October 31, 2009, 03:49 PM | #26 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 5, 2009
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 491
|
I have AK's and AR's ...the AR's are easier to build and interchangeable parts. No rivets or custom fitting required like an AK.
|
October 31, 2009, 06:32 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 22, 2009
Posts: 154
|
i agree with everyone else. get both!
like somone said earlier the ak was not made to be a target rifle. it was made to put out alot of rounds and kill. and that is exatly what it does. the ar is much more accurate and it allows you to put out less rounds to do what it was intended for. killing the enemy. either way the are both good at what they do. |
November 1, 2009, 06:56 AM | #28 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 1, 2009
Posts: 11
|
i would prefer a saiga in .223 or .308. I don't know what half the stuff is on an AR it looks confusing.
|
November 1, 2009, 08:01 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 5, 2001
Location: Cumming GA
Posts: 626
|
Both have there merits. I have owned an AK, replaced it with an SKS, replaced it with an M4. Love the M4. The AK is fine if that is all you can afford. I found mine heavy, clunky and good for sending bullets down range. My AR is much more precision built and plenty accurate and come with useful iron sites. I have no grand visions of the 223 being a great bullet but I try to stick to 62g bullets when buying in bulk and also have a supply of soft points (though 55g). I find it much easier to keep the AR on target for follow-up shots.
In a Katrina situation, either would be great, I prefer the AR. For home security, I pick neither, M1 carbine with 110g softpoints. And if I'm making 200yd+ shots, I'll grab my scoped 30-06AI (which also shots 30-06 just fine. |
November 1, 2009, 10:02 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 21, 2007
Location: The Boonies
Posts: 426
|
Buy the AR! Support the US economy! Leave that cheap commie crap alone so poor people like me can afford it!
|
November 1, 2009, 11:43 AM | #31 |
Staff in Memoriam
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
|
Home defense? There's not a nickel's worth of difference between them. Semi-auto, with medium-power cartridges. They're adequately accurate for shooting Bad Guys within a hundred yards and less, as expected in defense. Plenty good for reliability.
|
November 1, 2009, 01:03 PM | #32 |
Member
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 95
|
Why not split the difference and go with Mini-14?
|
November 1, 2009, 09:28 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 30, 2009
Location: North Augusta, SC
Posts: 490
|
Have both. AR is way more accurate. Contrary to the previous poo pooing posts, the AK is far less likely to jam, especially with cheap ammo. If you don't believe that, ask a Vietnam vet, or some of our own special forces who carry captured AKs around.
If I had to grab one with my life on the line, I'd take the AK without thinking about it. |
November 1, 2009, 10:38 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,961
|
I prefer the AR15 but both weapons are excellent and have proven their worth. They are completely different in so many ways, but both have strengths that cannot be denied or downplayed.
__________________
https://battlebornreview.com/ |
November 1, 2009, 11:46 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2009
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 125
|
AK all the way for me.
And like many people have said already, they both have their strong points. However, I personally think the AK has more strong points and its strong points are more important. The only strong point I personally give for the AR is SLIGHT accuracy edge. This is pretty insignificant to me since SHTF situations will rarely need extreme accuracy Another AR strong point that people often use is the modularity and accessories. I personally dont like all the rails, optics, etc. For SHTF that's just more technology to rely on that can fail. Batteries die, and all those slots, wires, protrusions are just something to snag on brush or other obstructions. The AK's strong points are: first and foremost - RELIABILITY, in many different ways - Everyone should agree on this. Not only is the piston design more reliable, but the tapered 7.62x39(i know you can get both rifles in either caliber, but im talking of the typical configuration) is inherently more reliable than the straight cased .223. Magazine design is also more reliable on the AK. The mag well on the AR provides more opportunity for debris to cause a mag to not seat properly, or become lodged. Simplicity - Some poeple may not think this is important, but to me the more parts a gun has the more chance for something to break, wear out, or get lost. Penetration - heavier bullet Cost - Ak is usually several hundred dollars cheaper on average |
November 2, 2009, 12:09 AM | #36 |
Member
Join Date: August 31, 2009
Posts: 74
|
IMO, the AK is the better choice for the majority of people on this earth. Most people aren't going to be trained as spec ops snipers who can shoot a penny at 400 yds so they don't need a gun that can.
Like it was said before, the AK was made simple and reliable so that anybody could shoot it |
November 2, 2009, 12:38 AM | #37 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,672
|
Here's the reasons the AK isn't better: it uses 7.62 inefficiently, and smaller rounds without the fps, it's heavy, uses a bolt and barrel lugged to a receiver, has a short sight radius, a loose rear cover that can't be used to extend it, and a safety that requires the shooter moving his hand off the grip and trigger.
It doesn't take optics, lights, or modifications well, the gas system is in the way. It is built in a wide variety of qualities with each country tweaking the design to its standard instead of adhering to a single TDP. Much of the ammo available is inexpensive imported military surplus, not hunting, LEO, or target, and finding it during a political panic makes it a negative personal logistical choice. American sport calibers have had much more prevalence on the shelf the last year. A serious consideration is that the weapon may be an shooting enthusiast's choice, but it also represents opposition to the American way of life it's entire history. Communist, terrorist, or not, it's not used by good guys in the public eye. Those who want to use it when TSHTF will be handicapped by an immediate negative evaluation if seen in public. In every point listed, the user could be better off with a Winchester lever action rather than an AK. No, the US Army isn't as stupid as some think - they use a weapon proven daily to work regardless of the street talk from bystanders repeating what they've been told to say. If a straight up test is wanted, find an AK in 6.8 x 43 and shoot it side by side with a AR in 6.8. Oh, right, you can't get the caliber of your choice. There's not enough buyers to make it a paying proposition. But if there were, they'd be calibers developed for the AR first. Why? The AR is a superior platform more easily adapted. It wins hands down right there. |
November 2, 2009, 12:47 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2009
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 125
|
Tirod, I'm thinking just about all of your points relate to accuracy or maybe ballistic performance, which most people will concede is slightly better with the AR. And I dont see the need for optics and accessories as a strong point for the AR. If bells and whistles are required to make a gun better, to me that's a weakness.
But you totally ignore reliability, which is extremely important. And to say a lever action is better than AK is just ridiculous. lol. I hope you were kidding. |
November 2, 2009, 01:19 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2009
Location: California
Posts: 437
|
AR rifles are more accurate, AKs are more reliable.
Drop them in mud/sand and see for yourself. However, I'd like to add that neither the accuracy nor the reliability argument is valid. You shouldn't ask a mid range combat rifle to shoot 1" groups. Nor should you ask a firearm to cover itself in mud and sand yet still function reliably. Both are fine rifles if they are used in the appropriate manner. |
November 2, 2009, 07:16 AM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 7, 2009
Posts: 433
|
Both are designed for certan purposes,Both do what they are designed for perfectly. A Light weight target rifle made for long range combat agenst a rifle that is the cheapest made, made for cqb.
As the old saying goes Germany makes the best hunting rifles america makes the bst target rifles the UK makes the best battle rifle...well you ask about sweeden that makes the best defence rifle and russia makes the cheapest rifle that does what its designed for. |
November 2, 2009, 07:28 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2009
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 125
|
Hank - I must say that shooting the 1" group is way less important than the reliability
There is nothing wrong with hoping your gun would function being covered with mud. This is an easily occuring situation in a rainy battlefield or jungle. Imagine how many soldiers over the years have slipped and fell in the mud... Not only mud, but imagine being in combat in a sandstorm, a rainstorm, extreme cold, extremely thick vegetation, etc. None of these situations would be decided by the extra inch of accuracy, but they could be greatly decided by the ability of your rifle to function |
November 2, 2009, 07:35 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 20, 2009
Location: Cape Town - South Africa
Posts: 627
|
Hi,
In SA they make a SEMI-Auto version of the short-barreled GALIL. its marketed as the LM5 and a shorter one - the LM6. If you can get one, you have the best of both AR15 and AK, combined into one very reliable firearm. Brgds, Danny |
November 2, 2009, 08:46 AM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,131
|
I'm probably one of the few that really doesn't like the AR15. As a semi-automatic, it's practically useless, unless you are hunting small game in the desert. Without full-auto capability, the round is truly inadequate to have any offensive utility. The receivers feel flimsey in my opinion and are made of aluminum. I don't like the way they "fit" together and I don't like the gas system.
There are simply better designed 5.56 guns out there than the AR platform. Both SIG and FN make a better 5.56 than an AR based 5.56. In my opinion the AR, or even the M16 is a typical "good enough" gun that can be mass produced very cheaply. It's really a fairly low quality piece of military hardware. |
November 2, 2009, 08:58 AM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,336
|
Quote:
I have owned many different AR 15 type rifles over the past 40 years and as much as I try to like them ~ I don't. On the other hand, I love the one 7.62 AKM that I own.
__________________
The History and Development of the M14 EBR |
|
November 2, 2009, 09:53 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 30, 2009
Location: North Augusta, SC
Posts: 490
|
Skans, I like my AR for a fun to shoot gun, but I personally do not like the 5.56 round.
If you don't believe the 7.62x39 round is stronger shoot a couple concrete blocks longways with both and you will see. Proof is in the pudding. Look into why the 50 beowulf was designed, and you will see what many professionals think about the 5.56 too. |
November 2, 2009, 10:25 AM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,131
|
Quote:
If someone really thinks they need a rifle for home defense, the AK is a much better choice. A folder is easier to conceal and store than an AR. Since you will only be shooting at an average distance of 20 feet or so, long range accuracy is completely irrelevant. 7.62x39 makes a better hunting round too. So, unless I intend to do some long range paper punching, semi-auto AR's (5.56) just seem kind of marginal, to me, for any particular purpose except accessorizing. Yes, an AR, with fancy rails, is really fun to accessorize, I suppose. |
|
November 2, 2009, 09:25 PM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 29, 2009
Location: wasilla alaska
Posts: 196
|
Quote:
|
|
November 3, 2009, 09:35 AM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,131
|
Quote:
|
|
November 3, 2009, 09:47 AM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Location: Ninja Mall
Posts: 818
|
Quote:
__________________
E Pluribus Unum |
|
November 3, 2009, 10:44 AM | #50 |
Staff in Memoriam
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
|
The OP said "homeland defense". Defense. Okay, how much shooting at any one time do you expect to do? If you can't solve the problem with one or two magazine's worth of ammo, you don't have a reliability concern; you're short on friendly shooters. And how accurate is minute of torso?
Show me a decent, clean, reasonably well-maintained AK, AR or Mini or whatever that wouldn't be reliable in any rational scenario. If you're solo and attacked by pagan hordes, you were foolish enough to be there in the first place. Shoulda got on your rollerskates and practiced being elsewhere... |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|