AR15 vs. AK47

[jason41987]

spacecoast, inside 200 yards the 7.62x39 will have more energy, beyond that the 5.56x45mm will, HOWEVER, inside the 200 yards the 5.56 is still well above the threshhold for being quite lethal, as dead = dead no matter what somethings shot with, id take a .223/5.56, though my dislike for the AR15 would lead me to find another rifle besides the AR15 to fire it

[stmichps]

Strafer Gott said:

You have to hit it first to damage it. Please, don't even consider full auto, as you are not going to have that option here.

At a 100m I find it hard to believe that most if not all those that have posted to this thread couldn't hit a man sized target (in semi-auto) with a AK47 or a SKS, I know I can.

While 200m plus the AR has the advantage over the AK. How often in a combat situation does a rifleman actually engage a target over 200m or even 100m? In urban setting it's normally only the distance across a street or less, in rual areas you might get 200m (plus) shots but with everyone practicing on static targets chances are very small that you would hit anything due to lack of experience of leading a moving target.

So what is really the advantage of one over the other? It will depend strictly on your situation.

[Strafer Gott]

Allow me to consider that if I was duking it out in suburbia, and interior fighting with a lot of sheetrock blasting, the heavier bullet should prevail. Make mine something that likes 150 grain GI loads. My main contention is that point shooting 100m moving targets is important and a heck of a lot easier with the AR/M16 semi than an AK of the usual clunk. IMHO

[EIGHTYDUECE]

The accuracy difference between a 16" M-Forgery and an AK is not alot. I can give my m4 clone a run for the money with my SAR-1 AK. Against a 20" A2 AR with the longer sight radius, the AR will win big time.

Here is a picture of a few targets last weekend. The range was 100 yards, I was shooting my SAR-1 Romanian AK 7.62x39 Wolf 123gr. HP ammo against my CMMG 16" LE M4 clone in 5.56x45 55gr. Idependence FMJ ammo. These are 5 shot groups open iron sights.

[Sarge]

That's pretty consistent with my experience using unmodified versions of both, 80duece. My post-recrown WASR-10 will do that at 196 yards now, using Tula FMJ.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=504241

[SR420]

AR15 vs. AK47

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by tahunua001

I would just like to point out that man sized target at 100 yards is not a particularly difficult challenge regardless of model and caliber.

Originally Posted by stmichps

At a 100m I find it hard to believe that most if not all those that have posted to this thread couldn't hit a man sized target (in semi-auto) with a AK47 or a SKS, I know I can.

It depends on whether that man sized target is trying to kill you or is a piece of paper on the nice safe square range.

You may be surprised at how difficult of a challenge it is when that 100 yard target is shooting back at you.

it is sounds like there are more than a few internet commandos here that have never "seen the elephant" ...

There's a HUGE difference between hitting that man-sized target at 100M while it's shooting back at you, and shooting at paper on the nice square range.

A man sized target at even 500 meters is not particularly difficult with either platform on the range. It's also not real practical with either platform in the real world where the target is moving, shooting back at you, and ducking behind cover just like you are.

[tahunua001]

45 auto,
the challenge was shooting at STEEL MAN SIZED TARGETS at 100 yards...
internet commandos and mall ninjas aside, 100 yards at man sized in-adamant object is not a difficult challenge.

[Strafer Gott]

So now we have moved from paper to steel. Ar is way more effective on steel.
Steel will only shoot back if you get very close. Paper almost never.
How did we get on anti-material weapons?

[deepcreek]

I'll take a AK any day over a AR.

I have never been a fan of the AR everyone I know with one has had issues which make me feels uncertain about them. I also do not like the way the AR feels or shoots, it feels like to much plastic and I have never shot one that would hold a decent group past 30-50yards.

The AK feels like crude military gun but it is light and easy to carry around quick to get to the shoulder. I mostly like the AK because it is so reliable you can neglect it, abuse it and it will still fire. A military gun that has been continually tested, proven and unchanged for more then 50 years is pretty impressive.

[tahunua001]

remind me to stay away from colorado, those guys must not know anything about ARs.
unless you are dealing with caliber conversions or highly disreputable build it yourself kits(blackthorn) then I can't imagine so many people having so many problems with an AR, it's a simple, well thought out design that though it does have it's drawbacks like any other design, the advantages far outweigh them. between military service and short lived gun enthusiast recent years I've shot ever a dozen AR/M16s and half a dozen AKs, I have yet to find a single AK that is more reliabile and more accurate, even at 25 yards than even the worst quality AR15 I've tried.

as for lighter, unless you are talking about 24 inch bull barreled target ARs then I'm calling BS. a bone stock AR carbine fully loaded is way lighter than a bone stock AK, hands down. if morons start slapping on lasers, flashlights, red dots, magnifiers, bipods and pistol grips then yeah the AK is lighter.

the beauty of the AR is if you don't like the plastic and ergos you can easily trade it out. I have an AR with wood furniture instead of plastic, I have another with aluminum free floated handguard, if there's something you don't like change it, a feat that even with all the mall ninja accessories available today, the AK still can't claim with 100% certainty.

[spacecoast]

The average AR may be more accurate than the average AK, even at 100 yards, but an AK that shoots like mine with iron sights and cheap ammo is more than good enough.

[ttarp]

The military has been using AR's or M4's or what not for long enough now that I'd sure hope they're plenty reliable. Maybe not all, but it seems most of this "AR's will jam if you sneeze on them" stuff comes from hearsay harking back to Vietnam when they did have issues. Personally I don't like AR's, just not my cup of tea. I don't really like AK's much better, I just don't like the way either rifle feels, I'm more of an SKS guy. Not that anyone really cares especially on this overly abused topic, but thats my two cents worth.

[Aaron1100us]

I like both, each have their pluses and minuses. But compare mags. You have to admit, a 40 round AK magazine looks way cooler than a 40 round AR mag Just sayin.

[Mrgunsngear]

AR 40-Rounder:



AK 40 Rounder:



Both are cool looking but my favorite is the 12 round VEPR 12 shotgun mag :

[jason41987]

the way i see it.. the AR15 is a great platform, but a bad rifle... its very customizable with tons of aftermarket, caliber conversions, etc with a great optics platform... but a bad rifle because the design is fundamentally flawed, adopted way too early, and could have been improved... issues being the straight top of the magazine, no rails leading to hard steel on a soft aluminum receiver which causes a lot of friction, and because the carrier is so long (to make clearance for the hammer) due to wanting the upper receiver to essentially be a tube, it means you cant fold a stock and have the spring against your ear

the AK on the other hand is a great rifle, well designed to be reliable, consistant, and durable, but is a poor platform, theres no truly great optics platform, ergonomics are a tad off without aftermarket furnture, many people prefer a left side charging handle, and caliber conversions require custom machining certain parts and custom barrels, requiring a small shop to do a caliber change

for just a rifle for target shooting, recreation, etc, the AR15 might be better for you... if you wanted to change calibers, add a scope and toss on a 5 round mag to hunt, again, AR15 has that versatility... but anyone who denies it has reliability issues is simply being dishonest about it, even our government/military knew of its problems and for anyone to claim its not inherently flawed simply doesnt know too much about engineering

so looking for a practical battle rifle means looking for something youd trust your life with.. and whatever groups it shoots out to 100-200 yards and beyond... the AK will almost always shoot when you fire it.. its very consistant and reliable, so in knowing what its limits and shortcomings are, you can train around them... you cant train your way around a failure to feed as its a completely random event

so better platform = AR15
better rifle = AK

[HKFan9]

for just a rifle for target shooting, recreation, etc, the AR15 might be better for you... if you wanted to change calibers, add a scope and toss on a 5 round mag to hunt, again, AR15 has that versatility... but anyone who denies it has reliability issues is simply being dishonest about it, even our government/military knew of its problems and for anyone to claim its not inherently flawed simply doesnt know too much about engineering

OR that your bias information is pretty out dated. Sure the design had issues in the first few years of its service due to the goverment using the wrong powder in it and other factors.

It is pretty hard to argue that is a BAD rifle when it or something sharing its design is used by almost every single top military unit in the world, and used successfully. If YOU think an AR is so problematic then you haven't spent enough time with one... in any conditions. SWAT magazine has a nice article on a BCM Rack rifle running 31,165 rounds with out a formal cleaning. Which I believe continued to count after the article was published.

Lets not forget even the Russians admit to the flaws of the 7.62 round and went with a smaller lighter round that mimics a 5.56.

Go to any service rifle match like Kraig suggested, or go to any serious level formal training carbine course, you won't see more than 1 person depending on class size running a AKM configuration, and from what I have seen they are always the last to complete or run a drill due to the BAD design flaws of the AKM pattern, having to take your hand off fire controls to rack it for starters, or still having to reach over or under depending on your method, its still inferior to the not so perfect T handle.

Both rifles have their flaws, but I am pretty sure most military units would not give up theirs anytime soon for an AKM platform, so I hardly doubt you can honestly consider it to be bad with out a rather large bias. I just finished up another Saiga conversion today, I own both, however AR's do the job better and faster.

[tahunua001]

I fully agree with HK,
there are no inherent reliability issues with an AR. the whole poops where it eats argument is moronic. there have been literally been hundreds of independent torture tests that prove that over thousands of rounds almost all ARs are able to maintain acceptable levels of reliability(more than 99.9%) without cleaning.


the straight magwell flaw argument is also highly biased and does absolutely nothing to hurt the reliability of the AR in either it's 223 or 308 original calibers. this is proven by the fact that both 308 and 223 come available with 5, 10, and 20 round straight magazines and none of those magazine styles are known to cause reliability issues.


inability to use a folding stock is a fault that comes from pure bias as the AR pioneered a little invention called the telescoping stock. it's fully adjustable for just about any LOP you could ask for(which folding stocks do not) and still cuts down on the OAL of the rifle for storage.


the whole steel on aluminum creates friction argument is moronic. steel on steel also makes friction. how do you combat that? you don't, that's how. give me a single link that shows an AR BCG or upper receiver that was rendered inoperable from use with less rounds through it than any other military design... such a story does not exist because some of those ARs that have been running 100,000s of rounds since the early 70s are still going strong.

[HKFan9]

Funny that the straight designed mag well is mentioned so much, when if you have ever tried to change a AKM mag while trying for speed or under stress it is much much more difficult, this can probably explain why you generally see none in 3 gun matches or any similar competition.

Companies even make bolt on mag wells for AKM rifles and Saiga 12 shotguns to mimic the quick change magazine concept from the AR platform, wonder why?

It is not unlike the Glock crowd thinking because of internet lore from people who admire their guns more than actually shooting them that they are impervious to breakages and stoppages. I work for a gun smith shop (I am not a smith, just a paperwork jockey for transfers and all the boring details) however I have seen literally every type of firearm break or fail, including AK's and Glocks on a normal basis.

I have had a lot more issues with faulty AK's in my own experience than I have AR's, simply because a low end AK is made VERY low end. Where as a low end AR is generally made to a pretty acceptable standard.

One of my worst firearms EVER was a WASR AK rifle I owned. Why was it so bad? Well I was young when I bought it, didnt know anything about them, and didn't know enough to test the magazine fit to the receiver before I bought it like I know now. Who ever ground it out, took WAY too much material off and the mag wobbled around so much that it would cause FTF. I got rid of that thing and started learning what I could. A WASR can be a decent rifle, just certain things to look out for.

However even my cheapest of cheap AR's I have owned a $500 Bushmaster Carbon-15 never had any issues out of the box, even when throwing a suppressor on it and running it dry.

[SPEMack618]

Maybe is just paid real good attention to the guy in the campaign hat at Ft. Knox, or maybe it comes from having a plethora of crappy magazines for my Mini-14 growing up, so seating magazines properly is ingrained into my psyche, but I never had a problem with the straight magazine well on the M-16/M-4 series of rifles.

Granted, I was issued some really, really crappy mags when I first got to my unit, but that was fixed with a run to Bass Pro and ten PMAGs.

Honestly, this is the first I've read of the straight magwell thing.

[DeadEye1911]

AK vs AR has been a good debate for a while. While I see pros and cons to each option, if I was going to buy one today, I would consider ammo price and availability. The 7.69/39 is always available near me (South Texas), and is about 5 bucks for a box of 20. I can't answer from personal use of an AR, I do like my AK though. However, if you're an avid collector like me, you'll probably end up with both anyway, so then you can be the judge. I'd just like to find a good AR under $750, but that'll be on a different thread.

[jason41987]

so then, my information on the AR15 is outdated? they moved the recoil spring into the receiver and changed that excessively long bolt carrier to a shorter one, installed rails so theres no more steel on aluminum contact causing excessive friction requiring more, and more frequent lubrication, and they fixed the magwell to fit better, more modern curved magazines?.... no?.. they only fixed the ammo?.. hmm, now if only i had actually mentioned ammo in my previous post as one of its flaws

these flaws with the AR15 are NOT fixable without designing a new rifle, the SCAR and ACR come close, but one last flaw still remains, the magazines.. fix that issue and these rifles would be very close to perfect

[amd6547]

They didn't have to fix your "flaws", because they are not flaws at all.

[militant]

I got rid of my AR and my AK and got an sks. All these rifles are capable of things beyond most shooters.

[tahunua001]

so then, my information on the AR15 is outdated? they moved the recoil spring into the receiver and changed that excessively long bolt carrier to a shorter one, installed rails so theres no more steel on aluminum contact causing excessive friction requiring more, and more frequent lubrication, and they fixed the magwell to fit better, more modern curved magazines?.... no?.. they only fixed the ammo?.. hmm, now if only i had actually mentioned ammo in my previous post as one of its flaws

these flaws with the AR15 are NOT fixable without designing a new rifle, the SCAR and ACR come close, but one last flaw still remains, the magazines.. fix that issue and these rifles would be very close to perfect

Dear God....
if there are design features that you don't like, then just say so, however these are not flaws, they do not harm the reliability, accuracy, or operation of the rifle at all. several members here have addressed your views and shown how what you see as flaws are just design aspects of this rifle and really cause no problems whatsoever.

if you do not like the AR15 then that is your right but you are just spouting off plain unadulterated nonsense.

EDIT:
almost all modern military firearms use a magazine styled after the AR magazine, not the AK.
HK MP7, FN F2000, Steyr AUG, XCR, ACR, all use a magazine that starts out straight and curves once it clears the magwell. how many of these are known to have serious problems with design? I'll save you some wiki time, the answer is zero.

the only modern military firearm I know of that has a fully curved magazine is the British SA80 rifle and it's had serious problems since it's inception.