AK VS AR

[keithdog]

I apologize if this has already been discussed but I am curious as to what the differences would be in the AK platform vs the AR platform for todays modern sporting rifles? What would be the pros and cons of each and do you prefer one over the other? From what I have noticed, it seems there are a lot more accessories for the AR rifles for customization. But is one more reliable and enjoyable to shoot? More accurate?

[marine6680]

(note: I will refer to the stoner design family of DI rifles in 5.56 colloquially as the AR or AR Family... Meaning civilian ARs and the Military M16/4 rifle on the whole, just for simplicity and due to the fact that civilians are primarily concerned with the semi AR version only.)


Shooting an AR vs an AK... Is very different. The AK is a more visceral experience. Lots of fun, but I don't feel it is as easy and quick to use as an AR.

If I was to need a rifle for serious work, I would choose the AR over the AK.


A modern AR is very reliable... Provided that it meets a minimum standard of quality construction. Basically if it can meet the mil spec standards, an equivalent spec, or be very close to it and from a good manufacture... You are good to go.

Something like a Colt 6920, is a good example... Aero Precision makes a good rifle, but not strictly mil spec, being they use melonite treated parts and barrels. Melonite is a proven treatment for steel, that performs similarly to chrome plating. There are differences, but they are involved to get into... For the civilian using a semi auto, the melonite offers a cheaper solution but maintains a high level of performance. (like all things, it must be done right, cheap crap is cheap crap no matter what the box says about the manufacturing processes.)

Another example of a solid performing rifle is BCM. They were the manufacturer of the rifle used in the "filthy 14" mini experiment done by a big name firearm training company. (Its worth a google)

Daniel Defense is another example of solid performing rifles.


You are looking at a price range that spans $1000 difference. The basic Aero rifles going for around $600, the Colt $850-900, BCM in the $1300+ range depending on the model, and DD being $1400+ on average. (I would trust them all to work well, but I do have a soft spot for BCM, I think they meet a good balance of quality, performance and total cost.)

If you are willing to spend the money, companies like Knights, LMT, and others have altered the basic design of a few parts to improve long term reliability, and even basic day to day reliability in harsh conditions. Improved bolt lug design, and carrier cam slot changes are an example. I think they are great improvements, but at a cost that puts them outside my comfort level for cost to performance ratio. The improved performance isn't significant enough for me to justify the cost.


If you know how to maintain/clean the AR properly (and I don't mean it needs to be squeaky clean, just that you know what works and doesn't, and what is true and what is myth when it comes to AR cleaning and field maintenance) and know the proper preventive maintenance (like recomended spring replacement schedules, etc)... You will have a very reliable rifle. The military tends to dominate the conversation when it comes to these things... But much of the general knowledge of the average service member surrounding the AR platform is wildly inaccurate. Fortunately, in recent years, this is starting to be corrected by outside trainers coming in and setting things straight.


SOCOM dropped the SCAR in 5.56, and went back to a rifle based on the AR family. SOCOM which can choose their rifle, and have the funds to do so... Didn't find that the SCAR performed significantly better than the AR. The Army tested other options as well, and had the same result.


I don't go for piston variants of the AR, they have advantages, but also drawbacks. DI costs less on average and the rifles tend to be lighter, which is good to have.


7.62x39 can be pretty cheap, but 5.56 bulk is pretty cheap right now too.

I prefer the external ballistics of the 5.56 over 7.62... And the difference matters more for ranges past 250yds or so.

On average, the bulk 7.62x39 will be less well made and less accurate than bulk 5.56 is.

On average, the AK rifle is less accurate than a modern AR. You can get outliers of particularly good and bad with both, but the AR tends to be more accurate on the whole. Dollar for dollar, the AR wins more often than not, as a $600 AR will likely be more accurate than a $600 Ak.



An AK is more tolerant of neglect than an AR for sure, and it can beat the AR for reliability is some situations. I wouldn't declare it as an always true blanket statement though. It just isn't the be all end all rifle some claim.

Selecting a quality AK is much more challenging... There is a lot of cheap crap out there, with a lot of the well made stuff costing $1000+



For serious work, the AR is better IMO.


For a general purpose rifle, I feel that a 16in barreled AR with mid length gas system is the best option.


I own both, I like both... But I shoot my ARs a lot more than my AK.

[Mobuck]

IMHO
A "cheap" AR is far more likely to be acceptable than a "cheap" AK.
AK's are designed to send out a lot of bullets under severe conditions when used by poorly trained "troops"(or mobs of totally untrained whatevers). Making something that works well in this scenario ends up with some tolerances which don't compliment accuracy.
AR's can be made accurate far more easily[ "only accurate guns are interesting" ] w/o significantly compromising function. I have a $450 AR15 type carbine in my hands EVERY DAY at some point. I haul that carbine uncased on my UTV, in the pickup, or where ever I may be. I don't dump it in the mud intentionally but it gets a full share of whatever weather conditions I'm in. I've NEVER had a system related failure with the AR platform. Would an AK type rifle do this-most likely. Will an AK roll a coyote @250 yards every time--not a $450 specimen and maybe not a $1000 one, either.
The easiest way to defeat an AK toting foe is simply to shoot him from farther away than he can shoot you.

[BBarn]

Both can be fun to shoot. I've give the nod to the AR when it comes to accuracy. As far as reliability, I've encountered more problems with the AR, but even those have been rare. I personally, find the SKS, with a more normal length aftermarket sporter stock, much more enjoyable to shoot than either the AR or AK.

[keithdog]

Thank you Marine for all that great info.

[Targa]

I agree with Marine about the AR being a better platform but my Saiga IZ is much more fun at the range than my AR. If I could get my wife to let me sell the AR it would be gone.

[TrueBlue711]

I agree with marine's post. I have both and love both, but always gravitate to the AR. It's ergonomics are just better for me and it seems to be that way for most people. I find it easier for mag changes and all of the needed controls are easy to use from the firing hand without taking your trigger finger away from the trigger.

Another thing I didn't see mentioned is you can build your own AR and swap out any part you want pretty easily. Not so much with the AK. Building an AR is fun on it's own and gives me more appreciation of the gun I'm shooting.

You can swap the upper to change caliber pretty fast too. If you want, you can have one lower and multiple uppers in different calibers and/or barrel/optic configurations for different situations. There are a lot of calibers available that fit in a standard AR lower (note: many of these calibers will require a different mag than the standard 5.56 mag): 5.56/.223, 300 Blackout, 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, 224 Valkyrie, 204 Ruger, .22 LR, even 7.62x39 like the AK. And the list keeps growing. Different caliber for an AK = another AK, and there are two calibers for that: 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 (there may be more, but that's all I can think of).

I would say the AK is more reliable than the AR, but I can't recall any malfunctions from my ARs either (that weren't due to ammo or the magazine). However, I let my AK get plenty dirty and I'm not worried about it malfunctioning.

I would say having either is a win, but would point you to an AR if you don't have either and are looking to start somewhere.

[pblanc]

If you are new to both ARs and AKs I would definitely go with the AR platform first. There was a time when you could buy an imported AKM rifle very cheaply and shoot a lot of very inexpensive mil-surp ammo through it for much less than you could buy a decent AR for. Those days are over.

AKs are designed to shoot steel-cased ammunition. Steel case 7.62x39 ammunition can still be purchased a little more cheaply then brass case 223 Rem or 5.56x45 ammo, but the difference is not that great anymore. There is also the possibility that steel case 7.62x39 ammunition, the great majority of which is imported, will become more expensive or less available in the future as a result of steel tariffs.

There is a glut of AR-type rifles on the market right now which has resulted in some great deals. For the cost of a "good" AKM you can probably buy a much better AR. If you want to shoot an AKM with something other than the iron sights, you will need to buy one with an accessory rail mounted to the receiver or elsewhere. You can buy ARs with any configuration of sights you wish including flat-tops (with no front sight post) to traditional set-ups with the front sight tower and carry handle with incorporated rear sight.

Apart from sights, there are vastly more options available for modifying an AR or replacing any part on it if you need to or want to. The ergonomics of the AR are much better than those of the AKM for most shooters and are very much more easily modified if not to your liking.

As for the shooting experience, both are fun. Modern AR rifles are extremely reliable. Unless you anticipate crawling on your belly through mud and rain for days on end, or burying your rifle in fine sand and then shooting it, there is no reason to buy an AKM because of a perceived "greater reliability". For myself, the perceived recoil of an AKM shooting 7.62x39 is rather greater than that of an AR shooting 223 Rem or 5.56x45. Some AKM rifles also manifest considerable "cheek slap". If you watch an AKM shot in slow motion you will see that the end of the barrel whips down and up through several cycles with each shot. This barrel whip is transmitted back to the butt stock and can result in significant cheek discomfort.

Considering rifles of similar quality, most shooters will give the AR the edge in accuracy over the AKM at medium to longer ranges.

[jmstr]

With ban on imports from Russia, AK ammo is no longer 1/2 price of AR ammo. It may be a bit cheaper, but not 1/2 the price. And AK-type imports are no longer $100-150.

So, the comparison boils down to ammo differences and platform differences- and that all relates to what you want to do with it.


AK = 123gr .30 cal bullet = bigger hole and heavier weight.
AR = 55-62 gr .223 cal bullet = narrower hole, less weight, more tumble [?].


AK = more recoil, more noise, more FT/LBs of energy transfered to target - but generally less accurate.
AR = less recoil, less noise, less FT/LBs energy transfered to target- but more accurate.


reliability? Trust others. I don't know.


All the records indicate that the AK is better than an AR if they are pulled out of swamp where they sat submerged for 3 days, drained and fired [no cleaning].

Which will be more reliable if taken out of a firearm safe, where it was stored in a cleaned and lubed manner? Probably a tie.


AK = low- tech, stamped parts, loose tolerances, old-world 'machine' approach.
AK = high tech, forged and molded parts, tighter tolerances, new world cutting edge [1950s design era] approach.



It really boils down to what role you want the rifle to fill.

BOTH have strengths- so get both!


I didn't. My Russians are 7.62x54R and 7.62x25, instead of 7.62x39.

[RC20]

Modern Sporting Rifle, hmmm - my take is more a 22 that makes more noise.

The AR is more precision, the AK much less so. Accuracy pretty well goes the same.

Ergonomics are poor on both guns. I know people will argue that but the AR is as bad or worse than the AK without the corresponding ability to operate with heavy gloves on.

AR is going to be reliable (DGI version) unless you don't clean it around 1000 rounds. It needs to be lubed.

AK is going to be reliable regardless. Certainly its not a hunting gun though most AR shooters I see are just blasting at 50 yards. (AR-10 excepted which is rare and certainly hunting capable)

A friend from the South West visiting was astonished at the AR population at the range (except during hunting season when they disappear)

I was impressed when the AK-74 was used (probably not needed) to take down a Grizzly bear (quantity of hits over quality)

For the various SHTF scenarios the AK is better.

[Metal god]

For the various SHTF scenarios the AK is better.

The one reason I'd disagree would be ammo availability in that SHTF . When I think SHTF I think years of problems and 7.62x39 will dry up and you can't reload the cases in most instances . It's not like we'll be getting a bunch of AK ammo imported during this SHTF period . That alone is why I'd go with the AR . There are other reasons why I'd prefer the AR but if you can't feed it , it's just a fancy club or paper weight .

[marine6680]

A note... The AK operator's union channel on YouTube has done many long term tests of AKs... They shoot 5000 rounds through them and put them through a bit of abuse.

I have seen them test two ARs as well, but only one to 5000rds... Both handled the abuse portions very well, better than many AKs did. The long term test was of a cheap and basic PSA carbine, and it did very well in the testing, let alone for a $500 AR...


Their AK tests have been very mixed, with many issues popping up... From serious, to moderate, and even potentially dangerous issues being the norm for AKs under $1000. Poorly made furniture that broke or worked lose constantly was common... Parts failures, fit issues, bad bolts, head spacing that got well out of tolerance and into potentially dangerous levels. I would check out their channel for info on good AKs.


It's not that AKs are bad... It's that the ones available are not always the best, unless you spend a good chunk of cash.

[davidsog]

Get the AR.

[Mobuck]

Since I'm a civilian, I don't have to use FMJ(and sure as he!! don't). I can and do use bullets designed for my specific needs. The selection of 7.62x39 ammo is far less varied than .223 so the chances of finding a factory load that works well are increased with the .223.
Oh, and then there's the caliber options that make the AR the king of the hill.

[youngridge]

If you are wondering which one to buy....get both platforms, they each serve there purpose. Most have already said what you need to know. It is a lot more fun to build an AR too. Good winter project. Learn them both inside and out and start picking up a parts kit for both and build them up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stagpanther]

AK's have a higher "cool" factor IMO--but AR's offer "easy build modularity." An AR47 is a happy marriage of the two if you want a more accurate shooting 7.62 x 39 without spending a ton of money. That's totally disregarding any discussion of the relative ballistics or battle efficiency of either weapon.

[Erno86]

I'm quite fond of the AK's beefier, more robust hammer over a variety of AR hammers --- But when push comes to shove with an AR...I would stick with the AR mil-spec hammer.

[TXAZ]

Neither is a precision rifle.
Both were designed to hit a man sized target out to +/- 200 meters. (Yes they both can hit well beyond that but that's the comfort zone)
The AR likely produces slightly tighter groups in competent hands.
Both are fun to shoot.
Ammo for both is 'relatively' cheap.
The AK is incredibly robust when neglected.
The AK likely has significantly more 'kills' than any other weapon in the world.
The AK can be buried in them mud, then strapped to a pallet and thrown into seawater for a month and will still work without cleaning. (Israeli's tested that)
You have significantly more options in 'build your own' AR than AK.

AND FINALLY: Most AK's will bounce fire (aka bump fire) the whole magazine with an appropriate grip, finger positioning and stiffness, and practice. That's a real blast!

I personally like the AK from a robustness perspective, but don't have a problem with either.

[T. O'Heir]

"...AK platform vs the AR platform..." The AK, in all its forms, was designed to be issued to illiterate conscripts who could be taught to use it as quickly as possible. Accuracy was not and is not a consideration. Sights and triggers are poor. An AK is basically a big kid's toy. A target or even hunting rifle, it ain't.
"...the Military M16/4 rifle..." Doesn't count. An AR-15 is neither. An AR is a civilian clone of them but has nothing but its outside appearance in common.
The AR was designed as an air crew survival rifle and was never intended to be a battle rifle at all. It was jammed down everybody's throat, the U.S. military included, by Sec of Defence Robert Strange McNamara. It isn't the same rifle as the original mid 50's rifle though. It does have decent sights and triggers, now. Way easier to gussy up into a reasonably decent target rifle too.
"...enjoyable to shoot?..." Yes. I mean both of 'em. Neither of 'em beats an M1 Rifle though.

[marine6680]

Um... The only difference between something like a Colt 6920 and a military M4...

Is an extra 2in of barrel and a trigger group that doesn't have a happy switch.

Not all military rifles have the happy switch either, usually ones used for special roles.


I said it in the other thread... I will say it again... All the experts call the 7.62x51 and m14 a huge mistake.

Those that pushed for the m14 and fought the m16 were found to be criminally negligent in their duties, and we're seeking personal or favoral gain.

[Erno86]

I think that the biggest negative for the AK/AKM's, is that they can't be made to have a free floated barrel; except for the Polish Tantal.

[marine6680]

This is for the merits of the AK vs the AR...

Other rifles and other considerations are not the focus.


If you are willing to spend $1500 on an AK, and get a good optic rail and optic to put on it... You can have a very good rifle.

The problem is, is that you have to spend that much to get a proper quality AK that can last and be what an AK can be.

Though the AK guys seemed to like the Gen 2 PSA AK, and a few imports around that price range worked well mechanically, they just had crappy furniture. So replacing it would add to the cost, making them close to $1000 anyway.


A quality AR made to specs and able to last a long time, can be had for $600-800 and you don't need to buy a side rail mount to mount an optic.


If your primary concern is absolute rugged reliability after lots of neglect in the field... An AK fits that. It is heavier and less efficient than an AR though.

As far as neglect goes... Not likely a real concern, even for the prepper crowd. You just are not going to let your rifle sit neglected in water and mud for days and weeks. It's going to slung on your shoulder. A few rags and a quart of motor oil will last a long time in an emergency doomsday situation. It's not hard to wipe down an AR every now and then, it's not like they need to be kept spotless like some like to think.


So, in the end, most people just want a range toy. Either rifle is fine for that. If you have other concerns, then learn the facts about the platforms and make a choice.

[Erno86]

I've had one of my AR's action freeze up (lock down?) on me (not good) one day when I took it out of my safe; but I never had an AK/AKM action freeze up on me.

Though using the "mortar method" can unfreeze an AR's action.

Go to the range long enough...and you'll eventually come across a number of frozen AR actions --- That's why I carry a wooden handled rubber mallet in my range bag. And I never saw anyone else's AK/AKM action freeze up at the range either.

Though I did jam my AKM once...when I short stroked the charging handle, that resulted in a live 7.62x39 round jammed in the trigger group.

[davidsog]

The service AK is not more reliable than an service AR.

Just basic design, the AR action is much more protected and will function in conditions that shut down an AK.

AK

https://youtu.be/DX73uXs3xGU

AR

https://youtu.be/YAneTFiz5WU

[4V50 Gary]

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.

Of the two, the AR is the more versatile and more accurate. Swap out the uppers and you can go from a target rifle to a battle rifle to a carbine. Swap out the upper and the buffer and you can have a submachinegun. It's Barbie for Boys or Lego for Men. They're easier to work on and can be built by the average guy (or gal) who has simple mechanical skills. The aluminium magazine lips can't take much abuse (I'm sure the Magpul mags are better).