AK vs. AR

[Michigander]

Disagree with #2. While the generalization is correct that SF and Marines are indeed very serious riflemen, the ballistics of the 7.62x39 at range are vastly inferior to the ballistics of the 5.56 @ 200m+. Furthermore, I hear a lot of crap all the time about how AK's are "reasonably accurate" to 200m, and can repeatedly headshot from said range, then every individual I have gone to the range with to see said demonstration drastically fails, popping maybe 1 out of 4-5 rounds intentionally aimed @ 200m onto target.

Then I can pull out my AR and with irons go 5 for 5 on the same target.

I would be interested in knowing what types of guns you are referring to, ammo that was used, which positions were shot from, whether the Ak's had bi pods on them, and which sighting configurations were used. These things make a BIG difference, and I would venture to say that like most AK users the people you are referring to used russian ammo with the hard to use stock sights, if not other detrimental problems as well.

Also, ballistics depend on what you're looking for. The .223 is bad mouthed by many, at least many of those bound to FMJ ammo, because of the lack of temporary wound cavity expansion at greater distances, whereas the larger AK bullet will still make a little bigger hole at lower velocities, even if not at that nice and flat trajectory which makes the AR more easy to shoot accurately at longer distances. Superior ballistics depends solely on the needs of a shooter.

 

[simmonsjoe]

Congratulation on your target rifle

I would be interested in knowing what types of guns you are referring to, ammo that was used, which positions were shot from, whether the Ak's had bi pods on them, and which sighting configurations were used. These things make a BIG difference, and I would venture to say that like most AK users the people you are referring to used russian ammo with the hard to use stock sights, if not other detrimental problems as well.

Also, ballistics depend on what you're looking for. The .223 is bad mouthed by many, at least many of those bound to FMJ ammo, because of the lack of temporary wound cavity expansion at greater distances, whereas the larger AK bullet will still make a little bigger hole at lower velocities, even if not at that nice and flat trajectory which makes the AR more easy to shoot accurately at longer distances. Superior ballistics depends solely on the needs of a shooter.

Yes your .223 round is accurate out further than the 7.62. Unfortunately it has little energy out there.

I love how you AR guys keep IGNORING the 5.45. So many advantage arguments you come up with is related to the 7.62 vs 5.56

Well that is no longer an AR vs AK argument, as the 5.45 vs 5.56 turns the tables on that one.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

Ruger SR-556

Way more accurate than an AK-47 / 74

 

[McX]

check this out my brothers, they put friquin white walls on them! pimp my missle....damn straight!

 

[merc460]

I got a great price on my Arsenal AK-74, so I am ordering it Monday. Now I am looking at ammo. The best deals are on military surplus, but I am pretty sure it is corrosive. What is the best way to clean after firing the stuff? I heard you have to use ammonia. Is this true??

 

[jayspapa]

I have read through all the arguments concerning AR vs. AK and I just have to say , I want a Ruger mini-14.

That should stir things up some.

 

[1245A Defender]

so do I!!

I have read through all the arguments concerning AR vs. AK and I just have to say , I want a Ruger mini-14.

That should stir things up some.

a nice one with folding stock and forend mounting rails costs about 600$ V. 800$ for an AR!

 

[bigdaddy1]

Well if were doing the wish list thing

I want the GE Minigun

Mount it on my car, let see them try to cut me off then!!!!!

 

[choover]

Agree with #1 paragraph.




If SHTF, I would highly prefer a rifle I could put on point every time, all the time, from any engagement angle or distance. If said hypothetical fantasy shtf scenario evolved, I could take solace in knowing that I could hunt light game with the AR too, and actually have a chance of hitting it, instead of spooking it.



.

Light game is about all your gonna hunt with that BB gun, I'll go after the big game for the rest of us with my AK

 

[slowfiveoh]

Light game is about all your gonna hunt with that BB gun, I'll go after the big game for the rest of us with my AK

You do that, and thanks.

I love the retard level machismo associated with the round size. Not only is that just stupid, so is professing to hunt any reasonable game with the 7.62x39. Even if it is relatively close to .30-30, you have several things working better for you on a .30-30.

--Longer barrel
--Better sights
--Nice compact firing system with no offset bolt

.30-30 is far > than the AK when it comes to utility.


Lots of dead Fedayeen, Republican Guard, Al-Queda and Taliban by that "BB-gun".

Seems the only reasonable way to get us back, with their mass numbers of AK's and all, is to blow us up with IED's, RPG's, or Mortars.

I wonder why that is?

Let me know when your belly gets hungry from trying to sneak up on game close enough to ensure success with your overgassed, floppy, "reliable" mud-gun.

I'll eat rabbit, and bird of my choosing and even small deer. Except, unlike you and your round associated bravado, I will be eating my game off the spit, while you're still trying to hit yours.

I would be interested in knowing what types of guns you are referring to, ammo that was used, which positions were shot from, whether the Ak's had bi pods on them, and which sighting configurations were used. These things make a BIG difference, and I would venture to say that like most AK users the people you are referring to used russian ammo with the hard to use stock sights, if not other detrimental problems as well.

Most of the rifles I came across where Iraqi stockpile AK's that were well stored and in reasonable condition. They were also fed decent ammo from their own military stockpile, but I would believe that much of their ammo came from hidden stores as well.

Now here's the perversion for dreamland.

--Do you really think all M16/M4's handed to a soldier are bright gleaming new? If you do, then you have obviously never served a day in your life.
--Would it shock you to know that some even had bent sight posts?
--How about excessive clearance between the upper and lower receiver making the weapon a bit harder to stabilize due to lateral slop?
--Are you under the misguided ideology that all M16's/M4's have bipods, optics, etc.? Sorry, but very few do.
--Firing positions? Usually IED ambush prep, meaning likely firing positions are well planned out, and the physical firing position would be very likely either A). inclined supported pron or B). Kneeling (It is only after fire is effectively returned that they usually scamper)

Also, ballistics depend on what you're looking for. The .223 is bad mouthed by many, at least many of those bound to FMJ ammo, because of the lack of temporary wound cavity expansion at greater distances, whereas the larger AK bullet will still make a little bigger hole at lower velocities, even if not at that nice and flat trajectory which makes the AR more easy to shoot accurately at longer distances. Superior ballistics depends solely on the needs of a shooter.

It is easy to watch some of the worlds best civilian shooters sit back and fire from their comfy benches, knocking penny's off of targets @ 600m, and appreicate their skill. It is far removed, and completely different, to be in the suck drawing fire, and return fire with any sort of competent accuracy.


I promise you that you want a platform that can return fire effectively, and provide movement coverage without rising its nose into the stratosphere while doing so.

Your "dependant upon shooter" scenario would also be lovely, if you did include the reality of fire under duress, and the fact that not every shooter can be a competition level master.

Furthermore, the nature of the round (7.62x39) with its poor coefficient and low velocity make it the proverbial sail in the breeze.

Hope your long firing AK specialist brought a ballistics computer with him and a lot of windsocks to put up in the middle of the Iraqi desert.

Just sayin...

 

[45acpForMe]

Ultimate AK/AR merged functionality

I have seen the youtube video and read the previous posts. The question that comes to my mind is what manufacturer/model incorporates the strengths from both platforms into one?

I know the ergonomics of the AR is better but according to the video you can get AK's with some of those upgrades. Also the piston on the AK is superior but you can get AR's with pistons too. (I have the Sig556) Calibers can be had in each platform also.

My caliber of choice is .308 and have an AR-10 (DPMS). I would prefer a piston if for no other reason to get rid of the rear charging handle and move it to the side.

So I have seen different models out there (each advertised as the end-all of products) but for the "experts" out there what would you consider the best of both worlds? FN SCAR? HK? Bushmaster ACR? other?

While I would like to have a select-fire model, the government is currently "infringing" my rights to buy one so my question mainly applies to civilian semi-auto models.

Edited to add: I can't believe that no manufacturer hasn't tried to get the best of both worlds into their product, but the evidence against it may be these threads still arguing the two platforms.

 

[slowfiveoh]

I have seen the youtube video and read the previous posts. The question that comes to my mind is what manufacturer/model incorporates the strengths from both platforms into one?

I know the ergonomics of the AR is better but according to the video you can get AK's with some of those upgrades. Also the piston on the AK is superior but you can get AR's with pistons too. (I have the Sig556) Calibers can be had in each platform also.

My caliber of choice is .308 and have an AR-10 (DPMS). I would prefer a piston if for no other reason to get rid of the rear charging handle and move it to the side.

So I have seen different models out there (each advertised as the end-all of products) but for the "experts" out there what would you consider the best of both worlds? FN SCAR? HK? Bushmaster ACR? other?

While I would like to have a select-fire model, the government is currently "infringing" my rights to buy one so my question mainly applies to civilian semi-auto models.

Edited to add: I can't believe that no manufacturer hasn't tried to get the best of both worlds into their product, but the evidence against it may be these threads still arguing the two platforms.

I never had any problems with the DI setup, even in prolonged fire. However, I can understand wanting to keep the chamber cool, or even cleaner.

To this end, the new GP setups on a lot of AR models, seem to be the ticket.

Also, it is pretty well known that you can chamber an AR in pretty much whatever round you like.

Each has its benefits, and drawbacks.

Of course when you up round size, you increase fatigue. Making it harder to come back on target.

Some people think that is less valuable than having a "big round".

 

[simmonsjoe]

Your not going to like the answer.

Kel-Tec SU-16C

AR bolt. Gas piston. Has bolt handle like AK.

I would say it is a bigger competitor to the Mini-14. At a significant savings. I chose the su-16c over Mini-14. Uses AR mags, cuts 1.5 - 2 lbs weight, more accurate, picatinny rail on receiver. folding stock, already threaded barrel for suppressor or silencer.

It's a very cost effective rifle.

 

[bigdaddy1]

Here's an idea, how about if you buy and shoot what you want and can afford and I will do the same????

You people that take it so personally need to chill out. He cant be a man cause he doesnt smoke the same cigarette as me

 

[slowfiveoh]

Here's an idea, how about if you buy and shoot what you want and can afford and I will do the same????

You people that take it so personally need to chill out. He cant be a man cause he doesnt smoke the same cigarette as me

If this is in any way directed at me, I am sorry to inform you that I am not creating the type of segregation you imply. I believe every human being has a right to equitable defense, and that they therefore have the right to exercise personal choice in the matter.

It is vital that those who do not have experience with both firearms, do not bow to stereotypical misnomers.

Such as:

--The 5.56 lacks power. (Yet in being accurate, it has more than proven itself on the battlefield)
--The M16/4 jams a lot. (Only if you are a mental midget and don't believe in maintaing your firearms.)


The list is endless.

The M16 has served this country for over 45 years now. The face of battle has changed, but the effectiveness of the rifle should not be understated.

More important than perhaps any other topic discussed so far here, the M16 has saved American lives. An uncountable amount well beyond any lives that may have been forfeit by jam, or ftf.

One could easilly see, that if we had mass produced M16's and sold them to every third world nation, that we would likely make stories aout the "killer from afar", instead of the AK's "in your face" punch.

In fact, I am quite sure that guerrila elements like the Al-Queda, would not have to go so treachorously close to engage American or allied servicemembers, if they had a rifle that was more up to the task.

Now, with all this being said, please ralize that I yield that a AK is a "good choice" for urban warfare because of its cost effectiveness, reliability, simplicity of design and operation, and enormous KE transferred within 100m.

Just don't let the fight stay at distance.

 

[NRAMARINE]

Well if were doing the wish list thing

I want the GE Minigun

Mount it on my car, let see them try to cut me off then!!!!!

Yeah you're right!!

 

[Michigander]

It is easy to watch some of the worlds best civilian shooters sit back and fire from their comfy benches, knocking penny's off of targets @ 600m, and appreicate their skill. It is far removed, and completely different, to be in the suck drawing fire, and return fire with any sort of competent accuracy.


I promise you that you want a platform that can return fire effectively, and provide movement coverage without rising its nose into the stratosphere while doing so.
..

I was not talking about in the sand box, you mentioned the range, and people that couldn't hit what they were aiming at. The point I was making is not how well stock commie guns in the sand box work in the sand box, it's how well a good AK with good ammo can be made to work. You're right, I never served because I opposed the war in Iraq since before it started, so I was never in Iraq, and I don't intend to go there, so I don't particularly care.

If you harmonically balance the barrel, use good ammo, use a good red dot or magnifying scope, and shoot from a supported position, or use a sling, you can get very good accuracy, even with a haphazardly built POS like a WASR. You can even cut down on recoil with a decent sound suppressor. And yes, you'd need to be very good with Kentucky windage if not lugging around a range finder for those shots that push the envelope of how far it's suitable for. But to say it's not feasible to have an AK that works well enough to 300 yards, that's just not true. The fact that it's not often done doesn't mean it isn't doable.

Edited to add: I can't believe that no manufacturer hasn't tried to get the best of both worlds into their product, but the evidence against it may be these threads still arguing the two platforms.

I think the reason why the .223 Stoner family of rifles does so well is that it's truly the best of all worlds, except not really, it's a compromise from all perspectives. It can do a little of everything, and little particularly well. Think about it, lots of ammo, light weight, low recoil, accuracy out quite far, sufficient sized mags and load outs of mags to provide cover fire, reliable if properly cleaned and lubed for about 800 or 1000 rounds, every add on you can think of is available from countless companies... it's a system that has a lot going for it. But at the same time, I'd rather have a shotgun to 100 yards, a .308 past that, and a LMG for providing any significant volume of cover fire. But a M16 is just so much more convenient when you just need a gun to walk around with for potential troubles.

 

[Michigander]

It's rather off topic of the 2 rifles in question, but one thing I will say about Iraq is that I know 2 Iraqi army veterans who were there for the first Iraq war, then came her because they are Christians, and wanted to worship freely without harassment. Both were snipers, issued Dargunovs. Both know AK's well, but neither are particularly fond of AK's, wanting more power and longer range.

The shortcomings of assault rifles seem to really show themselves in desert warfare, as is evidenced by their opinions, as well as the US pulling M14's out to give soldiers more power at longer ranges in I know for sure Afghanistan, and maybe Iraq?

 

[slowfiveoh]

If you harmonically balance the barrel, use good ammo, use a good red dot or magnifying scope, and shoot from a supported position, or use a sling, you can get very good accuracy, even with a haphazardly built POS like a WASR. You can even cut down on recoil with a decent sound suppressor. And yes, you'd need to be very good with Kentucky windage if not lugging around a range finder for those shots that push the envelope of how far it's suitable for. But to say it's not feasible to have an AK that works well enough to 300 yards, that's just not true. The fact that it's not often done doesn't mean it isn't doable.

Fair enough on all points. I think the only point of contention I would have is that, as you have acknowledged, it isn't out of the realm of feasibiliy to hit with an AK @ 300yards, it just isn't like to be a stock AK in any way, shape, or form.

The contention there would be that I could go to pretty much any armory, pull out the crappist AR I can find, squirt some CLP on it, and go hit consistent 300 yard targets with it.

Which of course means there is a pretty substantial difference in accuracy between an AR and an AK at greater distances, that needs to be acknowledged.

I also agree about the versatility. In fact, this is why i like the rifle so much.

I could pack my ruck until it was about as big as I was and still load out 300+ rounds, without being overly weighed down.

Fatigue, especially in a shtf situation, will be killer #1.
Not wild animals, hypothetical "zombies", or roaming road warriors.

 

[Michigander]

Fair enough on all points. I think the only point of contention I would have is that, as you have acknowledged, it isn't out of the realm of feasibiliy to hit with an AK @ 300yards, it just isn't like to be a stock AK in any way, shape, or form.

I think AK's are like Mustang GT's. They'll get you from point A to point B, but if you don't tweak them, or get them from a factory like Roush or Tromix, you will have a piece of crap.