water, covered in dirt, you name it. Never once did it fail to fire a full mag repeatedly.

I know you don't believe any videos on youtube about torture tests for the AR's, but there are more than 20 of them that show 100% reliabilty after exposure to harsh elements.


Have you ever covered your AK in mud, then shot a full mag?

I don't think it's absolutely necessary to have a gun that you can bury for a couple of years and dig it up and shoot it without failures. I don't see that being practical. I would never do that to my guns. Ever!

thesheepdog
June 1, 2010, 11:14 AM
Considering I spent 80% of my training in the field at Ft. Benning, and never suffered stoppages while in the snow, heat, dust, and humidity, I cannot fathom where the idea the US serviceman and his rifle are pampered comes from at all. And yes, it did snow the first field exercise. That was late March of 82.

For the rest of my 22 years, anyone carrying an M16 did so in the field, living there in whatever climate was existent, and we didn't suffer stoppages. The idea that the M16 wasn't designed as a dirty battle rifle is ludicrous. I expect as much from the general public now, only one in a hundred ever served any more, the rest are clueless. They live a pampered life in the Mall and never bother themselves with real hardship.

The unreliability of the M16 is ignorant superstition.

I strongly agree with you. This AK-47 vs M16 battle has been around too long because there is a lot of BS floating around on both sides.

The M16 is reliable, end of story. The Ak is acceptably accurate, end of story.

The AR is reliable, i mean, there isn't enough proof out there to say otherwise. The military is using it, they still have it, our guys aren't dying in firefights (for the most part) with the M4. They may want a better gun with GP system, but why? So they can lose the resonsibility of maintaining a weapon? Something that has been established in the Marines that a rifle is your life basically. If you fail your rilfe, you rfile will fail you. The AR-like i have said before-has some slack to give between each cleaning session, but eventually, that workhorse will need to be maintained.

JohnH1963
June 1, 2010, 02:38 PM
These threads are valuable for keeping everyone aware of the various issues with these weapons. No, we are not making these things up. No, we are not mall warriors.

Youtube is a great tool which demonstrates to you what actually happens with these weapons. I did a quick search on Youtube and found several videos. One video was of a disasterous failure exploding into the shooter's face.

Would you be confident of taking the M4/M16 into battle after seeing these videos?

Beware, foul and profane stinging language is used in these videos as the shooters realize their M15/M4 has become a bolt action rifle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBGwZHHq18o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WVVXZtrxIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTtrtPDT8Qg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y28YGuf3aTg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbq0YH0GISE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCzUvCRiBZs

In this video, the AR literally blows up in the user's face...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh1lyMyejpI

thesheepdog
June 1, 2010, 03:06 PM
These threads are valuable for keeping everyone aware of the various issues with these weapons. No, we are not making these things up. No, we are not mall warriors.

Youtube is a great tool which demonstrates to you what actually happens with these weapons. I did a quick search on Youtube and found several videos. One video was of a disasterous failure exploding into the shooter's face.

Would you be confident of taking the M4/M16 into battle after seeing these videos?

Beware, foul and profane stinging language is used in these videos as the shooters realize their M15/M4 has become a bolt action rifle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBGwZHHq18o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WVVXZtrxIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTtrtPDT8Qg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y28YGuf3aTg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbq0YH0GISE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCzUvCRiBZs

In this video, the AR literally blows up in the user's face...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh1lyMyejpI

Ok, these videos don't really tell me anything.

i have listed a reasons for each video.

video 1. Obvious jam-GI mag since it was military in the vid. GI mags sucks.
video 2. As you can see, some 30 rounders worked, others didn't. This is indicative of mag failure, not the gun
video 3. Not much indication of what is goin on here. The gun jams once, not really indicating a mag issue or a gun issue.
video 4. First off the guy fails to insert the mag all the way (like a sissy) and it's obvious he doesn't place the gun in battery correctly either. The first 30 round mag worked.
video 5. This video doe not indicate a jam. All you see is an open breach. Could be empty.
video 6. A silencer is being used. Silencers lower the reliability and chamber pressures on a gun and since the DI system isn't fully adjustable, you may or may not have a failure
video 7. It's really obvious in this video that there was an obstruction in the barrel and that is why the last round blew up the gun. An AK would have don the same thing.

Now how about you go on youtube and look at how RELIABLE the AR is. Another thing to keep in mind is that you can't make an AR more reliable than it is. YOO CAN make an AR, AK, FAL, M1A LESS reliable in some forms and fashions.

Original Username
June 1, 2010, 03:09 PM
In some battle situations you don't have the time or resources to maintain your firearm... The US hasn't been in too incredibly many cut off situations since the ar was implemented... However if we do get in such situations, I have more faith in an ak to get me through with rounds flying, than I ever would with an ar....

WhyteP38
June 1, 2010, 03:13 PM
In this video, the AR literally blows up in the user's face...
It is important to notice this statement that goes with the video:
we were shooting guns at the local range, and my friend was firing the M16 and it kept jamming ...So the shooter has a known issue but presses on without stopping to figure out why he's having problems, then the rifle blows up, and it's the rifle's fault?

That would not be my first assumption.

For me, the problem with most Youtube videos is that you have too many unknowns for the videos to be truly useful one way or the other. Usually, you have no idea how well the rifle has been maintained, how knowledgeable the shooter is, whether he's using proper techniques, etc. Heck, the guy in the video could have shoved a bad homeload into the mag that would have blown up any rifle.

As for the rifle itself, many of the videos I've seen fail to mention what brand is being used. Not every brand is of the same quality. So a shoddy AR from a shoddy company suddenly means ALL ARs are shoddy? At best, that is illogical.

Even if they tell you the brand, how do you know the guy is telling the truth? In fact, how do you know the guy actually knows what brand he has? I have actually met people who claim to have a certain brand at the range until I point out that it really isn't. Yep, it happens. I can't explain it, but it happens. And even if the guy tells you the correct brand, how do you know he didn't monkey around with it to "make it better"? Or what if he bought it used and never messed with it but the guy before him did?

Youtube videos MAY be entertaining, but for me, I don't put much faith in them, one way or the other.

thesheepdog
June 1, 2010, 03:20 PM
In some battle situations you don't have the time or resources to maintain your firearm... The US hasn't been in too incredibly many cut off situations since the ar was implemented... However if we do get in such situations, I have more faith in an ak to get me through with rounds flying, than I ever would with an ar....

I don't mean to be rude, but you're just saying your opinion over, and over again, without facts, other than a previous statement about how the military hates their guns and wants to be pampered with a gun that never has to be cleaned.

Would you trust your life on a SCAR, ACR HK-416? They all have had failures in the military torture tests. So, what does that tell you, the AK is the ONLY gun worthy of a life being trusted upon it?

Bartholomew Roberts
June 1, 2010, 04:26 PM
These threads are valuable for keeping everyone aware of the various issues with these weapons. No, we are not making these things up. No, we are not mall warriors.

Youtube is a great tool which demonstrates to you what actually happens with these weapons. I did a quick search on Youtube and found several videos. One video was of a disasterous failure exploding into the shooter's face.

Would you be confident of taking the AK family of weapons into battle after seeing these videos?

Beware, foul and profane stinging language may be used in these videos as the shooters realize their AK has become a bolt action rifle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiA8F0WdH54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03GxWpDNfcM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcpfDE-xdPU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXpVzd7GsEk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3sUxh26cgs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdUXxy2Iwgg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOxiPB0G6kU

In this video, the AK literally blows up in the user's face...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgztHGBnfAk

You'll note that I found one more video of an AK jamming compared to an M16-series weapon jamming. So I think that settles the issue of which rifle is superior - unless of course this entire line of reasoning that using YouTube videos is a valid comparison is somehow flawed... ;)

thesheepdog
June 1, 2010, 04:40 PM
These threads are valuable for keeping everyone aware of the various issues with these weapons. No, we are not making these things up. No, we are not mall warriors.

Youtube is a great tool which demonstrates to you what actually happens with these weapons. I did a quick search on Youtube and found several videos. One video was of a disasterous failure exploding into the shooter's face.

Would you be confident of taking the AK family of weapons into battle after seeing these videos?

Beware, foul and profane stinging language may be used in these videos as the shooters realize their AK has become a bolt action rifle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiA8F0WdH54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03GxW...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcpfD...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXpVzd7GsEk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3sUxh26cgs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdUXxy2Iwgg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOxiPB0G6kU

In this video, the AK literally blows up in the user's face...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgztHGBnfAk

You'll note that I found one more video of an AK jamming compared to an M16-series weapon jamming. So I think that settles the issue of which rifle is superior - unless of course this entire line of reasoning that using YouTube videos is a valid comparison is somehow flawed...


Again, MAGAZINES CAN JAM ANY WEAPON!!

The problem I have is that no one can prove to me that the Ak is more reliable than the AR. My opinion, they're equal.

I just hate it when most newbies think the Ak is an invincible piece of machinery and that they can bury the dang thing and fire it 2 years later. I am sorry, i have never seen that before. I have only heard the rumors just like the rumors of AR's being unreliable (when i was an AR hater).

Most AK vs AR battles occur via Call of Duty nerds and most don't know what the heck they're talking about.

To this day, from owning 2 AR's a mini-14, shooting st several tactical firearms courses, i have seen 2 AR's jam due to wolf ammo and several AK's jam to bad magazines. This isn't videos I am talking about , i am referring to real life stuff that i personally have seen with my own eyes.

This discussion needs to end.

Kmar40
June 1, 2010, 05:35 PM
Come on, dude. Don't you know that being a Call of Duty commando is far better than being a real soldier who's been there or done that?

Original Username
June 1, 2010, 06:44 PM
I don't think anything to do with youtube is reliable, not pro ak and not pro ar... period... All I can say is that our own military, and from what I've seen gunsmiths have said and I quote "The AK is noteably more reliable than an AR...Due to wide open space in the reciever where gunk can get out of the action... All I can think is I bought my ak-74 for $400 you bought your ar for how much??

I've seen an ak-47 on fire full auto and it shot off 4 drums while in flames.. the shooter had to put the rifle out with water... meanwhile as you said the ar has issues when too many consecutive rounds are placed through...

P.S. 1-1 1/2 groupings at 100 yards... 3000+ rounds through no failures... 400 dollars effective, accurate and reliable..

Kmar40
June 1, 2010, 10:56 PM
A 1 1/2 MOA AK? Better than a M21. Sure.

I'd keep that one, if I were you.

thesheepdog
June 2, 2010, 08:19 AM
I don't think anything to do with youtube is reliable, not pro ak and not pro ar... period... All I can say is that our own military, and from what I've seen gunsmiths have said and I quote "The AK is noteably more reliable than an AR...Due to wide open space in the reciever where gunk can get out of the action... All I can think is I bought my ak-74 for $400 you bought your ar for how much??

I've seen an ak-47 on fire full auto and it shot off 4 drums while in flames.. the shooter had to put the rifle out with water... meanwhile as you said the ar has issues when too many consecutive rounds are placed through...

P.S. 1-1 1/2 groupings at 100 yards... 3000+ rounds through no failures... 400 dollars effective, accurate and reliable..

Do you ever clean your guns? Including your AK?

Have you ever seen an AR jam? Have you ever shot one and it jammed?

You may have paid $400 for your AK, and that's perfectly fine, if that's what you shoot best with. I paid well over $1200 for my AR and it is worth every penny. The gun is amazingly accurate, operator friendly, and fully customizable and reliable ( i am still waiting on a stoppage). And i like the many features that an AR has over the AK. Such as how magazines are loaded, the safety, last-shot-bolt-lock, barrel options, sight options, you name it. I don't think Trijicon makes an ACOG for the AK yet, despite it being on Call Of Duty. :p

Art Eatman
June 2, 2010, 08:23 AM
Do NOT get downwind of that horse!