AK-47, Hands Down No. 1

[MaxHeadSpace]

For defense the AK is hard to beat.

And yeah, I'm stirring the pot. It's the ol' "AK Beats AR" thread . . . Let's beat it to death, some more.

AK design is a masterpiece of third world arms production. You can manufacture them with little more than the machinery required to produce hub caps and license plates.

Simple, reliable design. An illiterate peasant with no tools can learn to operate and maintain one. Rinse it out in an irrigation ditch and it will function.

The Viet Cong took over Saigon with AK's which had been buried. The furniture was rotted off them, and Charlie wrapped the hardware in rags, and won the battle.

Under 300 yds, which is where "business is done," the 7.62 X 39mm ammo, 122 gr. bullet gets the job done. The bullet has both the weight and diameter to be lethal, less prone to ricochet / be deflected by jungle foliage, light armor (like auto bodies, windshields).

Way cheaper to produce than the AR.

Ten zillion third-world terrorists can't be all wrong!

Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . The AR is more accurate, more precision, has a longer effective range. But it's fussy, complicated, not simple to maintain, and expensive.

Let 'er rip . . . :D

[TheManHimself]

But it's fussy,

False. A milspec - sans auto sear pin hole and related parts - AR15 (Colt, LMT, Noveske, BCM, Sabre) will run on any .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO ammunition, including Wolf. If it doesn't, something is out of spec on the weapon, which is the fault of the manufacturer, not the design.

complicated,

I count the same number of moving parts as the AK:

AK has bolt, bolt carrier, gas piston, trigger, hammer, disconnector, selector lever, mainspring assembly.

AR has bolt, bolt carrier, cam pin, trigger, hammer, disconnector, selector lever, buffer assembly.

not simple to maintain,

False.

AK: Open top cover, pull BCG, lube bolt, bolt carrier, and mainspring. Reassemble and shoot.

AR: Open receivers, pull BCG, wipe off the outside of the bolt carrier, lube bolt carrier rails, lube bolt, reassemble, and shoot. How is that more difficult?

and expensive.

True. A quality AR will cost much more than an AK.

So the only difference I see is price vs. accuracy.

[MaxHeadSpace]

Bury the AR in the ground until the stock rots off (which is hard to do with plastic/polymers). Then dig it up, wash it off in an irrigation ditch and take it into battle. I'm gonna wager that the bolt hangs up in the receiver because the tolerances on the AR just aren't designed to accomodate battlefield crud.

I've owned both. The AR is more accurate. The AK is more reliable in battlefield extremes. That and a lot cheaper to produce.

I just plain can't warm up to .223 Rem. But that's me, and I could be nutz. :D

[dangerclose]

Not this again...spare us the headache and lock the thread.

Both rifles have their strength and weaknesses, just leave it alone..

BTW: It is best to just own both...

[danweasel]

It would be quicker to just not look at the thread if it makes you sad. You'll save a few cents on asprin too.

You ever see that video where the guy throws an AK of a roof and another guy picks it up and shoots it? Then they drop it out of a van on the move, another vehicle runs it over, and a guy runs up, picks it up and shoots it.

I have never cleaned my AK. I have only fired maybe 2000 rounds of hotshot out of it though. One malfunction. Also I do a lot of sub zero shooting. I know for a fact that at least one bushmaster AR can't hang in the cold.

[TwinTurboG35]

OR

You could just buy a GAS PISTON AR and Laugh at everyone who argues this point over and over

[TPAW]

MaxHeadSpace writes:

The Viet Cong took over Saigon with AK's which had been buried. The furniture was rotted off them, and Charlie wrapped the hardware in rags, and won the battle.

I agree about the AK being an excellent battle weapon, but you are dead wrong about your above quote. In 1975, Saigon was taken over by the NVA (North Vietnamese Army) a fully equipped fighting force who rolled into Saigon with tanks, and a well disciplined military force from North Vietnam. There is a difference between the Viet Cong (Charlie) and the NVA (North Vietnamese Army). The NVA had just about everything we had. They were a uniformed army just like ours. If your making reference to the TET Offensive of January 1968, Saigon was not taken over. Battles were fought throughtout Vietnam in the big cities and jungles, but we Americans maintained what we had after the heavy fighting was over.

A Vietnam Vet

[hoytinak]

OR

You could just buy a GAS PISTON AR and Laugh at everyone who argues this point over and over

OR

You could also laugh at those that waste their money on a gas piston AR or upper. :)

[popeyespappy]

BTW: It is best to just own both...


That’s my philosophy.

[Beretta16]

AR = more accurate, easier to mount optics, superior ergonomics
AK = more reliable

In a noncombat situation I would take the AR. When casually shooting it's possible to take the 2 minutes to strip an AR and oil it down.

[nemoaz]

AK47- good gun for ignorant peasants that couldn't produce aimed fire if they tried. Obsolete in its home country since the late 80s.

[Inspector3711]

None of us will ever need to bury our guns until the furniture rots off.

Now who was just elected president??:eek:

Lets not bet on it just yet!

[OlympicArmsFan]

They both are built and are good for what they where intended to be used for. Im sure most of the issuies with the AR-15/M16 have been solved since Vietnam. They even redisgned it during the Vietnam war.

The AK-47 has been the same rifle as far as I know since built in mass production. I think the mind set on the rifle was to be able to fire when not well maintained.

Both rifles are great guns and have a great history, what other rifles can we talk about that can cause so much debate on what one is better over the other one.

I own both but have only shot my AK and will be shooting my AR in just 12 days. I will have video of me shooting and the smile on my face. :D

[SR420]

One should posses both the AK and the AR :cool:

http://www.athenswater.com/images/Black-Beauties.jpg

[BeCoole]

Under 300 yds, which is where "business is done," the 7.62 X 39mm ammo, 122 gr. bullet gets the job done.

Patrick Purdy would disagree.

[wyobohunter]

Many of the "ignorant" peasants that have used the AK since it started falling into the hands of insurgents were not ignorant at all. I'd wager that the Cuban revolutionaries were per capita more informed about the world than we were at the same time. How about the Zapatistas, do you really consider them ignorant? Just because somebody is poor doesn't make them an ignoramus. And, any ignoramus can learn to put a bullet where he wants it to go; trust me, I've known several. The thing that seperates the informed from the ignorant is knowing when to use the weapon.

[Forwardassist]

This thread makes baby Jesus cry.

OBTW, MAXHEADSPACE your a troll, now go back under your bridge.

[hoytinak]

Each platform has it's strengths and weakness' so everyone should have one of each to cover all bases. :D

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9216/dsc00529lr9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[AUG]

This is stupid.

This is like debating which is better a yugo or a lincoln.

[Jseime]

Two of each please...

I like both guns, cant pick a side.

Both have features that I like and dislike, (as you can see I'm in Canada so I dont have much in the way of experience with either one)

Its like Chevy vs. Ford there are people on both sides of the fance who are die-hard, fight to the death, run you down opposed to the other. There are things that I like about both,

I like chevy ride quality and interior refinement: AR accuracy and tight tolerances

I like ford looks and thoughness: AK stlye (if you could call it that) and drag around beat up get dirty pick it up and shoot toughness

There is not now, and never will be a clear winner, everyone should go out and buy at least one of each gun.

P.S. I own a chevy truck now but my next one will be a Ford

[Orion6]

AK-47, Hands Down No. 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For defense the AK is hard to beat.

And yeah, I'm stirring the pot. It's the ol' "AK Beats AR" thread . . . Let's beat it to death, some more.

AK design is a masterpiece of third world arms production. You can manufacture them with little more than the machinery required to produce hub caps and license plates.

Simple, reliable design. An illiterate peasant with no tools can learn to operate and maintain one. Rinse it out in an irrigation ditch and it will function.

The Viet Cong took over Saigon with AK's which had been buried. The furniture was rotted off them, and Charlie wrapped the hardware in rags, and won the battle.

Under 300 yds, which is where "business is done," the 7.62 X 39mm ammo, 122 gr. bullet gets the job done. The bullet has both the weight and diameter to be lethal, less prone to ricochet / be deflected by jungle foliage, light armor (like auto bodies, windshields).

Way cheaper to produce than the AR.

Ten zillion third-world terrorists can't be all wrong!

Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . The AR is more accurate, more precision, has a longer effective range. But it's fussy, complicated, not simple to maintain, and expensive.

Let 'er rip . . .


Can't afford an AR huh?

[Dobe]

Yup. That's generally what that means.:D

[KChen986]

AKs aren't bullet proof. When built right they're great, but I've seen a couple of malfunctioning AKs. Usually something wrong w/ the trigger. Never with the piston system.

That, and the two handed safety, and slower reloads.

Gas Piston 6.5/6.8 AR > AK.

My 0.02

[Destructo6]

You can manufacture them with little more than the machinery required to produce hub caps and license plates.
Developing a working receiver die isn't exactly third world technology. Nor is maintaining the same. Every part of that punch press is a finely machined, precision piece.

Machining from a solid billet is far lower tech, and far slower to produce parts as compared to a properly developed die set for stamped steel.

[L_Killkenny]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but stating that an AK will function after it's been buried so long the wood has rotten away is just plain IGNORANT. :confused::confused:

Really makes me wonder how much thought you could of put into your original statement. I'm guessing about nil on that one too.

LK

[Jay1958]

I prefer the AK. It's more reliable, easier to maintain and the 7.62x39 round is more effective unless you are reaching out beyond 150 meters. If you need to reach out 150-300 meters, then go ahead and take the AR. In most self-defense situations, I don't see how that would apply, not even SHTF in most cases, but granted, as a former U.S. Infantry grunt I will agree that if shooting at longer distances, give me the AR.

That said, there are some poorly made and/or poorly put together AK's that tend to give AK's a bad name in some circles. I have a Yugo AK that I have utmost confidence in.

I could afford an AR if I wanted one, but really have no use for one. If the 5.56/.223 round isn't a consensus good round even for deer, then I surely don't want it for self-defense or SHTF. And please spare me the "it's better to wound them, then they have to tend to each other" line...

[Crosshair]

Can't afford an AR huh?
Can't afford to keep replacing the soda can magazines.;)

[Dobe]

Come now. MagPul makes a good mag, and if that's not good enough, try a slightly expensive HK. These mags work well.

[Orion6]

Nothing wrong with USGI AR mags.

[kraigwy]

"No man's opinion is any better than his background, his experience, and his general common sense." - Jack O'Conner

Nuf Said

[johnwilliamson062]

"The NVA had just about everything we had. They were a uniformed army just like ours. "
They had surplus Chinese stuff. It was nowhere close to the quality we had.

"Can't afford an AR huh?"
A whole lot of people go the Mini-14 rout and by the time they get mags, accurize the barrel, etc..,are in for more than a decent AR. Why would they do that?

For production cost the AR is extremely accurate. Some can shoot 2 ich groups at 600 yards. When I have shot with Army enlisted and officers they have never been good enough shots to take advantage of that accuracy in any position but prone supported slinged in. Even then few could. I have not shot with any SF or retired SF, but the people on that route I have shot with also couldn't take advantage of it. The whole accuracy advantage just seems abslutely worthless in a general issue rifle to me.

Does anyone have statistics on what percentage of soldiers gain a significant advantage from the added accuracy in various positions?

I fear peasants who have been in combat since age 12 and feel comfortable firing a rifle with rags instead of wood furniture.

[mesabi]

I would take the Ak. Realiability and looks. Just bought a Polish Tantal a few days ago. Time to stock up on the cheap mil surp ammo.

[J32A2]

Hell I've never shot an AR, .22 cal never did anything 4 me!
AK:cool:

[SPUSCG]

i don't get the ar vs. ak debate.

ak:inaccurate, not very modular, low range, no optics1
ar-high maintenance, fussy, wimpy round.

so we have two weapons, a redesighned 2x4 and a whiffle bat.

I say

m21, m240b, scar h, sig p220, oh my bad did i just list my idea for replacements to our current arms? actually we do use m240s but lets scrap the 249SAW

[L_Killkenny]

johnwilliamson: I'll agree, the average shooter can not take full advantage of the accuracy of an AR. But then again, 99.99% of shooter can't in field positions.

Let's put it this way: If a gun is capable of 1" groups at 100 yards but the shooter is only capable of 3" groups with the gun then his group opened opened up by 3 times. His groups would also open up by 3 times with an AK. It's not like he can shoot the AK as well either. This means the shooter that shoots 3" groups with the AR will shoot in the neighborhood of 12-15" groups with the AK. And he'll be holding a ugly, clunky piece of foreign crap while doing it.

The AK is a waste of space that would better be filled with air.

CB

[TPAW]

They had surplus Chinese stuff. It was nowhere close to the quality we had.

Surplus, not quite. Quality? Let's put it this way, quality aside, the AK was more reliable than our M-16's. Many of us shouldered our M-16's and used captured AK's. Up north where I was, many of the weapons were new, being brought down by fresh North Vietnamese Troops. This was especially true during the big push by North Vietnam (TET Offensive in January, 1968). However, even if some were surplus, it killed you just as dead.

[Brandon79ta]

and while the guy trying to shoot 3" groups with his AR is cleaning it so it'll run he'll end up shot by the guy with the AK that's probably not been cleaned in who knows how long.

I'll take something that goes bang every time I pull the trigger over the more accurate weapon every time.


They both have their place, the AR on the range, swat, police etc where they will be used for a few hopefully well placed shots and then cleaned, and the AK in a SHTF type situation where your life depends on the gun fuctioning.

But that's just me.

[TheManHimself]

An AR made to meet TDP spec WILL fire every time you pull the trigger, within reason. One man cannot carry the amount of ammunition it would take to make an in-spec M4/AR type weapon fail from fouling buildup.

And 3" groups? Try .75". The guy with the AK wouldn't be able to do much of anything when the guy with the AR puts one through his head from farther away than the AK can even hit anything. As a famous Marine sniper once put it, "The deadliest thing on the battlefield is a well-aimed shot".

[johnwilliamson062]

Up north where I was, many of the weapons were new, being brought down by fresh North Vietnamese Troops.
I was talking more about the tanks, SAMs, and heavy equip mentioned. Surplus does not mean beat to death. Most of the surplus rifles I buy were never issued. Worth it to pay for that nice finish. NVA got all the seconds.

As far as MOA widening out, I believe the effect is additive, not multiplicative. So you get 4-5 inch groups, not 12-15.

They both have their place, the AR on the range, swat, police etc where they will be used for a few hopefully well placed shots and then cleaned, and the AK in a SHTF type situation where your life depends on the gun fuctioning.
Well said.

I'd rather get HK 416s than bail out Detroit.

[jammin1237]

shooting the ak is really fun and is a decent round, but if i was in a life or death situ i would opt for a double tap hit on the enemy versus the "ak spray and pray" method...

cheers n beers........

[TPAW]

NVA got all the seconds.

Not so. I'll also throw this into the mix. The NVA captured much of our weaponry from the ARVN's (Army Republic of Vietnam), who were not reliable soldiers or fighters. They could never be trusted. In many cases they just dropped their weapons (our stuff) and ran. One incident I distinctly remember was 5 captured US 105 howitzers that the NVA used on my company. The ARVN's who had them abandoned the fire support base before the NVA even reached them. This was not an isolated incident.
With all due respect, unless you were there as I was to experience what went on over there, I would just as well discontinue this game of ping pong. It's going nowhere.
Have a nice day.

[USMCGrunt]

Ya know, it's a lot easier to keep an AR reliable than making an AK accurate.

[Orion6]

I guess we're each entitled to our own opinions. I'll give the AK simplicity and reliability.

But it's silly to deny that an AR-15 is an effective weapon. Most people that don't "like" AR's have no experience with them or can't afford one.

They are a great design and the most ergonomic military rifle ever devised. Will they work with a handful of sand in the action? No, but neither will an AK contrary to popular belief.

Ak's are sloppy and crude. Yes, they work. But they're spray and pray weapons. An AR-15/M16 is a rifleman's weapon. :cool:

[TPAW]

USMCGrunt says:

Ya know, it's a lot easier to keep an AR reliable than making an AK accurate.

I like that!....;)

[kraigwy]

Up north where I was, many of the weapons were new, being brought down by fresh North Vietnamese Troops. This was especially true during the big push by North Vietnam (TET Offensive in January, 1968).

Yeap I remember that. We captured stock piles of new AKs that just came down the valley (Firebase Bastonge, 2/502 Inf 101st Abn Div) ather Johnson stopped the bombing of the North in March 68. After we cleaned the packing grease off them we found the chambers so pitted the extracter would rip the rim off leaving the brass in the chamber. Also found some bad guys who ran into the same problem. But it was too late for them.

[mav88]

i would take a m1 garand/russian sks for SHTF both reliable..and big rounds..

[FireForged]

The AR has got longer range accuracy but must be kept free of grit and grime.

The AK has loose tollerances which makes it nearly impossible to fail no matter what gets into the mech.

[TPAW]

kraigwy states:

Yeap I remember that. We captured stock piles of new AKs that just came down the valley (Firebase Bastonge, 2/502 Inf 101st Abn Div) ather Johnson stopped the bombing of the North in March 68. After we cleaned the packing grease off them we found the chambers so pitted the extracter would rip the rim off leaving the brass in the chamber. Also found some bad guys who ran into the same problem. But it was too late for them.

Welcome home brother. Another grunt. Baptism of fire, Hill 875, Dak To, Nov. 67', 57th AHC, TDY, 3/8 Inf. 4th Div., support group for the 173rd Abn.

[HorseSoldier]

Bury the AR in the ground until the stock rots off (which is hard to do with plastic/polymers). Then dig it up, wash it off in an irrigation ditch and take it into battle. I'm gonna wager that the bolt hangs up in the receiver because the tolerances on the AR just aren't designed to accomodate battlefield crud.

Not so much, really with the AK either. AKs are rugged, but they aren't nearly as unstoppable and indestructible as the world of the internet claims. If you never clean and never lube your AK -- much less bury it in a mud puddle for a year -- it can and will experience failures. People who say otherwise have generally never run AKs hard and are repeating myths.

MagPul makes a good mag, and if that's not good enough, try a slightly expensive HK. These mags work well.

PMags and USGI mags work well. HKs are overpriced and underperforming wastes of money.

[Viking Josh]

Personly, I'm more for the AK. Most conflicts take places in closer ranges, and being as the US is a lot of urban areas, and urban means "in your face" I'd rather have something that I can beat to hell and not have to worry about it screwing up. Now the AR is a pretty good weapon, it has quite the good range and a lot of attachments, It seems to be more a richer person's weapon, but it's high mantaince. It's not quite durable and has a small round that has a hard time penetrating things. If someone was behind 8 inches of wood, the small round wouldn't be able to go through, the AK's round on the other hand, would penetrate through, and whatever/whoever is behind it.

In a SHTF situation, I don't think the AR will hold up in the long run, cleaning supplies get harder to find, you get sand or dirt or muck in it, you can't clean your weapon, it starts to malfunction and your up **** creek without a paddle.

[MaxHeadSpace]

OBTW, MAXHEADSPACE your a troll, now go back under your bridge.

It's "you're" . . . A contraction of "you are." Not to be confused with "your" which is a personal pronoun.

I'm not trollin' so much as I'm shootin' fish in a barrel. Pun intended. :D

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj188/Ontologix/grammarbadgesmallfile.jpg

And that whole NVA, Tet Offensive, buried AK's and rotten furniture thing is a folkloric tale I've heard oft repeated on forums like these. I'm a Folklorist, what can I say?

Did you hear the one about the Zippo in the SeaBee's breast pocket stopping Charlie's bullet while he was sittin' on the Caterpillar out in the rice paddies?

[NWCP]

Both the AR and AK have their rightful place in a shooters inventory. I just happen to prefer the CZ vz58. :D

[Ignition Override]

TPAW:
A guy I briefly worked with was in the right seat of a C-130 at the Saigon air base when US-built A-37s attacked,
flown by North Viet. pilots!

As the 250 or 500 lb bombs missed doing major damage, instead of careful engine starts-one at a time,
the AC said "You guys start the right two, I'll start the left two!" Carefully-coordinated procedures and system checks are forgotten.

As for rifles, having limited civilian shooting (certainly no infantry or LEO) experience and 'zero time' with anarchy in the streets (LA, Katrina...), it is difficult to imagine how a self-defense scenario by suburbs would involve more than 100 yards?
Only self-defense for two-legged or four-wheeled Feral Human Pigs.

With an UnCivil insurrection etc, wouldn't our SKS or Mini 14/30 at least get the attention of FHPs?
If there is a chance of that, then wouldn't the sight of an AK with large mag. command their attention better than an AR?
How about an SKS or AK and a cute little 9mm CZ-75 handgun in case your car breaks down in an urban area during troubled times, or maybe much worse, just after a very "high profile shooting" or beating?

[Citizen Carrier]

Hmm, comparing a rifle to a carbine.

Seems to me that the AR15 can do pretty much everything at 100-200 meters that an AK can, but an AK in the 7.62 chambering is pretty much done at 250 meters.

My first forays into the AK involved a Hungarian SA-85M and a Polytech...both with thumbhole stocks, back in the 1990s. Shooting from a table, in a chair, with sandbags at Fort Riley's POW range, I simply could not put rounds on man-sized targets at 300 meters. Really had a hard time breaking paper at 250. With an issue M16A2/A4, I've been able to hit 300 meter targets in the prone while wearing all sorts of gear or armor.

Ergonomically, the AR beats the AK. Easier magazine changes with the AR. Better location of safety lever on AR. Don't have to take my hand off the grip to activate or deactivate it. The AR is quieter when you click it off safe.

The AR has a longer sight radius and more precise sights. The AK may be a fine rifle for "peasants", but I am not a peasant. I am a modern, literate, sophisticated man who can judge distances, determine sight adjustments, and take weather conditions into account. Why would I not want to make full use of those abilities? Why would I ever want to have to get closer to an enemy in order to deliver fire upon him when I could do it beyond the reach of his peasant rifle and poor marksmanship skills?

The AR has a superior trigger pull. There is no such animal known as "AR trigger slap". Nor have I ever had an AR "double" because I was actually using proper trigger squeeze rather than yanking the trigger. I've seen at least one Romanian AKM do that.

Fully loaded, I believe the AK is heavier than a fully loaded AR. So, a heavier carbine that is not much use beyond 200 yards and has several ergonomic drawbacks versus a lighter rifle than can rapidly engage targets up close, just like the AK, but also far out beyond the AK's ability.

Reliability. Yes, the AK should be able to run dirtier. Peasants in third world countries are probably not known for their work ethic or dedication to maintaining equipment. Disciplined professionals tend to clean their weapons regularly. Hell, you don't even have to clean the AR everyday. Just inspect it to see if it needs it.

It is also important to remember that the AK was NOT made to be a guerrilla warfare weapon. It was made to compliment the tactics of the Soviet Army. That meant massed, preferably automatic fire from a bunch of infantry moving rapidly over the terrain in order to overwhelm the enemy. Just the kind of thing you'd expect from a regime and ideology that didn't place a high value on the lives of it's individual citizens.

Anybody in a big hurry to participate in something like that?

Let's suppose for a second that the Vietcong had been armed with rifles capable of hits at 500-600 yards and that they were trained, experienced marksmen able to estimate ranges and judge weather conditions.

Does anybody think our casualties in Vietnam wouldn't have been much higher? Perhaps prohibitively so? As in "we need to get the heck out of here pronto"?

Again, I'm no peasant. Let them have all the disadvantages. I'll be somewhere out yonder adjusting my sights...

[Orion6]

Hmm, comparing a rifle to a carbine.

Seems to me that the AR15 can do pretty much everything at 100-200 meters that an AK can, but an AK in the 7.62 chambering is pretty much done at 250 meters.

My first forays into the AK involved a Hungarian SA-85M and a Polytech...both with thumbhole stocks, back in the 1990s. Shooting from a table, in a chair, with sandbags at Fort Riley's POW range, I simply could not put rounds on man-sized targets at 300 meters. Really had a hard time breaking paper at 250. With an issue M16A2/A4, I've been able to hit 300 meter targets in the prone while wearing all sorts of gear or armor.

Ergonomically, the AR beats the AK. Easier magazine changes with the AR. Better location of safety lever on AR. Don't have to take my hand off the grip to activate or deactivate it. The AR is quieter when you click it off safe.

The AR has a longer sight radius and more precise sights. The AK may be a fine rifle for "peasants", but I am not a peasant. I am a modern, literate, sophisticated man who can judge distances, determine sight adjustments, and take weather conditions into account. Why would I not want to make full use of those abilities? Why would I ever want to have to get closer to an enemy in order to deliver fire upon him when I could do it beyond the reach of his peasant rifle and poor marksmanship skills?

The AR has a superior trigger pull. There is no such animal known as "AR trigger slap". Nor have I ever had an AR "double" because I was actually using proper trigger squeeze rather than yanking the trigger. I've seen at least one Romanian AKM do that.

Fully loaded, I believe the AK is heavier than a fully loaded AR. So, a heavier carbine that is not much use beyond 200 yards and has several ergonomic drawbacks versus a lighter rifle than can rapidly engage targets up close, just like the AK, but also far out beyond the AK's ability.

Reliability. Yes, the AK should be able to run dirtier. Peasants in third world countries are probably not known for their work ethic or dedication to maintaining equipment. Disciplined professionals tend to clean their weapons regularly. Hell, you don't even have to clean the AR everyday. Just inspect it to see if it needs it.

It is also important to remember that the AK was NOT made to be a guerrilla warfare weapon. It was made to compliment the tactics of the Soviet Army. That meant massed, preferably automatic fire from a bunch of infantry moving rapidly over the terrain in order to overwhelm the enemy. Just the kind of thing you'd expect from a regime and ideology that didn't place a high value on the lives of it's individual citizens.

Anybody in a big hurry to participate in something like that?

Let's suppose for a second that the Vietcong had been armed with rifles capable of hits at 500-600 yards and that they were trained, experienced marksmen able to estimate ranges and judge weather conditions.

Does anybody think our casualties in Vietnam wouldn't have been much higher? Perhaps prohibitively so? As in "we need to get the heck out of here pronto"?

Again, I'm no peasant. Let them have all the disadvantages. I'll be somewhere out yonder adjusting my sights...


Best, most thought-out post in this thread. And 100% spot on IMHO.

[Citizen Carrier]

Thanks.

It is interesting to note that for the Soviets and other countries that still cling to the AKM, a carbine was their standard issue infantry weapon.

A weapon you have to get closer than 300 meters to the enemy in order to deliver accurate fire. To top that off, the first position on the safety after "safe" was "auto". The Soviets didn't really depend on aimed fire. They wanted massed automatic suppressive fire so they could rapidly close with the enemy.

An enemy that would likely be western, NATO, dug in, and able to start inflicting casualties on the Soviet troops way before they reached 300 meters.

Western armies did not and do not make carbines the standard issue weapon. Carbines are for support troops, artillerymen, truck drivers, etc. Western armies, which tend to place a higher value on their individual people, issue rifles.

Admittedly, the M4 is the arm of choice for soldiers in Iraq because nearly all the operations there begin and end from inside a humvee. When I was in Bagdhad I had an A4, full-sized. This was an unwieldy rifle for convoys or moving around city mounted. It has the additional drawback of not having a collapsable stock. If you are wearing the IBA or IOTV body armor with esapi plates, it is impossible to get your eye the proper distance and place behind the rear peep sight. You just can't do it.

I just returned from Kuwait and I was still suprised to see units transitioning either to or from Iraq still toting around the full-length M16 rifles. Surely this is a problem that needs to be addressed. That full stock is useless when you are wearing body armor.

It may be morbid to look at it this way, but the two L.A. bank robbers didn't manage to kill anybody they shot at. Several were wounded. Had any run of the mill NRA high power shooter been there with his service rifle and match loads, he probably could've dispatched both of the robbers with perhaps just two shots.

Now, all that being said, I do not own an AR15 right now. Not really interested in doing so. I guess using them at work for the last 17 years just makes me look at them the same way I would a car jack or ball peen hammer. I've owned ARs in the past, but I never hang on to them for very long.

I do own a Romanian AKM right now. I bought it on impulse back in July when I started getting bad feelings about the election. I also discovered that for some reason I already had a 1000 rounds of 7.62 I'd bought in the past.

My rifle of choice is neither the AKM or the AR15. It's the M14S Polytech I had upgraded by Smith Enterprises. In the next few months it will be further upgraded by a McMillan stock and a heavy match barrel. That rifle kicks the crap out of both the AK and the AR.

[csmsss]

Interesting point, CC. The Sovblock choice of infantry weapontry is fully in line with their doctrine of masses of troops and tanks overwhelming their opponents with numerical superiority, if not qualitative superiority. It worked for them against the Germans in WWII and this doctrine has not altered significantly since then. Keep in mind that in the Soviet Union, there is little concept of citizens as individuals. Your life (such as it was) belonged to the State and you were simply a resource to be used at the State's whim.

The U.S. (and our NATO allies) doctrine of engaging the enemy at long range, utilizing qualitative advantages in tactics, weaponry, and communications reflects a long-standing reluctance to sustain massive casualties. This can be traced, in significant part, to the massive losses of men sustained in World War I trench warfare, in which millions of lives were lost because battlefield tactics and preparation had not advanced as quickly as the advances in military equipment (ie machine guns, accurate artillery and high explosive shells). This left an indelible impression upon the military staffs in western Europe and the United States, and the rapid doctrinal changes in western militaries following World War I are a reflection of this.

[dangerclose]

Citizen Carrier, try out a Krebs KTR-08. You will think of AK's in a whole different way. Tapco Trigger, M4 sights, moved safety, collapsible stocks. Pretty much only thing that is AK is the receiver and piston system. Only thing I can think of doing is a quicker magazine change system, but that just takes practice and training.

Here is the fix to your safety problem.(borrowed pic from internet)
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee87/GDubyaS45/LHSSafety.jpg

[vox rationis]

Well since you all have started feeding the troll...

Here's an interesting AK vs M16 video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0).

Bottom line:

If you are a well trained soldier that values superior shootability (shot to shot recovery and mag changes), accuracy, ergonomics, modularity, and light weight, then the AR is for you.

If you are a SpecOps operative, then the AR is still for you, for all of the above mentioned reasons (and this is why it is a Spec Ops preferred weapon, even by units such as the SAS), but in a supremely arid and dusty environment you might want to chose the HK 416/417 (or a SCAR).

If you are a Soviet military planner that relies on using a massive mechanized infantry frontal assault where your expandable Comrades are advancing while armpit firing their AK's with short fully auto bursts to gain fire superiority, than the AK is for you.

If you are a third world combative wearing a dirty night shirt, and your cleaning kit consists of a shoestring and some diesel fuel, than the AK is for you.

Oh and by the way, yes the 7.62x39 round is a much better penetrator, but the 5.56x45 round has better terminal ballistics when it remains within its fragmentation range (outside this range the Soviet round is more effective however one is then impeded by the rounds poor trajectory and its platform's less than stellar accuracy).

[dangerclose]

bah, nevermind

[MaxHeadSpace]

two-legged or four-wheeled Feral Human Pigs.

NOW we're gettin' down to the serious stuff! :D

Obviously both guns have their merits. Last time I checked, the AR is a carbine, but that's splitting hairs and really doesn't have a lot of bearing in the matter.

When the Germans invented the Sturmgewehr back about 1944, warfare tactics shifted from "aimed fire" to "suppressive fire." Germans additionally began to construct their battlefield infantry tactics around support of a machine gun. (You can see all this on the History Channel, "Tales of the Gun".)

Serious engagement takes place on the battlefield under 300 yds. Beyond that, you're pretty much just slinging lead down-range to keep 'em ducking.

Let me address the "troll" issue . . .

Had I posted "That there AR certainly is a mighty fine gun." we'd have two posts: a "thumbs up" and a "what he said."

With a thread like this, we all get to carouse with our buddies and tell war stories! :D

"Why I remember back in the 'Nam we'd be out in the jungles with our Mattel rifles, engagin' Charlie . . . You could hear our bullets ricocheting off the foliage; damned .22 doesn't penetrate anything. Ol' Charlie'd have us kissin' the dirt with his AK, bullets zingin' over our heads, dropping limbs, small trees, birds, monkeys, and snakes on us . . . "

Kalashnikov engineered his rifle so it could be readily manufactured with basic fabrication facilities. The "concept" was to provide the Proletariat an armed means of liberation from their oppressors. Part of the Communist world-wide revolution. Currently, there have been 100 million produced. There's gotta be something to it!

-- And I got my eye on a Bushmaster, 16" bbl. detach handgrip/sights, collapsible buttstock, bayo lug, flash suppressor. Won't rot when buried now and dug up later to free the People from the oppression of the New World Order AWB . . .

[Dobe]

Well, at least you do have a sense of humor. Me, I'm just waiting for the zombies.

[vox rationis]

bah, nevermind

Oh and as far as that Krebs AK variant. Certainly an improvement, but it is still trying to put crutches on an an invalid to a certain extent. I'd still do as Delta did and go for the HK 416/417, and new designs such as the FN SCAR (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92BsJYzKzpI) or the Masada/Bushmaster ACR (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoa-rJkHReM) (that's if Bushmaster doesn't ruin a great design with mediocre build quality) should turn out superior in most ways.

[gregorybj]

The round of the AK has about double the kinetic energy of a 5.56 NATO round that is fired from an M4. It is truly a destructive weapon. However, I am not a fan of AKs because of what they represent. The gun is used as a symbol for rebellion and has has only caused the U.S trouble. Such examples are Vietnam, Iraq, and Somalia. Even criminals use them such as in the case with the High Incident Bandits around 1997. Nevertheless, it is a good quality rifle!!

[dangerclose]

I wasn't saying the KTR-08 was the end all be all. I was stating that it is a excellent variant of the AK that has improved on some of the AKs flaws.

I agree, the SCAR and ACR are probably the best options and given the choice I would have a hard time choosing.

[Te Anau]

I was recently involved in a conversation with a recently returned Iraq combat veteran.He was asked how he liked the M4's performance and he said that they were fine guns and that they cleaned them twice a day every day to keep them running great.This is the problem with the AR design and why it is inferior to the mighty AK.I bet those M4's were going up against AK's that hadn't been cleaned twice since they were made in 1997. :D

[BuckHammer]

I own a Romanian WASR 10, and I must say that it is certainly not inaccurate. That does not mean that it is accurate, just that it is not inaccurate. It has very average accuracy, it is not a sniper rifle. Within 100 yards, I trust the 7.62x39mm over the 5.56x45mm. I don't trust the 5.56mm to kill deer, so why should I trust it to kill humans? I have seen 7.62x39mm kill deer. However, I trust 12 ga. slugs to kill deer FAR better. If you are gonna try to shoot past about 150 yards or so, I recommend finding a rifle besides an AK.

After saying all of that, I have fired an AR, and I loved it. I actually plan on buying one when I have the resources and if time doesn't run out on me. However, I love how I can throw my AK into a muddy truck without doors while we try to figure out a way to get the truck to climb the at least 35 degree muddy incline ahead of us, and it will still love me back. I don't have to worry about the AK. When I take other rifles into similar scenarios, all I can think about is cleaning them ASAP.

I love the AR15 and that entire platform, and it is very effective. However, if I'm gonna be shooting 100 yards and beyond only, I'll grab my PTR91. If I know I'm gonna be shooting from point blank to like 400, I'll want an AR. But if I know I'm only shooting from point blank to 100, I'll take an AK, especially if the conditions will be nasty. I would imagine that the closer you will be to your target, the nastier the conditions will be, which is seemingly what the AK is designed for.

Gas piston AR? To me at least, that's just making an expensive weapon even more expensive. Then again, I have absolutely no experience with piston ARs. Trying to make an AR as reliable as an AK, at least to me, is like trying to make an AK as accurate as an AR.

[Citizen Carrier]

Kalashnikov engineered his rifle so it could be readily manufactured with basic fabrication facilities. The "concept" was to provide the Proletariat an armed means of liberation from their oppressors. Part of the Communist world-wide revolution. Currently, there have been 100 million produced. There's gotta be something to it!

Actually, according to Kalashnikov's biography and statements he's made in interviews, his goal was simply to produce a weapon for the defense of his homeland.

I would not say the AK concept came about with the international spread of communism as a goal. If the Russians had opted for something like an FAL, that would merely have been the rifle seen in various parts of the world as support for communist revolutions.

The AK was what the commintern had in abundance, so that is what got shipped out as aid.

According to Kokalis, the main accuracy problem with the AKM/AK in 7.62 is the rate of twist in the barrel. It was built using barrels made on machines that had been making mosin-nagants, so it has a rate of twist more suitable for 150 grain bullets or heavier. Not so good if you are shooting something around 124 grains.

From what I gather, the 5.56 and 5.45 variants have rates of twist more suitable for their bullet weights and thus have an edge in accuracy. Now all we need to do is figure out how to put some national match peep sights and a Jewell trigger on one...:D

[Crosshair]

Um, the safety is not placed Safe, Auto, Semi because the Soviets intended to just spray lead everywhere. It was done that way so a panicked infantryman, who would slap the safety lever all the way down to get going, would inevitably get it into "semi" mode where it would be far more effective than an infantryman just spraying lead everywhere.

Yes you see them spraying everywhere in the propaganda films, that's because it looks cooler and makes for a better film. (Basic film making stuff. Looks Cool > Looks realistic) If they really want into combat like you see in the films, they would be out of ammo in about two minutes.

You see them spraying in the 3rd world because they think that God will guide the bullet to the target and/or that pointing the gun at the enemy will somehow make the bullet hit the target. Basically, a lack of training.

[Dobe]

You see them spraying in the 3rd world because they think that God will guide the bullet to the target and/or that pointing the gun at the enemy will somehow make the bullet hit the target. Basically, a lack of training.


Or maybe it's because they are just not trained?

[HorseSoldier]

It is interesting to note that for the Soviets and other countries that still cling to the AKM, a carbine was their standard issue infantry weapon.

A weapon you have to get closer than 300 meters to the enemy in order to deliver accurate fire. To top that off, the first position on the safety after "safe" was "auto". The Soviets didn't really depend on aimed fire. They wanted massed automatic suppressive fire so they could rapidly close with the enemy.

An enemy that would likely be western, NATO, dug in, and able to start inflicting casualties on the Soviet troops way before they reached 300 meters.

First, almost all engagements with personal weapons occur within 300 meters, whether the troops in question are armed with AKs, M16s, M4s, or whatever else (including 7.62x51 battle rifles, M1 Garands, or M1903s and M1917s as far back as WW1). This is because target acquisition and positive ID past that range without magnified optics is extremely low percentage.

Second, in the scenario of a Warsaw Pact unit attacking a NATO force circa 1989 or whatever, casualties past 300 meters would mostly be the product of crew served weapons, not individual weapons.

Finally, on the AK there are those who argue that Safe-Auto-Semi on the AK selector suggests the Soviets emphasized automatic fire. There are also those who argue (Crosshair does in this thread) that under life/death stress, your hypothetical Ivan is going to slam the selector all the way down to semi, producing the same end state as your hypothetical Joe with an M16 sweeping the selector to semi. I'm not sure if this is a valid glimpse into the design strategy, but does seem to hold true if you're finger sweeping the AK safety on a clock.

[Arabia]

**** another troll bringing up the old AK Vs. AR controversy. Its seems we have one of these threads once a week. People, this guy is only looking to get people riled up into a flame war. He even admitted that was his intention. This thread has run its course, with the same tired old arguments. Personally I don't understand why this thread has not been closed.

[Death from Afar]

As always, awesome posts from citizen carrier and horse soldier.

While i have nothing but respect for chaps who served in Vietnam, it is important to bear in mind that this is still close to 40 years ago, and SoP's and equipment have moved on very considerably since then. Historically, the reliability isses with M16 are well known, but should not really be considered in the here and now context....its how the weapon does now that matters, and we really are not having the endemic jamming that plagued the early models.

As an interesting aside, when the .303 was first issued there was much terse discussion about reliability and soldiers using too much ammo- they said the redcoats should stick to the Martini Henrys! We never learn.

[jammin1237]

yet another post, just take a quick look at the ak vs m16 video and take a deep breath...fist couple of shots are very accurate with the 7.62 variants and as the "firefight" progresses you could probably shoot around corners with the ak or sks, the pattern goes all over the place after increased fire and heated barrel... bought a sks in th 80s very accurate up to ten shots, had thousands of rounds through it before the barrel pins came loose and i had it destroyed... it may fire, but who cares if you cant hit anything?

[RedneckFur]

Everyone complains about the AK's saftey, but its more of a dustcover that has the added ability to act as a saftey. For most Soviet weapons, the "saftey" was keeping yer finger off the bang switch. You would not go into battle with the saftey on in an Ak, so complaining about the saftey is needless.

[freakintoguns]

ummm how bout you spend the cost of a good AR plus a decent AK and buy a FAL? .308 drops BGS, and when SHTF and you gotta hunt to feed yourself that same .308 is gonna drop about anythign in the forest.

[SR420]

Get yourself a nice AR, a nice AK and an M14 :cool:

[johnwilliamson062]

"an AR-15 is an effective weapon"
I do not think anyone is really saying it is not. But why would you pay 5 times as much for a rifle which is not better suited for the needs of the vast majority of the soldiers it is issued to. Part of why we get into this on this forum so much is b/c the people defending the M16 want to say their personal experience is great. Well you are a firearms enthusiast, of course you are capable of keeping a higher maintenance rifle running and you probably can get some advantage out of that accuracy. Most can not. I could probably keep it running fine with good supply lines, and could take advantage of the accuracy from prone with sling, but I am not buying such a rifle for a time when I can go to Walmart to buy Remington CLP.

To top that off, the first position on the safety after "safe" was "auto". The Soviets didn't really depend on aimed fire.
See the soviets, unlike us, are really good at idiot proofing equipment. SO what you do when you see the enemy is hit the safety all the way down and open up on them. Oh, someone already made that point.

modularity
Yeah, I see tons of our soldiers using multiple uppers and sight systems. M16 is much better suited for SF and SDM than general issue, yet SF that has the choice has chosen other rifles a lot, not all the time, but a lot.

The Sovblock choice of infantry weaponry is fully in line with their doctrine of masses of troops and tanks overwhelming their opponents with numerical superiority
Wow. Someone has read a lot of cold war propaganda. Check out some post cold war sources such as David Glantz. Then look at the difference in small unit tactics between Eastern and Western forces. The US perfected the assembly line for a reason.

After we cleaned the packing grease off them we found the chambers so pitted the extractor would rip the rim off leaving the brass in the chamber
THey sent their junk. Not saying they did not also send first run, but they shipped all their junk to others. You think the Soviets and Chinese kept the crap for themselves? No they shipped it off to other countries. Just like the US has done in the past. Remember these arms shipments were all part of economic treaties related to ComEcon.

[rshanneck2002]

i own both and as an ex combat vet from nam let me assure you,both will KILL you dead and the ar i was issued in nam is a world away from todays ar,they have vastly improved since then and as for the ak being tougher turn it over,smash the piston cover and its done also.this all being said,you dont have to clean an ak every 250 to 300 rds to use it in a firefight,guys were talking 8 to 10 30 rounders and then start cleaning befor the jamming effect comes in. today i would take an ak for close in fighting which the majority is and everyday combat assuming i would have to do it again, HOPEFULLY NOT!

[HorseSoldier]

For most Soviet weapons, the "saftey" was keeping yer finger off the bang switch. You would not go into battle with the saftey on in an Ak, so complaining about the saftey is needless.

The actual Soviet manual of arms for the AK is generally weapon on safe when moving, weapon hot when set in a firing position. How much actual usage matched the book answer, I can't say -- though I've heard Afghanistan veterans were not firm believers in it (not unlike how some units in Vietnam made much more use of automatic fire from M16s than training and doctrine supported).

As far as equipment goes, I've handled new-ish .mil AKs where the safety was loose enough that you could manipulate it almost as fast as an AR safety (+/- having to break your grip to work it). I've also handled new-ish examples where the safety was so tight as delivered from the factory, I'd want to carry a mallet to tap it off safe. The fix for the latter is an easy bit of bending the sheet metal to loosen it up. I'd be curious to find out if this was done much by Soviet troops in Afghanistan, or some of the guys who've served in Iraq with AK type weapons like the Bulgarians and the Poles. Seems like it would be.

[TheManHimself]

I do not think anyone is really saying it is not. But why would you pay 5 times as much for a rifle which is not better suited for the needs of the vast majority of the soldiers it is issued to. Part of why we get into this on this forum so much is b/c the people defending the M16 want to say their personal experience is great. Well you are a firearms enthusiast, of course you are capable of keeping a higher maintenance rifle running and you probably can get some advantage out of that accuracy. Most can not. I could probably keep it running fine with good supply lines, and could take advantage of the accuracy from prone with sling, but I am not buying such a rifle for a time when I can go to Walmart to buy Remington CLP.

This has got to be the biggest myth about the M16 ever. You don't need to clean it every five shots or whatever you want to believe. The Army test that supposedly proved the M4 was so "bad" involved firing 60,000 rounds total through 10 M4s, without cleaning them, just relubing every now and then, in a total sandstorm condition - the type of environment where you have trouble even breathing unprotected. All that with a whopping 2% failure rate, and most of that towards the last thousand or so when wear on parts started taking its toll. Seeing as an individual soldier isn't even going to be carrying 6000 rounds of ammunition along with all his other gear, I'm not seeing where the reliability issue is at all.

And you don't need CLP - motor oil works just fine. Some of the experts on the system recommend Mobil 1 over gun-specific lubes, actually. So when you get the time, you pull the bolt group, wipe it off with your shirt or whatever is handy, pour a little motor oil on the bolt group, stick it back in, and you're good to go. Pretty much the same way those smelly bearded men on the other side of the world maintain their AKs, really. A few quarts of motor oil is enough to keep the gun running longer than the operator will.

[HorseSoldier]

But why would you pay 5 times as much for a rifle which is not better suited for the needs of the vast majority of the soldiers it is issued to. Part of why we get into this on this forum so much is b/c the people defending the M16 want to say their personal experience is great. Well you are a firearms enthusiast, of course you are capable of keeping a higher maintenance rifle running and you probably can get some advantage out of that accuracy. Most can not.

The only people I've ever seen who had trouble keeping an M4 or M16 running were those who completely neglected it. The weapon runs with much less maintenance than the internet mythology claims, and any entry level soldier or marine has the training to keep it going.

I could probably keep it running fine with good supply lines, and could take advantage of the accuracy from prone with sling, but I am not buying such a rifle for a time when I can go to Walmart to buy Remington CLP.

Slings have nothing to do with combat marksmanship, except for letting you transition effectively to your pistol.

In the specific case of the M16, using a sling -- unless you've free-floated the front end -- changes your POI from point of aim.

See the soviets, unlike us, are really good at idiot proofing equipment. SO what you do when you see the enemy is hit the safety all the way down and open up on them. Oh, someone already made that point.

Which produces an end result completely identical to a guy who thumb-sweeps the safety on his M4 and engages the enemy.

The only difference is the guy with the M4 will tend to get the shot off faster. "Firstest with the mostest" is a pretty significantly timeless military principle, particularly when it comes to putting rounds onto and into the other guy.

Yeah, I see tons of our soldiers using multiple uppers and sight systems. M16 is much better suited for SF and SDM than general issue, yet SF that has the choice has chosen other rifles a lot, not all the time, but a lot.

Modularity is a benefit at levels above just the individual end user. The ability to teach a single manual of arms to troops and then issue weapons optimized for everything from personal defense to sniper weapons (and light machineguns if the rumor about Colt winning the IAR contract is correct) is a great benefit for training, and a benefit for end users who don't have to do intensive retraining when reassignment or promotion moves them into a slot that gets a different weapon. Likewise, the ease of upgrading optics, lasers and illuminators, white lights, and everything else on the weapon is revolutionary.

As for SF use of weapons, I'm curious what you base your claim on. In four plus years in SF units, the only non-M4 weapons I saw ODAs carrying for general gunfighting use were M4A1s and a limited number of HK416s -- which, of course, completely copy the ergonomics of the M4 and which are only really an improvement over the M4 if you're running SBRs or suppressors. Outside that, the only weapons teams guys carried were sniper weapons (many of which were SPRs and SR-25s anyway) and crew served on their vehicles.

Never saw anybody who carried an AK or voiced any desire to do so. I did know a lot of guys who were eager to put the SCAR through its paces, but most took a wait and see opinion on whether it actually did anything an M4 couldn't do.

[johnwilliamson062]

No matter what we won't change from M4/M16 anytime soon.
I give up on this argument for a while. Let me recap the discussion so far:

1. The M16 has accuracy grunts certainly can not take advantage of in combat, most can't from a bench.

2. You can quickly switch to optics and other variants the average soldier is not issued, and they are certainly are not issued multiple systems that might require fast change outs or multiple rails.

3. As long as you have time to climb under the enemies technical and drain some motor oil every 2-300 rounds you can keep it running. They wont mind. Maybe you will be lucky and that Humvee with a soft bottom you were driving in will be leaking oil by your seventh mag.

4. After bailing out Detroit, we will have so much money left over we can continue to support platforms that are five times as expensive and offer no practical advantage.

5. Guys who are into firearms so much they are members of a firearms board and post to it multiple times a day have absolutely no problem keeping their M16 running. Neither do their friends, who also belong to units which require better discipline than a run of the mill Mech-infantry unit.

[Webleymkv]

This thread serves only to

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u34/Webleymkv/Stir20the20Pot20525.jpg

and

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u34/Webleymkv/BeatDeadHorse.gif

[SPUSCG]

why are people always debating between 2 outdated weapons? ar=accurate for competition, fun, small game
ak: cheaper, cheaper ammo, fun

ar=round too wimpy for war
ak:not accurate enough

seriously, debate an94 vs scar h or sometrhing

[Evil Monkey]

why are people always debating between 2 outdated weapons?

Probably because that's what most can afford. $300-$800 ak's and ar's.

People forget rifles like the scar, xcr, type 03, ar18, sig550, etc, which tend to mix together the best features of the AR and AK platforms.

It's quite pathetic. Sometimes you'll have threads that are trying to compare more modern rifles against each other then out of no where billy dumbass and bobby idiot come in to have an AK vs AR ******* match.:barf:

[MaxHeadSpace]

WHIP that horsie! Whip it good! :D

[SPUSCG]

then out of no where billy dumbass and bobby idiot come in to have an AK vs AR ******* match.

happens all the time in handgun threads when a glock guy shows up

[HorseSoldier]

ar=round too wimpy for war

Internet silliness.

I know quite a few people who've used the M4 to end quite a few lives downrange, and you just don't hear people who are actual shooters and actually used the weapon in combat complaining about 5.56mm lethality very often. (Not unlike how end users in combat arms and SOF units don't have much negative to say about the M4, either, even though we all "know" from the internet that you have to spray CLP into an M4 every time you pull the trigger or it won't shoot . . .)

It's probably worth noting that the guys in CAG are arguably the pre-eminent gunfighters in the US military, and likely as collectively expert on what works and doesn't work in a firefight as anyone on the planet. They have the option of adopting most anything they want to best accomplish their mission sets -- like the HK 416, for instance. They did drop 9mm and 45 ACP in favor of 40S&W, for instance. Given the option of shooting 6.8SPC, 6.5 Grendel, 7.62x39 or any other cartridge out there . . . they stuck with 5.56mm. If the guys in JSOC believe in it, it's going to take a pretty impressive resume to sell the counter-argument as anything but internet whinging.

ak:not accurate enough

An AK that's been zeroed should have no problems making hits on the range at typical combat ranges, even with crappy ammunition. The problem is not so much the mechanical accuracy of the weapon system as the fact that most shooters will find the AK irons slower to acquire and slower to get a shot off at ranges where accuracy is less forgiving of proper sight alignment and other shooting fundamentals. Put a good red dot on an AK and do a good 50 meter zero and it will hold its own at most combat ranges with an AR.

(And the other problem is everyone "knows" AKs aren't accurate, so there are a lot of people running around who seem to think zeroing their AK is some sort of pointless exercise, and take the fact that their POI is six or eight inches off point of aim at 100 meters as "proof" of this fact.)

[BeCoole]

According to Kokalis, the main accuracy problem with the AKM/AK in 7.62 is the rate of twist in the barrel. It was built using barrels made on machines that had been making mosin-nagants, so it has a rate of twist more suitable for 150 grain bullets or heavier. Not so good if you are shooting something around 124 grains.

Sometimes I just have to laugh when I read his stuff. He may be able to handle a weapon, but he doesn't know **** about what makes them tick.

If this particular assertion was true, my 1/7" twist AR-15 (made to shoot 80gr bullets accurately) would not be able to shoot 52gr Sierras into 3/4" 10 shot groups. But it does.

[TPAW]

Iginition Override asks:

With an UnCivil insurrection etc, wouldn't our SKS or Mini 14/30 at least get the attention of FHPs?
If there is a chance of that, then wouldn't the sight of an AK with large mag. command their attention better than an AR?

Can't speak for others, but the sight of ANY firearm would command my attention!

[Citizen Carrier]

The thought of going into a combat zone with your safety on is needless?

I don't know of any platoon in Baghdad or anywhere else who would do that.

You leave out the gate, you got to condition "Red". A round chambered and the safety on. If it hits the fan, you take the safety off.

The thought of riding around in a cramped humvee with a chambered rifle off safe is...chilling. Too many things that can snag on the trigger. Even dismounted, there is just too much stuff on your vest that might get to the trigger.

I'm quite sure we could round up a Russian or somebody else who served in a Warsaw Pact army and ask them if it was doctrine to walk around a combat zone with the safety off and a round chambered.

[greyeyezz]

7.62x39 round is more effective unless you are reaching out beyond 150 meters. If you need to reach out 150-300 meters, then go ahead and take the AR.

Why do people think the 556 is better at longer range? I think I'd take the heavier round. :rolleyes:

[gregorybj]

People forget rifles like the scar, xcr, type 03, ar18, sig550, etc, which tend to mix together the best features of the AR and AK platforms.

I do not have a problem with AK's or M4's, but I am psyched about the new Magpul Masada (Bushmaster ACR) due to come out in 2009. This gun might top em all. This gun can fire the 7.62*39 and the 5.56 NATO round as well! You can even change the length of the barrel for long distance shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJhPMIVgF6c

[PDXGS]

http://rubbercow.smugmug.com/photos/316000812_xUF53-X3.jpg

[BlondieStomp]

maxheadspace - sweet thread, troll. way to bring the true "sewer-forum" experience to TFL, thanks.

Moron.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v664/blondiestomp/good-one.jpg

[Yithian]

Why don't you people read the entire thread before bashing?
Heck, more than half the posts bash, after the explanation of why it was posted.

I like this thread.
I also like how biased people are toward one or the other.

I do now own both.
I do love both.

If someone broke into my home, the AK, and not the AR, would be the one I was using.
Why?
Simple. It's a gamble.
Which one has the better odds of going "Bang" when I need it to. And does accuracy matter in the distances of my rooms and hallways?
A simple comparison... A Corvette is a sweet car. But would many folks buy a brand new Corvette if it needed a quart of oil dumped in every time you drove it?

So, the AR stays locked away, and the AK stays in my 'go-to' spot.
The AR is used when I want to go plinking for accuracy, or hunting from an ambush location.
The AK's are used for brush hunting, and serious fun while at the range.

BTW, both my AK's have the same, or better, accuracy than my lever action Marlin 36.
My AK's are .223 and .308, NATO.

Other than the morons with little enough respect to read the entire thing, this is a great thread.

[Citizen Carrier]

I don't see where this thread or topic has lessened anything about this forum. I'm seeing pretty much well-reasoned thoughts on a classic comparison. It's kind of a mainstay of firearms discussion. It's been going on for a couple of centuries at least.

Model 70 or Model 700? Mossberg or Remington? Winchester or Marlin? 9mm or .45?

I did have a few more thoughts on this.

I'm still kind of confused by the "If it's good enough for the unwashed masses, it ought to be good enough for me" argument many have put forth in support of the AKM.

That and the "Most soldiers don't even shoot unless the engagement range is under 300 meters".

For that second part, yes, I agree totally. Most people will not attempt a shot at ranges greater than 300 meters.

Which gives you all the reason in the world to develop that skill and to possess a rifle, ammunition, and supporting equipment that will give you the option of doing what most people can't or won't do.

But when you limit yourself to a rifle that will never enable you to use that skill, you take a huge advantage off the table. If you are just one guy or part of a small group, the ability to hit further out than the larger group you are opposing is the ONLY advantage you are going to have. And it will be the only thing that keeps you alive.

[kraigwy]

Why do people think the 556 is better at longer range?

SIMPLE: Because it is better. Notice you never see 7.62 X 39s at a high power or 1000 yard matches.

If you will take note, the 5.56 is beathing the records of the M14/M1As 308s. I certainly hope you arnt gonna tell us the 7.62X39 is more accurate then the 308s.

I run a lot of high power clinics, mostly at 100 yard reduced ranges. the AKs dont compete with the ARs even at short ranges.

We can rant and rave all we want, but when the leather hits the road, the AKs dont compete. I know of no matches where the AK is competive with the AR.

[Willie D]

If we're not using Vietnam pencil barrel ARs as a yardstick then lets stop pretending there is only one quality level of AK. Galils and (especially) Valmets go a long way in disproving AK inaccuracy.

[greyeyezz]

If your at a target range it's better. If your on a battlefield, forget it.

[Art Eatman]

The first sentence of the opening post was factually correct.

From that point on, it's just the same old dead horse. Lotsa fly poop out of very little pepper...