AK-74 vs AR-15

[allons]

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

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

[SeattleGunNut]

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

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

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

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

[allons]

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

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

Thanks again for the "heads-up", Ken

[Firepower!]

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

[SeattleGunNut]

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

[stubbicatt]

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

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

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

[Mutatio Nomenis]

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

[hagar]

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

[JohnH1963]

The current authority on the web is Nutnfancy and he says the AR is *the best* by far.

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

[TRguy]

General George S. Patton Jr.'s famous quote; "In my opinion, the M1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised."


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

Quit your rubber necking

[thesheepdog]

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8SSQ_wIG4o[/URL]

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

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

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

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

[Original Username]

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

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

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

[RT]

AR carbines and Aks have the same sight radius.

[Kmar40]

I've never fired an AK74 or AKM/AK47 type rifle that was anywhere close to an AR in accuracy.

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

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

[Kmar40]

AR carbines and Aks have the same sight radius.

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

[5.56RifleGuy]

I figure the AK and AR are both about the same level of reliablility. How many off us are really planning to bury our rifles in the mud and pick them up and fire them anyway?

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

[Volucris]

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

I fare better with the open leaf design than aperture designs because I grew up around the leaf styles of rimfire rifles and milsurps.

[Original Username]

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

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

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...est=latestnews

[thesheepdog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Meanwhile this recent article quotes our own general bashing on the m4's reliability and deadly effect...

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Original Username]

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

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

[Original Username]

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

[thesheepdog]

Bartholomew Roberts, thanks for your imput.

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

[thesheepdog]

How many Taliban have died because of a gun that can't shoot the broad side of a barn?

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

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

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

[Original Username]

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