• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

AK vs. AR

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
AK-74, Russian made. under $800 bucks.

http://www.k-var.com/shop/product.php?productid=17038&cat=354&page=1

AK-74 is nearly identical except for chamber-ing. 5.45x39 is readily and cheaply available surplus.

I will stick with my 47, but the 74 isnt bad either

Heres one I found on Gunbroker.com

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=182641469

only $200.00 more than I paid for my 47. This is not a snide remark, I was actually impressed with the price listed.
 
Last edited:

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
You are correct the 5.56 is meant to tumble.
You are incorrect about the 5.56 fragmenting. It was designed NOT to fragment, otherwise it wouldn't tumble properly. When the 5.56 hits hard stuff it tends to flatten out, bleeding weight(read energy) by having lead squeezed out of it.(This is not fragmentation) When it only contact soft tissue, it usually passes through the target mostly or completely before tumbling.

The benefits of the tumbling bullet can be realized in the AK-74. The 5.45x39 ammunition has virtually identical flying characteristics as 5.56. On top of that, the Russians fixed the tumbling problems by placing a void at the nose of the bullet. This shifts weight to the rear of the 5.45 bullet, and causes it to tumble much sooner upon impact than the 5.56.

The reason that a FMJ .223 (varmint round) is effective on humans is because of fragmentation. There is no deliberate "tumble". Tumble infers that the bullet will complete more than a half revolution lengthways. What happens when a 5.56 of sufficient velocity hits a soft target is that it yaws. This stress fragments the bullet and these fragments spread out causing more damage to tissue than a solid bullet traveling straight through would. This is why a M4 at longer ranges is not as effective as a M16A2. An improved bullet design is necessary to function at lower velocities.
Please define "flying characteristics" and "tumbling problem".
Neither bullet will "tumble" in flight and would ever be designed to do so as such a phenomena would only make it exceptionally inaccurate.
 
Last edited:

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
I personally know people who've been hit with ak's and lived. AR hit is a death sentence.
I know of people who have been hit with 5.56 and lived.....:cool:
Out here in the 1st Civ Div we may use any ammunition we choose. The ballistics of quality 7.62x39 commercial hunting rounds is close to .30-30. Out here on the streets of the USA if you get shot in the chest with someone's AK you had better have access to a trama center quickly or you have been dealt a death sentence.
 
Last edited:

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
As I'm sure all of you know, the 5.56 round is designed to tumble on impact, fragment, and essentially piball around the inside of the human body. ... For example if you are say hit in a non vital area such as the shoulder, the round is designed to fragment and quite possibly take out internal organs rather than exit straight out the rear of the body.

Not "tumble" but "yaw"....
There are no organs in your shoulder. Unless a lung is in the direct path of the fragmentation, there is little guarantee of it being damaged directly from the bullet fragments. What can often happen is that the bone will fragment and become a secondary source of destruction. Bone fragments will likely enter your lung.
There is no "pitbull" effect inside of your body. The odds of a bullet entering your shoulder and exiting your anal sphincter are low unless you are shot from above and this is the natural path of the bullet.
 

merc460

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
229
Location
North Carolina, USA
Last edited:

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,662
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
The reason that a FMJ .223 (varmint round) is effective on humans is because of fragmentation. There is no deliberate "tumble". Tumble infers that the bullet will complete more than a half revolution lengthways. What happens when a 5.56 of sufficient velocity hits a soft target is that it yaws. This stress fragments the bullet and these fragments spread out causing more damage to tissue than a solid bullet traveling straight through would. This is why a M4 at longer ranges is not as effective as a M16A2. An improved bullet design is necessary to function at lower velocities.
Please define "flying characteristics" and "tumbling problem".
Neither bullet will "tumble" in flight and would ever be designed to do so as such a phenomena would only make it exceptionally inaccurate.
You didn't even read my ******* post. Your answers are there.
 
Last edited:

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,662
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
K-VAR is a retailer.

I am VERY interested in a purchase of an AK-74. What makes the K-VAR unit better than the ones from Century? They cost twice as much, so there has to be something.
They are actually Arsenal Arms AK's.

Arsenal buys Russian built AKs, imports them under sporting use, then REMANUFACTURS them with almost all new parts, most made in the USA.

Check this link out to learn more. It is a Nutnfancy review. total review is an hour and very detailed.
http://www.youtube.com/nutnfancy#p/u/18/dkYFlihPNS8
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
They are actually Arsenal Arms AK's.

Arsenal buys Russian built AKs, imports them under sporting use, then REMANUFACTURS them with almost all new parts, most made in the USA.

Check this link out to learn more. It is a Nutnfancy review. total review is an hour and very detailed.
http://www.youtube.com/nutnfancy#p/u/18/dkYFlihPNS8

I have to ask, WHY? Are they junk and they rebuild them? If they rebuild them with all new parts why buy them from Russia at all? (I dont have the hour to spare, at work)
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
I have to ask, WHY? Are they junk and they rebuild them? If they rebuild them with all new parts why buy them from Russia at all? (I dont have the hour to spare, at work)

I didn't watch the vid, but sporting use ak's don't have pistol grips or folding stocks. An AK isn't an AK w/o a pistol grip!
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,662
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
they are imported for "sporting use"

I have to ask, WHY? Are they junk and they rebuild them? If they rebuild them with all new parts why buy them from Russia at all? (I dont have the hour to spare, at work)
As such they are modified before import so it is a 'sporting' rifle. Understand they are not "rebuilt." Once they reach the states, they are returned to russian military specs. I know it is really stupid, but its how you get around the 'sporting purpose' law.

Don't even know why I'm answering, watch the damn video all this is covered. In detail.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
I am an AK fan from way back. It has six moving parts, can be made in garage, and if you bury it in the mud, dig it up a year later and feed it the dirtiest ammo Russia ever made, it will still fire. :)

I have heard from military friends that the first thing you do when you hit Afghanistan or Iraq is get yourself an AK so that WHEN your AR jams, you have a gun. :)

And let the discussion begin. LOL!
:monkey

People always try to use this cliche statement.

"My buddy is a Navy SEAL and he said that he used to throw down his AR, step on it, and poop in the breech, because it was an awful gun. Then he would pick up an AK and kill 2394872698 people with it".

Tell your "military friends" that they should stop stuffing pound cake from their MRE's into their AR's chamber and working the action. Tell them they should also, I don't know, maintain it every once in a while.


Let's take a look at the AR's superiority in combat.

One word for you people.

"Fallujah".

When you find yourself in urban environments, even the penetrating power of the 7.62x39mm is not going to be enough in most circumstances. Sure it throws up a nasty wall of lead, but anybody who has ever fired one, especially under duress, will infinitely appreciate the lethal accuracy and managability of the AR platform.

Marines and SF operatives were being investigated for too many purported "headshots" after operations in Fallujah. As it turns out, randomly spraying walls with a firearm as floppy and overgassed as the AK, isn't the best way to wage urban warfare. During standoffs of 100m-300m, the AR showed itself infinitely more capable than an AK could ever hope or pray to be, as Marines (yes multiple) would often hit the same unlucky target in the head as it presented itself over/through a wall, or window.

That is efficient warfare.

Yes people, the AR has more precision crafted parts.
Yes people, the AR craps where it eats. (Which is also why it is deadly silent in suppressed form)
Yes if you dump a bucket of epoxy and cement into the breach it will stop firing.

But if you spend just 5 minutes a day, which regardless of what you have been told about warfare , IS possible, then you will be just fine, and your M16A2 will continue firing into the darkness of night without missing a beat.

Can you tell I am grateful to this weapon for saving my life multiple times? If not, well now you know.

As battalion trainer on multiple weapon platforms, and battery trainer on a couple more still, I will tell you that I have seen multitudes of soldiers maintaining their firearms so poorly, that it wouldn't matter what make/model of firearm it was, it would be siezed.

I have had soldiers literally bring me their M16A2's with the bolt siezed because they were literally using it to lean on, barrel down, in the sand. I have watched soldiers pick up an M16 with nothing in the well but sand from them flopping the rifle on its side while they sat down.

Real world dictates weapon maintenance regardless of whether its an AR or an AK.

It's just that when the AR is on operational par, the AK does not stand a chance.

The AK is a mass producable rifle meant to be handed out to poorly trained conscripts spraying a wall of lead. If you conduct war this way, that's fine. Remember soviet battle tactics. Deploy flesh to save armor.

cest la vie
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,812
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
good stuff

... which is exactly what makes the AK the ideal SHTF weapon. The combatants will be almost universally untrained, undisciplined, working in some really funky conditions, and with little or no armor to support. History has shown just how effective such a force can be against a well trained, well supported one.
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
As such they are modified before import so it is a 'sporting' rifle. Understand they are not "rebuilt." Once they reach the states, they are returned to russian military specs. I know it is really stupid, but its how you get around the 'sporting purpose' law.

Don't even know why I'm answering, watch the damn video all this is covered. In detail.

I appreciate your answering, I am at work and do not have the time to watch the vid. Perhaps once I get through with my 12 hour shift I will see if I can watch it.
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
People always try to use this cliche statement.

"My buddy is a Navy SEAL and he said that he used to throw down his AR, step on it, and poop in the breech, because it was an awful gun. Then he would pick up an AK and kill 2394872698 people with it".

Tell your "military friends" that they should stop stuffing pound cake from their MRE's into their AR's chamber and working the action. Tell them they should also, I don't know, maintain it every once in a while.


Let's take a look at the AR's superiority in combat.

One word for you people.

"Fallujah".

When you find yourself in urban environments, even the penetrating power of the 7.62x39mm is not going to be enough in most circumstances. Sure it throws up a nasty wall of lead, but anybody who has ever fired one, especially under duress, will infinitely appreciate the lethal accuracy and managability of the AR platform.

Marines and SF operatives were being investigated for too many purported "headshots" after operations in Fallujah. As it turns out, randomly spraying walls with a firearm as floppy and overgassed as the AK, isn't the best way to wage urban warfare. During standoffs of 100m-300m, the AR showed itself infinitely more capable than an AK could ever hope or pray to be, as Marines (yes multiple) would often hit the same unlucky target in the head as it presented itself over/through a wall, or window.

That is efficient warfare.

Yes people, the AR has more precision crafted parts.
Yes people, the AR craps where it eats. (Which is also why it is deadly silent in suppressed form)
Yes if you dump a bucket of epoxy and cement into the breach it will stop firing.

But if you spend just 5 minutes a day, which regardless of what you have been told about warfare , IS possible, then you will be just fine, and your M16A2 will continue firing into the darkness of night without missing a beat.

Can you tell I am grateful to this weapon for saving my life multiple times? If not, well now you know.

As battalion trainer on multiple weapon platforms, and battery trainer on a couple more still, I will tell you that I have seen multitudes of soldiers maintaining their firearms so poorly, that it wouldn't matter what make/model of firearm it was, it would be siezed.

I have had soldiers literally bring me their M16A2's with the bolt siezed because they were literally using it to lean on, barrel down, in the sand. I have watched soldiers pick up an M16 with nothing in the well but sand from them flopping the rifle on its side while they sat down.

Real world dictates weapon maintenance regardless of whether its an AR or an AK.

It's just that when the AR is on operational par, the AK does not stand a chance.

The AK is a mass producable rifle meant to be handed out to poorly trained conscripts spraying a wall of lead. If you conduct war this way, that's fine. Remember soviet battle tactics. Deploy flesh to save armor.

cest la vie

I dont think anyone is disputing the fact that the AR is a superior weapon. It is more complicated, more difficult to use and more exspensive to manufacture also. If the prices were more equal I would consider the AR. Since I can buy 2 AK's, carry case, ammo, bayonette, some more ammo and date a hot russian chick for the price of 1 AR, I will stick with my AK
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
Prefer the M-14, I must be getting old. Why wait till they are through the door?

Only difference on the AR v AK is that I have never seen a left handed AK. But as our benevolent government fears the AK so much more I give it the edge. You can never go wrong using primal instinct against an aggressor, and I love the old Soviet flag, those colors are so striking. The accuracy difference between the two is outside the primary urban environment needs so not a factor for me.

Has anyone ever had an AK be forced into a machine gun? I know the feds forced an AR to convict a citizen.

Do they have the AR in the piston style yet?
Alas my local armory only has the M-16's for when TSHTF, so I won't have a choice of either one. Gotta just grab what they have, not what you want.
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
Prefer the M-14, I must be getting old. Why wait till they are through the door?

Only difference on the AR v AK is that I have never seen a left handed AK. But as our benevolent government fears the AK so much more I give it the edge. You can never go wrong using primal instinct against an aggressor, and I love the old Soviet flag, those colors are so striking. The accuracy difference between the two is outside the primary urban environment needs so not a factor for me.

Has anyone ever had an AK be forced into a machine gun? I know the feds forced an AR to convict a citizen.

Do they have the AR in the piston style yet?
Alas my local armory only has the M-16's for when TSHTF, so I won't have a choice of either one. Gotta just grab what they have, not what you want.

What the armory has wont help you (unless your in the military, and have access to a military armory). If the shtf
you will need what you have, and have what you need.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,836
Location
Mulligan's Valley
I'm not a war veteran, but I think I understand both systems fairly well. I believe I can say with confidence that they both have their attributes and weaknesses, and that comparing them in a which is better contest is like trying to compare apples to Indian motorcycles. Maybe that's a bit hyperbolic, but they are definitely 2 different things for 2 different purposes, even though they have overlapping uses.

Trying to debate which is better is rather absurd, unless trying to determine which to use for a specific application. Yet the armchair warrior debates rage on, endlessly.....
 

VFORVENDETTA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
222
Location
Death Valley, Nevada, Utah, Idaho
I dont think anyone is disputing the fact that the AR is a superior weapon. It is more complicated, more difficult to use and more exspensive to manufacture also. If the prices were more equal I would consider the AR. Since I can buy 2 AK's, carry case, ammo, bayonette, some more ammo and date a hot russian chick for the price of 1 AR, I will stick with my AK

Mail order bride? Sounds good as long as shes hot.
 

merc460

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
229
Location
North Carolina, USA
They are actually Arsenal Arms AK's.

Arsenal buys Russian built AKs, imports them under sporting use, then REMANUFACTURS them with almost all new parts, most made in the USA.

Check this link out to learn more. It is a Nutnfancy review. total review is an hour and very detailed.
http://www.youtube.com/nutnfancy#p/u/18/dkYFlihPNS8


THANKS! Watched the videos, did some research and I'm sold. I got the wifey poo on board, so I got funding. LOL So now it is just finding the best price. We have a gun show coming through in two weeks, and I called my local dealer today to get me a price. Hopefully have one in my hands with in three weeks.
May go ahead and put the Tapco collapsible stock on it too. Debating on the optics though.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,812
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Trying to debate which is better is rather absurd, unless trying to determine which to use for a specific application. Yet the armchair warrior debates rage on, endlessly.....


Hey now, fortunes have been made & lost arguing Ford vs Chevy, every gun forum needs at least three AK vs AR threads and a couple of .45 vs 9mm & steel vs plastic just for good measure. :p
 
Top