AK VS AR

[davidsog]

Of the two, I think the AK can take more abuse. The pictures of the VC or NVA using their AK with an inserted magazine as a seat comes to mind.

I think it is legitimate to consider the Vietnam era weapons which established the reputation of both of these weapon systems. I would agree an M16A1 or older and most certainly one using the incorrect powder the Army first used would leave the AK well ahead in terms of reliability.

A modern M4 using modern ammunition simply beats the AK in almost every aspect but especially reliability.

[marine6680]

I don't know about a modern AR type rifle being way ahead of the AK for reliability. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

There are definitely situations where the AR would fair better than an AK. With the much more open system of the AK, it is easier to get crud inside. It is a bit more tolerant of crud, but there will be a point where it causes issues. The AK does handle neglect better... Lack of any real attempt to clean, not enough lube, rust and just being poorly taken care of in general.

For the most part, the AR having a pretty sealed system makes it very reliable when in harsh conditions... But it can be susceptible to fine particulate matter in the air. Very fine powder and sand that is being blown constantly by the wind, can cause issues, as it creeps in. It can be dealt with effectively with proper lubrication. Many tend to think less or no lubrication is the key, to prevent the stuff from sticking to the lube... But generally more lube is better. The stuff is getting in either way, and lube keeps it from caking up to the point of preventing movement. It doesn't like neglect, and a few parts need to be watched, as they need replacing from time to time, like the firing pin retaining pin. But the AR doesn't need to be kept spotless either, you can run one for thousands of rounds and only keep adding lube from time to time to keep it going.

Both are going to have an issue if the chamber gets crud inside. No chamber is "loose", a couple grains of sand are enough to cause issues.


Generally the AR is just easier to live with... A bolt stop, non rock in mags, controls that are easier to use (but not perfect, not in mil spec form)... More modular for modern sights and assesories.

The lack of a bolt stop can be annoying on an AK... It's not an issue on a proper one, as they are meant to be use in full auto, you reload when the rifle stops going pew pew. A semi doesn't have that simple feed back... You just get that click and have to swap mags.

[darkgael]

The AR is superior in virtually every way that is pertinent to sporting use ....and most other uses also.
It has a vastly greater ammunition selection. Better trigger (and wildly better aftermarket triggers available). It is a simple gun to work on and modularity makes for ease of alteration. One can free float the barrel. The variations available for barrel length and rifling twist rate are staggering. The AR is, in general, more accurate at just about any range. Fast rifling rates and heavy (75-90 grains) bullets make the AR accurate out to 600 yards and beyond.
The much discussed ability to take abuse and still function reliably is, for the vast majority of use, a non issue; For most of us, the only place we ever see an AK or an AR in use is at the local range.

[stagpanther]

I like em both--so I don't have a horse in this race.

[Erno86]

I like em both too...

But in war conflicts...it was recommended that the AK magazine be loaded first with a tracer round, so the shooter could tell when his magazine was empty.

Though if I was a mercenary in a foreign land...I would prefer being outfitted the same as what most of the regular military conscripts or volunteers use there --- And if it's an AK or variation thereof --- so be it.

[TXAZ]

Pull the trigger, rifle goes BANG, it’s good!

[Erno86]

Originally Posted by TXAZ

Pull the trigger, rifle goes BANG, it’s good!

...LOL...

[keithdog]

I'd like to say thank to all of you who have commented on my post. There is plenty to consider. I don't see myself getting real involved in building my own AR or customizing it. When it comes to rifles, I'm not a complicated guy. I've never shot an AK, but I have shot a very nice AR and enjoyed it. I'd be sure to try out an AK before making any decision. I have handled an AK and I like how it feels. Do not like the safety though. The ease of taking down an AR is a plus in my books, but the reputation of reliability and the ability to take a licken and keep on ticken with an AK is very attractive as well. Thanks again for all the food for thought.

[Metal god]

.

[Mobuck]

"it was recommended that the AK magazine be loaded first with a tracer round, so the shooter could tell when his magazine was empty."

I varied the T-round from 2-5 up from the last so the BG's didn't figure out my mag was dry. I'd much rather drop a mag with 2-3 rounds remaining than be caught empty.
Old habits die hard, the stripper clips in my current B O B are loaded the same way. One stripper in each sleeve has a T-round at 2 and 5 from the bottom.

[Erno86]

Originally Posted by Mobuck

I varied the T-round from 2-5 up from the last so the BG's didn't figure out my mag was dry. I'd much rather drop a mag with 2-3 rounds remaining than be caught empty.
Old habits die hard, the stripper clips in my current B O B are loaded the same way. One stripper in each sleeve has a T-round at 2 and 5 from the bottom.

That sounds logical...but if I fired that tracer round in a conflict, I probably would have a strong feeling too relocate --- Though I've never been involved in such a battlefield scenario, and our outdoor range bans the use of tracer rounds.

[Mobuck]

Modern tracers don't "light" until well away from the muzzle.

"I probably would have a strong feeling too relocate"

Only if you're not hitting what you're shooting at.

[Skans]

For many reasons, the AR is a superior platform to the AK. When there were only one or two manufacturers of AR's, this may not have been as easy to say. However, the AR has evolved and the AK is the same tired old rifle it was 40 years ago. Here are some reasons why the AR is superior:

1. Caliber options by simply swapping out the barreled upper.
2. Accuracy
3. Effective range.
4. Ability to make good use of high quality optics
5. Quality of the aluminum used in the receivers has improved substantially
6. Fire-control parts options, fantastic triggers
7. Binary-fire capability
8. ergonomics / more comfortable to shoot
9. higher capacity
10. large variety of barrel lengths, stocks, etc.

I would go so far as to say that what a civilian has available to him in an AR platform can in many instances be better than what is available to the military.

[Erno86]

Originally Posted by Mobuck

Modern tracers don't "light" until well away from the muzzle.

"I probably would have a strong feeling too relocate"

Only if you're not hitting what you're shooting at.

So what approx. distance does the modern tracer round light-up after it leaves the muzzle? Before a SRSO caught two members shooting tracer rounds at our range --- It looked about 75 yards.

[Ignition Override]

A former coworker had said nothing about any military service until I finally asked him about some unusual stickers on his leather bag. In a quiet voice he said "Army Special Ops" in Desert Storm.

As we approached the Courtyard Elisabeth Hotel at EWR Airport about seven years ago, the short layover hotel for crews, I asked Rick (he was a DTW 320/319 FO) to compare US and Russian-designed rifles.

He only had time to state "When our rifles jammed, we picked up AKs", very detached and matter-of-fact, as the shuttle parked at the curb. There was no time to enquire whether this was necessary during some windy days etc, or how worn out their rifles were.

[Casualshooting1]

The AR is a flawed design from inception. The history of the addition of the forward assist and changes to powder and chrome lining indicate a less than reliable system. Frankly I am surprised the design has lasted as long as it has.

I own two ARs, and find the ergonomics of the design less than intuitive. The location of the slide and magazine release require practice. The buffer tube creates a recoil response that is very unlike any other weapon system.

The AR is very much like the 1911 in that it has very passionate followers that tinker with the design with the hopes of reliability that is never 100% there. The AR is definitely not reliable, it can be if all of the variables are in place, but when life and limb depends on a weapon, why choose one that has a chance of failure. I have fired ARs 1000s and 1000s of times and experienced many failures when compared to other weapon systems.

Reliability is the AK design's strength. Again I have 2, both are Chinese. Through many 1000s of rounds I have not experienced one single failure. The design works. The weapon handles quick, the round is more powerful than the 5.56. For close to medium ranges, the weapon is super fast on target acquisition. It is not as accurate at the AR and not a precision/target weapon. It is for putting quick rounds down range to kill. Mine have worked 100% of the time. I would have no hesitation grabbing an AK to use, especially in a close urban environment, because it is reliable.

The downsides for me with the AK are, the stock is short (can be extended or replaced), mounting optics is difficult (but I don't use optics for AKs because it is an under 100 meter weapon), and the magazine shape and weight and shape make carrying and reloads more cumbersome.

Also, read up on the less than lethality of the 5.56 round from the medical professionals that treat gunshot wounds. It is troubling. The round was designed with the purpose of wounding to use enemy resources. A 7.62 Nato round is vastly superior than either.

A 7.62 SCAR or M1A is vastly superior to either the AR or AK. I would never choose an AR design to defend myself or my family.

[amd6547]

The AK is “under a 100 meter weapon”? Perhaps in your hands.

https://youtu.be/-An1IJQD2hE

[Mobuck]

"So what approx. distance does the modern tracer round light-up after it leaves the muzzle"
I'd say the 5.56 lights around 50-100 yards out maybe a bit more for the older 7.62 I have. I/we don't shoot tracers except as a learning tool on the 300+ yard plates.

As for revealing your position, a "low mag indicator" isn't nearly as likely to identify your location as would a tracer every 5th round from an emplaced machinegun.

I took a green Lt out as a "spotter" once. He signed out an M-14 (the common spotter's weapon) and ammo for his journey into the boonies. As it happened, we caught some "little people" in the open around 400 yards out(well within the M-14 issue sight capabilities) and the Lt was getting into the game. I kept telling him to slow down but he was "zoned out". About the 3rd mag into the turkey shoot, Mr Green Lt pulled a mag of "all tracer" that was carried mostly to direct gunship fire onto hidden targets and got off 4-5 shots before I could bounce a canteen off his helmet. Within seconds, we were received fairly accurate return fire from the enemy who, up to that moment had no real idea where we were. They didn't have an exact location but did get a line and were blasting every bit of cover along that line.

[Mobuck]

"The AK is “under a 100 meter weapon”? Perhaps in your hands."

One on one, if the enemy has an AK and you have an AR, over 100 yards, you have much better chance of surviving the confrontation than the AK toter. An AK firing 30 rounds full auto at a full profile human sized target @ 200-300 will likely get some hits. An AR firing one well aimed shot will hit a helmet sized target at similar ranges.

[amd6547]

I'm guessing you didn't watch the video, mobuck.

[Mobuck]

"I'm guessing you didn't watch the video, mobuck."

OK, so I watched the video. There's no reference for a set distance. It could be 100' or 100 yards or ??? for all I could determine.

[TruthTellers]

In 2018 the biggest difference is price. A decade ago you could get a good surplus AK for less than you could get a budget AR, but because the AR is so popular and has had seen many improvements over the decades, the entry level AR's of today best even the premium AK's and the budget AK's being made today, they're total crap.

The pros and cons for the two have been the same for 50 years, the only change today is going to revolve around price. For $400 a rifle that shoots an intermediate .30 caliber bullet to 250 yards is a good trade, but for $800 it's not, not when you can buy an AR-10 for the same price. The only con to that AR-10 would be the cost of the ammo.

Lot more accessories for the AR because it's an easier platform to work with and again, there's a lot of AR owners and companies are willing to pay for R&D when you have a large potential customer base. The AK is not easy to work with and it's base, while large, is not AR large. About the best accessories I see for the AK are from Magpul and those would be the folding stock and the plastic foregrip.

The one huge benefit to the AK is the 7.62x39 cartridge it shoots because the steel case ammo is not only good, it's cheap and it's effective. If somebody would make a factory AR in x39, holy crap that thing would sell like ice cream on the 4th of July.

I like both the AR and AK, I think they both have their strengths and weaknesses. I bought my AK pre-Obama, so I got it for a great price and won't be letting it go anytime soon, however we're no longer in the age before Obama and the AK's made today don't compare with the AR's. I wish I could say the opposite.

[BluRidgDav]

Based on this thread's title, "AK vs AR", I was gonna say that I prefer Alaska over Arkansas.
But, since it's about rifles and I own both types:
I'll say that up here, I depend more on my AK due to wicked weather, remote location, larger predators, and proximity to Russia.
If I lived down in Arkansas, I'd rather carry my AR.

[Ignition Override]

"The Gun", by C.J. Chivers. It describes the development of both the AK and the Armalite, including the flaws/strengths of the early designs and weapons selection processes, operational problems etc.

He was a Marine infantry captain, now a writer with the NY Times.

Have any of you read a number of segments, or the entire book? I realize that it has been out for several years.
Interesting reading.

[jonnyc]

Read it when it first came out; excellent book.