• 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

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,836
Location
Mulligan's Valley
The 5.0 lx coupe handles well. This one has a t76 turbo, full MM suspension, lentech tansmission, baer brakes, and nitrous.
.


I am definitely not an 80's Mustang fan. My former boss has one, and I couldn't stand the way it handled. As one might guess by my avatar, I am more of a fan of light weight rally cars and rice rockets than muscle. I'm the kind of guy that likes nothing more than a well built Escort, Subaru, Porsche 944 Renegade, stuff like that. I have nothing against Mustangs for their intended purposes, particularly when built as well as that, but I just don't find them to be as enjoyable to drive as a more light weight, precise handling little car. Different strokes for different folks.
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,662
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
How about power and handling??

I am definitely not an 80's Mustang fan. My former boss has one, and I couldn't stand the way it handled. As one might guess by my avatar, I am more of a fan of light weight rally cars and rice rockets than muscle. I'm the kind of guy that likes nothing more than a well built Escort, Subaru, Porsche 944 Renegade, stuff like that. I have nothing against Mustangs for their intended purposes, particularly when built as well as that, but I just don't find them to be as enjoyable to drive as a more light weight, precise handling little car. Different strokes for different folks.
I'll have a BMW please.

E30 preferably
 
6

69Charger

Guest
Well I guess I will have to say AK.
Dave
6-2010013.jpg
 

rottman43055

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
158
Location
Ohio, ,
I vote AR. More modular, definetely more accurate. I personally know people who've been hit with ak's and lived. AR hit is a death sentence. Superior ballistics, better weight distribution and more ammo for the weight. The AK is more forgiving when it comes to cleaning, I'll concede that point. However in my opinion the AR is the vastly superior weapon, particularly in the m4 format.



On your mark..... get set....................................

If getting hit with an AR15 is a death sentence I guess someone forgot to tell this guy. After multiple hits with .40 cal & 16 hits with an AR15 he was still fighting when handcuffed. WARNING GRAPHIC: http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/wp-content/uploads/officer.pdf
 
Last edited:

golddigger14s

Activist Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,058
Location
Lawton, OK USA
AK

After 20 years in the Army I guess I'm a little burned out on the AR/M-16. I love my AK with ATI folding stock and 4X scope (total cost $400). Also 500 rounds for under a $100. Also have a Hi-Point 995TS, and 4 MN-91/30's.
 

HvyMtl

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
271
Location
Tennessee
Why not both?

The AK has several benefits. Cheap to buy, Cheap ammo, not as complex, depending on the caliber (older 7.62) harder hitting.

The AR is more accurate, and a better long range rifle (when the barrel is not cut down to M-4 lengths...) The jamming issues, not so much anymore...

Me, I guess I like my old Finn Mosin M39. True, it is a bolt action. True, it only carries 5 rounds. But, it is more accurate than I. And it can be used better as a up close weapon (hard wood and steel butt plate, plus the ability to mount a nice multi-use bayonet...) AND since it is an antique, it is not registered. (yes, the receiver is pre-1899... by Fed law an antique...)

I, too, can see the FN FAL love, though.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,362
Location
Grennsboro NC


In the AR vs. AK debate, this is the only "correct" answer... :lol:

When it absolutely, positively has to be dead, .308 is the only reasonable option.

The FN FAL is perhaps the finest precision battle rifle ever designed, but it IS a little on the big, heavy, and clunky side. Great for open-field action in the European Theater, but not so practical in the bush, or in tight urban settings.
Plus, you just gotta dig that folding carry handle... :monkey

However, an AR platform in .308, the way Eugene Stoner ORIGINALLY intended it, is the ultimate all-purpose rifle, IMO. Small, lightweight, modular as heck, AND it packs a wallop and can "reach out and touch" to 500+ yards on iron sights without even breaking a sweat--even with a 16" barrel...
 
Last edited:

Matt85

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
176
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
i vote AK, in any caliber: 5.45x39, 5.56x45, 7.62x39, 7.62x54r, and 7.62x51 (yes, AKs have been made in all these calibers)

the AK platform is far more durable and with certain calibers it can easily match the AR platform in accuracy. the AK has a bad rap for accuracy due to poor maintenance and low quallity control in certain countries. (romania comes to mind) a well made bulgarian AK-74 (5.45x39) will match most AR-15 rifles in 5.56 for accuracy.
 

rottman43055

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
158
Location
Ohio, ,
Our military noticed the AK kicking ass in Afghanistan

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/25/military-reconsiders-armys-use-m-rifles-afghanistan/

The U.S. military is re-evaluating the Army’s use of the M4 rifle in Afghanistan following concerns that the Taliban’s primitive AK-47’s are proving more effective.

The M4 is an updated version of the M16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. But while the weapon is better suited for the kind of urban warfare common in Iraq, some have questioned whether it is deadly and accurate for Afghanistan – where U.S. troops often find themselves in long-range combat.

An Army study found that the 5.56mm bullets fired from the M4s don’t retain enough velocity past 1,000 feet to kill an enemy. In Afghanistan, forces are often up to 2,500 feet apart.

“It just makes no sense,” said Maj. Gen. Robert Scales Jr., a Fox News military analyst.

Scales said the M4 is “unsuitable” for Afghan terrain and “notoriously unreliable” in the first place. The Army Times reported on an Army weapons test three years ago that found the M4 performed worse than three other newer carbines when subjected to an “extreme dust test.”

The Taliban are meanwhile using heavier bullets that allow them to fire at U.S. and NATO troops from distances that are out of range of the M4.

To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. The sharpshooters are equipped with the new M110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62mm round and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet.

As for what could ultimately replace the M4, the Army’s center for small-arms development is trying to find a solution.

Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, said the M4 has the advantage of more-rapid firepower.

“The 5.56 caliber is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target,” he told The Associated Press. But he acknowledged the weapon is much less effective at 2,000 feet out.

A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56 mm and 7.62 cartridges, Tamilio said.

Scales said the U.S. military simply needs to engineer a better weapon – he said the M8, a weapon that was under development before being halted several years ago, could be revived and improved for Afghanistan.

“We’re the world’s largest superpower. Why don’t we just make one,” Scales said. “This isn’t rocket science. We’re not putting a man on the moon here.”
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fox-news-gets-it-wrong-m4-rifle-works-fine-the-problem-is-the-bullet/

The death of the M4 has been greatly exaggerated.
A bizarre Fox News article appeared last Wednesday: “M4 vs. AK-47: Is U.S. Army Outgunned in Afghanistan?“:
Despite the ages-old rifles in Taliban hands, reports suggest our soldiers may be outgunned in Afghanistan’s hills. To counter, the Army plans a slew of upgrades to curtain weapons — and several entirely new guns.
Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are attacking U.S. Army soldiers with AK-47s, while the army relies upon the M4 assault rifle. The AK-47 uses a larger bullet, which leads to more kickback upon firing. Some reports indicate that the U.S. Army is looking to upgrade the weapons being used in Afghanistan to larger caliber guns.
An AP report published over the weekend in Army Times argued that the M4 rifle’s light bullets lack sufficient velocity and killing power in long-range firefights. The report states that the U.S. is considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round, one largely discarded in the 1960s.

The 7.62mm round in the AK-47 is heavier and larger than the 5.56mm caliber bullet in the M4, and can therefore fly further on average. But Battaglini dismisses reports that the Army is considering rearming soldiers in Afghanistan. “On the battlefield, there are no reported operational issues with the M4. It’s the weapon of choice in Iraq, and still the desired weapon in Afghanistan,” he told FoxNews.com.
Anyone reading the article would come to the conclusion that rusty AK-47s give the poorly trained Taliban an advantage over U.S. troops armed with M4 carbines, M16 rifles, and M249 machine guns firing 5.56 NATO rounds. It is a supposition based upon ignorance of the battlefield, the training, and the weapons and cartridges themselves. Other than that, the article is fine.

Much of the combat taking place in mountainous Afghanistan occurs at much longer ranges than U.S. soldiers have encountered in recent wars, and engagements at ranges in excess of 500 meters are not uncommon. Obviously, at these extended ranges the marksmanship of the combatants is of vital importance to their effectiveness. Poorly trained combatants will not hit their targets with frequency, and may not even pose enough of a threat to keep their opposition pinned down. In this type of combat, a weapon needs to be reliable and accurate, and fire a cartridge that retains energy, is relatively flat-shooting, and is resistant to wind drift.
Author Jeremy A. Kaplan does get some details of his story correct.
The AK-47 fires a 7.62 bullet that is larger and heavier than that of the 5.56 round in most of the Army’s M4s, and the weapon does have considerably more recoil. The M4’s 5.56 round does lack killing power at long range, due to a combination of the M4’s shortened barrel generating lower velocities and the 5.56 round being heavily dependent upon velocity to function effectively.
Despite these truths, the M4 is not inherently inferior to the AK-47. It is simply a product of different methodologies in making weapons and in training soldiers.

Consider a Major General has not seen a firefight in probably 20+ years.

Good thread on it:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=432922
 

Swamper

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
14
Location
Hillview, Kentucky, USA
WOW! AK vs AR vs Ford Vs Chevy VS Cars Vs Trucks.... & GE Mini-guns! My kinda thread!

I'm fortunate to have had access to a motley crew of Police/Military/Hunter/Target-shooting friends, who are avid AK vs AR "discussers", and have had ample opportunity to fire different makes/versions/calibers of each in the last year.

I finally made my purchase this past Saturday... a new $1,300 DPMS LR .308 AP4, the carbine 16 inch barrel, removable carrying handle, quad rail, parkerized finish and collapsable stock (for winter to summer outerwear adjustment), a package that included six extra mags to go with the two that come with the weapon, gas tube reamer, and front sight key.

Why the AR, and in .308? Utility... I'll mostly use it for hunting deer, wild hog, maybe elk, and targets with the guys, but I'll also be part of a "Citizens Militia" in the T. Jefferson model of "Every citizen, a soldier" model. (for more on that go see http://www.everycitizenasoldier.org/ )

I had seriously considered the Arsenal SLR 107F in 7.62 X 39, but it was only a $100 dollars less in the Nutnfancy version that I was considering, and I just liked the ergonomics of the AR platform for my old (63) hands and short fingers.

Any shooting I do will be with hunting ammo from a proven and tested Domestic manufacturer, or my own carefully spec'ed handloads... period, if you catch my drift.

Here, along the southern bank of the Ohio River, we will be hunting in pretty thick woods, or defending in suburban/urban environs... and house to house, room to room would not be unexpected... so the carbine length was my choice. I'd walk a long way to find a desert, or a 600 - 800 yard shot!

In the field, with rain, mud, snow, sleet, and pushing for distance between firing points over a weekend, I've used both platforms, and both function well with good ammo, and reasonable efforts to maintain the weapons.

Bottom line... I'm old and set in my ways... the AR is 'merican... the AK is the enemy. LOL

BTW... I drive a '96 Chevy Z-71 truck with five speed manual tranny, and won't be buying a new one, now that Chevy is "GM = Government Motors". I'll stick to this tried and true platform, that gets me into the backwoods, and gets me out again with four passangers and all our gear.

Swamper
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
...I finally made my purchase this past Saturday... a new $1,300 DPMS LR .308 AP4, the carbine 16 inch barrel, removable carrying handle, quad rail, parkerized finish and collapsable stock (for winter to summer outerwear adjustment), a package that included six extra mags to go with the two that come with the weapon, gas tube reamer, and front sight key...

Very nice rifle!

Here is my Panther:

DSCN0711.jpg


Bull Twenty in .223

I have often wondered about the .308's.

Whats the MOA on that at say, 300 yards? It has to be pretty impressive.
 

Swamper

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
14
Location
Hillview, Kentucky, USA
Re: slowfiveo - "...MOA... at 300 yards"

"I have often wondered about the .308's."

"Whats the MOA on that at say, 300 yards? It has to be pretty impressive." - slowfiveo

I don't know yet... my first afternoon on the range was an exercise in getting to know the innards (stripping for cleaning and repair, then returning it to shootable condition) with the help of my AR packing friends... and in making a list and checking it twice, on a "Spare Parts and tool kit" for my BOB.

i.e. Extractor Spring, Firing Pin, retaining pin set, bolt cam pin, complete bolt carrier group, broken shell extractor, and the like. (I don't have the list in front of me, and sure I'm leaving things out) Naturally, my favorite suggestion here, was from an AK fan, who suggested, "The best Spare Parts kit for an AR, is another AR!"

I learned that there are two Military targets for sighting in, one for .556 and one for .762, that give you a by the square = clicks, "Count up/down and count left/right for adjustments. I did not have the right target for the purpose.

sooooo.... I had to sight-in at 25 meters using a non-standard target for the purpose, which made it a bit more time consuming, and an exercise in "estimates", until I got it centered there... my NEXT trip will be the one that tells the story on open sight accuracy at longer ranges.

Stay tuned!

Nice set up, slowfiveo! What does yours weight? Mine is at 8.25 lbs with empty 20 round mag., and I'd like to keep the weight down, because I'm old and already struggling not to show my age around the young turks in my "Run and Gun" group.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
Nice set up, slowfiveo! What does yours weight? Mine is at 8.25 lbs with empty 20 round mag., and I'd like to keep the weight down, because I'm old and already struggling not to show my age around the young turks in my "Run and Gun" group.

I just want to clarify I meant shot groups, not MOA. I'll figure that out when you can give me good solid groupings.
I would like to know what sights you are using too.

That thing has to be a real honey to shoot.

As to what mine weighs, I am not sure. It is probably heavier than yours especially with the bipod, scope, mount and last but definitely not least, the bull barrel (Although mine is fully fluted).

I can get 1.5" groups @ ~200 yards fairly consistently with it. I am imagining the .308 to be right on top of that, but good enough to bag a nice healthy sized buck with too.
 
Last edited:
Top