Which is better, AK or AR?

[Agrippa]

;f ;f ;f ;f ;f ;f ;f ;f ;f ;f ;f ;f ;f ;f ;f



I just had to do it!!!!

P.S. My choice is obvious! Thanks for the new club!

[TommyG19]

AKs blow. The only reason they're so popular is that they're cheap to make.

AR-15 4-eva



;f



Good thread. ;c ;c

[DaleGribble]

Well the AR is a great rifle, for shooting poodles and ground hogs!

;f ;f ;f

For a real rifle, the AK wins hands down!

[TomSplasky]

AK:
Pro - Reliable, durable, non-jammomatic, powerful.
Cons - Not very accurate, heavy recoil for a smaller person

AR:
Pros - Accurate, fun, many accessories, powerful (Not as powerful as AKs)
Cons - Jams a lot when in dirty conditions, high maintenance gun.

Both:

REALLY COOL

[Halo]

Well, the only thing my AKs blow is lead. Downrange. Every time. :)

[Old School]

Ignoring the caliber issue for a minute:

The AR was designed to be what the Glock is in the handgun world. In that regard, it was successful in many ways...and not so successful in others. It is a more refined weapon, but in the end, reliability in comparison to the AK will be the ARs downfall.

I admit it is somewhat of an over statement, but I'll do it anyway. The AK is a copy of the German MP-44, with improvements on the trigger group, ammo choice, and modifications for mass production. I will not go so far to say that it is inaccurate, but it has issues after 200 yards.

Many associate the AR with being underpowered - as if that has something to do with the rifle. Stoner first built the AR-10 in .308 - the Pentagon wanted the 5.56. If you don't like the 223, you can't blame it on the AR. Interestinly enough, the AK started out (and most copies carry forward with) a .30 caliber round, very similar to the 30-30. The Russians realized what we were doing with the 223, thought it was a good idea and started to produce the AK-74 with their own .22 caliber bullet.

Go figure

[MakeMineA10mm]

1st - Greetings to the new Kalashnikov clubbers!

2nd - The AK is not a copy of the MP-44. (Have gunsmithed one Stg.44, and helped re-build an MP-44. Shot both extensively, with home-made ammo.) The differences are more significant than Mikhail re-working an MP-44 in the old locomotive factory. On the other hand, I think he certainly new of the MP-44 (may have even had one) and attempted to build his own unique rifle with the same principles in mind, and several aspects of the MP44 design were the basis for Kalashnikov design elements, so I see where you're making the comparison, but because of the many differences and drastically different end-results of each rifle, I have to say the AK is not a copy of the MP-44.

3rd - The 7.62x39 ammo is, well, let's just say worse than the Stg.'s, as it's recoil is far too heavy for an assault rifle. Mikhail missed on that one.

4th - On the other hand, I think he invented the most reliable rifle ever fielded by any armed force, anywhere, any time. I just took an AKM (Chinese copy) out of a box and found the gas tube and plunger rusted shut. After banging the charging handle on a nearby concrete block to get the action to open, a 30-rd mag was inserted and fired without a single malfunction. (The rifle was then oiled and fired for another 300 rounds that day. It is currently having the gas system re-done.)

5th - The ultimate AK: Galil! ;f;f;f

6th - 6.8mm SPC would be an extremely interesting conversion caliber for an AK, or, better yet, a Galil, don't you think???

OOPS! Forgot to answer the original question for this thread:
For taking to the range: AR
For taking into combat: AK
For the ultimate rifle that does either well: Galil. (The AK/AR combination...)

[firminw]

I have owned several of each but for the real answer I think you'd have to ask a Soviet infantryman,hes had both used against him. As for me I like 'em both, and both have their good points. For sheer fun the AR but for serious use the AK. Parts can be procurred anywhere and ammo can be found both sides of the old Iron Curtain. Think of all the super accurate offspring rounds the ol' 7.62 x 39 has sired. Well I'm rambling so I guess I'll take the middle ground and have to choose both depending on what I need it for.

[Halo]

3rd - The 7.62x39 ammo is, well, let's just say worse than the Stg.'s, as it's recoil is far too heavy for an assault rifle. Mikhail missed on that one.


Is it really a case of Kalashnikov missing on that, or just working with what he had available? As I heard the story, he first began thinking up the AK while recovering from injuries during WW2. I would imagine the M43 cartridge was the logical choice since it was already in production.

But, I see your point. I'd say they finally remedied it with the 5.45...the single greatest cartridge in the world ;)

[sharpshooter]

Part of the problem with 7.62x39 rifles not shooting accurately is that most of the ammo being shot is cheap mass produced Russian surplus ammo.

Load your own or try shooting high dollar stuff ($8-12 per box) which is still less than your average rifle ammo. We complain if we have to pay more than $2 or $3 for AK/SKS ammo when in fact we're spoiled. ;f

[w30olds]

^2

[elgoatropo]

The 7.62X39 is a bit much for select-fire, but the civilian versions are just about right.

I think 5.56 and 5.45 compromise on power to make for controllable full-auto. But if you are stuck with semi-auto, the original calibre is perfect.

Even with cheap ammo, mine can bust clay pidgeons at 100 yards. Of course, they aren't moving.

[true believer]

i love my ar but i should have never sold my ak...;) ;)
bob

[JoeAverage]

This is like the 9mm vs .45 threads.


Have and shoot both. Both are great. An AR can have the upper swapped out for different caliber (.300 whisper is balistically similar to 7.62x39 BTW and reportedly is fantastic with a "can" mounted).

FYI - 5.56 IS a fight stopper with a MUCH slower twist - 1:12, makes for a tumbler, not as accurate at a distance - but so what, unless you are shooting 77 grn SMKs, an AR is not going to have much punch beyond 450 or so (20"). Conversely, even a good shooter will struggle to keep chest sized groups with an AK at 350 yrds (esp once it gets hot and shots begin to walk).

Get both.

Get an AK first - cheap to own, cheap to feed, and a formidable defensive gun.

Good luck

[f1b32oPTic]

AR!!!!

[cocked@locked]

this is such a dead horse thread,but ill take the ak anyday,it'll eat anything you feed it including neglect,mud,rain,sand,blood,and last but not least.........................targets :)

[arjohnson]

I like both the AR and the AK, since I own 5 AR's and no AK's at the present time, I will have to favor the AR. As for being reliable, I don't plan on throwing my AR's in the mud or sand so reliability will be a non issue. There is also no comparison in accuracy, the AR got it all over the AK. There are so many differant accessories that you can get for an AR, not to mention all the differant configurations that are currently available.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Originally posted by Halo
Is it really a case of Kalashnikov missing on that, or just working with what he had available? As I heard the story, he first began thinking up the AK while recovering from injuries during WW2. I would imagine the M43 cartridge was the logical choice since it was already in production.

But, I see your point. I'd say they finally remedied it with the 5.45...the single greatest cartridge in the world ;)

Excellent point, Halo, but they could have ditched the 7.62x39 (leaving it to only the SKS), and built a better mousetrap with a lower recoiling round.

In the end it probably was some bureaucrat's fault, as Mikhail was only a Sgt. designing guns in his spare time. Not until many years later did he get the admiration and respect from Soviet heirarchy which he deserved.

Considering the new 6.8 SPC round is a ballistic duplicate of the old British 280 round for the EM-2 bullpup, something along those lines were possible back in those days, but as with most inventions, it is a matter of on-going product improvement and not miraculous, sudden advances which result in (ultimately-like 20-50 years later) the "ultimate incarnation" of any weapons system...

I gotta disagree with the 5.45 round. It's neat in it's own right, but it suffers from even more ballistic problems than the 5.56 NATO. Something in the bore size of .25" or 6.5mm based on a case in-between the 5.56 and 7.62x39 in volume would be perfect, IMO. I think that Remington slightly missed the boat with the new 6.8mm round, as it's bore size is a little too big to maximize ballistic advantage and there were numerous bullets already available, which didn't require developing in that bore size (6.5mm) unlike what happened with the 6.8. Oh well, if the 6.8 gets many millions of rounds ordered by the US Military, there will be LOTS of new bullets made available for it... Of course, I had designed a wildcat almost identical to the 6.8 many years ago... It had a 1.5mm shorter case and was 6.5mm caliber. I'm not unhappy, though, as I'll be able to get LOTS of great, easy-to-form brass now!!!!!;f

[RMTactical]

I hear all this talk about the AR not being a powerful but the fact of the matter is the AK is better at close range and the AR is better at longer range, both for accuracy and for power.

If the AR is a "poodle shooter" what is the AK? A miniture schnauzer shooter? Both will drop a man dead within 300yds without much problem.

The AK has horrendous ergonomics!! That is my biggest beef with it. I do like the AK, I just prefer the AR.

After looking at some of the AK's in the pics thread I admit I am impressed with how nice some of them look. Certainly a nasty looking gun, I wouldn't want to look down the barrel of either.

[SilverState]

I have two ARs and one AK. That doesn't mean that I like the AR twice as much, it just means that the AR is so unreliable, that I feel two are required.

AR is more accurate.

AK is more reliable.

[one good cop]

ak and ar
I have living proof that all nationalities of assault weapons can live together in peace and in 2 safes --mine--- 5 ar-15's(2 a3m4's, 2 a3 24' stainless fluted hbars ,1 20'colt all american), 4 ak-47's(2 polish under folders and 2 milled bulgarian), 4 fal's(2 dsa shortys 2 austrian cmp armory builds), 1 galil .308 (israel),2 sks(1 para 1 standard )(chineese)all getting along good.......not to mention 4 combat shotguns (1 benelli m-3,2 590 mossbergs,1 wilson combat 870)and the pistols................

[one good cop]

life is sooo good

[Halo]

You need to have a GT party at your house.

How long have you had the Polish AKs? I have never seen any Poles.

[one good cop]

oow government law enforcement only recievers built on polish underfolders by james at cmp armory that man is the heat ........

[one good cop]

more

[one good cop]

fal girlz

[one good cop]

24' ar stainless heavy's tack drivers

[SilverState]

I am starting to have a little more confidence in the reliability of my AR. Had some problems. Sent it back to Bushmaster. They fixed it for free. Took it to the range today. Shot about 300 rounds through it without incident and boy is that thing accurate. Iron sights, scope, always accurate.

[SELFDEFENSE]

Sold my AR and bought an AK and a Steyr M9.

[arjohnson]

When you can do this to an AK then maybe I'll buy one;f

http://www.hunt101.com/img/145531.jpg

[SilverState]

I am pretty sure you can do all those things to an AK.

[Big Bird]

Since both the AR and the Ak are carbines and fire ammo that is essentially ineffective beyond 300 yards any accuracy advantage claimed by the AR is a moot point. This seems especially true in the AR since we've decided that the short barreled M4 is the way to go.

Before you get your panties in a wad and start screamin about how you can shoot your AR all day long at 600 yards and how the ammo oracle says this or that...get over yourself. Its NOT a combat rifle...its a carbine that fires a carbine round. Rifle's fire a bullet capable of significant work at extended distances...like shooting through logs and earth and vehicles...not punching holes in paper or killing a groundhog. Witness the rebirth of the designated marksman in the US Army equipped with an M14. If the AR was as supremely capable as some would claim this move to a 7.62 equipped marksman would seem pointless...its not. Case closed.

I own both. I've carried a 16 in the first Gulf War. Thankfully never had to use it as my primary weapons were a 120mm cannon and a 50 cal MG. But I've seen lots of M16 in use AND have been on the receiving end of an AK more than a few times.

The AK is an exceptional weapon. Simplicity is a major bonus in a combat weapon. In this regard the AK wins hands down. Its not as rugged and robust as many here would believe. Yes its durable in terms of being capable of being shot dirty etc. But I'm talking about battlefield rugged... Capable of being thrown 50 feet by an explosion. Capable of being banged around inside an armored vehicle moving cross country for weeks on end. In this regard the AK is not as robust as some would believe. I've literally seen hundreds of broken AKs on the battlefield. Its really not any more durable than the AR in this regard. Especially when the weapons are maintained by third rate soldiers and armorers.

One of the primary virtues of the AK is that its inexpensive up front and cheap to shoot. This is a huge virtue in this type of weapon. I can buy maybe 3 AKs for what the average AR costs. I can buy twice the 7.62x39 ammo for the same price of 5.56 ammo. Magazines for the AK are 1/3 the price of AR mags and much easier to find.

Inside of 150 yards the AR is probably a more lethal round. But the AK is no slouch and in the end you simply end up with a 9mm vs .45 debate... And if you want to compare apples to oranges then look at the 5.45x39 round and you'll see its probably a better mankiller because of the design of the projectile. Maybe not... So close its irrelevant.

Which is better? Who cares? Either weapon is more than capable...the person carrying it is the weakest link in the equation.

[Decguns]

I carried an M16 MOD 0 in Panama and the first Gulf War, an M16A2 in Somalia and Albania, a Canadian C7 and later an M4 in Afghianistan and also Gulf War II.

The M16 series of rifles have never failed me. It is a carbine of course, more or less a modern version of the 30 cal M1 carbine. Within 300 yards, it is absolutely deadly. The 7.62 Marksmanship rifles aren't performing well in the Gulf. Seems that at normal combat ranges, under 200 yards, the projo's are just passing through the bad guys. I personally saw 3 bad guys soak up more than 4 hits a piece without giving up the fight. So much for that legendary firepower I've been hearing about all these years. The 5.56 marksmanship rifles are performing well within their limitations (normally under 600 yards).

The AK gets choaked with sand pretty easily with that selector set in auto. The AR is pretty much impervious to the elements with the dust cover closed. I love the AK, but the 7.62X39 isn't controllable in full auto and range is severely limited. The Israelis say the M16 is better than the AK, and I tend to listen to them.

[GunZnWomen]

Originally posted by Decguns
I
The AK gets choaked with sand pretty easily with that selector set in auto. The AR is pretty much impervious to the elements with the dust cover closed.

Umm, I spent quite a bit of time with my bunkmate, an M16-A2, back in the late 80s and early 90s. I don't know how you can possibly make this statement with a straight face.

In a sandy and dusty climate, I'd take an AK anyday over an AR and twice on Sunday. The tight tolerances that give the AR an accuracy edge are just one of many factors giving a decisive edge to the AK on operational reliability.

The Israelis designed the Galil with an eye on blending the best of both worlds: AR accuracy and AK reliability.

When in the Marine Corps, I came to begrudge the M16s forward "smash-sist," which was used often when fine, gritty sand came anywhere near the bolt carrier.

[Big Bird]

Yeah...I'll have to say that the AR's that rode with us in open turrets needed constant maintenance to keep em from choking...dust cover or no.