SHTF- AK or AR?? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : SHTF- AK or AR??


Teej
02-04-2010, 14:30
I am guessing that many of you have both an AK and AR or are familiar personally with them both weapons.

With what you know from your OWN personal knowledge, in a SHTF situation what would you prefer to grab an AK or AR? Would you explain your reasoning please.

Glocker08
02-04-2010, 15:13
I am guessing that many of you have both an AK and AR or are familiar personally with them both weapons.

With what you know from your OWN personal knowledge, in a SHTF situation what would you prefer to grab an AK or AR? Would you explain your reasoning please.

either/or, both.

The AR is generally considered more accurate,(although my Saiga AK is pretty darn accurate) while the AK is considered to be the more reliable rifle because it has looser tolerances.The AK also generally has higher capacity mags,so that means fewer mag changes.

I have both and like both, but I have more experience with the AK,although limited. If I could choose only one, it would be the AK,simply because I'm more accustomed to that platform.

1985 4Runner
02-04-2010, 16:32
My AK.

It makes cover into concealment. :whistling:

my762buzz
02-04-2010, 16:51
An AK.


I had my shtf moment with a wild boar.
One day I was shooting at a range near a marsh system in florida and a large wild boar pops out of the bush and charges at me. By the time I saw it coming, it was too close and I started running. It was a few feet behind me and I headed for the nearby pond figuring it would not want to follow me into the water. I dashed into the water clutching my AR and with my glock 17 in its holster. The second I stepped into the water my foot sank into some slimy muck I slipped and I fell forward. Me and my AR slammed into the nasty muck soil just passing a few inches of pond water. The boar did not chase any further but basically would not let me leave the water. What else was I to do? I lifted my AR covered in muck tried to rack a fresh fmj into the chamber and behold the carrier stopped before it made it into battery. I then tried to flush the rifle with the pond water but to no avail. My only chance of getting the hell out of the pond was now my 9mm glock. I grabbed my glock which did have some pond muck along the outside aimed at the boar's neck and fired 5 times. I hit something vital enough that it stumbled away slowly and later died. I have been a huge believer in Glock guns ever since. I sold all my ARs and started to research other rifles extensively. I bought my first AK not long after that. I went back to that pond and dropped my AK into that nasty muck. I picked it up allowed the barrel to drain and proceded to fire off the whole magazine. I been a fan ever since.

CarlosC
02-04-2010, 17:03
The easy answer is the AK, but I guess it would really depend. If I am just holding out in my home, then definitely the AK and I'd probably have my Hungarian Fire Dragon (AMD-65) with me 24-7. It is extremely small and you don't necessarily have to hit the person you're shooting at because the muzzle blast alone will blind and momentarily incapacitate them. If I need commonality with the police, then it would have to be an AR. Some cops may not perceive you as the good guy either if they see you toting around an AK. Perception. If dirt is a problem or a lack of cleaning supplies, then the AK is the winner.

If I'd just want pure firepower, then it would have to be my G-3. It combines the accuracy of my AR with a .30 punch way stronger than the AK's .30 round.

Nicoroshi
02-04-2010, 17:10
AK without question, and my G21 SF.
Reasons? (BTW these reasons also apply to the G21 SF)
Always goes 'BANG'.
Built like a tank.
Simple construction so easy to repair/ maintain
Accurate enough for it's purpose (won't be plucking eyes out but will do 'minute of man' no problem).
Harder hitting round (ever see what a 7.62x39 hollow point does to an orange at 50 yards? Let's just say the air has a nice orange scent to it when it hits).
Lightweight. My lightest AR weighs in at over 9 lbs. My lightest AK at 7.5lbs.
Clear winner IMHO is the AK.

Glocker08
02-04-2010, 17:57
An AK.


I had my shtf moment with a wild boar.
One day I was shooting at a range near a marsh system in florida and a large wild boar pops out of the bush and charges at me. By the time I saw it coming, it was too close and I started running. It was a few feet behind me and I headed for the nearby pond figuring it would not want to follow me into the water. I dashed into the water clutching my AR and with my glock 17 in its holster. The second I stepped into the water my foot sank into some slimy muck I slipped and I fell forward. Me and my AR slammed into the nasty muck soil just passing a few inches of pond water. The boar did not chase any further but basically would not let me leave the water. What else was I to do? I lifted my AR covered in muck tried to rack a fresh fmj into the chamber and behold the carrier stopped before it made it into battery. I then tried to flush the rifle with the pond water but to no avail. My only chance of getting the hell out of the pond was now my 9mm glock. I grabbed my glock which did have some pond muck along the outside aimed at the boar's neck and fired 5 times. I hit something vital enough that it stumbled away slowly and later died. I have been a huge believer in Glock guns ever since. I sold all my ARs and started to research other rifles extensively. I bought my first AK not long after that. I went back to that pond and dropped my AK into that nasty muck. I picked it up allowed the barrel to drain and proceded to fire off the whole magazine. I been a fan ever since.

:wow: A nearly identical situation happened to me. I wiped out one day going down an embankment in the woods after it had just rained. I ended dropping my AR in some thick swamp mud at the bottom of a ravine.There was no round in the chamber, which is usually the case if I'm just going in the woods. After spouting off several expletives and checking the barrel for obstructions, I cleaned it off as best I could. I then went to do a function test. 1st round, jammed up. Cleared it. 2nd round,bang. The following 3rd,4th, and 5th rounds all jammed up.

At a later date, I also took my Yugo AK, which I no longer have (traded it for a shotgun that I needed at the time ,like an idiot :upeyes:) and purposely dropped it in the same swamp mud. It went through a 30 rd. mag without missing a beat. :cool:

I will say after I gave my AR a good cleaning, it ran like a top. It's a great shooter, very accurate. I've thought about selling it just to eliminate the need to buy ammo for yet another caliber.

My first carbine was an AK, and so I'm more familiar with that platform and I prefer it, but I like AR's too.

my762buzz
02-04-2010, 19:10
Some cops may not perceive you as the good guy either if they see you toting around an AK. Perception.

I will make sure to have her hold it while the popo is nearby.
They won't even see the gun. Babe-o-flage

http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/gsg/gsg_ak.jpg

9mm +p+
02-05-2010, 01:24
Good stories guys, I'm AK all the way but for a different reason although the bulletproof reliability is a huge factor as well. I'm not a 556 fan at all, I've seen it fail on critters as small as groundhogs. 15-20Lbs, now would I trust that same load on a POed 220lb guy hell bent on killing me?? Nope, the 7.62x39 IMO is the best combat round going, sure it has range issues and the cheaper ammo lacks accuracy but like someone already mentioned it'll turn cover into concealment, it's inexpensive enough for me to stock up and it does it's job well on 2 legged as well as 4 legged threats. My primary go to rifle is an Arsenal SLR-107F that I just finished up. It now has an UltiMak gas tube rail, Aimpoint T-1 and a VLTOR offset scout mount with a SF G2 LED, it's a sweet great shooting portable pkg and would be my first choice for a post shtf rifle.

RMTactical
02-05-2010, 02:40
Both are capable. I prefer the AR15, but I would feel good that I would be able to get the job done with an AK too.

CarlosC
02-05-2010, 07:09
I will make sure to have her hold it while the popo is nearby.
They won't even see the gun. Babe-o-flage

http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/gsg/gsg_ak.jpg

:wow: Smokin!

I bet you could have a kilo of crack in one hand and an AK in the other and the popo wouldn't even notice you if she were around.

JBJ16
02-05-2010, 11:25
take note , both rifles in firing condition, chambered, both off-safe, both ejection ports open:wow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqRwx4wtmms

Teej
02-05-2010, 11:50
take note , both rifles in firing condition, chambered, both off-safe, both ejection ports open:wow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqRwx4wtmms

Have him do it again with muddy swamp water, submerge the AR in the mud, then pull it out and fire. If he does and can do that, then I will be impressed.

JBJ16
02-05-2010, 12:40
Have him do it again with muddy swamp water, submerge the AR in the mud, then pull it out and fire. If he does and can do that, then I will be impressed.

Without draining the AR receiver sufficiently, upon firing, the AR receiver will detonate:wow: courtesy of the DI system, and the presence of water.

However, it was :wow: a surprise that the AK failed in that vid while the "unreliable" AR kept on firing.:whistling:
Just shows that a given a unique circumstance one system will fail, while another will remain impervious no mater past history/reputation of that particular system and vice-versa.

CarlosC
02-05-2010, 12:50
Not so much of a surprise because the guy who was testing the AR ensured he released the bolt before "burying" it.

HighwayStarPP
02-05-2010, 12:51
AK hands down.

JBJ16
02-05-2010, 13:11
Not so much of a surprise because the guy who was testing the AR ensured he released the bolt before "burying" it.

Both rifles bolts are released and round chambered ready to fire, open dust cover on AR and safety of on AK:crying:

CarlosC
02-05-2010, 13:27
It's not the same thing though because they are designed differently. Opening the dust cover on the AR exposes nothing but the side the bolt. The bolt still forms a pretty good seal against the receiver. The AK's safety also acts as its side dust cover, so by flicking off the safety, you expose a large opening to the inner workings.

98_1LE
02-05-2010, 13:32
That youtube was interesting.

I have owned both rifles, and still own a couple AK's.

CarlosC
02-05-2010, 13:40
It was interesting, but it is an isolated test. If you look around YouTube you can find videos of ARs failing as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbe4maIL0A0&feature=related

Joshhtn
02-05-2010, 13:58
It was interesting, but it is an isolated test. If you look around YouTube you can find videos of ARs failing as well.



+1000... That AK vs AR video is a horrible comparison and a horrible video all around!

AK ALL DAY!:50cal:

CarlosC
02-05-2010, 14:11
Years ago, the Alaska State Highway Patrol did extensive testing of several weapons and found the Valmet derivative of the AK was the only one that passed easily. Who failed? M-16, FAL, HK-91, M1A.

my762buzz
02-05-2010, 15:33
take note , both rifles in firing condition, chambered, both off-safe, both ejection ports open:wow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqRwx4wtmms



The mechanical problem in that test is a massive amount of sand and rocks get wedged under the trigger clearance areas and/or the bolt firing pin hole. I would bet that if it takes 3 ounces of sand and rocks to cause this in an AK an AR would seize up with 0.3 ounces of the same material bouncing around inside. I guess if I were to make a video doing the same exact test but with a slight change it would tip the results the other way. Improvised.

http://i47.tinypic.com/1rbyfd.jpg

JBJ16
02-05-2010, 15:34
It's not the same thing though because they are designed differently. Opening the dust cover on the AR exposes nothing but the side the bolt. The bolt still forms a pretty good seal against the receiver. The AK's safety also acts as its side dust cover, so by flicking off the safety, you expose a large opening to the inner workings.

You just described what could well be the "Achilles Heel" of the AK system which could and no doubt may have had already happened in combat.

JBJ16
02-05-2010, 15:38
The mechanical problem in that test is a massive amount of sand and rocks get wedged under the trigger clearance areas and/or the bolt firing pin hole. I would bet that if it takes 3 ounces of sand and rocks to cause this in an AK an AR would seize up with 0.3 ounces of the same material bouncing around inside. I guess if I were to make a video doing the same exact test but with a slight change it would tip the results the other way. Improvised.

http://i47.tinypic.com/1rbyfd.jpg

?????????:wow: That test with the duct tape would be hilarious:rofl: What would be the point then? We might as well wrap both rifles in plastic and bury both in sand.:faint:

my762buzz
02-05-2010, 15:40
?????????:wow: That test with the duct tape would be hilarious:rofl: What would be the point then? We might as well wrap both rifles in plastic and bury both in sand.:faint:

The ejection port is still uncovered and ready to allow ejection, but if someone wants to bury it first, knock youself out it aint jamming up.

CarlosC
02-05-2010, 16:56
You just described what could well be the "Achilles Heel" of the AK system which could and no doubt may have had already happened in combat.

Possibly, but there are things to consider like how often would one drop his primary weapon (the AK), then proceed to intentionally bury it with sand before trying to fire it again. I would imagine the scenario would be more like simply dropping it, then picking it up and firing.
Something else is that we don't really know the inputs in the original test on YouTube. How well maintained was the AK? Too many variables. I would go with an agency test (like the Alaska Highway Patrol) over some guy on YouTube, but that's me.
Finally, if this was such an Achilles Heel, why would the basic design not change in 63 years? And don't forget the Israelis, who did their share of fighting in the desert, decided to copy quite a bit of the AK's design when they made the Galil.

El_Ron1
02-05-2010, 17:07
A hot case might melt that tape into AK friendly loob. :supergrin:

JBJ16
02-05-2010, 17:23
"how often would one drop his primary weapon (the AK), then proceed to intentionally bury it with sand before trying to fire it again. I would imagine the scenario would be more like simply dropping it, then picking it up and firing."

Suppose you were in a firefight in a sandy, dirt environment then someone strafes you with automatic fire and you are forced to dive for cover unfortunately you land with your rifle right-side (ejection port side) into the dirt when diving for cover. Ejection port cover is wide open at that moment.

IMHO this video may simulate the above scenario . . . you may or may not agree.

Teej
02-05-2010, 17:40
Possibly, but there are things to consider like how often would one drop his primary weapon (the AK), then proceed to intentionally bury it with sand before trying to fire it again. I would imagine the scenario would be more like simply dropping it, then picking it up and firing.

Well consider a combat reality. Beaches on Normandy, bombs and rounds constantly going off. Water, sand, blood flying everywhere.

Jungles in South East Asia, rain, mud and swamp.

Remember how covered our folks were with dust and debris coming out of the World Trade Center. That type of scene could happen in a combat role.

Or as the member related above when he ran from the hog and dropped his AR in the swamp then retrieved it.

So for a combat or SHTF weapon, it would need to pass more than just dropping it in the sand and picking it up. That might happen at the range.

And I didn't even mention the possibility of having to use it in a hard winter when any moisture, humidity, snow or sleet will freeze causing ice inside and out of the weapon.

So I think a better realisitic test would have to include dropping the rifle in the waters edge of the ocean or swap where the water will seep dirt, sand and or mud inside. And again for testing purposes wetting the testing rifles down and leaving them overnight in freezing temperatures.

I would bet the AK would fair far better than an AR, M16 or current M4's.

Alaskapopo
02-05-2010, 17:55
I have both weapons in my collection and both are good choices. But the AR has the edge.
Pat

my762buzz
02-05-2010, 17:59
"

Suppose you were in a firefight in a sandy, dirt environment then someone strafes you with automatic fire and you are forced to dive for cover unfortunately you land with your rifle right-side (ejection port side) into the dirt when diving for cover. Ejection port cover is wide open at that moment.

IMHO this video may simulate the above scenario . . . you may or may not agree.


Ok, suppose you dropped your M16 during an intense combat scenario.
Then suddenly the hole in the ozone layer comes between the sun and your immediate area. The intensive solar radiation that is no longer filtered by the ozone strikes your M16 and begins to heat it and it cooks off every bit of lube
and the lube sizzles into an oxidized tar like goo. The goo acts against proper M16 function and traps dust, sand, and carbon deposits. Your M16 just became a fancy paper weight. Now what?

JBJ16
02-05-2010, 18:09
As I mentioned in my previous post regarding the orig DI AR design mixed with water....."Without draining the AR receiver sufficiently, upon firing, the AR receiver will detonate courtesy of the DI system, and the presence of water."

In this scenario the AK outshines the AR in reliability. . . . hence the current trend in piston ARs which remedies this "flaw" more than it remedies over-pressure of carbine length gas systems.

In conclusion to the OP's question, SHTF . . AK or AR? . . .. well you cannot really be absolutely sure because when SHTF S**T can happen to even the best equipment. . . Murphy wins:wavey:

Teej
02-05-2010, 18:11
Ok, suppose you dropped your M16 during an intense combat scenario.
Then suddenly the hole in the ozone layer comes between the sun and your immediate area. The intensive solar radiation that is no longer filtered by the ozone strikes your M16 and begins to heat it and it cooks off every bit of lube
and the lube sizzles into an oxidized tar like goo. The goo acts against proper M16 function and traps dust, sand, and carbon deposits. Your M16 just became a fancy paper weight. Now what?

I think JBJ16's thinking is a very realistic combat possibility. Yours is more along the Buzz-lightyear thinking.

Granted, everyday someone breaking into your home or business or even the cop on the street probably will not be that extreme. But the combat realities above have happened.

hummm, recalling that reminds me that the M1 made it through intense battles in Europe, South Pacific and Korea, including summers and winters. Maybe I should just get one of them?

Alaskapopo
02-05-2010, 18:11
As I mentioned in my previous post regarding the orig DI AR design mixed with water....."Without draining the AR receiver sufficiently, upon firing, the AR receiver will detonate courtesy of the DI system, and the presence of water."

In this scenario the AK outshines the AR in reliability. . . . hence the current trend in piston ARs which remedies this "flaw" more than it remedies over-pressure of carbine length gas systems.

In conclusion to the OP's question, SHTF . . AK or AR? . . .. well you cannot really be absolutely sure because when SHTF S**T can happen to even the best equipment. . . Murphy wins:wavey:

Hmm solution. Drain the water out of your AR before you fire it. Same goes for any gun that gets dropped in the drink. The current trend towards Pistons is consumer driven by mall ninjas wanting to keep up with the jones. I will stick with a good DI AR thank you very much.
Pat

JBJ16
02-05-2010, 18:12
Ok, suppose you dropped your M16 during an intense combat scenario.
Then suddenly the hole in the ozone layer comes between the sun and your immediate area. The intensive solar radiation that is no longer filtered by the ozone strikes your M16 and begins to heat it and it cooks off every bit of lube
and the lube sizzles into an oxidized tar like goo. The goo acts against proper M16 function and traps dust, sand, and carbon deposits. Your M16 just became a fancy paper weight. Now what?

Murphy wins:tongueout:

my762buzz
02-05-2010, 18:23
I think JBJ16's thinking is a very realistic combat possibility. Yours is more along the Buzz-lightyear thinking.

Granted, everyday someone breaking into your home or business or even the cop on the street probably will not be that extreme. But the combat realities above have happened.

hummm, recalling that reminds me that the M1 made it through intense battles in Europe, South Pacific and Korea, including summers and winters. Maybe I should just get one of them?

I just think it gets silly sometimes. I seen too many of these threads and it comes down people saying an AR15 is better because you can do headshots at 800 yards and 5.56 M193 is ultimately more lethal than any .30 caliber FMJ and the low recoil wins battles.

CarlosC
02-05-2010, 18:32
"how often would one drop his primary weapon (the AK), then proceed to intentionally bury it with sand before trying to fire it again. I would imagine the scenario would be more like simply dropping it, then picking it up and firing."

Suppose you were in a firefight in a sandy, dirt environment then someone strafes you with automatic fire and you are forced to dive for cover unfortunately you land with your rifle right-side (ejection port side) into the dirt when diving for cover. Ejection port cover is wide open at that moment.

IMHO this video may simulate the above scenario . . . you may or may not agree.
Yes, suppose this or that, but history has shown otherwise and the AK's reliability - in the real world - is well known. In fact, here is an excerpt from US Army Field Manual 100-2-3, "Both the AK and AKM can mount a grenade launcher. Both can have passive image intensifier night sights. Both can function normally after total immersion in mud and water. The fully chromed barrel ensures effective operation even at very low temperatures."

"One of the bulldozers uncovered the decomposing body of an enemy soldier, complete with AK47. I happened to be standing right there, looking down into the hole and pulled the AK out of the bog. "Watch this, guys," I said, "and I'll show you how a real infantry weapon works." I pulled the bolt back and fired 30 rounds - the AK could have been cleaned that day rather than buried in glug for a year or so. That was the kind of weapon our soldiers needed, not the confidence-sapping M-16. ~ David Hackworth, US Army battallion commander, Vietnam War. In About Face, The Macmillan Company of Australia 1989 p669"

in an Aug 2004 article by Leroy Thompson, he states, "I have seen captured AK-47 that obviously had been dragged through all manner of dirt or sand and had never been cleaned. They were filthy but whenever we tested on it fired....In simplest terms, the strongest point of the AK is that almost invariably when one pulls the trigger it will go off."

Over 75 million customers can't be wrong either.

Alaskapopo
02-05-2010, 18:32
I just think it gets silly sometimes. I seen too many of these threads and it comes down people saying an AR15 is better because you can do headshots at 800 yards and 5.56 M193 is ultimately more lethal than any .30 caliber FMJ and the low recoil wins battles.

That is the main edge of the AR. I can engage you from outside your effective range with the AK. The average AK in 7.62x39 is a 200 to 300 yard rifle max. The average M4 is a 500 to 600 yard rifle. Inside 200 yards the better rifle man will win regardless of rather he is using an AK or AR. But at long range the AR has the edge.

PS I still have not seen your videos of you shooting sub moa 5 shot groups at 100 yards with your AK.
Pat

my762buzz
02-05-2010, 18:54
That is the main edge of the AR. I can engage you from outside your effective range with the AK. The average AK in 7.62x39 is a 200 to 300 yard rifle max. The average M4 is a 500 to 600 yard rifle. Inside 200 yards the better rifle man will win regardless of rather he is using an AK or AR. But at long range the AR has the edge.

PS I still have not seen your videos of you shooting sub moa 5 shot groups at 100 yards with your AK.
Pat

I went in early Jan to go shoot and video it. 1 MOA was what I was telling you. I managed to get a video of me blowing up water juggs with double tap
and other ammo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGB5YB9f15Q
but too many people showed up at the park range and I couldn't effectively
shoot and show the target after each shot because the line only went cold
every 10 minutes. A 1 hour video is too long
I need a non-public place to video tape it. The public range sucks.
I scoped my Vepr and I placed 5 double tap bullets into slightly over 1 inch MOA. Yeah I know you don't beleive it.
It must not be possible no matter how many other people done it.

9mm +p+
02-05-2010, 19:06
That is the main edge of the AR. I can engage you from outside your effective range with the AK. The average AK in 7.62x39 is a 200 to 300 yard rifle max. The average M4 is a 500 to 600 yard rifle. Inside 200 yards the better rifle man will win regardless of rather he is using an AK or AR. But at long range the AR has the edge.

PS I still have not seen your videos of you shooting sub moa 5 shot groups at 100 yards with your AK.
Pat

:upeyes:Sorry to break it to you but the almighty m4 with it's 14.5" barrel ballistically would be worthless at 500/600 yds regardless of what the military says is the "effective" range, the truth is the m4 and the Ak have the same range envelope although no one will admit that little fact. As for accuracy my aimpointed arsenal AK shoots 2MOA with cheapo wolf, just did it 2 nights ago at the range and it is repeatable. I had a Bushy M4 before I quit drinking the koolaid that would do the same with it's ACOG on deck and American Eagle 55gr FMJ. So how is your platform any more effective than mine? It isn't, period.

my762buzz
02-05-2010, 19:10
:upeyes:Sorry to break it to you but the almighty m4 with it's 14.5" barrel ballistically would be worthless at 500/600 yds regardless of what the military says is the "effective" range, the truth is the m4 and the Ak have the same range envelope although no one will admit that little fact. As for accuracy my aimpointed arsenal AK shoots 2MOA with cheapo wolf, just did it 2 mights ago at the range and it repeatable. I had a Bushy M4 that would do the same with it's ACOG on deck and American Eagle 55gr FMJ. So how is your platform any more effective than mine? It isn't, period.

Pat will not believe that because he can't seem to hold a sub 6 MOA group with his Saiga therefore no one else can possibly do better.

Joshhtn
02-05-2010, 19:12
Yes, suppose this or that, but history has shown otherwise and the AK's reliability - in the real world - is well known. In fact, here is an excerpt from US Army Field Manual 100-2-3, "Both the AK and AKM can mount a grenade launcher. Both can have passive image intensifier night sights. Both can function normally after total immersion in mud and water. The fully chromed barrel ensures effective operation even at very low temperatures."

"One of the bulldozers uncovered the decomposing body of an enemy soldier, complete with AK47. I happened to be standing right there, looking down into the hole and pulled the AK out of the bog. "Watch this, guys," I said, "and I'll show you how a real infantry weapon works." I pulled the bolt back and fired 30 rounds - the AK could have been cleaned that day rather than buried in glug for a year or so. That was the kind of weapon our soldiers needed, not the confidence-sapping M-16. ~ David Hackworth, US Army battallion commander, Vietnam War. In About Face, The Macmillan Company of Australia 1989 p669"

in an Aug 2004 article by Leroy Thompson, he states, "I have seen captured AK-47 that obviously had been dragged through all manner of dirt or sand and had never been cleaned. They were filthy but whenever we tested on it fired....In simplest terms, the strongest point of the AK is that almost invariably when one pulls the trigger it will go off."

Over 75 million customers can't be wrong either.

:goodpost:

my762buzz
02-05-2010, 19:18
Yes, suppose this or that, but history has shown otherwise and the AK's reliability - in the real world - is well known. In fact, here is an excerpt from US Army Field Manual 100-2-3, "Both the AK and AKM can mount a grenade launcher. Both can have passive image intensifier night sights. Both can function normally after total immersion in mud and water. The fully chromed barrel ensures effective operation even at very low temperatures."

"One of the bulldozers uncovered the decomposing body of an enemy soldier, complete with AK47. I happened to be standing right there, looking down into the hole and pulled the AK out of the bog. "Watch this, guys," I said, "and I'll show you how a real infantry weapon works." I pulled the bolt back and fired 30 rounds - the AK could have been cleaned that day rather than buried in glug for a year or so. That was the kind of weapon our soldiers needed, not the confidence-sapping M-16. ~ David Hackworth, US Army battallion commander, Vietnam War. In About Face, The Macmillan Company of Australia 1989 p669"

in an Aug 2004 article by Leroy Thompson, he states, "I have seen captured AK-47 that obviously had been dragged through all manner of dirt or sand and had never been cleaned. They were filthy but whenever we tested on it fired....In simplest terms, the strongest point of the AK is that almost invariably when one pulls the trigger it will go off."

Over 75 million customers can't be wrong either.

Now you done it Carlos every Glocktalk 2 star general is going to flame your
post saying this is all internet myth and that every American soldier knows better because they see Ak rifles fail miserably daily. Brave man.

nathanours
02-05-2010, 20:18
I'd take the m4. Mine has never jammed, and i'd take the chance of it doing so for the better hunting accuracy...

Aceman
02-05-2010, 20:53
At the end of the day....

A REAL 30 cal round
EFFECTIVE to over 300 yards
ACCURATE enough to hit the torso
and it WILL NOT STOP shooting without maintenance for 1000's of rounds

When you absolutely have to kill every M^%$er F&^$%$er in the room. AK-47 - accept no substitutes.

And for you accuracy geeks - I shot the target off of a less than 1/4 inch steel rod - twice with a Bulgarian AK. We are talking < 1/4 MOA at 100 yards. Yes - a bit high...but that was the scope. That MF was dead on right/left! You would not want to be 500 yards away from that with me angry...

CarlosC
02-05-2010, 21:01
Now you done it Carlos every Glocktalk 2 star general is going to flame your
post saying this is all internet myth and that every American soldier knows better because they see Ak rifles fail miserably daily. Brave man.

Yeah, I know, but let them say what they want. Believe me, I've had my share of stones cast at me over the past ten years I've been on GT. One more won't hurt.

Nestor
02-05-2010, 21:19
Well I was thinking about the same for the last few weeks and now awaiting CZ vz.58.
It's not AK, but it fires a 7,62x39 which IMHO is the single, most universal round out there.
You may defend yourself with it, You may hunt with it up to a deer size and it's really CHEAP.
Out of CZ 527 (which will be my next buy) You may accomplish decent accuracy with no problem.
Price on the rifle itself (CZ vz.58 called locally 858) is less than 50% of the price of AR.
You may learn that AK is really well suited platform for a close range work.

Puppy
02-05-2010, 21:53
This is going to sound a bit odd but IMHO there really isn't that much difference between the two to bother with hand-wringing over which one to pick.

I mean they both are extensively battle proven, reliable, accurate, deadly rifle platforms that fire intermediate rounds and have high capacity magazines.

Sure there are some slight differences, especially in the ergonomics department but I believe either one is more than capable of performing the roles they were designed for.

I'd be more than comfortable with either one in my hands, even in the worst imaginable SHTF scenario.

Alaskapopo
02-06-2010, 01:14
:upeyes:Sorry to break it to you but the almighty m4 with it's 14.5" barrel ballistically would be worthless at 500/600 yds regardless of what the military says is the "effective" range, the truth is the m4 and the Ak have the same range envelope although no one will admit that little fact. As for accuracy my aimpointed arsenal AK shoots 2MOA with cheapo wolf, just did it 2 nights ago at the range and it is repeatable. I had a Bushy M4 before I quit drinking the koolaid that would do the same with it's ACOG on deck and American Eagle 55gr FMJ. So how is your platform any more effective than mine? It isn't, period.

Ok wrong on all counts. For starters there is 75 grain TAP and the MK262 77 grain load. Both do ok at those ranges. Secondly its better to be able to hit someone at 600 yards even if the bullet has only about 150 foot pounds vs not being able to hit them with the AK at all.
My Aimpoint Aresneal shoots about 4 moa with the best ammo. My AR carbines shoot between 1 to 1.5 moa with match ammo and 2. to 2.5 moa with ball.

Also are you shooting 5 shot groups? The Ar platform is more effective because you can engage targets out to 600 easily with the AK you can not. The Ar is also much faster to reload and it has a bolt hold open. Is the Ak a good gun yes. But the Ar is better.


Pat

Alaskapopo
02-06-2010, 01:18
Pat will not believe that because he can't seem to hold a sub 6 MOA group with his Saiga therefore no one else can possibly do better.

I don't believe you because you post ignorant flaming posts stuff like you just did (out right lie) and you have not lived up to your promises to show proof. You just provide excuses. We are never going to see proof of you shooting 5 shot sub moa groups. If you could we would have seen proof by now. I show my range reports. You don't. If you feel you are a better shooter than me. Come on down to the Larue three gun match in Texas in May. There are still some slots open. Bring that Vepr.
Pat

JBJ16
02-06-2010, 01:38
. . . . . and after 40+ years with all the best scientific minds, research facilities, several wars as an actual laboratory, the overall viability of the AR platform is upheld by the best authority the US Armed Forces and DoD. This, my friends, is the best endorsement and answer to the OP's orig. question. . . . not someone else's conjecture or sea story.

. . . or would you rather the endorsement of ragtag guerrilla organizations worldwide? it's up to the individual because when SHTF its your ***** on the line anyway.

Alaskapopo
02-06-2010, 02:07
Like I have said before. Both the Ak and the Ar are good viable weapon systems. The edge does go to the Ar however.
Pat

JBJ16
02-06-2010, 02:12
Finally, if this was such an Achilles Heel, why would the basic design not change in 63 years? And don't forget the Israelis, who did their share of fighting in the desert, decided to copy quite a bit of the AK's design when they made the Galil.

Yes they decided to copy the system into the Galil, but guess what, the most experienced desert warriors are , up to now issued and carries the M16 platform in its various iterations.

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/army
http://www.pbase.com/yalop/army
http://www.pbase.com/yalop/army&page=2
http://www.pbase.com/yalop/army&page=2

Young Once
02-06-2010, 05:58
AK for me

Teej
02-06-2010, 06:54
Maybe you M4 guys should read this?


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/


For most SHTF situations, this may not apply and the AR, M16, M4 would do just fine. But for overall performance, definitely something to think about.

Also, in a SHTF situation, do you think protecting yourselves and loved ones, neighborhoods would have many 500-600 yrd shots? AK for me and I don't even have mine yet.

my762buzz
02-06-2010, 08:04
I don't believe you because you post ignorant flaming posts stuff like you just did (out right lie) and you have not lived up to your promises to show proof. You just provide excuses. We are never going to see proof of you shooting 5 shot sub moa groups. If you could we would have seen proof by now. I show my range reports. You don't. If you feel you are a better shooter than me. Come on down to the Larue three gun match in Texas in May. There are still some slots open. Bring that Vepr.
Pat

I said 1 MOA. Don't start egg-zaggerating Pat
By the way, some of us don't live in the sticks in Alaska and don't have
unlimited time to run off to a range.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1091667&page=14
I have shot 1 MOA with American Eagle 7.62x39 at 100 yards
in one of my AK rifles.
I find MOA claims from an AK or SKS similar to fish stories. Pat

I still have not seen you provide proof that your trainer buddy
has 40,000 rounds through his AR15 without cleaning/
Come on Pat, we don't need exuses or internet myth we need hard proof.
I am working on getting a video on my part as I showed you.
Why can't you come up with solid proof about 40,000 rounds without cleaning his AR15.

my762buzz
02-06-2010, 08:37
. . . . . and after 40+ years with all the best scientific minds, research facilities, several wars as an actual laboratory, the overall viability of the AR platform is upheld by the best authority the US Armed Forces and DoD. This, my friends, is the best endorsement and answer to the OP's orig. question. . . . not someone else's conjecture or sea story.

. . . or would you rather the endorsement of ragtag guerrilla organizations worldwide? it's up to the individual because when SHTF its your ***** on the line anyway.

If the DOD was perfectly happy and could not possibly want a better alternative, why does the DOD hold trials every so often with competing platforms. There are better options but its all about $. It costs more to change than to stay essentially the same. Gov systems tend to externally change only when they absolutively have to, unless they are forced by radicalized internal change (progressive) like what has been going on politically with the current white house. Not to get politics in this, but it does play a big factor in what government systems adopt as weapon systems.
Hugo Chavez forcing the adoptation of the Russian AK103 was an example of this. SOD McNamara pushing the AR15 into the DOD is another. The fact that Beretta was adopted by the DOD for a pistol was more political than absolutely necessary. Sig arms or HK could have served nearly the same.
Carlos did hit on a very good point earlier. The fact that Israel with all of its
support from its friend the USA chose to even consider using AK derived design concepts in the galil says something.

my762buzz
02-06-2010, 08:52
Maybe you M4 guys should read this?


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/


For most SHTF situations, this may not apply and the AR, M16, M4 would do just fine. But for overall performance, definitely something to think about.

Also, in a SHTF situation, do you think protecting yourselves and loved ones, neighborhoods would have many 500-600 yrd shots? AK for me and I don't even have mine yet.

Interesting lets compare an old news article graphic from the Vietnam era to
this.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c305/offrdmania/guns_magazine004.jpg



Quote:
According to briefing documents obtained by Gannett’s Army Times magazine:

“USMC officials said the M4 malfunctioned three times more often than the M16A4 during an assessment conducted in late summer 2002 for Marine Corps Systems Command at Quantico, VA. Malfunctions were broken down into several categories, including “magazine,” “failure to chamber,” “failure to fire,” “failure to extract” and “worn or broken part,” according to the briefing documents. During the comparison, the M4 failed 186 times across those categories over the course of 69,000 rounds fired. The M16A4 failed 61 times during the testing.

The Army conducted a more recent reliability test between October 2005 and April 2006, which included 10 new M16s and 10 new M4s…. On average, the new M16s and M4s fired approximately 5,000 rounds between stoppages, according to an Army official who asked that his name not be released.”

They have worked quite a few bugs out since the 1960s but its there are still quite a few complaints.

JBJ16
02-06-2010, 08:59
. . . . but it is still difficult to swallow (the Koolaide:tongueout:) that the AK will fail and the AR will not when dirt is shoveled on top of both weapons in a ready state condition:whistling: Like the OP asked SHTF AK or AR? Who knows? In that test those 2 guys had practically SHTF on their personal weapons. S**T happens both ways, anyways. . . .to each his own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqRwx4wtmms
for late posters, view this one more time

CarlosC
02-06-2010, 09:10
Have you guys read the link from Teej?? Here are some excerpts...

"The M4 and 3 competitors, including one M4 variant that can be converted from existing rifles, come out of a sandstorm reliability test – and the M4 finishes dead last, with more than 3.5x more jams than the 3rd place finisher."

"After Action Reviews done by the Marines after the early phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom revealed that urban warfare scenarios made employment of the M16A2 difficult in some situations; Marines were picking up short AK-47s with collapsible butt-stocks, or scrounging pistols for use inside buildings."

"Failure to maintain the weapon meticulously can lead to jams, especially in sandy or dusty environments. Kalashnikovs may not have a reputation for accuracy, or lightness – but they do have a well-earned reputation for being able to take amazing amounts of abuse, without maintenance, and still fire reliably. The Israeli “Galil” applied these lessons in 5.56mm caliber, and earned a similar reputation. Colt’s M16 and M4 have never done so."

“USMC officials said the M4 malfunctioned three times more often than the M16A4 during an assessment conducted in late summer 2002 for Marine Corps Systems Command at Quantico, VA. Malfunctions were broken down into several categories, including “magazine,” “failure to chamber,” “failure to fire,” “failure to extract” and “worn or broken part,” according to the briefing documents. During the comparison, the M4 failed 186 times across those categories over the course of 69,000 rounds fired. The M16A4 failed 61 times during the testing."

"Soldiers had their own comments, however, which were also included in the report and relayed in the magazine article:

3rd ID soldier: “I know it fires very well and accurate [when] clean. But sometimes it needs to fire dirty well too.”

25th Infantry Division soldier: “The M4 Weapon in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan was quick to malfunction when a little sand got in the weapon. Trying to keep it clean, sand free was impossible while on patrols or firefights.”

82nd Airborne Division soldier: “The M4 is overall an excellent weapon, however the flaw of its sensitivity to dirt and powder residue needs to be corrected. True to fact, cleaning will help. Daily assigned tasks, and nonregular hours in tactical situations do not always warrant the necessary time required for effective cleaning.”

75th Ranger Regiment member, SOCOM: “Even with the dust cover closed and magazine in the well, sand gets all inside; on and around the bolt. It still fires, but after a while the sand works its way all through the gun and jams start.”

"A December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by CNA Corp., conducted over 2,600 interviews with Soldiers returning from combat duty. The M4 received a number of strong requests from M-16 users, who liked its smaller profile. Among M4 users, however, 19% of said they experienced stoppages in combat – and almost 20% of those said they were “unable to engage the target with that weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage.” The report adds that “Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached [including via official means like rail mounts].” Since “accessories” can include items like night sights, flashlights, et. al., their use is not expected to go away any time soon."

Joshhtn
02-06-2010, 09:16
. . . . but it is still difficult to swallow (the Koolaide:tongueout:) that the AK will fail and the AR will not when dirt is shoveled on top of both weapons in a ready state condition:whistling: Like the OP asked SHTF AK or AR? Who knows? In that test those 2 guys had practically SHTF on their personal weapons. S**T happens both ways, anyways. . . .to each his own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqRwx4wtmms
for late posters, view this one more time


I love how you keep referencing this one video... 1 video means NOTHING!... A Honda is known to be a reliable car, but I guarantee I can find a video of one not starting.

JBJ16
02-06-2010, 09:20
I love how you keep referencing this one video... 1 video means NOTHING!... A Honda is known to be a reliable car, but I guarantee I can find a video of one not starting.

Well it is just a good feeling to have love, love , love isn't it:hearts:

That video shows only what it shows:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqRwx4wtmms

the AR will fully function while the AK will fail, after shoveling dirt on top of both while in the ready state right-side up

seems like a fair assessment isn't it.:tongueout:

JBJ16
02-06-2010, 09:26
Well I may have ruffled some feathers being this an AK forum and all:whistling:

I offer my apologies with this video:crying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QbZWg4lRkg&feature=fvw

my762buzz
02-06-2010, 10:31
Well I may have ruffled some feathers being this an AK forum and all:whistling:

I offer my apologies with this video:crying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QbZWg4lRkg&feature=fvw

No feathers ruffled.
You just reminded me why the AR15 platform is more prone to failure by dusty conditions and thats why it absolutely needs to have a sealed ejection port area. A little dust that actually gets inside and the fat lady sings at the ball game. My active duty marine brother in law has also reminded me that his experiences with M16s in dusty conditions was less than favorable.
The need to keep a weapon clean and wet in a desert becomes a liability.
Say what you want but for a shtf platform not needing to keep things sterile and lubed to absolutely work reliably is an asset for surviving. You might not always have access to supplies to keep it going reliably. Take hurricane katrina for example. If you were trying to leave that hell hole with an AR15 and accidently dropped it in the sewage most everyone was walking through, crap is likely to seep into the action. At that point, its not going to matter if you can't engage armed bad guys at 1000 yards because your Ar15 might not even cycle at all. It would really suck to die because you don't have time
to clean your weapon 5 times a day. No thanks. If I absolutely got to shoot something 600 to 800 yards away, I am grabbing my bolt rifle in a much more terminally effective caliber which is far more accurate than most AR15s anyhow. Who exactly wants to argue bolt guns are inherently less accurate that AR15s? :whistling:

Nestor
02-06-2010, 12:11
. . . . but it is still difficult to swallow (the Koolaide:tongueout:) that the AK will fail and the AR will not when dirt is shoveled on top of both weapons in a ready state condition:whistling: Like the OP asked SHTF AK or AR? Who knows? In that test those 2 guys had practically SHTF on their personal weapons. S**T happens both ways, anyways. . . .to each his own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqRwx4wtmms
for late posters, view this one more time

That's why I went with CZ vz.58 :)
No such problem as the safety works different way.

JBJ16
02-06-2010, 12:57
That's why I went with CZ vz.58 :)
No such problem as the safety works different way.

A ha . . .an enlightened one. Good for you! :cool:

But we sure have to give credit to the AK design. Simple, robust, reliable blaster. . . just like any other long serving military rifle :cool: I want one despite that Youtube video. I already have a fullauto M4gery.:cool:

Nestor
02-06-2010, 18:08
A ha . . .an enlightened one. Good for you! :cool:

But we sure have to give credit to the AK design. Simple, robust, reliable blaster. . . just like any other long serving military rifle :cool: I want one despite that Youtube video. I already have a fullauto M4gery.:cool:

You won't be disappointed.
I'm pretty sure about it.
I'm just one of the few members on this board that have a service related experience with this platform, but in the long run it doesn't mean much.

riddleofsteel
02-06-2010, 20:13
I think a better topic may have been; "What rifle for a SHTF situation?"

Neither the AK nor the AR is the first or last word in battle rifles.

Given the current info and experience available we could make an argument for a variety of fine rifles. The AR and the AK may be near the top of the list due to the availability of parts, ammo, magazines ect.

However, until not long ago the price of the weapon, parts, mags and ammo figured heavy into my stockpile choices. That is why SKS and AK guns and ammo populate my stash of SHTF weapons.

Truth is in the kind of senerio you are the implying the AK SKS family would do very nicely.

AnimalK
02-06-2010, 22:12
The AR is like a prom queen.
The AK is like a biker chick.
Treat each accordingly.

my762buzz
02-06-2010, 22:24
Well I may have ruffled some feathers being this an AK forum and all:whistling:

I offer my apologies with this video:crying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QbZWg4lRkg&feature=fvw

I got a good video too.


Try doing this with an AR15. @ 1min 50 seconds in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4v9ElJgkpw&feature=player_embedded

adamg01
02-06-2010, 23:32
I said 1 MOA. Don't start egg-zaggerating Pat
By the way, some of us don't live in the sticks in Alaska and don't have
unlimited time to run off to a range.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1091667&page=14



I still have not seen you provide proof that your trainer buddy
has 40,000 rounds through his AR15 without cleaning/
Come on Pat, we don't need exuses or internet myth we need hard proof.
I am working on getting a video on my part as I showed you.
Why can't you come up with solid proof about 40,000 rounds without cleaning his AR15.

I am going to chime in and I am not even sure what is going on really. 40,000 through an AR without cleaning.....BS! :rofl:

extremus
02-07-2010, 02:17
This is a trick question, right?

The correct answer is you use the one you train with. If you train with an AK, you use an AK. Ditto AR.

Probably not one person in 5000 has the time, money or an occupation that would allow them to become proficient enough to trust their lives to more than one platform.

Find what works for you and train with it as much as you can. I want something that works and that I can shoot well. I'll occasionally take a wheel gun or my Garand to the range, but I shoot and train with an AK, a Mossberg and a G19.

hank327
02-07-2010, 02:25
Here's a video showing that the AK isn't completely useless at over 200 yards.

http://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45#p/u/20/kwMmhSWRu3Q

Personally, I'll take an AK over an AR for a SHTF situation. I carried an M16 for most of my four years as an infantryman and I was less than impressed with its reliability. I'll take a rifle with acceptable accuracy that I can count on to go bang over a tack driver that may or may not fire when I most need it to.
I'm not very concerned of my AK's accuracy or inaccuracy at 600 yards. In my area you would seldom get to see a target at 200 yards much less 600.

Joshhtn
02-07-2010, 09:49
I got a good video too.


Try doing this with an AR15. @ 1min 50 seconds in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4v9ElJgkpw&feature=player_embedded


Fantastic video!... I would love to see that happen with an AR15!

deMontacute
02-07-2010, 17:55
I am going to chime in and I am not even sure what is going on really. 40,000 through an AR without cleaning.....BS! :rofl:
I assume he is talking about Pat Rogers and his several T/E guns that have gone without cleaning. All have run several thousand plus. Of course he keeps them well lubed... Its well documented from one of the best instructors out there, and he brings them out to many of the classes he teaches as an instructing tool. Pat Rogers religiously documents his shooting and classes in a log book, including all failures/what brand/when cleaned or lubed/etc...

I can't find the direct thread on ARF or M4C at the moment, but my search fu is weak. Here is one thread where the results are discussed
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=262924&page=2 (start 2nd post 2nd page)

Here is another thread about a guy going over 5000 without cleaning
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=209609

An AR will run fine dirty and wet, but you gotta keep it wet...

As for the OP, I own and like both weapons. Both have their place. Personally I feel more comfortable with an AR, but would not complain if I only had an AK....

Alaskapopo
02-07-2010, 18:57
I assume he is talking about Pat Rogers and his several T/E guns that have gone without cleaning. All have run several thousand plus. Of course he keeps them well lubed... Its well documented from one of the best instructors out there, and he brings them out to many of the classes he teaches as an instructing tool. Pat Rogers religiously documents his shooting and classes in a log book, including all failures/what brand/when cleaned or lubed/etc...

I can't find the direct thread on ARF or M4C at the moment, but my search fu is weak. Here is one thread where the results are discussed
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=262924&page=2 (start 2nd post 2nd page)

Here is another thread about a guy going over 5000 without cleaning
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=209609

An AR will run fine dirty and wet, but you gotta keep it wet...

As for the OP, I own and like both weapons. Both have their place. Personally I feel more comfortable with an AR, but would not complain if I only had an AK....

Yes it is Pat Roger gun. Its a well known experiement. I agree with your comment about prefering an AR but not complaining if I only had an AK. (as long as it was set up properly.
Pat

my762buzz
02-07-2010, 19:25
You just described what could well be the "Achilles Heel" of the AK system which could and no doubt may have had already happened in combat.

Basing an overall reliability comparison on one indicated feature such as the
gap with the safety down is a bit silly. If I were to hand pick another feature and do basically the same thing those guys did in that video, it might seem just as deck stacked. Suppose it were the last round hold open of the AR design versus the closed bolt of the AK. Lets say we assume that someone might potentially drop their gun during a battle if they were to get overwhelmed by artillary and the gun drops right as the last round was fired.
The AR lands ejection port face up and the AK does also. Then sand happens to mound on top of both guns. Dry dessert sand piles inside of the bolt opened AR infesting the inner action , but the AK closed bolt has much less sand creep in. Ok now shake things out and try and see which works.
I think this is fair game for a comparison. It might make an interesting video
comparison.

my762buzz
02-07-2010, 19:50
I assume he is talking about Pat Rogers and his several T/E guns that have gone without cleaning. All have run several thousand plus. Of course he keeps them well lubed... Its well documented from one of the best instructors out there, and he brings them out to many of the classes he teaches as an instructing tool. Pat Rogers religiously documents his shooting and classes in a log book, including all failures/what brand/when cleaned or lubed/etc...

I can't find the direct thread on ARF or M4C at the moment, but my search fu is weak. Here is one thread where the results are discussed
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=262924&page=2 (start 2nd post 2nd page)

Here is another thread about a guy going over 5000 without cleaning
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=209609

An AR will run fine dirty and wet, but you gotta keep it wet...

As for the OP, I own and like both weapons. Both have their place. Personally I feel more comfortable with an AR, but would not complain if I only had an AK....

The dichotometric relationship of cleaning versus lubing is essentially fogged by hosing parts down with CLP. To clean means to remove. To lube is adding something. Cleaning solvent-lube cleans as it loosens and flushes things away and adds lubrication. I honestly don't think you can have that much
wet goo caked on there and survive a desert sandstorm fully operational.
Thats a silt magnet. And in freezing weather that dirty-lube crap is going to gel up and become like molasses. Its interesting but its beyond the realm of practical.

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4267/p8040027.jpg

deMontacute
02-07-2010, 20:05
Honestly I don't understand the need to denigrate either platform. Both are far more effective and reliable than 95% of users will be able to wring out of them. In a SHTF situation a well made one of either type is far less likely to fail in the long run than their owner is...

ETA: IOW work on yourself, and don't worry about your gear so much. You are likely the weak link in the chain, not your rifle...

(I am speaking of YOU in the broad sense, not you 762buzz or OP)

my762buzz
02-07-2010, 20:11
Honestly I don't understand the need to denigrate either platform. Both are far more effective and reliable than 95% of users will be able to wring out of them. In a SHTF situation a well made one of either type is far less likely to fail under the pressure than their owner is...

Well you know how people like to dissect things and force all potential conditions to reveal how well things can perform. Its not that far from
what people watching the superbowl do with team comparisons or how the military runs its torture testing.

riddleofsteel
02-08-2010, 17:42
"What is a sword compared to the hand that holds it?"

Been saying that for years, maybe riddle of steel might make a good screen name.

DUHHhhhhhh

LOL

Teej
02-08-2010, 19:10
The AR is like a prom queen.
The AK is like a biker chick.
Treat each accordingly.

Well I like your thinking.

In a SHTF situation I want the biker chick on my side or watching my back, someone that can hold her own.

Not the prom queen that is going to fall apart, freak out or freeze if she breaks a nail or gets dirty. :cool:

JBJ16
02-09-2010, 04:49
Basing an overall reliability comparison on one indicated feature such as the
gap with the safety down is a bit silly. If I were to hand pick another feature and do basically the same thing those guys did in that video, it might seem just as deck stacked. Suppose it were the last round hold open of the AR design versus the closed bolt of the AK. Lets say we assume that someone might potentially drop their gun during a battle if they were to get overwhelmed by artillary and the gun drops right as the last round was fired.
The AR lands ejection port face up and the AK does also. Then sand happens to mound on top of both guns. Dry dessert sand piles inside of the bolt opened AR infesting the inner action , but the AK closed bolt has much less sand creep in. Ok now shake things out and try and see which works.
I think this is fair game for a comparison. It might make an interesting video
comparison.

You are quite right. As I said before, the video shows exactly just that. "When in a ready to fire state right-side up, the AR proves to be more reliable in that situation." If in the state you described in your post, the reverse could well be true.:whistling:

Soviet937
02-10-2010, 22:31
depends if its a nice day out i might grab the AR cause they seem to like moderate conditions, if its raining hard, snowing, and its all muddy and crap out, i guess ill grab the AK, oh wait, sorry, i dont know what you mean exactly, every time i hear SHTF situation i only think of the impending zombie apocolypse of 2012..... its gonna happen.... believe it...

Teej
02-11-2010, 06:09
I thought you had to cut zombies head off? So who's bayonet would you grab, the AK or the AR bayont..............:whistling: :rofl:

deMontacute
02-11-2010, 11:27
I thought you had to cut zombies head off? So who's bayonet would you grab, the AK or the AR bayont..............:whistling: :rofl:
No, you have to destroy or severely damage the brain. Doesn't matter how that is accomplished... Gunshot, severed head, smashed skull, deep stab through eyesocket, icepick into brain stem.... All will work

ETA: Zombies r serious bizness

Darkangel1846
02-11-2010, 13:14
AR over AK anyday as I really want to hit what I'm shooting at with just one round instead of whole mag from an AK. Carried an 16 for years, never had a problem.
In house to house or At 50 yards both do their job. At 100 plus yards the AR will kick the AKs butt every time.

I own both but prefer the AR.....What I would like is a AR in 762X39 with decent mags.

Nestor
02-11-2010, 13:53
AR over AK anyday as I really want to hit what I'm shooting at with just one round instead of whole mag from an AK.

http://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45#p/u/20/kwMmhSWRu3Q

Well...I'm always finding those comments interesting.
Are You really unable to hit what You aiming for with the AK?

my762buzz
02-11-2010, 17:49
AR over AK anyday as I really want to hit what I'm shooting at with just one round instead of whole mag from an AK. Carried an 16 for years, never had a problem.
In house to house or At 50 yards both do their job. At 100 plus yards the AR will kick the AKs butt every time.

I own both but prefer the AR.....What I would like is a AR in 762X39 with decent mags.


Well I'm glad I guess that I can got some of these accurate Saiga AR15s.
Squirrels at 100 yards aint safe.

Broncbuster
02-12-2010, 09:42
I would take my AK and Mini for a SHTF situation. Both folders- easy to hide.

Alaskapopo
02-12-2010, 11:53
I would take my AK and Mini for a SHTF situation. Both folders- easy to hide.

Nice guns I am sure but if its a SHTF situations hiding the guns is not going to be a concern.
Pat

98_1LE
02-12-2010, 12:13
A lot of the "AK inaccuracy" belief is deeply rooted in the fact that most of the ammo is crap. Sure the guns are loose, so are are the chambers, and we have all seen slow motion of the barrel whipping, but I am not a great shot and have no problems hitting a man sized target at 100 yards offhand.

I won't question the AR's superior accuracy, but the AK isn't exactly the smooth bore muzzleloader some make it out to be.

tsmo1066
05-17-2010, 14:28
I own both and would feel comfortable with either, but I am a Southeast Texas resident and am most focussed on the "Hurricane Katrina/Ike/Rita" type SHTF situations we've experienced with flood waters, mud, rain and gunk everywhere. Combine these factors with limited opportunities for weapon maintenance and my pick for crawling around through my flooded house and neighborhood for a few weeks while protecing my remaining property from roving looters and gang-bangers would be AK all the way.

conpro
05-17-2010, 14:43
AK any day.

brausso
05-17-2010, 14:45
Looks like an old thread, but I'll play.

I have both and would take both. My AR can easily be broken down in two seconds and carried in a bag. My converted Saiga can be carried on a sling.

My AR for sure because I can swap out and put in the .22lr conversion kit in just a few seconds. That becomes two guns in one. Since .22lr ammo is cheap and light, I would use that mostly if needed. 5.56 effective range is 600yds. I don't think I'd ever run into a situation where I needed to fire longer than that.

My Saiga because it's durable, very dependable and has enough stopping power for two legged creatures and most 4 legged for hunting.

T. R. Graham
05-17-2010, 16:42
AK...because in a SHTF scenario I’ll have more things to worry about than if my rifle works or not....

digilo
05-17-2010, 16:49
I am a Southeast Texas resident and am most focussed on the "Hurricane Katrina/Ike/Rita" type SHTF situations we've experienced with flood waters, mud, rain and gunk everywhere. Combine these factors with limited opportunities for weapon maintenance and my pick for crawling around through my flooded house and neighborhood for a few weeks while protecing my remaining property from roving looters and gang-bangers would be AK all the way.

+ One.

Beaumont here, same choice, same reasons.

gun freak
05-17-2010, 18:20
Even though I prefer to shoot the ar. Given unknown conditions I would take the AK.

En9999
05-17-2010, 18:46
I slightly prefer my AK, since it seems like it was made for left handed shooters like myself. It's still plenty accurate around 100-150 yards.

mikeyU
05-17-2010, 19:12
I would go with my AK

Aceman
05-17-2010, 20:46
The AR is like a prom queen.
The AK is like a biker chick.
Treat each accordingly.

You mean stick your little finger inside the AR and diddle around with it, and maybe it will go off?

Or just let the AK Bang until you run out of bullets?

If it's a party - I'm bringing the AK.

DFin
05-17-2010, 21:00
How about an AR with the AK as a NY reload! or Versa vice.

Or, to really fire some GTers up, carry a Mini-14 or 30!!!

Fear762
05-17-2010, 21:22
Performance-the ar wins.

In harsh weather, the ak.

staarma
05-18-2010, 09:01
To be honest, I would first grab the AK, sling my M1 Carbine over my shoulder and then grab the BOB with the LMT 10.5" AR in it and of course a Glock or two strapped up and ready for action. Problem is the ammo supply. I would think in this country you may have a better time finding .223/5.56 then you would 7.62X39 unless it was a private stash you happened upon. I've shot literally thousands of rounds from each and while I've had a few malfunctions in AK's over the years, mostly self induced, I've had hundreds if not thousands of malfunctions in our beloved black rifles. Now the comparison may not be fair as I carried an A2 configured rifle in the Army and shot many many rounds in undesirable conditions for the AR but it is what it is. The AK doesn't need a half bottle of oil to run, in fact I usually use no oil in my current Fuller AK as it doesn't malfunction at all. It gets cleaned in some diesel every once in great while and then blown dry with an air gun and that's about it. You can shoot rounds malfunction free until it is so hot you won't be ablt to hold onto it before you could make it fail. lol The AR not so much. After a couple hundred at the range they're ready for disassembly and recleaning and lube before they like to carry on without hassle. Just the nature of the systems and that can't be argued. Having said that I have had no experience with gas piston AR's but would like to build one next just to see.

The bit about accuracy kills me, no pun intended. If you can't put rounds from an AK into an 18" center mass target in 300 yards or less then you just need to give up and stand in line and wait for them to march into the camp for crying out loud. Yes, the AR could do it in a 10" center but dead is dead to me and when you're slinging lead to keep alive and knock the transgression back you aren't going for range type quality.

Alaskapopo
05-18-2010, 09:17
To be honest, I would first grab the AK, sling my M1 Carbine over my shoulder and then grab the BOB with the LMT 10.5" AR in it and of course a Glock or two strapped up and ready for action. Problem is the ammo supply. I would think in this country you may have a better time finding .223/5.56 then you would 7.62X39 unless it was a private stash you happened upon. I've shot literally thousands of rounds from each and while I've had a few malfunctions in AK's over the years, mostly self induced, I've had hundreds if not thousands of malfunctions in our beloved black rifles. Now the comparison may not be fair as I carried an A2 configured rifle in the Army and shot many many rounds in undesirable conditions for the AR but it is what it is. The AK doesn't need a half bottle of oil to run, in fact I usually use no oil in my current Fuller AK as it doesn't malfunction at all. It gets cleaned in some diesel every once in great while and then blown dry with an air gun and that's about it. You can shoot rounds malfunction free until it is so hot you won't be ablt to hold onto it before you could make it fail. lol The AR not so much. After a couple hundred at the range they're ready for disassembly and recleaning and lube before they like to carry on without hassle. Just the nature of the systems and that can't be argued. Having said that I have had no experience with gas piston AR's but would like to build one next just to see.

The bit about accuracy kills me, no pun intended. If you can't put rounds from an AK into an 18" center mass target in 300 yards or less then you just need to give up and stand in line and wait for them to march into the camp for crying out loud. Yes, the AR could do it in a 10" center but dead is dead to me and when you're slinging lead to keep alive and knock the transgression back you aren't going for range type quality.


If you lube the AR properly it will run for at least 1500 rounds without any issues or a need to be re lubed. (Been there done that)
Pat

zx2loon
05-18-2010, 09:47
Here is my thought on why I chose an AK over an AR...or any firearm over others for that fact.....My Wife's ability to use and care for them.

I live in a heavily dense wooded area. The woods do go on for miles. There isn't an open area to be able to use your AR at long ranges until you get on the main road. Then distance can be a key factor. However, for general "perimiter" defense for my home, my Romanian AK w/ Ulitmak-n-Aimpoint fits the bill perfectally. It's an easy weapon for my wife to use, load and clean. (An AR seems to be too complicated for her. :dunno:)

I sold my AR and bought an Arsenal last year only to figure out an $800 AK does the same thing as my $400 WASR does. Both shot a 4rd 1.9 MOA at 125yrds using Federal PowerShock ammo with the same Ultimak/Aimpoint set up and both had "stock" internals. I politely sold my Arsenal and kept with the WASR.

Same reasoning behind why I bought a Mossberg500 and both a Glock 19/26...my wife can use'em and take care of em'.......That's what I worry about (If) when I gone.....:cool:

extremus
05-18-2010, 10:34
If you lube the AR properly it will run for at least 1500 rounds without any issues or a need to be re lubed. (Been there done that)
Pat

There are a lot of ARs out there, so that's a pretty bold statement. A lot depends on the mfg, how the weapon is maintained and on the ammo being used. I'm sure for you, with your equipment and experience, that's true.

I had a bad experience in the '90s with an AR (not Colt) and it put me off of them. I run a VEPR K now, but if I had it to do over, I might very well run a Colt and also take a good armorers course.

Except:

Here is my thought on why I chose an AK over an AR...or any firearm over others for that fact.....My Wife's ability to use and care for them.

I live in a heavily dense wooded area. The woods do go on for miles. There isn't an open area to be able to use your AR at long ranges until you get on the main road. Then distance can be a key factor. However, for general "perimiter" defense for my home, my Romanian AK w/ Ulitmak-n-Aimpoint fits the bill perfectally. It's an easy weapon for my wife to use, load and clean. (An AR seems to be too complicated for her. :dunno:)

I sold my AR and bought an Arsenal last year only to figure out an $800 AK does the same thing as my $400 WASR does. Both shot a 4rd 1.9 MOA at 125yrds using Federal PowerShock ammo with the same Ultimak/Aimpoint set up and both had "stock" internals. I politely sold my Arsenal and kept with the WASR.

Same reasoning behind why I bought a Mossberg500 and both a Glock 19/26...my wife can use'em and take care of em'.......That's what I worry about (If) when I gone.....:cool:

If my wife isn't comfortable and capable with it....we don't shoot it.

She runs an AK and a Mossberg pump, loves her Glock and is very capable with .38 J frames. Which is why that's what I shoot.

Harold

staarma
05-18-2010, 10:53
Very good points on what the wife and kids for that matter can handle. Yes, she shoots the AK and the carbine very well. Likes the AR's but wants nothing to do with the maintenance. She has a 642 with a crimson trace on it but loves my Glocks too. Shoots the 1300 Defender but not crazy about it.

brausso
05-18-2010, 11:01
To be honest, I would first grab the AK, sling my M1 Carbine over my shoulder and then grab the BOB with the LMT 10.5" AR in it and of course a Glock or two strapped up and ready for action. Problem is the ammo supply. I would think in this country you may have a better time finding .223/5.56 then you would 7.62X39 unless it was a private stash you happened upon. I've shot literally thousands of rounds from each and while I've had a few malfunctions in AK's over the years, mostly self induced, I've had hundreds if not thousands of malfunctions in our beloved black rifles. Now the comparison may not be fair as I carried an A2 configured rifle in the Army and shot many many rounds in undesirable conditions for the AR but it is what it is. The AK doesn't need a half bottle of oil to run, in fact I usually use no oil in my current Fuller AK as it doesn't malfunction at all. It gets cleaned in some diesel every once in great while and then blown dry with an air gun and that's about it. You can shoot rounds malfunction free until it is so hot you won't be ablt to hold onto it before you could make it fail. lol The AR not so much. After a couple hundred at the range they're ready for disassembly and recleaning and lube before they like to carry on without hassle. Just the nature of the systems and that can't be argued. Having said that I have had no experience with gas piston AR's but would like to build one next just to see.

The bit about accuracy kills me, no pun intended. If you can't put rounds from an AK into an 18" center mass target in 300 yards or less then you just need to give up and stand in line and wait for them to march into the camp for crying out loud. Yes, the AR could do it in a 10" center but dead is dead to me and when you're slinging lead to keep alive and knock the transgression back you aren't going for range type quality.

Great post! It's always good to hear from someone who has the personal experience in the field to speak their thoughts. :wavey:

If you're on foot chances are, you're not going to carry more than 1000 rounds. That get's very heavy (especially 7.62) after a while. On foot .223 is lighter. Now a days, any decent AR is going to be able to handle 1000 rounds easy. Chances are you're shooting would be spread out over weeks and months not a single day. I did an M4 carbine class two months ago and we popped off 800rds a day. Nobody had any problems (out of 12 people).

I love the AK too, but just had to throw that in there with my experience with my AR's. As I said in a previous post, I would bring both! Sling my AK and have my AR in a carry bag with ammo.

engineer151515
05-18-2010, 11:03
Have both.

If mobile, I prefer the AR. Lighter. Can carry more ammo.

If shtf were to run very long term, I suspect the Yugo underfolder will outlast my AR's.

tsmo1066
05-18-2010, 15:17
+ One.

Beaumont here, same choice, same reasons.

Small world! I'm a Port Arthur native myself. Ahhh, the good old Golden Triangle!

Fear762
05-18-2010, 19:16
If you lube the AR properly it will run for at least 1500 rounds without any issues or a need to be re lubed. (Been there done that)
Pat


Curious what properly lubed means to you. I just lightly lube the bolt and a qtip of lube on the inside where the bolt slides back and forth. 1500 rds is impressive without a cleaning.

Fear762
05-18-2010, 19:32
I live in a heavily dense wooded area. The woods do go on for miles. There isn't an open area to be able to use your AR at long ranges until you get on the main road. Then distance can be a key factor. However, for general "perimiter" defense for my home, my Romanian AK w/ Ulitmak-n-Aimpoint fits the bill perfectally. It's an easy weapon for my wife to use, load and clean. (An AR seems to be too complicated for her. :dunno:)


What's always funny about these shtf threads is everybody thinks if shtf that they have to leave on foot into the hills, like a red dawn situation. I know i am not gonna be to happy if i have to start fires in the woods and kill deer etc to survive. F-that. I would rather just barricade myself in a corner with a gas mask on in my house and fight it out. The purpose of shtf is not to leave your house, but defend it.

Adionik
05-18-2010, 20:27
I can't imagine a barricade being a "smart" move under any circumstances. "SHTF" to me means more than 1 enemy, of which there will be a plentiful supply...you will eventually be outnumbered and outgunned.

Fear762
05-19-2010, 09:29
I can't imagine a barricade being a "smart" move under any circumstances. "SHTF" to me means more than 1 enemy, of which there will be a plentiful supply...you will eventually be outnumbered and outgunned.


It depends on the situation. If russians where invading and taking over the country you probably would not want to stay in your house. But whats the alternative? Hike out into the woods and try to survive on animals like in red dawn? No thanks. I would rather die defending my home than run away from it.

rem2429
05-19-2010, 13:50
The way I see it, software matters more than hardware. That's why I have both. I want to be a student of the rifles so that I may employ either of them effectively. When trouble happens, I'll take which ever is closer, and given the choice, they will both be close by. (along with a few others)

Adionik
05-19-2010, 15:24
It depends on the situation. If russians where invading and taking over the country you probably would not want to stay in your house. But whats the alternative? Hike out into the woods and try to survive on animals like in red dawn? No thanks. I would rather die defending my home than run away from it.

I don't have any Bear Grylls skills myself, and I have even more problems because I have asthma that would eventually kick my ass if left untreated. If zombies or something else happened I figure i'd head to a tropical climate. :rofl:

En9999
05-20-2010, 06:50
I thought that most people were talking about zombies in a shtf situation...:supergrin:

CTfam
05-21-2010, 14:55
I prefer the AK. I WISH I could own one in 7.62 but they're banned here so I have a Saiga .223. Not a big fan of that round.

I'll never understand people picking .223 because it's "more common". Where are you seeing all of this .223? 7-11? Dunkin Donuts? Your local gas station? No, it's at Cabelas, Walmart, your gun store, etc. Right next to the cheaper and more powerful 7.62x39mm...

Military and police are not going to drop by and help stock your neighborhood militias armory. Let's get real people. I could see using a common caliber if fighting in a group but that's not what I picture in SHTF.

Just pick a gun you're comfortable with and start stacking parts/ammo.

TheGrimReaper
05-21-2010, 21:40
I own 1 Rock River AR and 3 AK's( SAR-1 and 2 Arsenals). In a SHTF I will be grabbing one of my AK's. They are my go to guns for sure.

Broncbuster
05-22-2010, 13:12
SHTF-- easy- grab my AK with my Sig P226 strapped on my leg--maybe my Mini 14 slung over my free shoulder.

conpro
05-22-2010, 21:22
Here is my thought on why I chose an AK over an AR...or any firearm over others for that fact.....My Wife's ability to use and care for them.

I live in a heavily dense wooded area. The woods do go on for miles. There isn't an open area to be able to use your AR at long ranges until you get on the main road. Then distance can be a key factor. However, for general "perimiter" defense for my home, my Romanian AK w/ Ulitmak-n-Aimpoint fits the bill perfectally. It's an easy weapon for my wife to use, load and clean. (An AR seems to be too complicated for her. :dunno:)

I sold my AR and bought an Arsenal last year only to figure out an $800 AK does the same thing as my $400 WASR does. Both shot a 4rd 1.9 MOA at 125yrds using Federal PowerShock ammo with the same Ultimak/Aimpoint set up and both had "stock" internals. I politely sold my Arsenal and kept with the WASR.

Same reasoning behind why I bought a Mossberg500 and both a Glock 19/26...my wife can use'em and take care of em'.......That's what I worry about (If) when I gone.....:cool:

Yes sir man i will have to agree with you 100% the WASR is one kick butt AK. My friend had a Arsenal and sold it yesterday and bought a nice WASR and put some cash back in the bank and is very happy.

Adionik
05-23-2010, 03:44
I prefer the AK. I WISH I could own one in 7.62 but they're banned here so I have a Saiga .223. Not a big fan of that round.

I'll never understand people picking .223 because it's "more common". Where are you seeing all of this .223? 7-11? Dunkin Donuts? Your local gas station? No, it's at Cabelas, Walmart, your gun store, etc. Right next to the cheaper and more powerful 7.62x39mm...

Military and police are not going to drop by and help stock your neighborhood militias armory. Let's get real people. I could see using a common caliber if fighting in a group but that's not what I picture in SHTF.

Just pick a gun you're comfortable with and start stacking parts/ammo.

WTF? Common sense?! That is not allowed here! :rofl:

I say the same thing. If **** hits the fan, or the surplus ammo is banned from import, .223 ammo is not only going to sky rocket, but be available NOWHERE. It will make .380 ammo look like it's stacked to the sky. :upeyes:

You're right though...not like the military is going to be handing out free ammo :tongueout:

Aceman
05-23-2010, 08:22
Listen guys - The military and the police use m4's/.223s. They are almost ALWAYS right. They make decisions based on effectiveness, not cost and political issues. .223 is what they issue so it must be the greatest platform and the ammo is capable of everything more so than anything else that it could possibly be compared to. Just stop all of this "sensibility" stuff and let go of the "practical" experience.

Black guns are the best thing since sliced bread and the only thing ballistically superior to .223 is 105 Howitzer (under certain limited conditions).

conpro
05-23-2010, 14:48
223 is like shooting a pellet gun compared to the 7.62x39.

jdh31313
05-23-2010, 15:09
AR Platform, because it is what I know.

Alaskapopo
05-23-2010, 18:30
223 is like shooting a pellet gun compared to the 7.62x39.

Not really. Until recently the .223 had far better wound ballistics. But Hornaday's new TAP rounds in 7.62x39 should outperform it.
Pat

Adionik
05-24-2010, 19:10
Not really. Until recently the .223 had far better wound ballistics. But Hornaday's new TAP rounds in 7.62x39 should outperform it.
Pat

"Far better wound ballistics". That's why it's not even legal to kill a deer with it in most states? :rofl:

Save the rebuttal, you've already convinced yourself that the .223 round was crafted by the gods. :faint:

Teej
05-24-2010, 19:58
Not really. Until recently the .223 had far better wound ballistics. But Hornaday's new TAP rounds in 7.62x39 should outperform it.
Pat

Still comes down to shot placement. I just read of a cop shot 7 times with a .45, but his vest did stop 3 lethal hits. But he shot the suspect multiple times with his .40. The officer finished him off with 3 point blank rounds to the head after the wounded bad guy landed on top of him.

Back to the 7.62 x 39. I downed a black boar hog with one round of 7.62x39 soft tip military surplus ammo. One round in his neck @ 80 yrds and he was down in his tracks. He never took a step.

I started this thread and although I believe in the AK, my opinion is that the best SHTF weapon is the one you know well, can use well and are comfortable with and are personally confident in.

Alaskapopo
05-24-2010, 20:17
"Far better wound ballistics". That's why it's not even legal to kill a deer with it in most states? :rofl:

Save the rebuttal, you've already convinced yourself that the .223 round was crafted by the gods. :faint:

Its not about the cartridge but rather the bullet. You also seem to think Deer hunting and combat are related. WRONG. Please save such ignorant comments for those who care to listen.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/bullets/RussianWP-1.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/bullets/wund4.gif
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/bullets/556_68_762_comparison.jpg

The point is military 7.62x39 ammo generally sucks. The new Hornaday TAP load is a much desired improvement.

Alaskapopo
05-24-2010, 20:18
Still comes down to shot placement. I just read of a cop shot 7 times with a .45, but his vest did stop 3 lethal hits. But he shot the suspect multiple times with his .40. The officer finished him off with 3 point blank rounds to the head after the wounded bad guy landed on top of him.

Back to the 7.62 x 39. I downed a black boar hog with one round of 7.62x39 soft tip military surplus ammo. One round in his neck @ 80 yrds and he was down in his tracks. He never took a step.

I started this thread and although I believe in the AK, my opinion is that the best SHTF weapon is the one you know well, can use well and are comfortable with and are personally confident in.

Shot placement is one factor and wound ballistics are another. No reason to give up either one.
Pat

RWBlue
05-24-2010, 23:03
You posted this to an AK forum, what do you expect?

Both platforms have their advantages and defects. Since I have both, I would be happy with either. IT IS NOT THE GUN IT IS THE SHOOTER.

MD357
05-25-2010, 23:57
Not really. Until recently the .223 had far better wound ballistics. But Hornaday's new TAP rounds in 7.62x39 should outperform it.
Pat

Out of curiosity, what scientific data do you have to back up this statement?

Alaskapopo
05-26-2010, 02:12
Out of curiosity, what scientific data do you have to back up this statement?
Refer back to post 131. That is just a taste. There are a lot of tests done with the various 5.56 loads. Dr. Roberts has done a lot of work in this area. All you need to do is look at the wound channels. Regular 7.62x39 ball sucks. But the new 125 grain Tap round looks great for the 7.62x39 and I plan to buy some as soon as I can. I am not anti Ak or anti 7.62. I am anti bad bullets that don't perform well. The 7.62x39 has always lagged behind in bullet selection. Thankfully that is getting better.
Pat

TacticalBling
05-26-2010, 08:58
Years ago, the Alaska State Highway Patrol did extensive testing of several weapons and found the Valmet derivative of the AK was the only one that passed easily. Who failed? M-16, FAL, HK-91, M1A.

I find this interesting, because I've heard that the FAL and M14/M1A systems are particularly reliable, as in, 'in the AK ballpark' reliable. I wonder how they failed?


I thought you had to cut zombies head off? So who's bayonet would you grab, the AK or the AR bayont..............:whistling: :rofl:

That's a good argument for the SKS; no need to grab anything, since it's always with you!


AK...because in a SHTF scenario I’ll have more things to worry about than if my rifle works or not....


Clear. Concise. Should be printed on a T-shirt. :thumbsup:

40Magnum
05-26-2010, 22:02
There are a lot of tests done with the various 5.56 loads. Dr. Roberts has done a lot of work in this area. All you need to do is look at the wound channels. Regular 7.62x39 ball sucks. But the new 125 grain Tap round looks great for the 7.62x39 and I plan to buy some as soon as I can. I am not anti Ak or anti 7.62. I am anti bad bullets that don't perform well. The 7.62x39 has always lagged behind in bullet selection. Thankfully that is getting better.

This is spot on. I have a couple 107FRs and a couple 106FRs -- like both calibers as tools are tools. None does everything the best and each has its place. I did buy up a ton of the .310 123 grain VMax bullets from Hornady to load to my specs as the Hornady load is a bit on the lite side. It will turn the 7.62 107's into what they have always been capable of being. That bullet is nasty.

But I do like the 5.56 AK's as well. Purists hate them. But it is more accurate than any 7.62 AK I have fired, is fast to get back on target (it never really moved), and has been 100% reliable. I have AR's as well. But they don't have a sweet AK100 series side folding stock and were not made to eat pallets of steel case ammo.

brausso
05-26-2010, 22:17
223 is like shooting a pellet gun compared to the 7.62x39.

Are you looking for a reaction to you nonsense statement?

MD357
05-27-2010, 01:03
Refer back to post 131. That is just a taste. There are a lot of tests done with the various 5.56 loads. Dr. Roberts has done a lot of work in this area. All you need to do is look at the wound channels. Regular 7.62x39 ball sucks. But the new 125 grain Tap round looks great for the 7.62x39 and I plan to buy some as soon as I can. I am not anti Ak or anti 7.62. I am anti bad bullets that don't perform well. The 7.62x39 has always lagged behind in bullet selection. Thankfully that is getting better.
Pat

That's not science my friend, well it's not good enough for those honestly educated in science anyways. :supergrin: Look up the definition of the scientific method and get back to me.

Hint: repeatable results within human tissue. Prove it. :cool:

Alaskapopo
05-27-2010, 01:19
That's not science my friend, well it's not good enough for those honestly educated in science anyways. :supergrin: Look up the definition of the scientific method and get back to me.

Hint: repeatable results within human tissue. Prove it. :cool:

:upeyes:
Ballistic gelatin is an acceptable human tissue substitute for testing and it is accepted by the top medical doctors (Dr. Fackler, Dr. Roberts) that study wound ballistics. I think they know quite a bit more about the scientific method than either you or I.
Pat

MD357
05-27-2010, 01:50
:upeyes:
Ballistic gelatin is an acceptable human tissue substitute for testing and it is accepted by the top medical doctors (Dr. Fackler, Dr. Roberts) that study wound ballistics. I think they know quite a bit more about the scientific method than either you or I.
Pat

So can you reference the work on the very subject of this thread from Dr. Fackler and Dr. Roberts? I would like to see the work since I'm getting the run around here. I'm honestly curious so citation would help. PRJs please.

Also, those that have worked in trauma know that Ballistic gellatin is basically just the "best we have." NOT the equal.

Hint: If I stick a 10in knife in ballistic gellatin can you accurately determine a fatality rate? Why? Why not?

Alaskapopo
05-27-2010, 02:46
So can you reference the work on the very subject of this thread from Dr. Fackler and Dr. Roberts? I would like to see the work since I'm getting the run around here. I'm honestly curious so citation would help. PRJs please.

Also, those that have worked in trauma know that Ballistic gellatin is basically just the "best we have." NOT the equal.

Hint: If I stick a 10in knife in ballistic gellatin can you accurately determine a fatality rate? Why? Why not?

I am not going to get into a pissing match with someone who does not understand the topic. Good night.
You seem to pick and chose what you consider scientific evidence.

Ballistic gelatin is not for measuring knife wounds it was developed by Dr. Fackler to simulate human tissue for ballistics testing. Again you fail to understand the basic concepts being discussed. Take some time to educate yourself and get back to me. Here is a forum you can study. http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91

Pat

GreyEclipse
05-27-2010, 03:22
SHTF? I choose .22LR...

.22LR or death! Muhahaha.

40Magnum
05-27-2010, 06:45
If I remember (I'll have to find the presentation), Dr. Roberts stated that data shows standard 55 grain to be somewhat suspect regarding consistency. Once again, I have to verify this as I don't want to quote anybody without the data. He had a fairly detaied presentation floating around out there from 2008 that showed a best "expedited" route that minimized impact to existing logitics, etc. and an optimum route.

The "expedited" route was the elimination of M855 as the standard (For Carbine Length / M4) and the use of a "barrier blind" ammunition along the lines of the Federal LE223T3 (62-gr. Trophy Bonded Bear Claw) or maybe even the TSX. The current 77 grain load also faired pretty well.

Optimum route was the 6.8 SPC with an OTM configuration projectile.

The 7.62 was not that effective, but it obviously penetrated barriers failry well. But considering the newer projectiles like the Hornady VMax (which the bad guys don't have), its a much better option, as Alaska stated. Roberts had the 7.62x51 in there just to show what the real deal can do as well.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/05/marine_sost_052410w/

^ That article came out yesterday.

Dr. Roberts was pushing the above two years ago at a minimum. Either way, there is a BIG part to be played in bullet construction regardless of the cartridge used. Folks in the field seem to like the 77 grain Sierra MatchKing. Then there is the new 62 grainer mentioned in the link above. Standard ammo seems to do ok as well, but the big thing seems to be performance in a human target after barrier penetration.

End point: I don't want to be hit with any of it. Cliche works. Hit what you are aiming at and everything else will normally fall into place. An AR platform with modern optics tends to allow that much more readily than most. That is why the platform works as a tool for that purpose. Both the AR and AK are strong platforms for the requirements they were built to address. Different tools. I own them both for a reason.

MD357
05-27-2010, 09:28
I am not going to get into a pissing match with someone who does not understand the topic. Good night.
You seem to pick and chose what you consider scientific evidence.


Pat

It's pretty arrogant to say that someone doesn't understand a topic becaue they asked you to back up such a concrete statement as you made earlier. This is no pissing contest, my request is a standard that quite normal in the educated scientific world and especially one in the practical treatment of humans. I'm not picking and choosing, it's just posting a few charts on an internet forum isn't science, those that think it is only have a superficial understanding of research.


Ballistic gelatin is not for measuring knife wounds it was developed by Dr. Fackler to simulate human tissue for ballistics testing. Again you fail to understand the basic concepts being discussed. Take some time to educate yourself and get back to me. Here is a forum you can study. http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91


I'm sorry, but referencing an internet forum isn't good enough. Do you have citation or not? Do you think health professionals get their information off internet forums? or rather that it would be good enough? I think you missed my point here about the knife. I understand why ballistic gelatin was developed, I understand they've changed the composition aswell. Why is that? I also understand that penetration doesn't show all the variables within the human body of which gel cannot account for in terms of mortality. Hint: you see some crazy stuff when you actually TREAT gunshot wounds instead of talking about someone else's "science" on the internet.

Glockdude1
05-27-2010, 10:05
AK or AR SHTF?

Yes.

:cool:

extremus
05-27-2010, 11:26
... Hornaday's new TAP rounds in 7.62x39 should outperform it.
Pat

Where did you see that Hornady was going to produce this round?

I have only seen their new steel cased V-Max 7.62x39 ammo.

Alaskapopo
05-27-2010, 11:38
Where did you see that Hornady was going to produce this round?

I have only seen their new steel cased V-Max 7.62x39 ammo.

That is what I meant by TAP. I may be wrong but I thought they were making this round under the tap name.
pat

Bilbo Bagins
05-27-2010, 12:37
I am not going to get into a pissing match with someone who does not understand the topic. Good night.


I just find it funny that the guy who loves the AR platform, and comes on to the AK forum to ask if the AR or AK is better for SHTF is talking about NOT getting into a pissing match :rofl:

Alaskapopo
05-27-2010, 12:44
I just find it funny that the guy who loves the AR platform, and comes on to the AK forum to ask if the AR or AK is better for SHTF is talking about NOT getting into a pissing match :rofl:

Can you read? If so go back over my posts.

1. I did not start this thread nor did I ask if the AK or AR is better. Teej is the one who started this thread.
2. I prefer the AR but I also like and respect the AK. (I have said this many times even in this thread).

So before you use your keyboard to vomit out a post. Make sure you know what you are talking about.
I find it funny how some people are so lazy as to not read the thread before posting.

Here are a few AK's I own.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AK%2047/Arsenal.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/shotguns/Saigadesc.jpg

Beware Owner
05-27-2010, 14:14
AR15 in 6.8 SPC...:whistling:

MD357
05-27-2010, 14:21
AK or AR SHTF?

Yes.

:cool:

That's the way I feel about it. But apparently 7.62 ballistics "suck" so I might have to ditch my AKs.

Glockdude1
05-27-2010, 14:25
That's the way I feel about it. But apparently 7.62 ballistics "suck" so I might have to ditch my AKs.

Depends on which end of the rifle you are on....... :whistling:

My AK's are going no where!!


:supergrin:

digilo
05-27-2010, 14:43
There's AK's in all sorts of calibers.....

:juggle:

Adionik
05-27-2010, 15:18
It's pretty arrogant to say that someone doesn't understand a topic becaue they asked you to back up such a concrete statement as you made earlier. This is no pissing contest, my request is a standard that quite normal in the educated scientific world and especially one in the practical treatment of humans. I'm not picking and choosing, it's just posting a few charts on an internet forum isn't science, those that think it is only have a superficial understanding of research.



I'm sorry, but referencing an internet forum isn't good enough. Do you have citation or not? Do you think health professionals get their information off internet forums? or rather that it would be good enough? I think you missed my point here about the knife. I understand why ballistic gelatin was developed, I understand they've changed the composition aswell. Why is that? I also understand that penetration doesn't show all the variables within the human body of which gel cannot account for in terms of mortality. Hint: you see some crazy stuff when you actually TREAT gunshot wounds instead of talking about someone else's "science" on the internet.

Wow, talk about owned. I wouldn't even post back in here if I was alaskapopo...:rofl:

Glockdude1
05-27-2010, 16:05
Just buy both.
http://i47.tinypic.com/35mjq05.jpg

:supergrin:

mitchshrader
05-27-2010, 16:06
If you need to defend yourself with deadly force in a crisis, it would seem reasonable to use the weapon you were most familiar with that was sufficient to the job description. If it's a horde of zombies, you'll want one gun.. and if it's snipers in the church belfrey you'll want a different gun.

And I never know which flavor of SHTF people are talking about. If it's slathers of maniacal rioters, that saiga shotgun might be just the ticket, or maybe the AR platform with Beta-C mags..but I wouldn't conduct experiments during a firefight unless forced.

Use what you know best until you know better.

Alaskapopo
05-27-2010, 16:10
That's the way I feel about it. But apparently 7.62 ballistics "suck" so I might have to ditch my AKs.

There is a difference between ballistics and bullets. Most 7.62x39 bullets suck however the external ballistics are just fine. Horndays new vmax bullet brings the 7.62x39's performance to where it needs to be.
Pat

Alaskapopo
05-27-2010, 16:12
Wow, talk about owned. I wouldn't even post back in here if I was alaskapopo...:rofl:

Hardly. I have seen plenty of gun shot wounds in my career. The experts that MD357 dismissed have seen a lot more gun shot wounds than he can even dream about. (Dr. Fackler and Dr. Roberts) I will take it from the experts vs an orderly in a hospital.
Pat

Adionik
05-27-2010, 16:26
Hardly. I have seen plenty of gun shot wounds in my career. The experts that MD357 dismissed have seen a lot more gun shot wounds than he can even dream about. (Dr. Fackler and Dr. Roberts) I will take it from the experts vs an orderly in a hospital.
Pat

It seems you dream an awfully lot about Dr. Fackler and Dr. Roberts...:dunno:

Alaskapopo
05-27-2010, 17:40
It seems you dream an awfully lot about Dr. Fackler and Dr. Roberts...:dunno:

It seems that you're totally clueless. How do you get by being that dense.
Pat

Aceman
05-27-2010, 19:01
This "use what you are most familiar with" issue is of corse, totally correct as it leads to speed and accuracy, which trumps caliber - which I'm sure we all agree upon.

But if we go around talking sense like that, there would be a bout three posts per week. That kinda talk does absolutely nothing for intarweb trash talking threads, which is why I would assume most of us are here.

Adionik
05-27-2010, 22:30
It seems that you're totally clueless. How do you get by being that dense.
Pat

Dude, you come to the AK section bashing the gun, then start degrading the 7.62 round itself...what are you trying to accomplish? You think showing that you own an AK somehow makes you neutral?

By all means, return to your AR15 section where you can be an elitist and make fun of us...:crying:

Alaskapopo
05-27-2010, 22:49
Dude, you come to the AK section bashing the gun, then start degrading the 7.62 round itself...what are you trying to accomplish? You think showing that you own an AK somehow makes you neutral?

By all means, return to your AR15 section where you can be an elitist and make fun of us...:crying:

Are you illiterate?

I never bashed the AK. I like the AK and have said so and own a few. Nor did I bash the 7.62x39. I did say that the military ammo in this caliber does suck. You must be about 15 years old with special needs because your reading comprehension skills are in the toilet. I can see why you have no friends as you stated in another post.

Go back under your bridge.
Pat

40Magnum
05-27-2010, 23:10
I did say that the military ammo in this caliber does suck

7.62x39 bullet construction languished for decades. The statement above is not too far off... it is historically not even close to what it could be. Anybody here want to use Wolf FMJ or Golden Tiger for SD ammo? I sure don't if I have a choice. Yugo surplus is a step up. The older 8m3 bullet was yet another step. The only stuff that seems to even fragment these days is Wolf Military Classic. All of it penetrates well but why settle for that alone when all it takes is a modern projectile to get better performance all around.. Doesnt mean anybody wants to get shot with it but the standard rank and file of milspec FMJ could have been improved upon long ago.

The Hornady VMax is a big deal and it should be. We are lucky we have such options now.

Adionik
05-27-2010, 23:19
Are you illiterate?

I never bashed the AK. I like the AK and have said so and own a few. Nor did I bash the 7.62x39. I did say that the military ammo in this caliber does suck. You must be about 15 years old with special needs because your reading comprehension skills are in the toilet. I can see why you have no friends as you stated in another post.

Go back under your bridge.
Pat

I said I did not have 50 friends, making fun of the guy saying he was going to take 50 of his SKS buddies to the range.

I can clearly see you have no friends at all if you conduct yourself in real life as you do on here. :rofl:

I'm done talking to you..."Pat".

Alaskapopo
05-28-2010, 00:03
I said I did not have 50 friends, making fun of the guy saying he was going to take 50 of his SKS buddies to the range.

I can clearly see you have no friends at all if you conduct yourself in real life as you do on here. :rofl:

I'm done talking to you..."Pat".

Actually my friends list is not empty here on GT.
From your profile.
Adionik has not made any friends yet

Also again with the reading comprehension. The poster you are talking about said 50 of his friends with AK's not SKS's. Slow down when you read, it may help.

I hope your are done replying to my posts with false information as well. Put me on your ignore list please.

Alaskapopo
05-28-2010, 00:07
7.62x39 bullet construction languished for decades. The statement above is not too far off... it is historically not even close to what it could be. Anybody here want to use Wolf FMJ or Golden Tiger for SD ammo? I sure don't if I have a choice. Yugo surplus is a step up. The older 8m3 bullet was yet another step. The only stuff that seems to even fragment these days is Wolf Military Classic. All of it penetrates well but why settle for that alone when all it takes is a modern projectile to get better performance all around.. Doesnt mean anybody wants to get shot with it but the standard rank and file of milspec FMJ could have been improved upon long ago.

The Hornady VMax is a big deal and it should be. We are lucky we have such options now.

Truth be told I am not that fond of military ball in 5.56 either. Good post above.
Pat

Mofeen
05-28-2010, 06:40
How are those Hornady Vmax rounds for HD use?

40Magnum
05-28-2010, 09:10
Its still a 123 grain projectile even though it fragments violently, so you know how it goes with the standard over-penetration in the home disclaimer. Its still a rifle inside the house. But from a terminal performance perspective it should be very good. Its still a new item in the AK world, but the gel tests show it to be pretty nasty.

A company called BVAC is loading it in brass cases at 2483 fps, which is pretty hot

Every person who has put the Hornady steel case load over a chrono says its not doing whats on the box, but averaging about 75fps or more slower at around 2200 to 2225

Grafs has the bullet available @ $17 per 100 for rolling your own if you want to do so. I ordered quite a few a while back.

http://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/18013

The following is a load from D&S Manufacturing for the 123gr Hornady V-Max (from brassfetcher.com). It shows nearly perfect penetration (11.9 inches) with heavy fragmentation. I found out in another thread that the recovered bullet weight was right at 60 grains. So half of that bullet went poof inside that cavity. What was left was a mushroom measured at .6

http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/762x39mm123grVMaxblk.JPG

http://www.brassfetcher.com/D&S%20Manufacturing%20123gr%20Hornady%20V-Max.html

So it seems to be a great round. Much better than any of the milspec stuff by a considerable margin. I would still like to see some barrier tests as I'm sure that bullet would come apart pretty quickly once it hits something.

MD357
05-28-2010, 10:11
Hardly. I have seen plenty of gun shot wounds in my career. The experts that MD357 dismissed have seen a lot more gun shot wounds than he can even dream about. (Dr. Fackler and Dr. Roberts) I will take it from the experts vs an orderly in a hospital.
Pat

If that were true you should hate the fact that you got schooled by an "Orderly." :whistling:

You've seen plenty of gunshot wounds? You're an LEO officer right? That means you saw them from the outside. Even someone with basic trauma experiences knows you can't tell anything from a superficial view. Or if you have experience inside a L1 Trauma unit I'd love to hear it.

FWIW, I DID NOT dismiss anything that Dr. Fackler or Roberts has done. Let's not be egocentric here as me being critical of YOUR statements does not constitute a criticism of either indivdial's research.

What I said was that posting a few charts on an internet forum doesn't constitute scientific proof. I asked for citation, I got childish remarks, similar to the orderly comment here. You see you have people that think they know something because they've read some research on the internet. It happens ALL the time on several subjects, they then parrot that information, sometimes incorrectly. The only way to weed through the B.S. is to see the actual study and research. So the only thing I'm dismissing is that someone is speaking FOR Dr. Fackler or Roberts without citation. Something no educated health professional would ever do.

Notice I asked for this and got nothing if not insulting remarks.... People that are truly knowledgable on a subject teach and relate rather than berate and belittle.

conpro
05-29-2010, 08:29
7.62x39 AK has more knock down power, The AR is like shooting a pellet gun.

40Magnum
05-29-2010, 08:55
It has more "knock down" power on a steel swinging target and conventional barriers, not necessarily a human target, especially at close range (where the 5.56 does its best work) with bullet construction for each being what they are. Thats why the Hornady VMax load is such a welcome thing for 7.62x39.

Accuracy of the 7.62 cartridge is another thing. The term "accurate enough" is true considering what the AK was designed to do. Hitting a torso is easy out to 100 yards, beyond that, the shooter needs to be decent. I have seen some folks that can hit at 200+ easily first shot nearly every time. It gets much harder the further you go out to do it first shot and consistently. Even in an AK, the 5.56 (I have two 106FR's along with my 7.62 AK's) it is much easier to hit at extended distances past 100 yards. Accuracy does count. Larry Vickers runs a 5.56 AK from what I have seen posted by his students and seems to like it.

AR15 in 6.8 SPC...

If ammo was a good bit cheaper I would be all over that caliber. Same thing for the 6.5 Grendel. I just can't see going after either, especially the Grendel (and I used to own one), with 308 brass at half the price.

Beware Owner
05-29-2010, 09:13
If ammo was a good bit cheaper I would be all over that caliber. Same thing for the 6.5 Grendel. I just can't see going after either, especially the Grendel (and I used to own one), with 308 brass at half the price.

Reloading, I have no worries about ammo prices. I look forward to it, actually.

javelinadave
05-31-2010, 20:51
7.62x39 AK has more knock down power, The AR is like shooting a pellet gun.
Roadking07,
Do you have any knowledge of anything firearms related what so ever?
Talk about your stupid, uneducated comments! :whistling:

Nicoroshi
05-31-2010, 21:17
Wow, some heated discussion going on in here.
I guess that if it ever came down to 'SHTF' for me I would feel comfortable with either an AR or AK in my hands. To me at that point it would be important to just have one (of either) in my hands to deal with the zombie invasion.
Truthfully if I could only grab one out of the safe it would be the one that best fit the situation I was likely to encounter (or was currently in).
I know I can shoot my 6.8 SPC, and 5.56 ARs accurately out over 300 yards, and I know the AKs will always go bang even if not cleaned or treated nicely for a period of time. I know I can carry more 5.56 than I can 7.62x39.
So which would I grab (realistically)?
Guess I'll find out if 'SHTF'.
My belief is to be proficient with everything that may be at my disposal, and grab the right tool for the job at hand but be able to make what you chose in a time of stress work for multiple situations that may arise later.

.45Super-Man
06-01-2010, 04:35
I will make sure to have her hold it while the popo is nearby.
They won't even see the gun. Babe-o-flage

http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/gsg/gsg_ak.jpg

Replace rifle with a box of donuts and you're good!:supergrin: But seriously, I've had enough experience with both platforms to feel much better with the AK in it's original caliber. Bulletproof reliability, harder hitting at realistic combat ranges and it's THE definition of what an "assault rifle" is throughout the world.

Soviet937
06-03-2010, 13:53
I have both, an SGL 20 and a bushmaster M4 A3, i love both, if i had to get rid of one Id probably have to think endlessly for me to decide but regarding a shtf moment and i needed a weapon right there to save my life and needed it now. id probably grab my ak first id say, i feel as though an ak is a grab it and get right to it kind of weapon, then again i dont really store my M4 with alot of lubrication. its just for that reason though, i store my M4 on the dryer side, but i guess it still might be a personal preference kind of thing.

freesw
06-04-2010, 15:04
I would take my AK and Mini for a SHTF situation. Both folders- easy to hide.

Seems to me the Mini 14 meets every basic SHTF requirement:
Ammo + rifle weigh less than a 7.62x39 AK + same # rounds.
More reliable than AR15 with suboptimal maintenance and dirty conditions likely in a true "SHTF" situation.
Even with folder, Mini 14 is somewhat lower profile than AK-type weapons.
New 580 series Mini 14s are more accurate than previous Mini 14s, and though arguably not as accurate as a good AR15, it can also be argued that the better reliability compensates for it. A good Mini 14 is "accurate enough" for any SHTF situation that can realistically fall under the category of self defense.
While AK-74 type has great surplus ammo available, it's corrosive and this is a disadvantage from long-term maintenance standpoint.

I'd still be tempted to opt for the Yugo underfolder though ;)

glock360
06-04-2010, 23:11
Not being an untrained peasant soldier, I have the skills to maintain an AR15.
The most important plusses as I see it to the AR15:

Rifle is lighter.
Less recoil, faster follow up shots.
Lighter mags and ammo.
Last round bolt hold open.
Faster mag drops.
Much faster mag insertions.


What the AK has going for it:
More lethal cartridge.
It works if it’s filthy
It’s really easy to take apart and clean.

Ermac
06-05-2010, 04:01
Not being an untrained peasant soldier, I have the skills to maintain an AR15.
The most important plusses as I see it to the AR15:

Rifle is lighter.
Less recoil, faster follow up shots.
Lighter mags and ammo.
Last round bolt hold open.
Faster mag drops.
Much faster mag insertions.


What the AK has going for it:
More lethal cartridge.
It works if it’s filthy
It’s really easy to take apart and clean.
So you're calling our allies in Iraq the Poles and Bulgarians untrained peasent soldiers? The rifle is barely lighter. Most AK's weigh around 6-7 pounds like an AR does. I believe the weight difference between like 200 rounds of 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 is not more then 1 pound. I coud be wrong though. Of course you'll have more recoil. It's a trade off of it being more lethal, the cartridge. The AK doesn't need a bolt hold open. It's gone 60 years without one. The times they tried adding a BHO, they got rid of it. The magazines inserting more easily is defenetly an advantage.

conpro
06-05-2010, 07:13
The AK is more reliable than the AR, I want something that is going to go bang when i pull the trigger, I dont feel safe with an AR when it comes to reliability.

infiniti0505
06-05-2010, 18:17
Not being an untrained peasant soldier, I have the skills to maintain an AR15.
The most important plusses as I see it to the AR15:

Rifle is lighter.
Less recoil, faster follow up shots.
Lighter mags and ammo.
Last round bolt hold open.
Faster mag drops.
Much faster mag insertions.


What the AK has going for it:
More lethal cartridge.
It works if it’s filthy
It’s really easy to take apart and clean.

I would say that properly trained you can be just as fast in reloads with an AK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7hi20TI_jA&feature=related

RWBlue
06-05-2010, 19:11
I would say that properly trained you can be just as fast in reloads with an AK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7hi20TI_jA&feature=related

Most of the experts agree straight push is quicker than lock and cock when things are not perfect.

On the other hand cock and lock appears to be more reliable in rifle calibers.

betyourlife
06-05-2010, 20:06
What get's me is that the M-16/M-4 family of weapons is resembling the AK family of weapons with each design change.

They made it shorter to make it more maneuverable...like the AK started out with.

They made the bullet bigger (6.8 SPC) to increase it's stopping power at greater ranges...like the AK started out with.

They added a piston to make it more reliable...like the AK started out with.

If the AR platform is really so great, why is it being designed into what is basically an AK?

RWBlue
06-05-2010, 21:27
What get's me is that the M-16/M-4 family of weapons is resembling the AK family of weapons with each design change.

They made it shorter to make it more maneuverable...like the AK started out with.

They made the bullet bigger (6.8 SPC) to increase it's stopping power at greater ranges...like the AK started out with.

They added a piston to make it more reliable...like the AK started out with.

If the AR platform is really so great, why is it being designed into what is basically an AK?

And they are adding rails and scope mounts, flash suppressors, 5.45 ammo... to make the AK more like the AR.

Strange how that works.

mikeyU
06-05-2010, 21:41
Both have strong points, I prefer the AK but wouldn't complain if I had an AR.

betyourlife
06-06-2010, 14:36
And they are adding rails and scope mounts, flash suppressors, 5.45 ammo... to make the AK more like the AR.

Strange how that works.

Not even close, but nice try.

Teej
06-06-2010, 16:36
Interesting how this thread ran as I started it. I am new to AK's. Got my first one ever a few months ago. My father-in-law got an AR and got me interested. Then I came across a deal on an AK I couldn't pass on plus I already had plenty of AK ammo so I went with the AK.

I'd pick up anything that was handy and would go bang in a SHTF situation though, AK, AR, mini, single shot, whatever I could get my hands on. As for the AK/AR contorversy- if you had my back I'd rather you were armed with the one you were most skilled and comfortable using.

Even though my AK has a specific defensive purpose, I just picked up a Winchester 1300 that I could not pass up on. I'm in a rural area with more and more burglaries and home invasions happening. So loaded with #4's, it just became my front door weapon.

RWBlue
06-06-2010, 17:22
Not even close, but nice try.

Please explain why this is not even close.

Novocaine
06-06-2010, 19:37
Not being an untrained peasant soldier, I have the skills to maintain an AR15.

What I don’t understand is where people get the notion that AR is so much more difficult to maintain than AK. Do tell what is so “advanced” about AR maintenance?

When AK was being designed Russia had just came out of WW2. Try loading a PPSh drum given an opportunity. Those uneducated peasant guerrillas were (very effectively) using even captured German weaponry including artillery pieces, all without emailing Rheinmetall for a free instruction booklet. But of course AR is a freaking rocket ship only Bubba is capable of mastering.

And who invented the idea that people in the Soviet Army were not trained to maintain their weapons?

Most every man in the USSR had to spend at least two years in service. What do you think he was doing there? The training he was getting may not be adequate in other areas but there was no shortage of potato peeling and AK maintenance. For the first six months it seems like you’re cleaning the darn thing every day whether needed or not.

Tell you more. Soviet high schools had a mandatory class called the Early Military Training. Field navigation, use of gas masks, hand grenades, landmines, response to chemical/ nuclear attack, first aid, enemy uniforms recognition, shooting bolt .22 and AK-74, digging foxholes, marches, basic reconnaissance and ambushes, etc. 2 hours a week for two years. Even girls (who don’t have to serve, unlike in Israel) had to go through this except their program was a bit more oriented towards combat medicine.

Don’t know how things are in current post-Communist Russia but in the 80-ies a 15 year old Russian girl had an infinitely greater military-related knowledge and skill than an average male of service age here in the US. She could tell Soviet tank profile from that of a Western tank, arterial bleeding from venous, had basic marksmanship skills, knew the effective range of M16, what size of trench is appropriate for an RPG operator and how to safely handle a hand grenade, among dozens of other useless things of sort. And, yes, she could take apart and put back together an AK pretty much blindfolded. Or she would have her shot at higher education compromised: it was a class, just like a math or history and the grade was the part of your GPA.

Of course you at least need to be a PhD to touch AR.


The most important plusses as I see it to the AR15:

Rifle is lighter.

AKM is lighter than M16A2


Less recoil, faster follow up shots.
Lighter mags and ammo.

We’re talking AKM or -74?

AR is a reliable weapon. But as reliable as AK it is not. In overall reliability and in handling neglect AK outperforms AR hands down. They both will quit eventually, AR will quit sooner.

The comparison video shown here is really pointless in a grand scheme of things. If your standard procedure for when you drop your weapon during a fight is to shovel some dirt on it before you pick it up again this video might be of relevance to you. If people are shooting at me I’d probably omit the dirt shoveling part, but that’s me.

AR is my HD gun. Superb ergonomics and I don’t have -74. But a lot depends on what kind of SHTF. Here in San Francisco it will probably have to do with some kind of a major earthquake. A lot of rubble, dust in the air, that kind of stuff. No need for long shots either. I’ll go with AK.

Survival? As mentioned you can fit a .22 CU to AR. Reliability is not really an issue, single shot is fine. But the barrel twist is not optimized for .22LR, those units are not very accurate and may require rezeroing and, most importantly, they won’t do much more than a sneer will do. 7.62 X 39 is a good deer round. AK would probably be my choice.

Just facing a mob like those Korean shop owners did in LA? AR, no question.

RWBlue
06-06-2010, 20:00
AKM is lighter than M16A2


From wikipedia
M16 = 7.8 lb (3.5 kg) unloaded
AK-47 = 4.3 kg (9.5 lb) with empty magazine

Novocaine
06-06-2010, 20:16
From wikipedia
M16 = 7.8 lb (3.5 kg) unloaded
AK-47 = 4.3 kg (9.5 lb) with empty magazine

AKM is lighter than AK. It is lighter than M16 loaded or unloaded.

javelinadave
06-06-2010, 20:22
7.62x39 AK has more knock down power, The AR is like shooting a pellet gun.

The AK is more reliable than the AR, I want something that is going to go bang when i pull the trigger, I dont feel safe with an AR when it comes to reliability.
:laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove:

Where do you get this stuff?
I bet any of my AR's are far more reliable than your WASR10.
As for your pellet gun comment, I'll shoot myself in the foot with my pellet gun while wearing my work boots. I'm guessing you won't do the same with an AR.:whistling:

RWBlue
06-06-2010, 22:42
AKM is lighter than AK. It is lighter than M16 loaded or unloaded.

You are arguing with Wikipedia.
If you really believe what you are saying, I would suggest you post some real numbers.
:wavey:

En9999
06-06-2010, 22:47
You are arguing with Wikipedia.
If you really believe what you are saying, I would suggest you post some real numbers.
:wavey:
He said AKM, not AK-47.

AKM = 6.3 lbs
M16 = 7.8 lbs

And that's also from Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM

RWBlue
06-06-2010, 22:55
He said AKM, not AK-47.

AKM = 6.3 lbs
M16 = 7.8 lbs

And that's also from Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM

I now wonder which # is correct.:dunno:

Could they both be?
AK-47 being milled?
AKM being pressed?


BTW, M4 5.9 lb (2.7 kg) empty

En9999
06-06-2010, 23:09
I now wonder which # is correct.:dunno:
Could they both be?
AK-47 being milled?
AKM being pressed?
BTW, M4 5.9 lb (2.7 kg) empty
The comparison was with an M16, not an M4.

tsmo1066
06-07-2010, 12:56
What I don’t understand is where people get the notion that AR is so much more difficult to maintain than AK. Do tell what is so “advanced” about AR maintenance?


It's not so much that AR maintenance is "advanced", but it IS definitely more difficult under less-than-ideal conditions. The AR has a number of tiny retention pins and springs that just BEG to get lost or misplaced when having to perform maintenance in the dark, or in near-dark situations. The AR also requires a further degree of breakdown in order to properly field clean than does the AK and it must be cleaned on a regular basis due to the fact that it "craps where it eats".

The AK, on the other hand requires little more preventive maintenance than running an oily, knotted shoestring or Boresnake down the barrel every couple of thousand rounds to keep it banging away for near-indefinite periods of time.

Mike5560
06-07-2010, 13:39
I think they're is no "overall" winner. SHTF can mean a number of things. If it involves a survival scenario, living off the land, then the AK's reliability will have a natural edge over the AR. But the weaknesses of each can be mitigated with someone skilled who knows how to maximize each's potential.

I own an AR and 2 AKs....for where I live, I would most likely take an AK, but I would feel very comfortable with either almost equally.

IMO, I'm splitting hairs here in technicalities but the environment will determine which is better suited for it's environment.

Temperate areas/ woods/ swamps - AK all the way IMO....shorter distance ranges, more dirt and moisture.

Farms, Plains, Montana type locations - AR....Longer ranges maximize the ARs capabilities. Easier to maintain a weapon than in a swamp/ woods. Normally I like carbine length ARs, but a 20 inch barrelled AR could be worth the extra weight here.

Urban areas. - Toss up. The AK can punch through barriers a little better (can also be a disadvantage), The abundance of buildings, pavement and lack of dirt make it near impossible for an ARs reliability to be an issue at all.
I probably give a slight edge to the AR for its ease of use and controls here.

Weight of both is a pointless arguement IMO. There's so many trims of either -plastic rail, quad rail, standard or carbine length, stamped, milled, penciled or heavy barrel, they are about equal weight with similar purposes. Except maybe a milled AK will be heavier than similar ARs, but do you really NEED a milled AK for SHTF? If you find either one too heavy in thier lightest form, get a 10/22 and exercise some serious "shot placement"

Novocaine
06-07-2010, 13:49
I now wonder which # is correct.:dunno:

Could they both be?
AK-47 being milled?
AKM being pressed?


BTW, M4 5.9 lb (2.7 kg) empty

To be completely anal true name never was AK-47, it was simply AK. The gun was built initially with a stamped receiver (people call it Type 1 receiver), then it was built with a milled receiver (Type 2) that was slightly heavier than Type 1. Then it was redesigned yet again (Type 3). Type 3 receiver was still forged/ milled but the loaded gun was lighter than stamped Type 1. Again, the Type designation doesn’t appear in Soviet field manuals, all these variations are called AK period. Type 3 is what Soviets began sharing with satellites, hence that’s what you see in Bulgarian guns for instance.

Speaking of Bulgarians they are calling all their military AK-type guns AR. Would be interesting to watch this discussion on Bulgarian forum.

Anyway, in late 50-ies the gun was redesigned with a stamped receiver yet again. This gun is lighter yet than the Type 3. It is called AKM and is what the vast majority of current civilian look-alikes in 7.62 X 39 are based on.

Type 3 is the most common pre-AKM variant. It’s what popularized AK in the West as milled Chinese Type 56s supplied to North Vietnam are based on it. Chinese were dumping milled guns to Vietnam en masse as they were rearming themselves with stamped Type 56. Small number of stamped 56s were imported to Vietnam too but were not nearly as prolific as milled guns. Whenever people compare AK and M16 they keep looking at Vietnam War, hence the stereotype of M16 being “unreliable” and AK being “heavy”. Lighter AKM was available even at the time and M16 became reliable but gained couple of pounds in the process.

Wiki is most certainly listing “Type 3” AK and is most certainly wrong about the unloaded weight of 4.3 kilos. 4.3 kilos sounds more like the LOADED weight with a then new ribbed steel mag.

The comparison was with an M16, not an M4.

Tru dat. Point being people are so preconditioned to associate M16 with “light” and AK with a “crew served” it comes as a shock that AKM, even when loaded with a steel mag and 30 rounds of heavier ammo, is actually lighter than M16A2.

Of course if you take a typically outfitted carbine length AR (cheese grater handguards, optics, mounts, light, FG) it will be heavier than a typically outfitted civvy AKM (sling). Not to mention AKS-74.

Novocaine
06-07-2010, 14:35
It's not so much that AR maintenance is "advanced", but it IS definitely more difficult under less-than-ideal conditions. The AR has a number of tiny retention pins and springs that just BEG to get lost or misplaced when having to perform maintenance in the dark, or in near-dark situations.

I agree with that though I don’t understand what springs you’re talking about. I wasn’t addressing the ease of maintenance per se but rather the theory that AR was designed to be maintained by MIT graduates.

The AR also requires a further degree of breakdown in order to properly field clean than does the AK and it must be cleaned on a regular basis due to the fact that it "craps where it eats".

They both need to be cleaned on a regular basis. If your life depends on either one that is.

If it doesn’t who cares? You can simply shoot either one until it quits, then clean it. Yes it will take longer for AK to get to this point but AR handles neglect better than many piston guns. Better than FAL, M1 Carbine, Mini-14 and Kel-Tec in my experience.

The AK, on the other hand requires little more preventive maintenance than running an oily, knotted shoestring or Boresnake down the barrel every couple of thousand rounds to keep it banging away for near-indefinite periods of time.

Well, I wish you were the one who wrote AK filed manual for the Soviet Army, it would make a vast improvement in quality of life of countless “uneducated peasants”:)

RWBlue
06-07-2010, 19:09
The comparison was with an M16, not an M4.

They are just numbers. There is no reason not to put them all on the table to make an intelligent decision.

Since we are getting anal, The thread is about the AK vs. the AR, not AKM and M16 or M4. :whistling:

Novocaine
06-07-2010, 21:05
They are just numbers. There is no reason not to put them all on the table to make an intelligent decision.

Since we are getting anal, The thread is about the AK vs. the AR, not AKM and M16 or M4. :whistling:
I was trying to be precise in the weapon’s nomenclature only because it makes explanation of design changes easier.

With the notable exception of Bulgarians the vast majority of the currently built civilian AK look-alikes in 7.62 X 39 are based on AKM, not on AK. That is why AKM specs are a good place to look when comparing weight “in general”. Not the specs for something like Type 2 AK.

Full size M16 look-alikes mostly mimic M16A2/A4, not M16A1 or Colt 601 and as such will be heavier than a typical civilian AK-47.

ARs, of course, come in all kinds of flavors but to automatically list AR as lighter of the two does not seem appropriate to me. At very least it needs to by qualified as “carbine-length AR”.

Besides, from what I see a typically outfitted civilian AR even in carbine length is generally heavier than a typically outfitted civilian AK-47 or -74.

I will look up the numbers for AK and AKM when I'll get home. Those are the ones that seem to cause the most confusion. The rest can be looked up online easily.

MistoGators
06-07-2010, 21:38
AK for me.

tsmo1066
06-08-2010, 09:35
Well, I wish you were the one who wrote AK filed manual for the Soviet Army, it would make a vast improvement in quality of life of countless “uneducated peasants”:)

There's a world of difference between "field manual" and "field EXPEDIENT". :thumbsup:

I didn't say that a shoestring and some oil was the RECOMMENDED way to clean an AK, nor did I state anything about field manuals. You must surely know the difference between a "by the book" weapon cleaning and the minimum, field-expedient maintenance necessary to keep a weapon running.

The AR requires far more minimal maintenance than the AK to keep it running, and even the best AR will start malfunctioning in short order if not cleaned thoroughly after a couple of sessions of heavy use. The same is not true for the AK. An AK can often be fired for many thousands of rounds without any maintenance at all and can be kept running reliably for indefinite periods with only very basic cleaning.

Is this the recommended, field manual approach to maintaining an AK? Heck no, but that was never the point. The point was that in some SHTF situations, where proper maintenance may be difficult or even impossible for some period of time, it's a nice advantage to have a weapon that can get by with only very basic care.

Alaskapopo
06-08-2010, 12:05
There's a world of difference between "field manual" and "field EXPEDIENT". :thumbsup:

I didn't say that a shoestring and some oil was the RECOMMENDED way to clean an AK, nor did I state anything about field manuals. You must surely know the difference between a "by the book" weapon cleaning and the minimum, field-expedient maintenance necessary to keep a weapon running.

The AR requires far more minimal maintenance than the AK to keep it running, and even the best AR will start malfunctioning in short order if not cleaned thoroughly after a couple of sessions of heavy use. The same is not true for the AK. An AK can often be fired for many thousands of rounds without any maintenance at all and can be kept running reliably for indefinite periods with only very basic cleaning.

Is this the recommended, field manual approach to maintaining an AK? Heck no, but that was never the point. The point was that in some SHTF situations, where proper maintenance may be difficult or even impossible for some period of time, it's a nice advantage to have a weapon that can get by with only very basic care.

The AK does take far less maintance as you said. But the AR does not need to be cleaned as much as people think. What it needs is to stay lubed. Pat Rogers has a gun with more than 26000 rounds through it before he cleaned it. It kept running until that point. All he did was lube the gun frequently.
Pat

CBennett
06-08-2010, 12:10
If I have plenty of ammo on hand AK if I didnt and would need to get some AR.

javelinadave
06-08-2010, 13:48
If I have plenty of ammo on hand AK if I didnt and would need to get some AR.

Huh??

CBennett
06-08-2010, 14:24
Huh??

whats so hard...IMO the AK is the more reliable weapon with less cleaning will go longer be more reliable in combat situations/environments. that said I dont plan on having to go anywhere I plan to stay where im at if SHTF Id have a good supply of ammo for the AK on hand so thats what id pick...if I was in a big city and may have to move go somewhere if SHTF I may not be able to lug several thousand rounds of AK ammo with me and I may have to find more else where...what is it gonna be easier for me to find on the move to a safer place AR or AK ammo...answer is .223 ammo...I saw exactly 1 box of 7.26X39 on the shelf at walmart today and several HUNDRED boxes of .223..that said I can get 1080 rounds for my AK74 for $150..Id have a few of those on hand...

javelinadave
06-08-2010, 14:35
whats so hard...IMO the AK is the more reliable weapon with less cleaning will go longer be more reliable in combat situations/environments. that said I dont plan on having to go anywhere I plan to stay where im at if SHTF Id have a good supply of ammo for the AK on hand so thats what id pick...if I was in a big city and may have to move go somewhere if SHTF I may not be able to lug several thousand rounds of AK ammo with me and I may have to find more else where...what is it gonna be easier for me to find on the move to a safer place AR or AK ammo...answer is .223 ammo...I saw exactly 1 box of 7.26X39 on the shelf at walmart today and several HUNDRED boxes of .223..that said I can get 1080 rounds for my AK74 for $150..Id have a few of those on hand...

I guess I didn't understand your last two posts due to the lack of punctuation and the lack of capital letters at the start of a new sentence.:whistling:

digilo
06-08-2010, 16:05
I guess I didn't understand your last two posts due to the lack of punctuation and the lack of capital letters at the start of a new sentence.:whistling:

I didn't have any problem reading and understanding what he wrote.

RWBlue
06-08-2010, 18:05
Novocaine, you have a point.

Weight is dependent on which setup we are using.
An AR can be very light OR it can be very heavy.
An AKM will start out heavier than than an M4 and can be made heavier.


As of today, I have rails to mount on my AK. :supergrin:
Now I can mount some better sights. Decisions, decision, RD or scope.

CBennett
06-08-2010, 18:19
I guess I didn't understand your last two posts due to the lack of punctuation and the lack of capital letters at the start of a new sentence.:whistling:

Im not concerned if you understood it or not.

Novocaine
06-09-2010, 13:42
The AR requires far more minimal maintenance than the AK to keep it running, and even the best AR will start malfunctioning in short order if not cleaned thoroughly after a couple of sessions of heavy use...

The point was that in some SHTF situations, where proper maintenance may be difficult or even impossible for some period of time, it's a nice advantage to have a weapon that can get by with only very basic care.

I agree that AR will respond sooner to neglect than AK. However I wouldn’t go as far as to say "in short order". I have put about 1K trouble-free rounds through one of my ARs over the course of a year (you know, couple of mags here and there) without cleaning.

1K may seem like a laughable number to some optimistic types but it's probably three times as much ammo as I would care to take along in most any type of SHTF. If I'll find a way and time to dispense a thousand rounds of ammo through a semiautomatic rifle I'll find a way and time to clean it. Just as I would find a way to brush my teeth.

…the AR does not need to be cleaned as much as people think…

This.

javelinadave
06-09-2010, 13:59
Im not concerned if you understood it or not.
A+ for spelling and punctuation!
Congrats and best wishes!
I'm concern about you and every member of this fine board. I wish everybody well and hope they understand what I post:cool:
Why all the hostility CBennett? Let a little sunshine into your life!

Beware Owner
06-10-2010, 07:44
I don't mean to offend anybody, but....

I do have trouble understanding what people write myself. I try my hardest to make something of it, but it can be difficult sometimes.

Jmzzl
06-15-2010, 19:54
An AK is like a pickup truck. An AR is like a pickup truck with chrome wheels. Both get the job done, but you can't go muddin' in both.

I thought of that in the shower 5 minutes ago. I thought it was a good comparison. :cool:

EDIT: I thought it was so good, I made it my new signature ;]

Quigley
06-15-2010, 20:09
An AK is like a pickup truck. An AR is like a pickup truck with chrome wheels. Both get the job done, but you can't go muddin' in both.

I thought of that in the shower 5 minutes ago. I thought it was a good comparison. :cool:

EDIT: I thought it was so good, I made it my new signature ;]

So the pick up with the chromed wheels is better for mudding? I mean they will clean easier. Not to mention that the chrome wheels don't effect the functionality or reliability of the pick up. As a matter of fact the only thing that the chrome wheels do is change the appearance.

Jmzzl
06-16-2010, 04:09
Lol, you took it out of context. Who wants to take a darn good looking truck through the mud when they can take a beater truck through it?

Quigley
06-16-2010, 08:46
Lol, you took it out of context. Who wants to take a darn good looking truck through the mud when they can take a beater truck through it?

Gotcha, But I think my AK looks pretty freaking good and so does my AR. I just know which one would perform better in the mud

DWS22
06-16-2010, 20:58
AK for me.............

Another Miller
06-16-2010, 21:28
Ak..it makes bigger holes in things.:whistling:

frank_drebin
06-16-2010, 21:40
I would take an AK over an AR any day of the week. However, when I looked at AKs it was the height of the Obamamania price craze and I just couldn't bring myself to paying those prices. I ended up getting an SKS and a Tapco T6 and actually prefer it to the AK. I like the longer barrel with the Tapco stock. The gun is tighter than any AK I've held and shoots as accurate as my M44.

jack76590
06-25-2010, 00:00
In a SHTF situation I like the fact my AK stock folds. I can then put the AK in a large duffle bag. AR has telescoping stocks, but they do not result in as compact a package as AK with folding stock.

Foxtrotx1
06-25-2010, 00:20
I will make sure to have her hold it while the popo is nearby.
They won't even see the gun. Babe-o-flage

http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/gsg/gsg_ak.jpg

she needs to watch the trigger finger....

Teej
06-25-2010, 06:28
she needs to watch the trigger finger....

You are a lot better than I am, I did not even notice she was holding a weapon until you mentioned trigger finger. :rofl:

Teej
06-25-2010, 06:53
I am the op of this thread posting this question after purchasing my 1st AK. I have come to understand and truly believe that you are going to be most effective in a shtf situation using whatever YOU are most comfortable using.

That being said, in a shtf or bug out situation I would grab even a .22 if that was all that was near.

But to my original question of AK or AR I personally am glad I bought the AK. I spoke to a former soldier the other day. He was part of the invasion force into Iraq and did not stop fighting until they hit Baghdad. He said they did stop but only long enough for support units to catch up to take over the area they held, then he was pushed right back out fighting on.

This soldiers first hand account of the AR round was the unless the bullet hit bone, the insurgents kept fighting or running. He told me that he shot people that just would not die. He said he frequently saw the enemy running away when their wounds should have prevented them from being able to.

Then he told me, "however, if you hit them with the .50, it is instant, the enemy just slumps to the ground."

While the traditional 30-06 caliber bullet of the M1 Garand and 7.62 bullet of the M14 rifle would immediately knock a man down. During the Vietnam War, soldiers reported that shooting an enemy soldier with the M16 did not kill as quickly as the old 30 caliber weapons. Instead soldiers would follow a massive trail a blood a few feet away from where the enemy soldier had been hit to find him dead from massive blood loss.

I would say both weapons have their merits and shortcomings. But for me, I would rather be able to take an enemy out asap. I don't have a .50, so I'm glad I went with the AK.

my762buzz
06-25-2010, 09:02
This soldiers first hand account of the AR round was the unless the bullet hit bone, the insurgents kept fighting or running. He told me that he shot people that just would not die. He said he frequently saw the enemy running away when their wounds should have prevented them from being able to.

Then he told me, "however, if you hit them with the .50, it is instant, the enemy just slumps to the ground."

While the traditional 30-06 caliber bullet of the M1 Garand and 7.62 bullet of the M14 rifle would immediately knock a man down. During the Vietnam War, soldiers reported that shooting an enemy soldier with the M16 did not kill as quickly as the old 30 caliber weapons. Instead soldiers would follow a massive trail a blood a few feet away from where the enemy soldier had been hit to find him dead from massive blood loss.
.

And, this is all considering he was using a FMJ. FMJ is required in warefare for the sake of reducing damage to the enemy. Bullets that open up, expand, fragment, and so on multiply the effect of a FMJ. In many states, FMJ is illegal to use on deer or other animal hunts because it reduces the likelyhood of a clean quick kill. A 6.8 or 30 caliber non-FMJ is a better option. Who needs acrobatic FMJ when you can use real social ammo that leaves gopher holes through threats?

Pitt
06-27-2010, 23:35
Here is my thought on why I chose an AK over an AR...or any firearm over others for that fact.....My Wife's ability to use and care for them.

I live in a heavily dense wooded area. The woods do go on for miles. There isn't an open area to be able to use your AR at long ranges until you get on the main road. Then distance can be a key factor. However, for general "perimiter" defense for my home, my Romanian AK w/ Ulitmak-n-Aimpoint fits the bill perfectally. It's an easy weapon for my wife to use, load and clean. (An AR seems to be too complicated for her. :dunno:)

I sold my AR and bought an Arsenal last year only to figure out an $800 AK does the same thing as my $400 WASR does. Both shot a 4rd 1.9 MOA at 125yrds using Federal PowerShock ammo with the same Ultimak/Aimpoint set up and both had "stock" internals. I politely sold my Arsenal and kept with the WASR.

Same reasoning behind why I bought a Mossberg500 and both a Glock 19/26...my wife can use'em and take care of em'.......That's what I worry about (If) when I gone.....:cool:

+1
Damn straight!

Adionik
06-28-2010, 00:59
I am the op of this thread posting this question after purchasing my 1st AK. I have come to understand and truly believe that you are going to be most effective in a shtf situation using whatever YOU are most comfortable using.

That being said, in a shtf or bug out situation I would grab even a .22 if that was all that was near.

But to my original question of AK or AR I personally am glad I bought the AK. I spoke to a former soldier the other day. He was part of the invasion force into Iraq and did not stop fighting until they hit Baghdad. He said they did stop but only long enough for support units to catch up to take over the area they held, then he was pushed right back out fighting on.

This soldiers first hand account of the AR round was the unless the bullet hit bone, the insurgents kept fighting or running. He told me that he shot people that just would not die. He said he frequently saw the enemy running away when their wounds should have prevented them from being able to.

Then he told me, "however, if you hit them with the .50, it is instant, the enemy just slumps to the ground."

While the traditional 30-06 caliber bullet of the M1 Garand and 7.62 bullet of the M14 rifle would immediately knock a man down. During the Vietnam War, soldiers reported that shooting an enemy soldier with the M16 did not kill as quickly as the old 30 caliber weapons. Instead soldiers would follow a massive trail a blood a few feet away from where the enemy soldier had been hit to find him dead from massive blood loss.

I would say both weapons have their merits and shortcomings. But for me, I would rather be able to take an enemy out asap. I don't have a .50, so I'm glad I went with the AK.

Better watch out, you'll drag the .223 lovers in here and have the "I've seen a guy shot 30 times with 7.62 and got up" and ".223 is more powerful" arguements all over again.

These are usually the same guys with tacticool AK's...that should've just stuck with AR's. :tongueout: