View Full Version : M-16 vs. AK-47 full auto

July 3, 2002, 01:18 PM
Tell me your thoughts/pros & cons of the similarly priced full auto AK and AR. I don't own an AR yet (I do own an AK), but am I correct in thinking they cost about the same to feed? 1,000rds of 7.63x39 is $109 shipped (even less some other places or locally). That the AR would have more interchangeability (uppers, stocks, calibers..)? Is the bolt (etc) special for full auto? The barrel? That the AR mags are more expensive then the AK mags. A worn barrel on an AK is not as easy to replace as an AR??? Which is more desirable if reselling were a concern? Anything else you would like to add.

I'll make this a poll to see what the majority would choose if they had to choose between these two as their first and maybe only full auto.


Oh, last question. Is a full auto registered sear for an AR a good or bad route to go? I'm thinking that you could obtain it and then find a preban in just the right condition/price... Might even save some money going that route. What minor parts need to be altered or switched out with the installation of that sear? What are the associated costs? Is a AR converted this way as valuable or not? $7,850 Pre-1986 AR vs. a ~$7,500 converted pre-ban ($5,000 for sear and ~$1,500 for preban).


guess I messed up...no poll.

July 6, 2002, 02:58 PM
If you buy a sear don't get a preban AR, use a postban. Buy a brand new post ban receiver and build from that. You're going to have to replace all the components anyways. When the sear is in the gun, it overrides the lower's post ban status and makes it a machine gun. Buy a post ban receiver, collapsable stock, machine gun 11"-14.5" upper, full auto lower parts and you're good to go. There's no sense in ruining a preban AR for nothing. You have to realize though that as soon as you take the sear out of your new machine gun, you have to completely disassemble the lower to take the full auto components out and remove your upper from the lower that has the full auto bolt carrier and short barrel as well. Going this route will save you about $800.

Of course a registered receiver has more collectability but if you're just looking for something to beat on, get a sear.

4V50 Gary
July 8, 2002, 05:07 AM
The bolt on a full auto AR is the same as the semi. It's the bolt carrier that is different and the full auto bolt carrier will have a lug in the back that serves to trip the auto-sear. The AR is certainly more versatile in that by changing the upper, you can convert it to a carbine, heavy barrel LMG, or whatever configurations suits your whim of the day. Like you said, it's also easy to swap out barrels on the receivers.

Turning to the question as to which to select among the two, I'd go with the AR because it enjoys a versatility not found in the AK.

July 8, 2002, 11:02 PM
well. Bolt, bolt carrier, same thing! :(

July 13, 2002, 05:38 PM
Same thing?

Tell that to your friendly parts supplier. Then don't complain when you get what you ordered, instead of what you wanted.

August 5, 2002, 04:35 PM
OK, in an attempt to spur more dialog on this board, I'll take a late crack at this one.

I'd suggest the AR over the AK.

- The AR is easier to control in full auto.
- The AR is more versatile - multiple uppers, different calibers - if you can only have "one" gun this could give you three or four guns in one. Since uppers are not the registered part, they remain affordable.
- Besides the uppers, there are a TON of parts, accessories and doodads you can keep busy bolting on/off your AR.
- Oh, and besides the doodads, optics are easier to mount on the AR.
- With regards to reliability - this will probably be the crown jewel of your safe. Even if you bought the AK, I doubt you'll be dropping a handful of sand and rocks in it to "prove" its reliability. At $7k, you best be cleaning it every time you go shooting. Given that envronment, the fabled AK reliability fades.