Talk Me Out Of An AK. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Talk Me Out Of An AK.


Restless28
01-01-2011, 10:20
I'm going to buy a centerfire rifle, and I'm still on the fence between the AK and AR.

My intention for this gun, is to assist the 12G in HD, if ever needed (God forbid), fun, possible hunting, and to train my son on a centerfire cartridge.

My dad has a Mini-14, so we could share ammo, and he has a reloader set up for .223.

I'm looking for the best value, in the $1000 budget range. I know that I'll get the "build" response, but, I'm also looking for "buy" suggestions.

NeverMore1701
01-01-2011, 10:33
A good AR is equally reliable and far more ergonomic, user configurable, and accurate. No contest IMO.

engineer151515
01-01-2011, 10:42
Get both!

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2452/bugoutmi2.jpg

Agent6-3/8
01-01-2011, 10:52
A good AR is equally reliable and far more ergonomic, user configurable, and accurate. No contest IMO.

What he said!



Given I'm not as experienced with AK's as I am AR's, but I not seen an AK that is remotely as accurate as a good AR. Reliability is really a moot point, IMO. No contest between the ergonomics of the guns. The AR has far better iron sight and better/ more options for mounting an optic.


The above is JMO, so take it FWIW.

Restless28
01-01-2011, 10:59
Accuracy is important. I read a post today about how a guy had to hold 9 inches off target on his Romanian AK once the barrel got hot. That is unacceptable to me, in a defense/fighting gun, because, if you ever had to use it, every round counts, IMO.

Petrie
01-01-2011, 11:18
I have a DPMS A2 style rifle with a 20" barrel. I mounted a cheap scope on it and from 300 yds I could put all shots in a basketball sized group shooting prone. And I'm not much of a shot. I've done "tactical" type shooting where I've put 200 rounds through it in a single outing with a lot of rapid fire. very accurate, never a jam, the CLP stayed on bolt carrier so everything was "wet" and running nice.
In any self-defense/gun battle I can image my AR is going to be clean, lubed, and ready for action. I don't plan on running around in the woods putting 1000s of rounds thorugh it without cleaning.
I agree with above post the reliablity issue is moot. The accuracy and ergonomics are not. And the AR wins hands down. Plus, ARs are as american as apple pie.

G19 Elite
01-01-2011, 11:30
The only "advantage" to going with an AK is the .308, but you can get an AR in .308, so this shouldn't even be in question. AR hands down.

NeverMore1701
01-01-2011, 11:41
Most AKs aren't in .308.

KalashniKEV
01-01-2011, 11:54
If you're only going to own one, get an AR. It's more adaptable and you'll obviously get better accuracy. The budget number you threw out there is the variable that you don't often see when this question gets posted, and really makes it a no brainer.

My plan for you, with that budget, is to buy the AR, teach your son on it, and then tell him to save up for the AK. They can be had relatively inexpensively and a properly zeroed AK in competent hands can't be beat.

pleaforwar
01-01-2011, 11:55
I like both, but you won't have enough with that budget to build a serious home-defense rifle (IMHO). You can get a quality AR or AK, but you will need to save for the light, optic, sling, training, ammo, etc.
If I were in your shoes, I would by a quality AR with a decent set of irons, then save for the stuff that makes it a true home-defense rifle.

mjkeat
01-01-2011, 12:06
If you're only going to own one, get an AR. It's more adaptable and you'll obviously get better accuracy. The budget number you threw out there is the variable that you don't often see when this question gets posted, and really makes it a no brainer.

My plan for you, with that budget, is to buy the AR, teach your son on it, and then tell him to save up for the AK. They can be had relatively inexpensively and a properly zeroed AK in competent hands can't be beat.

I like both, but you won't have enough with that budget to build a serious home-defense rifle (IMHO). You can get a quality AR or AK, but you will need to save for the light, optic, sling, training, ammo, etc.
If I were in your shoes, I would by a quality AR with a decent set of irons, then save for the stuff that makes it a true home-defense rifle.

What these two said. A nice Saiga can be had for well under $400. That shouldnt be to difficult to save up for.

Buy a quality AR and shoot iron sights while saving up for an optic, etc.

G27RR
01-01-2011, 12:31
If you want a good AR you can easily find locally and is ready to go right out of the box, look at the S&W M&P15 for under $1K. CDNN has them for about $850. If you don't mind buying uppers and lowers, look at BCM. There are other good ones out there.

BBJones
01-01-2011, 12:40
As a fan of both platform's here is my take:

Accuracy:
- AR's are generally more accurate. For 1K you will get a gun that will probably do 1-1.5" depending on ammo.
- AK's inaccuracy is generally overstated. For 700-1k (think quality like Arsenal) you will get a gun that does 2" with dirt cheap ammo. You see many AK detractors that like to take a junk AK that shoots 7" and proclaim all AK's are inaccurate.

Caliber:
- AR's are generally 5.56. This is a flat shooting round that can hit at 500 yards regularly (yes it can reach farther if conditions are right and a trained shooter is behind it). There are lots of ammo choices from cheap russian steel cased (.20) to high quality match ammo. Buy a different upper and you can convert the AR into another caliber.
-AK's are generally 7.62x39. 7.62x39 is more powerful than 5.56 but does not shoot nearly as flat. 300 yards is about its maximum range with accuracy. After 300 yards the drop be comes significant (shoots very similar to 30-30). 7.62x39 is a better choice for hunting. Ammo selection is far more limited than 5.56. There are cheap Russian steel cased (.19), surplus corrosive (.15), and new manufactured target and hunting loads.
- AK's also are frequently seen in 5.45x39 (the Commie bloc's version of 5.56). 5.45 has many of the same shooting properties as 5.56 and can be very accurate. Surplus 5.45 can be had for about .12 a round making it the cheapest shooter. However, there is no (or none that I have seen) US manufactured ammo. All ammo is imported and could potentially dry up if laws change (I wouldn't bet on it but you never know). 5.45 ammo selection is very limited.

Other stuff:
- AR's can be customized and set up all different ways. The same lower can be used for a short barreled rifle (assuming you have the tax stamp) and a long range gun just by switching uppers.
- Likewise there is more things to attach to an AR than you will ever know. Rails, lights, grips, etc.
- AK's are generally limited in the amount of accessories, but there are more and more options recently
- AK's can relatively take more abuse and still function.
- AK's are ergonomically setup odd. Nothing that can't be learned but ...
- 7.62x39 will penetrate through walls, so be conscious of that if used as home defense
- Both would be great to train your son on centerfire rifles
- 5.56 is a good round for varmints, but not a great choice for deer IMO (many localities will not let you hunt deer with .22 caliber bullets)


That was all stuff I thought of off the top of my head.
If it was me, my budget for an AK would be $750 (Arsenal or something similar in quality) and for and AR $1200 -1500 (Daniel Defense, BCM, Colt, etc.). IMO those are the price points where you get the best quality for the money.

faawrenchbndr
01-01-2011, 12:43
I'd get the AK
Great for home defense. Great for hunting. Ammo is dirt cheap. Super reliable.

1985 4Runner
01-01-2011, 12:56
Talk Me Out Of An AK.

I'm going to buy a centerfire rifle, and I'm still on the fence between the AK and AR.

My intention for this gun, is to assist the 12G in HD, if ever needed (God forbid), fun, possible hunting, and to train my son on a centerfire cartridge.

My dad has a Mini-14, so we could share ammo, and he has a reloader set up for .223.

I'm looking for the best value, in the $1000 budget range. I know that I'll get the "build" response, but, I'm also looking for "buy" suggestions.

I thought about your request & can't do it...

Instead, I'll just say this:

Well under the $1000 mark, and I can hunt actual game with it.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5002/5308760806_623081bacb_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/55304595@N07/5308760806/)
[/url][url=http://www.flickr.com/people/55304595@N07/] (http://www.flickr.com/photos/55304595@N07/5308760806/)

Ask yourself why an AR has a forward assist. I say this after being issued one & by US Marine Corps standards, became an "Expert Marksman" with one multiple times.

sdsnet
01-01-2011, 13:06
Given your situation if your total limit is 1000 bucks I would buy an AK, a case of Wolf Military classic and a one hour rifle course from these guys... Http://www.mast solutions.com.

Halojumper
01-01-2011, 13:14
Nobody can talk you out of one if that's what you have your heart set on. Everybody has to decide what works best for him. That said, here are some factors to consider

AK
Accuracy difference probably won't matter much at the distances that most people are likely to use it.
IMHO 7.62X39 is probably a more effective defense round than 5.56
No bolt hold open on last shot, a huge tactical disadvantage
Firer must take his shooting hand off pistol grip to work bolt
Popular with mall ninjas who want to feel they have some sort of kinship with Russian Spetsnaz,

AR
IMHO more comfortable ergos
More accurate and (more importantly) easier to take advantage of its accuracy
Lots of modularity, easy to change out uppers, lowers, etc
Tons of tacticool accessories
Higher variety of ammo and high availability
DI versions run dirty and are a pain to clean
Popular with mall ninjas who want to feel they have some sort of kinship wth Spec Ops troops or SWAT

Halojumper
01-01-2011, 13:18
Ask yourself why an AR has a forward assist. I say this after being issued one & by US Marine Corps standards, became an "Expert Marksman" with one multiple times.

The forward assist is like the AWB. It's a knee jerk reaction to something that was caused by something else, way back in the Vietnam era. People still need them to feel good "just in case", since the AR doesn't have a direct, reciprocating connection between the charging handle and the bolt. How many times have you ever know anybody to actually need one? I say this after being issued many varieties of them over 24 years, issued by US Army Special Forces and qualifying expert with them nearly every time. :)

ETA: BTW, your is ones of the nicest AK's I've seen. I wouldn't mind having that in my safel.

AK_Stick
01-01-2011, 13:21
I like my AK's. They're good guns, reliable, decently accurate, stupid easy to maintain.


But an AR is a better rifle all the way around.

1985 4Runner
01-01-2011, 14:34
The forward assist is like the AWB. It's a knee jerk reaction to something that was caused by something else, way back in the Vietnam era. People still need them to feel good "just in case", since the AR doesn't have a direct, reciprocating connection between the charging handle and the bolt. How many times have you ever know anybody to actually need one? I say this after being issued many varieties of them over 24 years, issued by US Army Special Forces and qualifying expert with them nearly every time. :)

ETA: BTW, your is ones of the nicest AK's I've seen. I wouldn't mind having that in my safel.

I've had more than two A2 rifles (properly clean) FTF and FTE in my own personal experience. That combined with the experiences of my friends & fellow Marines was enough to sour me on the rifle.

Thanks for the AK compliment, and I'm sure the AR platform has made some reliability improvments since I last carried one in 1996. I'm actually considering getting one this year. If it can do what I expect it to, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

:thumbsup:

Halojumper
01-01-2011, 14:39
I've had more than two A2 rifles (properly clean) FTF and FTE in my own personal experience. That combined with the experiences of my friends & fellow Marines was enough to sour me on the rifle.

Thanks for the AK compliment, and I'm sure the AR platform has made some reliability improvments since I last carried one in 1996. I'm actually considering getting one this year. If it can do what I expect it to, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

:thumbsup:

I've had that happen with some A1's, but that's been a while!

Restless28
01-01-2011, 14:55
I thought about your request & can't do it...

Instead, I'll just say this:

Well under the $1000 mark, and I can hunt actual game with it.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5002/5308760806_623081bacb_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/55304595@N07/5308760806/)


Ask yourself why an AR has a forward assist. I say this after being issued one & by US Marine Corps standards, became an "Expert Marksman" with one multiple times.

Nice rifle. Send me a PM with details please! :wavey:

Hoser
01-01-2011, 15:40
If you get an AK your hair will fall out and the taste of beer will repulse you.

jrs93accord
01-01-2011, 16:16
AR
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m8/jamesrea_2006/jamesrea_08/jamesrea09/jamesrea10/001-2.jpg

The possibilities are limitless.


AK
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m8/jamesrea_2006/DSC00238.jpg

There are possibilities.

With both platforms, you pocketbook will be the deciding factor. $1K is a good place to start. In the AK47 I have pictured, I have about $1500 invested. In the above AR, I have about $1200 invested.

mixflip
01-01-2011, 16:26
Watch this cool video for a little info on the two. Both are good and both have weakness's. I always say, get some info on both then let your gut feeling decide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv9k2czwToM

Me personally, I sold my AK47 and I miss it alot. I am on the hunt for another one to compliment my SKS and all its ammo.

Halojumper
01-01-2011, 16:35
If you get an AK your hair will fall out and the taste of beer will repulse you.

Apparently it works, because that accuragely describes me! However, a friend of mine at work is going to buy my AK so I wonder if I'll get any of the hair back.

themighty9mm
01-01-2011, 19:46
I say go with the AR. Lol if anything do it cuss your an american :supergrin:
America ******* yeah!:50cal:

Sturmgewehre
01-01-2011, 21:41
Don't get an AK. Are you talked out of it yet?

http://www.intempusphotography.com/photos/1143651944_NBXoQ-L.jpg

mjkeat
01-01-2011, 23:19
Strum, who makes that rail?

MisterPX
01-01-2011, 23:44
Guys, if the OP gets an AK, he wants a 223 version.

That said, I'd recommend a wasr3 to start with. $400ish gets you in the game, mags maybe $20 a pop. Try it out, and if you don't like it, you can always sell it for close to what you have in it.

If you shop around and are willing to go used, you could ideally have both an AR and an AK for your budget. Better yet, find some freinds and shoot therirs to see what you like better.

lawman800
01-02-2011, 00:52
They are both great battle rifles of the 20th Century. If you haven't shot either one, try them both before deciding. People here can talk about the pros and cons of each and how much you can customize an AR or how the AK is more rugged or whatever.

The bottom line though, if you can't be comfortable with it and hit consistently with it when it counts, you can put in $1,000 of toys in an AR or build your AK into some uber-tacticool AR clone, and it will just be a pretty noise maker at the range.

Don't worry about the supposed accuracy of the AR. Worry about hitting something beyond 100 meters when you get to that point. Not too many people are going to do much of shooting out beyond 200-300 meters unless you are into BR or long distance silhouette.

mixflip
01-02-2011, 01:25
The only thing I dont like about .223 AK's are the expensive and sometimes hard to find in on shelves...magazines. I hate ordering stuff online. Maybe I am the only one?

faawrenchbndr
01-02-2011, 04:49
I'm going to buy a centerfire rifle, and I'm still on the fence between the AK and AR.

My intention for this gun, is to assist the 12G in HD, if ever needed (God forbid), fun, possible hunting, and to train my son on a centerfire cartridge.

My dad has a Mini-14, so we could share ammo, and he has a reloader set up for .223.

I'm looking for the best value, in the $1000 budget range. I know that I'll get the "build" response, but, I'm also looking for "buy" suggestions.

Look for a Norinco Mak90

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c341/faawrenchbndr/Norinco%20Mak%2090/AKintheweeds.jpg


Solid built
Reliable
Cheap ammo,....$220 for 1k rounds
Cheap solid steel mags
Accurate to 250m
Large enough caliber to take medium size game
Super easy to clean

Sturmgewehre
01-02-2011, 07:15
Strum, who makes that rail?

It's a Midwest Industries / US Palm rail system. Google Midwest Industries, they'll be at the top of the list. $124 shipped.

G26man
01-02-2011, 08:23
AK iron sights suck IMHO, and its been my experience that receiver rail optic mounts are typically too high for a good cheek weld if they are high enough to let you take the receiver cover off for a field strip, so you are constantly messing with your zero unless you go with some kind of forward mount. The design is just not conducive to optics.

Other than the fabled (and debatable) shoot-in-the-mud reliability of the AK the only other real "advantage" is the heavier 7.62x39 round, and you can easily find an AR or upper in that caliber these days. ARs are superior in accuracy, ergonomics, and modularity. AR wins no contest IMO.

Restless28
01-03-2011, 05:44
AK iron sights suck IMHO, and its been my experience that receiver rail optic mounts are typically too high for a good cheek weld if they are high enough to let you take the receiver cover off for a field strip, so you are constantly messing with your zero unless you go with some kind of forward mount. The design is just not conducive to optics.

Other than the fabled (and debatable) shoot-in-the-mud reliability of the AK the only other real "advantage" is the heavier 7.62x39 round, and you can easily find an AR or upper in that caliber these days. ARs are superior in accuracy, ergonomics, and modularity. AR wins no contest IMO.

Yes, but doesn't the rail with an aimpoint or something similar make this moot?

faawrenchbndr
01-03-2011, 06:41
AK iron sights suck IMHO,.......



90% of the time, I can hit a 8" target out to 220m with "sucky AK iron sights":whistling:

freespirit34
01-03-2011, 06:54
I've got two AK's. One is tricked out , the other is bone stock (although I don't have the bayonette fixed). The iron sights on the stock one are no problem at all. I don't have any problem hitting the target. I've got one AR. It honestly is easier to shoot, clean, etc. but, I probably bought both AK's for what the one AR cost. If you want to spend a little more money, I'd go with the AR. The AK would be cheaper and still dependable as long as you stay away from those made in Bulgaria or Kazekistan.

Glockdude1
01-03-2011, 06:59
Get both!

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2452/bugoutmi2.jpg

:agree:

http://i54.tinypic.com/160v7uo.jpg

:cool:

mjkeat
01-03-2011, 08:52
90% of the time, I can hit a 8" target out to 220m with "sucky AK iron sights":whistling:

FAA is right. AK sights work just fine.

Im sure theres dead combatants from the past few decades that would argue how "sucky" they are.

Not only that but there are ways to upgrade those sights.

G26man
01-03-2011, 09:18
FAA is right. AK sights work just fine.

Im sure theres dead combatants from the past few decades that would argue how "sucky" they are.

Not only that but there are ways to upgrade those sights.

Never said they were not functional. I was stating that compared to an AR-15 in my opinion they suck.

Another reason the AR wins is that it can be a true multi-role weapon. You can effectively engage man sized targets at 500yds or beyond and defend yourself CQB with not only the same platform but the exact same configuration.

Sturmgewehre
01-03-2011, 09:23
Another reason the AR wins is that it can be a true multi-role weapon. You can effectively engage man sized targets at 500yds or beyond and defend yourself CQB with not only the same platform but the exact same configuration.
...and what do you plan on engaging at 500 yards as a civilian? Shooting a man at 500 yards is called "murder". Shooting a deer at 500 yards with a .223... not exactly a good idea.

The AR15 and the AK have the same effective range for what they were designed for, medium to close range combat. If anything, the AK's sights are better suited for this role as they are faster to use.

Glockdude1
01-03-2011, 09:24
...and what do you plan on engaging at 500 yards as a civilian? Shooting a man at 500 yards is called "murder". Shooting a deer at 500 yards with a .223... not exactly a good idea.

The AR15 and the AK have the same effective range for what they were designed for, medium to close range combat. If anything, the AK's sights are better suited for this role as they are faster to use.

:agree:

Most civilian shooters don't shoot past 200 yards.

:cool:

Crazy KD
01-03-2011, 09:36
I went through this exact question about a year ago. You need to go to a store that has both and feel/touch them. I started out as 100% AK and was going to go the Saiga (.223) route and convert it myself. After handling it I was very disappointed in the ergonomics (try actuating the safety quickly). I then looked into how to mount optics which were either way forward (as seen in the pictures already posted) or on a side rail if you want them farther back. The side rail has other issues when it is time to clean the rifle. I then added up all the costs for the conversion to make the Saiga similar to an AR and the costs weren't that much different.

The AR is also lighter. So in the end I went with the AR.

G26man
01-04-2011, 07:48
...and what do you plan on engaging at 500 yards as a civilian? Shooting a man at 500 yards is called "murder". Shooting a deer at 500 yards with a .223... not exactly a good idea.
If all you want is a home defense gun get a 12 gauge. I'm my opinion the reason to have an AR or AK is to go beyond that role if the situation would ever call for it, although the AR does make a pretty darn good varmint rifle (again, multi-role). The odds of a societal collapse, foreign invasion, UN takeover etc. etc. are pretty low, but in an extreme situation the best defense is a good offense.

An AR shooting .308 is a damn good deer rifle ;)

The AR15 and the AK have the same effective range for what they were designed for, medium to close range combat. If anything, the AK's sights are better suited for this role as they are faster to use.

So you're sure the AR-15 was designed to engage targets no farther than 300 yds?

I remember a video I watched several years ago from Iraq where a US patrol (don't remember the branch) engaged some Iraqis at several hundred yards out in the middle of the desert. There was no air power, no mortars, no 50 cal, no M60s or SAWs. It was just ARs vs AKs. It was no contest. 'Course I have to admit your typical Iraqi can't shoot worth a flip (and I have that on very good authority) so maybe it wasn't the best comparison.

mjkeat
01-04-2011, 08:11
What U.S. unit, squad, team would patrol w/o some sort of 249, 60, or 240? Were they from the motor pool?

You said, "AK iron sights suck IMHO." Thats a general statement. I do prefer the AR sites but in no way do the AKs suck. AKs are fun and I dont want to see anyone shy away from them.

Sturmgewehre
01-04-2011, 08:38
If all you want is a home defense gun get a 12 gauge. I'm my opinion the reason to have an AR or AK is to go beyond that role if the situation would ever call for it, although the AR does make a pretty darn good varmint rifle (again, multi-role). The odds of a societal collapse, foreign invasion, UN takeover etc. etc. are pretty low, but in an extreme situation the best defense is a good offense.
I said nothing about "home defense". There are situations where you might need to shoot through something like a car door, wooden door, etc. where the power of a rifle is required. A shotgun is a specialty tool with a very limited range of use when compared to a rifle. There's a reason police want patrol rifles and not just shotguns.

So you're sure the AR-15 was designed to engage targets no farther than 300 yds?
I never said that. We're talking about civilian uses for semi-automatic military styled rifles. Their role is completely different than the role the military would use them in.

WWI rifles were "designed" to shoot to 1000 yards and beyond. They were rarely used for that, but there's the rare occasion where volley fire was used to suppress the enemy. So as thinking evolved they designed rifles to shoot half that distance because history had taught them that's where the vast majority of the fighting took place.

Your story about military engagements is great, but we're not talking about military tactics or uses for a civilian AR15. What the military does has absolutely nothing to do with civilian uses for a rifle. A civilian shooting someone sitting on a lawn chair at 500 yards is called "murder". I say sitting on a lawn chair because if they're moving around, you'll never hit them. Maybe if you had a fire team of Marines putting suppressive fire on an enemy position to provide cover for another team to move in... yeah. But hey, we're talking about AR15s and civilians here. If you shoot someone at 500 yards, you're a murderer.

I remember a video I watched several years ago from Iraq where a US patrol (don't remember the branch) engaged some Iraqis at several hundred yards out in the middle of the desert. There was no air power, no mortars, no 50 cal, no M60s or SAWs. It was just ARs vs AKs. It was no contest. 'Course I have to admit your typical Iraqi can't shoot worth a flip (and I have that on very good authority) so maybe it wasn't the best comparison.
Great story, but totally irrelevant to the discussion. We're talking about a single civilian (not a squad of Soldiers in a war) and their semi-auto civilian AR rifle.

Daekwan
01-04-2011, 09:01
I've wanted an AK for quite a while. Whats kept me from purchasing one is that if the AK platform is so reliable and tolerant.. then why are some versions $350 and some $1500. I have no idea what level of quality to purchase or what name to go with.

Sturmgewehre
01-04-2011, 09:05
I've wanted an AK for quite a while. Whats kept me from purchasing one is that if the AK platform is so reliable and tolerant.. then why are some versions $350 and some $1500. I have no idea what level of quality to purchase or what name to go with.
The wide spectrum of costs has nothing to do with the reliability of the rifle.

There are ultra cheap rifles that have very little quality control (Century rifles) that are cranked out at the lowest possible price. Then you have high end Russian imports made in Izhmash on the same machines and by the same people that make AK's for the Russian military.

Even the cheapest WASR 10 (Century) rifle will generally work well, in that if you pull the trigger it will fire and cycle. It will have a bad finish, poor stocks, and might have some minor issues like canted sights. What is a testament to the AK design is that even these poorly made rifles assembled by unskilled laborers at minimum wage still work quite well from a firing standpoint.

Get what you can afford. Here's a good option for a lower cost AK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FZafomKudk

I've been impressed with mine so far. It's $549 from Atlantic Firearms.

Restless28
01-04-2011, 09:10
The wide spectrum of costs has nothing to do with the reliability of the rifle.

There are ultra cheap rifles that have very little quality control (Century rifles) that are cranked out at the lowest possible price. Then you have high end Russian imports made in Izhmash on the same machines and by the same people that make AK's for the Russian military.

Even the cheapest WASR 10 (Century) rifle will generally work well, in that if you pull the trigger it will fire and cycle. It will have a bad finish, poor stocks, and might have some minor issues like canted sights. What is a testament to the AK design is that even these poorly made rifles assembled by unskilled laborers at minimum wage still work quite well from a firing standpoint.

Get what you can afford. Here's a good option for a lower cost AK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FZafomKudk

I've been impressed with mine so far. It's $549 from Atlantic Firearms.

Interesting...

G26man
01-04-2011, 09:39
I never said that.
Yes you did. "The AR15 and the AK have the same effective range for what they were designed for, medium to close range combat."

We're talking about civilian uses for semi-automatic military styled rifles. Their role is completely different than the role the military would use them in.
I addressed this disparity already.

Peace, and have a nice day. :wavey:

Sturmgewehre
01-04-2011, 09:52
You really need to stop confusing the military and civilian uses of the rifles. Any civilian that kills someone at 500 yards will find themselves facing a murder charge. Can you cite one example where a civilian defended themselves legally by killing another person at 500 yards? You would have a very hard time proving that person posed a threat to you to a jury.

Within the ranges an AR15 and AK would be used by a civilian they are equally matched in capabilities. Military effective ranges and civilian effective ranges are different as civilians, unless they're cold blooded killers, don't need to shoot 500 yards at other people. Civilians don't typically work in fire teams or squad formations and they don't typically employ military broadsword tactics - legally.

Hopefully this clears up any confusion you may have had about my comments.

Good day to you too. :)

PlasticGuy
01-04-2011, 10:39
Talk you out of an AK? Why? I'm issued a Colt AR15 at work every day, and the more I use them the less I like them. The AR15 is more accurate, but the AK wins in every other category.

cowboy1964
01-04-2011, 10:52
Talk you out of an AK? Why? I'm issued a Colt AR15 at work every day, and the more I use them the less I like them. The AR15 is more accurate, but the AK wins in every other category.

Do you have an AK?

chineseboxer
01-04-2011, 13:41
Your going to end up with both so don't worry about it. Start with your AR, you can reload and shoot!!! You will end up buying an AK next. You'll see. You will JUST have to have both. I can tell you this...I sold my AK and of all the firearms I have traded/sold it is the one I miss the most. In fact I am heading to the shop tomorrow to throw one on layaway.:supergrin: Oh, as far as an AR goes, my Stag has been outstanding for a mid price level item!

PlasticGuy
01-04-2011, 16:10
Do you have an AK?
Oh yeah. In fact, I own four times as many AK's as AR's. If I wasn't issued an AR15 every day and felt I needed one or two at home for training purposes, I probably wouldn't own any AR15's at all.

G26man
01-04-2011, 16:53
Talk you out of an AK? Why? I'm issued a Colt AR15 at work every day, and the more I use them the less I like them. The AR15 is more accurate, but the AK wins in every other category.

You seriously say the AK is better in:

Ergonomics?
Modularity?
Weight?
Weight of ammo?

Just what are the AK's superior categories other than possibly reliability? Remember you can buy an AR in 7.62x39 any day of the week so please don't assign that round's "advantages" to the AK platform itself.

faawrenchbndr
01-04-2011, 16:57
..... Remember you can buy an AR in 7.62x39 any day of the week so please don't assign that round's "advantages" to the AK platform itself.

And have a crap trigger AFTER you install the extra power hammer spring to get it to shoot reliably. :whistling:

7.62x39 in an AR is an abomination! :faint:

G26man
01-04-2011, 17:13
And have a crap trigger AFTER you install the extra power hammer spring to get it to shoot reliably. :whistling:

7.62x39 in an AR is an abomination! :faint:

Didn't know that. I held what I thought was a new S&W x39 AR at a gun show a year or two ago but now after doing a little research I believe it must have been another brand upper.

PlasticGuy
01-04-2011, 17:20
Didn't know that. I held what I thought was a new S&W x39 AR at a gun show a year or two ago but now after doing a little research I believe it must have been another brand upper.
No offense, but I think there are some other things you don't know. C-Products is the sole supplier of hi-cap 7.62x39 mags for the AR15 platform, and while better than previous types, they are still less than combat reliable. The 5.45x39 mags are better, but still not as reliable as I would insist on. This is from extensive personal experience, as well as talks (in person at the last SHOT Show) with the folks from MSAR and Robinson.

PlasticGuy
01-04-2011, 17:30
You seriously say the AK is better in:

Ergonomics?
Modularity?
Weight?
Weight of ammo?

Just what are the AK's superior categories other than possibly reliability? Remember you can buy an AR in 7.62x39 any day of the week so please don't assign that round's "advantages" to the AK platform itself.
Ergonomics? Absolutely. The AR15 mag release and safety are better located, but I prefer the AKM charging handle. Reloads are a bit faster with the AR15, but malfunctions are less frequent and faster to clear with an AKM. I also like folding stocks, which is not an option with standard direct impingement AR15's.

Modularity? At least equal. I challenge you to tell me what modifications you can make to an AR15 that you can't make to an AKM, excluding some oddball caliber conversions. And try putting a folding stock on a Colt.

Weight? At least equal. The power to weight ratio is much better for an AKM in 7.62 than an AR15 in 5.56 caliber. You can start switching around between calibers and barrel profiles, but I don't believe there is a significant difference.

Weight of ammo? Virtually the same, given the same calibers. AKM mags are a bit heavier, but they are also much more durable.

And as for the comment about "other than possibly reliability", I can't even comprehend that. What could possibly be more important than reliability and durability?

mjkeat
01-04-2011, 17:35
x39 in an AR platform can be awesome. I did have to contact C-Products in order to get new mags after being sold an older gen and remove the Timmney trigger for a milspec from a normal LPK kit. After doing those 2 things every ran smoothly. Then I came accross the .300BLK and sold the x39 to finance it. Ill get another x39 in time.

G26man
01-04-2011, 19:01
Ergonomics? Absolutely. The AR15 mag release and safety are better located, but I prefer the AKM charging handle. Reloads are a bit faster with the AR15, but malfunctions are less frequent and faster to clear with an AKM. I also like folding stocks, which is not an option with standard direct impingement AR15's.
I would think that the basic controls required to keep your gun running in a battle like mag & bolt release would take precedence over the charging handle which you shouldn't even need to touch on an AR beyond initially. If you truly prefer the ergos of an AK you are in quite the minority, but nothing wrong with that at all. It's a free country.

Modularity? At least equal. I challenge you to tell me what modifications you can make to an AR15 that you can't make to an AKM, excluding some oddball caliber conversions. And try putting a folding stock on a Colt. Sure you can do most things to an AK. You can make a jacked up 4 wheel drive Corvette too if you want, but the platform is not really designed for it. The biggest problem I have is there is no good way to get an ergonomic optic mount without going to a forward mount, but I guess that's OK because the AK doesn't really deliver the accuracy to employ precision optics anyway.

Weight? At least equal. The power to weight ratio is much better for an AKM in 7.62 than an AR15 in 5.56 caliber. You can start switching around between calibers and barrel profiles, but I don't believe there is a significant difference. But I didn't say power to weight, I said weight. Doesn't an unloaded non-HBAR AR weigh less than a decent AK?

Weight of ammo? Virtually the same, given the same calibers. AKM mags are a bit heavier, but they are also much more durable.You can't use an argument based on the more powerful round like you did above and then switch rounds for your next argument. :supergrin: Nice try.

And as for the comment about "other than possibly reliability", I can't even comprehend that. What could possibly be more important than reliability and durability?We don't live in a world of absolutes, so the degree of reliability is what is important. If one weapon is 1% more reliable in the environment for which it is expected to operate than the other weapon which is 50% more accurate, easier and quicker for me to operate and a lot less weight to hump if I had to carry 500 rounds then yes I might choose the less reliable weapon.

I don't know exactly how much more reliable the AK is without knowing the environment or how much the accuracy advantage of the AR is worth without knowing the type of engagement in advance, nor do I know how far I might have to carry ammo, etc. We just take our best guess at these things and for what I think I may need my weapon for the AR appears to be the logical choice for me. I don't think either one of us can tell someone else what is the best choice for him.

jdavionic
01-04-2011, 19:11
I'll preface by saying that I have built both. $1000 will get you good quality with either choice. I won't get into the whole HD debate of either. You have a common ammo option with the Mini 14. Therefore I'd say the AR is a better choice for you.

Quigley
01-04-2011, 19:25
I own both and enjoy shooting both. I have had no reliability issues with either. Both of mine shoot accurately although the AR is a little bit better. Being that your dad already has the set up for reloading 223 get the AR. It is better suited for that round and the AR platform is better for teaching others to shoot due to it's ergonomics. As far as what AR to get? A Stag or a S&W M&P15 is a good bang for the buck. Good luck to you and let us know what you decide.

nipperwolf
01-04-2011, 19:40
Talk you out of an AK? Why? I'm issued a Colt AR15 at work every day, and the more I use them the less I like them. The AR15 is more accurate, but the AK wins in every other category.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

AK_Stick
01-04-2011, 20:46
Ergonomics? Absolutely. The AR15 mag release and safety are better located, but I prefer the AKM charging handle. Reloads are a bit faster with the AR15, but malfunctions are less frequent and faster to clear with an AKM. I also like folding stocks, which is not an option with standard direct impingement AR15's.

Modularity? At least equal. I challenge you to tell me what modifications you can make to an AR15 that you can't make to an AKM, excluding some oddball caliber conversions. And try putting a folding stock on a Colt.

Weight? At least equal. The power to weight ratio is much better for an AKM in 7.62 than an AR15 in 5.56 caliber. You can start switching around between calibers and barrel profiles, but I don't believe there is a significant difference.

Weight of ammo? Virtually the same, given the same calibers. AKM mags are a bit heavier, but they are also much more durable.

And as for the comment about "other than possibly reliability", I can't even comprehend that. What could possibly be more important than reliability and durability?


The Ergo's of the AK suck. The fact that you prefer them is more of a refusing to accept that they're poorly located than them actually being decent.

You cannot clear a jam, or charge the weapon, without either rolling the weapon 90* or letting go of the pistol grip and using your firing hand.

Selector lever is also much better located in an AR. Though on a range it doesn't make much difference. On a fighting rifle, its imporant.

I will concede the point of the folding stock, though they're fairly useless for anything other than storage. There are folding stocks for AR's though I think they're hideously ugly.

But there are several things you can do to an AR that you can't do to an AK. I can have one rifle, and 3 uppers, and do everything from DMR rifle, to a M-4 carbine, and a SBR rifle for doing entry work. The AK, is stuck being whatever it was when it rolled out, and should anything ever happen to the barrel, its time to trash it and get a new one.



none of that means I dont enjoy the hell out of my AK, but its certainly not a better weapon than my AR.

Sturmgewehre
01-04-2011, 23:36
The Ergo's of the AK suck. The fact that you prefer them is more of a refusing to accept that they're poorly located than them actually being decent.
Actually, the AKs ergonomics are quite well suited for a fighting rifle. The charging handle is right where it should be, easily accessible by either hand. It's in the same spot as the loved M1 Garand, M14 and even M1 Carbine and even more contemporary designs like the Sig 55x. The ARs is not ideally located, something 3rd parties have been trying to fix for eons.

You cannot clear a jam, or charge the weapon, without either rolling the weapon 90* or letting go of the pistol grip and using your firing hand.
It seems you think everything should work like an AR. That's your first mistake.

When clearing a malfunction you should roll your rifle to its ejection port side. If the round causing the problem has slipped out from under the extractor, as they often do, gravity is your friend. Regardless, you don't have to roll an AK 90 degrees to operate the bolt with your left hand. You need to learn how to use an AK properly and stop trying to run it like an AR.

Selector lever is also much better located in an AR. Though on a range it doesn't make much difference. On a fighting rifle, its imporant.
Better for what, the range? The AKs safety is just fine for a fighting rifle. You don't need to flip your safety on and off a bazzilion times while in an area where there's a threat. The AKs selector is big and easy to sweep off from the safe/ready position.

But there are several things you can do to an AR that you can't do to an AK. I can have one rifle, and 3 uppers, and do everything from DMR rifle, to a M-4 carbine, and a SBR rifle for doing entry work. The AK, is stuck being whatever it was when it rolled out, and should anything ever happen to the barrel, its time to trash it and get a new one.
Thats great if you want to own just one rifle.

none of that means I dont enjoy the hell out of my AK, but its certainly not a better weapon than my AR.
It depends on how you define "better". As a general fighting rifle, I would say the AK is better than the AR.

PlasticGuy
01-05-2011, 08:07
...We don't live in a world of absolutes...

We just take our best guess at these things and for what I think I may need my weapon for the AR appears to be the logical choice for me. I don't think either one of us can tell someone else what is the best choice for him.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the fine points, but that much I can agree with completely. I prefer a rifle that works 100% to all other considerations. You prefer more refinement. If that fits your personal needs better, go for it. There wouldn't be such a staggering number of choices if there weren't a lot of different opinions on what the ideal combat rifle looks and feels like.

PlasticGuy
01-05-2011, 08:23
The Ergo's of the AK suck. The fact that you prefer them is more of a refusing to accept that they're poorly located than them actually being decent.

You cannot clear a jam, or charge the weapon, without either rolling the weapon 90* or letting go of the pistol grip and using your firing hand.

Selector lever is also much better located in an AR. Though on a range it doesn't make much difference. On a fighting rifle, its imporant.

I will concede the point of the folding stock, though they're fairly useless for anything other than storage. There are folding stocks for AR's though I think they're hideously ugly.

But there are several things you can do to an AR that you can't do to an AK. I can have one rifle, and 3 uppers, and do everything from DMR rifle, to a M-4 carbine, and a SBR rifle for doing entry work. The AK, is stuck being whatever it was when it rolled out, and should anything ever happen to the barrel, its time to trash it and get a new one.



none of that means I dont enjoy the hell out of my AK, but its certainly not a better weapon than my AR.
I won't respond to all of this, because Sturmgewehre already did an excellent job of reading my mind. I will add a few things thoughs

First, the only reason people think AR15 ergos are better is that their training was centered around it. If people stop trying to run an AKM like it's an AR15, and view it as the completely different platform it is, the ergos are just fine. In fact, if you can't clear a malfunction faster with an AK than with an AR it's because you're doing it wrong.

Second, a folding stock may be more important than you give it credit for. Ask the people who went through Hurricane Katrina how long they kept their rifles if they couldn't conceal them in a backpack or duffle bag. If it can't be hidden, it may draw attention you don't want from both sides of the law. Rifles with folding stocks are easier to hide. It may not be a huge difference between a collapsed M4 and a folded Arsenal 107, but there is a difference.

Third, the swapping uppers thing is irrelevant for a combat rifle. You have whatever configuration it's in when you go into combat. That's it. There is no "golf bag" of different uppers to be swapped around. You're more experienced than the vast majority of members here, so I know you understand that. It is only relevant if you're in some draconian area that restricts the number of guns you can own, and even then it's debatable.

Again, Stermgewehre covered the finer points as well as I could, so I'll leave them alone.

Sturmgewehre
01-05-2011, 08:26
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the fine points, but that much I can agree with completely. I prefer a rifle that works 100% to all other considerations. You prefer more refinement. If that fits your personal needs better, go for it. There wouldn't be such a staggering number of choices if there weren't a lot of different opinions on what the ideal combat rifle looks and feels like.
I think that's what it boils down to.

It's all a matter of personal opinion.

As I've said before, there's no right or wrong answer, each person has their own reason for choosing what they do. Sometimes those decisions are based on good info, sometimes they're based on something as silly as one looks cooler than the other. :supergrin:

I didn't mean to sound confrontational in my last post, I didn't mean to come off that way. Reading it this morning it looks kind of snarky and that wasn't my intent.

AK_Stick
01-05-2011, 08:34
If you notice, every rifle you used as an example, has long since been replaced as obsolete.


The AK's charging handle is poorly located. No matter how you argue it, There's a reason all the modern rifles are going to charging handles located where the offhand can use them. I wouldn't say the AR's is idealy located, but its better than the AK's. Reaching under, is only possible under some circumstances, reach over means you obscure your sights/optics, or you take your hand off the grip. All of those "options" are less than preferable.

As for the safety, there's a reason almost every instructor, civilian and military teaches people to put their safetys on when they're not actively shooting. There have been far, far too many instances of people getting shot because someone had their finger on the trigger and had a negligent discharge for whatever reason.



The AK's design is an archaic one, for a battlefield long ago. Modern tactics, and techniques have surpassed it. As a battle rifle, its inaccurate, its ergo's suck. Its slow to bring into action, and its controls require much more attention from the user.

AK_Stick
01-05-2011, 08:41
I won't respond to all of this, because Sturmgewehre already did an excellent job of reading my mind. I will add a few things thoughs

First, the only reason people think AR15 ergos are better is that their training was centered around it. If people stop trying to run an AKM like it's an AR15, and view it as the completely different platform it is, the ergos are just fine. In fact, if you can't clear a malfunction faster with an AK than with an AR it's because you're doing it wrong.

Second, a folding stock may be more important than you give it credit for. Ask the people who went through Hurricane Katrina how long they kept their rifles if they couldn't conceal them in a backpack or duffle bag. If it can't be hidden, it may draw attention you don't want from both sides of the law. Rifles with folding stocks are easier to hide. It may not be a huge difference between a collapsed M4 and a folded Arsenal 107, but there is a difference.

Third, the swapping uppers thing is irrelevant for a combat rifle. You have whatever configuration it's in when you go into combat. That's it. There is no "golf bag" of different uppers to be swapped around. You're more experienced than the vast majority of members here, so I know you understand that. It is only relevant if you're in some draconian area that restricts the number of guns you can own, and even then it's debatable.

Again, Stermgewehre covered the finer points as well as I could, so I'll leave them alone.


And you have fallen into the same pit he, and most AK proponetents have.

Stop defending the ergo's just admit they suck. I've got two, I love them, they're good weapons, if you understand their limitations.

They were built for an older way of doing things, and as usually happens, modern techniques have found faster, and more efficient ways of doing the same thing. Thats why we went from mags you rock in, to mags that snap into place. Its why we went from charging handles on the right, to ambidextrous ones. From controls that require the user to use his shooting hand to manipulate, to controls you can use with your firing hand still on the grip.


I'm not saying the AK is bad, or the rifle needs to be replaced. But the way it works, is an older, and less effective way of doing things.

Sturmgewehre
01-05-2011, 09:11
If you notice, every rifle you used as an example, has long since been replaced as obsolete.


The AK's charging handle is poorly located. No matter how you argue it, There's a reason all the modern rifles are going to charging handles located where the offhand can use them. I wouldn't say the AR's is idealy located, but its better than the AK's. Reaching under, is only possible under some circumstances, reach over means you obscure your sights/optics, or you take your hand off the grip. All of those "options" are less than preferable.

As for the safety, there's a reason almost every instructor, civilian and military teaches people to put their safetys on when they're not actively shooting. There have been far, far too many instances of people getting shot because someone had their finger on the trigger and had a negligent discharge for whatever reason.



The AK's design is an archaic one, for a battlefield long ago. Modern tactics, and techniques have surpassed it. As a battle rifle, its inaccurate, its ergo's suck. Its slow to bring into action, and its controls require much more attention from the user.
Tell all that to Gabe Saurez. The guy works with and trains everyone from Special Forces operators, police, SWAT to private contractors.

As for the M14 being obsolete, that's curious... there's an awful lot of them deployed with our forces overseas. Even here in the states they sell an awful lot of them to be considered obsolete. That's like saying the 1911 is obsolete. Even the replacement, the SCAR-L, has the option to locate the charging handle on the right side of the receiver. I've seen several SCAR guys with the charging handle on the right vs. the left, and they're right handed shooters.

The Sig 55x is far from obsolete. It was designed in the late 70's and was in production from 1986 through to the present and is considered by many to be one of the best military rifles made (not the US made knock-offs).

What someone does on the range isn't what they might or even should do in a fight. If you think the AK is slow into action, I suggest you watch one of Gabe's fighting with the AK videos.

It boils down to personal preference.

Military vs. civilian requirements for rifles are really two different things. In the military you have access to people and resources an individual might not have. You can stop to clean your rifle in the military because you have other guys watching your arse while you strip your rifle down. A single person in a SHTF situation might not have this luxury. In the military you have access to armorers and spare parts, and you have the option of going "to the rear". If your rifle goes down in a fight, you have others backing you up. A civilian might not have these options. So, as a civilian, you need the most reliable rifle you can put your hands on, more so than even in the military. That's why I choose the AK. I love the AR, but I will pick up an AK should things go south.

PlasticGuy
01-05-2011, 09:28
And you have fallen into the same pit he, and most AK proponetents have.

Stop defending the ergo's just admit they suck. I've got two, I love them, they're good weapons, if you understand their limitations.

They were built for an older way of doing things, and as usually happens, modern techniques have found faster, and more efficient ways of doing the same thing. Thats why we went from mags you rock in, to mags that snap into place. Its why we went from charging handles on the right, to ambidextrous ones. From controls that require the user to use his shooting hand to manipulate, to controls you can use with your firing hand still on the grip.


I'm not saying the AK is bad, or the rifle needs to be replaced. But the way it works, is an older, and less effective way of doing things.
The ergos only suck if you don't use the proper techniques. It's as simple as that.

As far as your specific complaints, I'll play:
1) You think AR15 mags are an improvement? They are half straight and half curved, and therefore possibly the most inherently poorly designed magazines of the modern era. I agree that rocking in is not ideal, but at least the AK mags are reliable and tough.
2) I don't think the charging handle debate is a good one to start for an AR15 fan either. What other rifle uses a charging handle in that goofy position? You can keep your hand on the grip, but you need to get your face off the rifle before you punch yourself in the nose.
3) Along those same lines, locking the bolt back on an AR15 reminds me of the "monkey with a doorknob" analogy. How many fine motor skills can we combine into one rifle manipulation? I don't see it as an improvement, which is probably why it has never been mimicked in any other rifle.

Like you with the AKM, I don't hate the AR15. It's not as bad as the critics would have us believe. However, neither is the AKM. The biggest "flaw" with the AKM is that many shooters insist on using AR15 techniques when shooting it. It is a different beast, with a completely different manual of arms. That can be a good thing if it is understood and practiced.

AK_Stick
01-05-2011, 09:46
Tell all that to Gabe Saurez. The guy works with and trains everyone from Special Forces operators, police, SWAT to private contractors.

As for the M14 being obsolete, that's curious... there's an awful lot of them deployed with our forces overseas. Even here in the states they sell an awful lot of them to be considered obsolete. That's like saying the 1911 is obsolete. Even the replacement, the SCAR-L, has the option to locate the charging handle on the right side of the receiver. I've seen several SCAR guys with the charging handle on the right vs. the left, and they're right handed shooters.

The Sig 55x is far from obsolete. It was designed in the late 70's and was in production from 1986 through to the present and is considered by many to be one of the best military rifles made (not the US made knock-offs).

What someone does on the range isn't what they might or even should do in a fight. If you think the AK is slow into action, I suggest you watch one of Gabe's fighting with the AK videos.

It boils down to personal preference.

Military vs. civilian requirements for rifles are really two different things. In the military you have access to people and resources an individual might not have. You can stop to clean your rifle in the military because you have other guys watching your arse while you strip your rifle down. A single person in a SHTF situation might not have this luxury. In the military you have access to armorers and spare parts, and you have the option of going "to the rear". If your rifle goes down in a fight, you have others backing you up. A civilian might not have these options. So, as a civilian, you need the most reliable rifle you can put your hands on, more so than even in the military. That's why I choose the AK. I love the AR, but I will pick up an AK should things go south.


The M-14 was obsolete, the reason it was re-issued had more to do with a perceived need, than an actual one. You'll notice only the Army issued it, and it found much disfavor with the troops who were forced to carry a rifle, thats not only less accurate than the one it was supplementing, but old, tired, and short of parts. Its issuance was more a slap in the face to the soldiers required to carry it, than a boon.


That said I'm sure you've seen guys who put the charging handle on the right hand side. And they rank right up there with the guys who put the Eotechs and aimpoints way out on the rails of a rifle right behind the front sight post. rank amateurs with more money than training.


I've seen Gabe's video's I've even had the great honor of attending a shooting event with him. However, comparably trained, a shooter will be faster with an AR than an AK. Its simply a feature of mechanics, and ergonomics.

As for cleaning your gun, thats a BS argument, and you know it. If you can't find time in your day to clean your weapon, ANY weapon will fail on you. If someone who's in combat operations can find time to clean/maintain his weapon, there is no excuse why a civilian can't. Your day is not that full that you can't spare the less than 5 min it takes to wipe it down. With instructors like Pat Rodgers having AR's go 13,000+ without failure, your argument holds little sway. If a gun goes down in combat, you do not have the option to go "to the rear" or have your armorer fix it.

faawrenchbndr
01-05-2011, 09:50
I say it,......the AK ergos SUK!

But it's a dang fun shooter! :supergrin:

AK_Stick
01-05-2011, 09:53
The ergos only suck if you don't use the proper techniques. It's as simple as that.

As far as your specific complaints, I'll play:
1) You think AR15 mags are an improvement? They are half straight and half curved, and therefore possibly the most inherently poorly designed magazines of the modern era. I agree that rocking in is not ideal, but at least the AK mags are reliable and tough.
2) I don't think the charging handle debate is a good one to start for an AR15 fan either. What other rifle uses a charging handle in that goofy position? You can keep your hand on the grip, but you need to get your face off the rifle before you punch yourself in the nose.
3) Along those same lines, locking the bolt back on an AR15 reminds me of the "monkey with a doorknob" analogy. How many fine motor skills can we combine into one rifle manipulation? I don't see it as an improvement, which is probably why it has never been mimicked in any other rifle.

Like you with the AKM, I don't hate the AR15. It's not as bad as the critics would have us believe. However, neither is the AKM. The biggest "flaw" with the AKM is that many shooters insist on using AR15 techniques when shooting it. It is a different beast, with a completely different manual of arms. That can be a good thing if it is understood and practiced.



You're right the "proper" techniques for the AK are just slower, and have been passed over with more effective, and faster ones. And more modern designs have been built with this in mind.

Now I will grant that the AR mags are not the best designed mags on the planet, but they're definitely faster, and more efficient than the AK mags.

However, I don't really see the issue with the bolt hold open. Why is having a fine motor skill there an issue? you're not going to lock the bolt back during combat.

The charging handle in an AR is fine, they only time it gets used is the first time you charge the weapon, or to clear a jam, either time, its very unlikely you'll have the rifle shouldered. The G-36, has a similarly mounted one, though you pull the lever to the side you wish to charge and pull it back. Much the same movement yet I've never heard a complaint about it.

Its simply a body mechanics and ergonomics issue, comparably trained, its faster to use the modern manual of arms associated with the newer weapons.

Sturmgewehre
01-05-2011, 09:54
As far as AK ergonomics go, this is one of the most ergonomic rifles I've owned. By ergonomics I mean how comfortable it is to shoot and use.

http://www.intempusphotography.com/photos/1147691476_dxUWM-L.jpg

When you pick this thing up and shoulder it, it feels like you just dropped your butt into a Mercedes Benz. It's so natural even the most die-hard AR guy will say "that's freaking nice".

Just like the AR, the AK has evolved and third party accessories are becoming more and more available. Given how many AK's sell in this country each year, it's a HUGE market and vendors are starting to tap that market with high quality gear (US Palm, Midwest Industries, etc.).

Sturmgewehre
01-05-2011, 09:58
Now I will grant that the AR mags are not the best designed mags on the planet, but they're definitely faster, and more efficient than the AK mags.

What do you mean by "efficient"? AR mags are fragile at best. They are the weak link in the whole rifle design, hence the large 3 party market for something better...

Most military surplus AK mags are built like tanks and work in the most adverse conditions. The same can't be said of standard AR mags, the ones 90% of the AR shooting public owns. The cheapest AK mag is better than most AR mags, regardless of the manufacturer.

If you're talking about speed reloads, can you give me the name of one individual that was saved in a fight with a rifle by doing a speed reload? They're neat on the gaming field, but in real life and in a real fight you'll be hard pressed to find a single person that feels they were saved by a blazing fast magazine reload on a rifle.

I'll trade a fraction of a second slower reload time for a magazine that works.

Broncbuster
01-05-2011, 09:59
As far as AK ergonomics go, this is one of the most ergonomic rifles I've owned. By ergonomics I mean how comfortable it is to shoot and use.

http://www.intempusphotography.com/photos/1147691476_dxUWM-L.jpg

When you pick this thing up and shoulder it, it feels like you just dropped your butt into a Mercedes Benz. It's so natural even the most die-hard AR guy will say "that's freaking nice".

Just like the AR, the AK has evolved and third party accessories are becoming more and more available. Given how many AK's sell in this country each year, it's a HUGE market and vendors are starting to tap that market with high quality gear (US Palm, Midwest Industries, etc.).

I agree. The new items available for the AK's add allot of options to the "not so ergo friendly AK". I have one that actually handles well. I added a Ultimak front rail and a Aimpoint Micro, Tapco SAW grip, Sidefolder, and a Magpul AFG. Been a fun gun to shoot.

NeverMore1701
01-05-2011, 10:07
This is a truly groundbreaking thread! I don't think anyone's ever done this before!

:tongueout:

Wonder why there's separate AR and AK forums?

:popcorn:

Sturmgewehre
01-05-2011, 10:21
The M-14 was obsolete, the reason it was re-issued had more to do with a perceived need, than an actual one. You'll notice only the Army issued it, and it found much disfavor with the troops who were forced to carry a rifle, thats not only less accurate than the one it was supplementing, but old, tired, and short of parts. Its issuance was more a slap in the face to the soldiers required to carry it, than a boon.
According to you, but not the Army. :supergrin:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/03/army_m14_032210w/

While the Army will eventually find another solution, much like they've been trying to replace the M4 now for years, that doesn't make it a bad rifle. Many Marine grunts in Vietnam much preferred it over the M16.

That said I'm sure you've seen guys who put the charging handle on the right hand side. And they rank right up there with the guys who put the Eotechs and aimpoints way out on the rails of a rifle right behind the front sight post. rank amateurs with more money than training.
Yeah, those 75th Rangers... rank armatures that they are. :)

I've seen Gabe's video's I've even had the great honor of attending a shooting event with him. However, comparably trained, a shooter will be faster with an AR than an AK. Its simply a feature of mechanics, and ergonomics.
What Gabe does with the AK is something he teaches to others. With a little practice, you too can use an AK like Gabe... or begin to anyway. He has a lot of trigger time. But he made the switch to the AK for a number of reasons which he is a glad to tell you about, and I find most of them to be quite valid reasons.

As for cleaning your gun, thats a BS argument, and you know it. If you can't find time in your day to clean your weapon, ANY weapon will fail on you.
But some are FAR less likely to fail. That's the rub. If you're alone and in an area where threats are everywhere, completely disassembling your rifle to get crud out of it isn't a good idea. Sure, you'll find the right time at some point, but worrying about when that time is can be avoided. I have an AK I haven't cleaned in over 6 years, and I'll never clean it again. I'm willing to bet my next pay check I'll die before that rifle needs to be cleaned to stay operational.

If someone who's in combat operations can find time to clean/maintain his weapon, there is no excuse why a civilian can't.
I guess you didn't read what I wrote. An individual will have less opportunity to strip their rifle down than someone sitting in a squad or fire team will. Why? Because taking your rifle apart when you're in danger is a pretty risky thing to do if you don't have someone sitting near you with a rifle ready to go.

Your day is not that full that you can't spare the less than 5 min it takes to wipe it down.
It has nothing to do with "full days", it has to do with imminent threats to an individual.

With instructors like Pat Rodgers having AR's go 13,000+ without failure, your argument holds little sway. If a gun goes down in combat, you do not have the option to go "to the rear" or have your armorer fix it.
It's great that Pat hasn't had a failure in 13,000 rounds. I wish I could say the same about the rifles we used in the Corps. They had periodic failures due to sand and other debris from using them somewhere other than a range. It's nothing that couldn't be corrected and it wasn't a constant problem, but it did happen. What one man does with a small sample of rifles is hardly representative of all AR15's in production as all AR15's aren't created equal... not even close.

If your argument is that the AR15 is just as reliable as the AK, I would say you've got a big grin on your face when you're saying it... I just can't see it. That, or you have your fingers crossed. :supergrin:

AK_Stick
01-05-2011, 11:24
According to you, but not the Army. :supergrin:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/03/army_m14_032210w/

While the Army will eventually find another solution, much like they've been trying to replace the M4 now for years, that doesn't make it a bad rifle. Many Marine grunts in Vietnam much preferred it over the M16.



The army times isn't exactly what I call a reputable source. And the fact they're issuing it, does not mean its been well received.

However, nothing can hide the AAR's from returning units bashing the M-14 for being unreliable, inaccurate, and hard to maintain. The only reason we've re-issued them, is because we have them, and we don't have enough of the new rifles to go around.

The M-14 is being replaced by both SDM rifles in 5.56, ala the MK 12 Mod 1 or whatever version your respective unit gets, SAM-R's/Mk12's for the Marines, DMR/mod 1's for the army, and the new M-110 AR-10 for everyone. SOCCOM has the SCAR 17, and there is rumor of limited issue of that to some line units now. We'll see.


Yeah, those 75th Rangers... rank armatures that they are. :)


Even pros make stupid choices from time to time. I was taught to put my EOtech up behind my front sight post from some ODA shooters, because it was the current "in" thing. Then when I went to a class taught by a real no **** pro instructor, I got slapped on the back of the head, and told to "fix your ****"

Now there are optic combinations, on the SCAR that will require you to shoot move the charging handle to the right side, depending upon how you have your optic placed, but for the most part, they can be avoided.


What Gabe does with the AK is something he teaches to others. With a little practice, you too can use an AK like Gabe... or begin to anyway. He has a lot of trigger time. But he made the switch to the AK for a number of reasons which he is a glad to tell you about, and I find most of them to be quite valid reasons.

I understand that, I've talked, and shot with him. However, even as good as he is, I can still change mags, and get back in the fight faster. Though I would say he's probably better at fighting his rifle than I.


But some are FAR less likely to fail. That's the rub. If you're alone and in an area where threats are everywhere, completely disassembling your rifle to get crud out of it isn't a good idea. Sure, you'll find the right time at some point, but worrying about when that time is can be avoided. I have an AK I haven't cleaned in over 6 years, and I'll never clean it again. I'm willing to bet my next pay check I'll die before that rifle needs to be cleaned to stay operational.


By that, I can gather you also don't use it very much. Range use is one thing, but if you were out slogging around, and using the rifle and had to depend on it, you're going to be cleaning it, no matter what you're using. Or you'll have issues.


I guess you didn't read what I wrote. An individual will have less opportunity to strip their rifle down than someone sitting in a squad or fire team will. Why? Because taking your rifle apart when you're in danger is a pretty risky thing to do if you don't have someone sitting near you with a rifle ready to go.

Really? I seriously doubt that in any sort of SHTF, you're going to be more busy than a soldier in Iraq/A-stan. If I don't have to break my M-4 down to clean it while I'm fighting with it, I can't fathom a reason that would be legitimate excuse during civilian use.

In any sort of SHTF, a civilian rifle will be shot very little, I'm just not seeing where this "I won't have time to clean it" mentality is coming from. It takes me less than 5 min of work to clean my AR. I'll never understand why people think every second of the day is going to be taken up, or why you have to do it the one time you might actually need your rifle.




It's great that Pat hasn't had a failure in 13,000 rounds. I wish I could say the same about the rifles we used in the Corps. They had periodic failures due to sand and other debris from using them somewhere other than a range. It's nothing that couldn't be corrected and it wasn't a constant problem, but it did happen. What one man does with a small sample of rifles is hardly representative of all AR15's in production as all AR15's aren't created equal... not even close.

If your argument is that the AR15 is just as reliable as the AK, I would say you've got a big grin on your face when you're saying it... I just can't see it. That, or you have your fingers crossed. :supergrin:


A quality AR, taken care of, is no less reliable, than a quality AK. The only time its going to falter, is when the user doesn't maintain it. At that point, you're screwed no matter what weapon you carry.

faawrenchbndr
01-05-2011, 11:32
As far as AK ergonomics go, this is one of the most ergonomic rifles I've owned. By ergonomics I mean how comfortable it is to shoot and use.......

I love my Ar,....it's like a late model Corvette, kicks ***! :supergrin:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c341/faawrenchbndr/Chatterbox68SPCpicIV.jpg


I love my Ak,.....it's like a late 60's Hemi Cuda, pure, brute power! :supergrin::supergrin:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c341/faawrenchbndr/Norinco%20Mak%2090/AKintheweeds.jpg


They are completely different. They feel different. They shoot different.
But they produce the same eat to ear smile! :supergrin:

AK_Stick
01-05-2011, 11:32
What do you mean by "efficient"? AR mags are fragile at best. They are the weak link in the whole rifle design, hence the large 3 party market for something better...

Most military surplus AK mags are built like tanks and work in the most adverse conditions. The same can't be said of standard AR mags, the ones 90% of the AR shooting public owns. The cheapest AK mag is better than most AR mags, regardless of the manufacturer.

If you're talking about speed reloads, can you give me the name of one individual that was saved in a fight with a rifle by doing a speed reload? They're neat on the gaming field, but in real life and in a real fight you'll be hard pressed to find a single person that feels they were saved by a blazing fast magazine reload on a rifle.

I'll trade a fraction of a second slower reload time for a magazine that works.


Fragile? really? What the hell do you ask from your mags that you're breaking them?

short of running them over with a truck, or dropping them from a helicopter, there's really not a whole lot that can go wrong with a magazine. While the new magpul mags and followers are nice, I've been faithfully served by my USGI mags and green followers for quite a while without any complaints.


AK mags are heavier, bulkier, and much slower to reload. And while I can't reference a single time someones reloading time has caused them to die or saved them, I'll certainly take whatever I can get to get me back into the fight faster. The time difference only spreads when you have to do things like rack the bolt on the AK, versus pressing the bolt release and getting back in the fight.

BlayGlock
01-05-2011, 11:35
Talk Me Out Of An AK.


Hey Guy. You should get an AR15 instead.

/thread.

faawrenchbndr
01-05-2011, 11:48
So,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What was the OP's request again? I kinda lost track. :dunno:

PlasticGuy
01-05-2011, 11:57
Fragile? really? What the hell do you ask from your mags that you're breaking them?

short of running them over with a truck, or dropping them from a helicopter, there's really not a whole lot that can go wrong with a magazine. While the new magpul mags and followers are nice, I've been faithfully served by my USGI mags and green followers for quite a while without any complaints...
While I openly agree that most of what we're discussing is an individual issue (how you use the rifle, how you were trained, the local terrain, etc.), the USGI mags are disposable. I've been generally served well by them, but I've seen plenty of them damaged during regular training. I'd stop short of calling them fragile, but they don't always survive being dropped on the feed lips or being stepped on. I know. I've seen it.

Our training department started throwing them out as they were damaged and replacing them with PMags at the range. They still crack down the back between the feed lips occasionally, and the mag catch wears a bit over time, but they do generally take abuse better. Still, neither compares to an AK mag for durability. The only thing I've seen "break" an AK mag is taking a hit from a .45 ACP.

Sturmgewehre
01-05-2011, 12:35
AK_Stick, we can go back and forth endlessly on this subject. While I was prepared to go line by line and give another lengthy response to your points, I think it's probably best to just agree to disagree. :D

Thanks for the discussion though, it was interesting and useful. I wish all discussions on these internet forums could be as civil.

AK_Stick
01-05-2011, 12:36
You could buy steel mags if you wanted a tougher AR mag....

I will say though, I've seen a functioning AK mag with a 5.56 hole through it that missed the spring.

AK_Stick
01-05-2011, 12:37
AK_Stick, we can go back and forth endlessly on this subject. While I was prepared to go line by line and give another lengthy response to your points, I think it's probably best to just agree to disagree. :D

Thanks for the discussion though, it was interesting and useful. I wish all discussions on these internet forums could be as civil.



:upeyes:

Screw you, you don't know what you're talking about.



Oh, sorry, what were we saying?:rofl:



Yeah, I've found that for the most part most people can carry on a good discussion on these forums, its just the few who pop in to interject a few bits here and there, and stir the pot that make things go to well pot.

carloglock19
01-05-2011, 13:01
Get both as others have already stated! I got an AK last year for a good price and a M4 is on my list for this year.

FireForged
01-05-2011, 15:18
I do not really understand the AR vs AK argument. If you are not sure which one you want, you need to consider your needs a little longer. These rifles are more different than they are alike.

jdavionic
01-05-2011, 15:23
So,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What was the OP's request again? I kinda lost track. :dunno:

I don't know, but I'm so happy I have both. :supergrin:

windplex
01-05-2011, 16:11
http://www.dallasguns.com/guns_for_sale/Russian/3327

Alaskapopo
01-05-2011, 23:19
I thought about your request & can't do it...

Instead, I'll just say this:

Well under the $1000 mark, and I can hunt actual game with it.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5002/5308760806_623081bacb_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/55304595@N07/5308760806/)
[/url][url=http://www.flickr.com/people/55304595@N07/] (http://www.flickr.com/photos/55304595@N07/5308760806/)

Ask yourself why an AR has a forward assist. I say this after being issued one & by US Marine Corps standards, became an "Expert Marksman" with one multiple times.

You can actually hunt game with an AR too. Qualifying as an expert marksman in the Marines does not mean you are a subject matter expert on the AR15 or Ak47. An AK is a good weapon but its limited by poor ergonomics and mediocure accuracy.
pat

Alaskapopo
01-05-2011, 23:22
As far as AK ergonomics go, this is one of the most ergonomic rifles I've owned. By ergonomics I mean how comfortable it is to shoot and use.

http://www.intempusphotography.com/photos/1147691476_dxUWM-L.jpg

When you pick this thing up and shoulder it, it feels like you just dropped your butt into a Mercedes Benz. It's so natural even the most die-hard AR guy will say "that's freaking nice".

Just like the AR, the AK has evolved and third party accessories are becoming more and more available. Given how many AK's sell in this country each year, it's a HUGE market and vendors are starting to tap that market with high quality gear (US Palm, Midwest Industries, etc.).

One of the best things you can do for an AK is add a Krebs safety. What type of handguard rail set up is that in your picture.
Pat

AK_Stick
01-05-2011, 23:23
Us palm/midwest industries if you want a better picture check the eotech thread

Alaskapopo
01-05-2011, 23:42
Us palm/midwest industries if you want a better picture check the eotech thread

Cool thanks I already had a standard Midwest indurstries rail system but I can't co witness with my R1 now I can with the new cover on the way for the Aimpoint.
Pat

chineseboxer
01-06-2011, 11:38
This is a truly groundbreaking thread! I don't think anyone's ever done this before!

:tongueout:

Wonder why there's separate AR and AK forums?

:popcorn:
Yup, knew this was coming when I posted 3 pages ago. Both platforms have thier place. You can't bad mouth either rifle. Anyone who does simply is stirring the pot. I wouldn't want to be standing in front of either at 200 yards.

faawrenchbndr
01-06-2011, 11:43
Keep in mind though,.....this has been a rather peaceful debate!
Very good points make, pro & con for both weapons.