PDA

View Full Version : AR vs AK?


shane
November 6, 1998, 02:26 AM
Hi,

I'm on a tight budget but must own a rifle. I have alot of AR magazines and a few drums.
The AR, even when "built" is expensive, $500++. Does anyone know if they still make the mag adapter for the .223 AKM?

mac762
July 29, 2005, 09:11 AM
They made one of those? You mean an adapter to put ar mags in a .223 ak? That'd be killer. But a .223 ak would be around the $500 mark too wouldn't it? I think the ak ".223" is a better choice though. I'd probably stick to the factory mags for anything serious because the AR mag is one of it's weak points.
The ak has better sights better mags more reliable. And the .223 Aks are more accurate than the .762.
The ar is still more accurate and the safety and mag release are in much better places than the ak.
Reliability matters a lot in my book and the aks sights are quicker than the ars peep.

Sarge
July 29, 2005, 12:56 PM
The Romanian AK's can be pretty decent rifles for around $300; I think this one actually shoots good enough to make use of a scope, although I have yet to mount one on it.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170419

AR's will generally shoot better though, and the AR smokes the AK when it comes to ergonomics. I'll go with the AK for reliability, and enough accuracy to handle most rifle chores to 200 yards.

iamkris
July 30, 2005, 01:28 PM
your [sic] not going to hit the broadside of a barn with an AK

I have a cheap, piece of crap WASR-10 that will 3-4 MOA with cheap, piece of crap Wolf at 100 yards. Did it through 75 rounds just yesterday. That isn't varmit quality accuracy but certainly is combat quality...in fact, USGI standards for M1's ("renouned" by us gunnies for their accuracy) were held to 4 MOA standards in WWII.

Many AK variants (e.g., Valmet, VEPR, etc) are known for much better accuracy. It is true that there are those AK's you'll see on the firing line, bench-rested with a scope that still throw 9" groups, but many more will do significantly less than that.

I wouldn't put an AK up against my M1A, StG58 or even AR for accuracy but it certainly makes a fine combat arm

cheygriz
July 30, 2005, 05:17 PM
Get the AR-15, preferably a Bushmaster. 5.56X45 MM ammo will always be available, spare magazines, parts and accessories are readily available and reasonably priced.

And when Hitlery Klintoon (or worse) becomes prez, she will cut off he Russian ammo, magazines and spare parts, but she won't be able to cut off 5.56X45 :p

xdfan
July 30, 2005, 06:27 PM
the bottom line with an ak you get a firearm that will not break under even the worst conditions...yes ar's can be very reliable but are much more dirt/grit sensitive....and when the shtf my #1 priority is something that goes bang everytime......what kind of accuracy do you really need to hit a person at 200+ yards?....ak all the way

625
July 30, 2005, 08:48 PM
See my post here:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177162

joshua
July 30, 2005, 09:49 PM
I have two AR-15s (DPMS 16" and COLT H-Bar Match), and two AK types NHM 90 and 91. My ARs I can count on doing 1 moa with the loads they like, my H-Bar can do .5 moa if I take the time and settle in the sand bags. My AKs, the 16" barreled one can do 3-6 moa depending on what surplus ammo I'm shooting and the long barreled one can group 2-4" with hunting ammo I reload for it. I'm actually surprised of the accuracy of the long barred AK when I have it on sandbags - with open sights. I don't throw or roll my rifles around in the dirt but I haven't seen any of them jam except my DPMS when I tried to use a 40 round USA magazine. If I have to pick onlyone which type to buy, I'd go AR all the way. Our boys in Iraq and Afghanistan are toting M4s and most of them have nothing to complain about except for the .22 size holes it makes. josh

Magnum88C
July 31, 2005, 10:58 AM
Depends on how strapped you are for cash.

Can you save enough for the rifle, spare parts, accessories and a stockpile of ammo for an AR before the wicked witch of NY gets elected president again?

If not, maybe the AK is the best choice. THe AK in hand is better than the AR being saved for.

IF people are stupid enough to vote the witch in, don't believe for a second you'll have .223 and not 7.62x39. She'll demand ALL weapons. Believe it or not, the military is shooting enough .223 to keep the industry booming these days, they don't need civilian sales to justify loading it. So IF the Klinton witch gets in, you'll have what you have. There's a little more than 2 years left before an election, and probably at least 6 months to another year before she could effect such a policy. Count your pennies and act accordingly. Keep in mind if you're not going to turn them in, and plan on "going charlie", then there's a LOT of non-firearms gear you will NEED. Keep that in mind as well.

If you just want a nice rifle to shoot, pick the one that talks to you. :D

mac762
August 1, 2005, 09:03 PM
I wish I had a dollar for every AR owner that owns only the one mag and you have to stop by Wally-world before you go to the range because he does'nt have any ammo. Say it isn't so.

Magnum88C
August 1, 2005, 09:09 PM
Of course for the truly strapped, there's always the SKS.

You can get an SKS, 1,000 rounds of ammo and enough strippers to hold all 1,000 rounds for less than the cost of an AK with a single 30 rounder and no ammo.

The Body Bagger
August 1, 2005, 09:34 PM
I wish I had a dollar for every AR owner that owns only the one mag and you have to stop by Wally-world before you go to the range because he does'nt have any ammo. Say it isn't so

uh what? :eek: Come to AR15.com I don't think I've ever heard a story like this before!

mac762
August 1, 2005, 09:35 PM
Remember the liberator pistols? Do I have to draw you a cartoon?

"When the s*** goes down ya better be ready!"
Just about any gun will do- the first rule in a gun fight is to have a gun.

TX_RGR
August 1, 2005, 09:45 PM
Of course the AR is best. :D

Btw, which is better, 5.56, or 308?

;)

Edward429451
August 1, 2005, 09:53 PM
I'm on a tight budget but must own a rifle.

Gotta love that attitude. :D

Sounds like you're all set for an AR. Save for a Bushy is my vote.

Texas Sized
August 1, 2005, 10:19 PM
7.62X39 can be had for awfully cheap here in Texas-no idea how accurate or reliable those loads are though. They have these stores called Sports authority, and they have some stuff that retails around 15 bucks for 100 rounds-looks like crap though, so I dunno.

The .223 can be had in so many variations and weights, velocities, etc-that it is hard not to like-unless you don't dig the round.

I'm really looking forward to trying out the 6.8spc-but the weapon itself is out of my price range by a long shot right now. However, a quality AR, especially with the optics quality you can obtain these days, is a hellafun rifle. I've shot some Bill Wilson AR's, and they are incredible-hehe, but that's the uppitymost scale. I'd damn near do anything for one of them, but my salary just doesn't cut it.

yorec
August 1, 2005, 11:52 PM
Have accesories for an AR on hand, but only enogh scratch for an AK?

Ouch.

Keep saving - make those magazines happy. :cool:

Edward429451
August 2, 2005, 09:37 AM
I have alot of AR magazines and a few drums.

Speaking of mags...If you're hearts set on an AK or whatever...I could put a drum or two to use and maybe help fund your purchase....?

I wouldn't do it. I'd save for a Bushy. But I gots to try. ;)

Are they the beta mag type or the MGM plastic type?

PM me if interested.

mac762
August 2, 2005, 07:07 PM
I assumed he wasn't talking about those because there are people around who would be dumb enough to trade one for an AK. I've never owned a Beta mag even tho I've owned several AR's. Do they rattle? You know what I mean if you own a chinese drum. As long as I'm asking do the romainian drums rattle. That's the thing I don't like about the chinese drums. Even tho it wouldn't matter once the first shot was fired.
As long as I'm rambling on that's what I don't like about the M-249 SAW- besides the fact that they jam more often than the M-16.
What do yall think?

mathman
August 2, 2005, 08:50 PM
wow...almost seven years later and now we have some dialog... :D

Edward429451
August 2, 2005, 10:24 PM
Whoa. I didn't even notice how old the first post was. :D :o

My MGM 90 rnd mags don't rattle. Never got my hands on a Beta yet but would like to. Prolly doesn't matter really if it rattles or not. Just something to have for shtf/collection, even then it'd prolly be stationary.

iamkris
August 3, 2005, 09:12 PM
Yes the Romainian 75 rnd drums rattle. But they are fun.

joshua
August 5, 2005, 08:54 PM
The Chinese drums are fun too! :)

Gewehr98
August 5, 2005, 09:17 PM
For everyone who pulls this outta their posteriors:

If you plan on making your ak fully automatic then do it otherwise your not going to hit the broadside of a barn with an AK.

They can bring their money, and their mouths, to my local range. I'll be more than happy to let them experience a genuine 2 MOA Bulgarian SLR-95. Barn or no barn, 10 posts or not. ;)

TX_RGR
August 5, 2005, 09:18 PM
Just for the record, I humped an A2 everyday for years, several live fires, etc. and I had a problem with it one time. That was in basic, and I think it was my fault. I had a way of sort of inundating the entire rifle with an inch or so of CLP. I just wanted to make sure I had enough. ;) I didn't know any better. Anyway, that one time I had a problem was shooting blanks. The blanks don't have near the amount of powder the regular ammo does, and of course, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is getting forced back into the chamber, so it is getting REALLY dirty. After about 300 rounds of that, laying in two feet of sand, it finally started having feeding problems. But, come on. I can't think of many that wouldn't.

Anyway, that's my personal experience with the A2/AR. I also have never heard from anyone who actually carried one in the field and in combat who ever had any sort of problem. It leads me to believe that the stories about questionable reliability are just that.

I don't doubt the AK is a great rifle. The only thing that rubs me the wrong way is a defining characteristic: it's cheap. I mean, it was made, on purpose to be a cheaply made rifle. The cheaper it was to make, the easier it was to arm millions of troops. So cost and cheapness was the driving force behind the manufacture of this weapon.