[ak47nevada]

From what I've read about the reliability of the Weapon System, $800 average for a no-ban M4/A2 is very expensive.

That's just over the price of 3 WASR AK47s.

AR15 magazines run $20 a pop. From what I've read AR15's need USGI mags so the $15 ones are out of the question.

So for a SHTF rifle we're talking

$850 AR15 out the door.
$200 - 10 30rd mags
$200 - 1000rds GreenTip AP

$1250! :what:

For that price I can get 3 WASRs, 3 krebs custom peep sights, creep trigger done by armorer and some mags for $6.95 a pop.

If my logic is faulty or I'm thinking down the wrong paths could somebody knock me on the head and explain why I'd go for the AR15? It seems the AK47 weapon system is the best bang for the buck. But then again, is the accuracy @ 200 yards so bad that the cost of the accurate AR15 is worth it?

Thanks! BTW. TheHighRoad rocks. :evil:

[mtnbkr]

If you remove the accuracy factor, I can't see why the AR is so expensive either. I'm building one, so I'll build mine, including specialty tools for about $600 (I got some good deals such as an upper receiver for $35). It's a very simple rifle internally.

While I'm not a big EBR fan, once I found out I can build one from parts and only order the lower receiver through an FFL, I got interested. After I finish it (I need a barrel), I want to get a big bore upper half. IMO, that's the beauty of the AR, once you have the lower, you have a bunch of different options for the upper half. You can go from 22lr to 50BMG if you want.

I want a 300 Whisper (but then I need a suppresser to make it complete :scrutiny: ) or 50 Beowulf upper for mine.

Chris

[Adam]

I'm not into AR15, but if I will have a choice between AK and AR I will take this any day:

http://www.robarm.com/xcr%205.56%20drills%20mpg.mpg

http://www.robarm.com/xcr%205.56%20full%20auto%20mpg.mpg

http://www.robarm.com/xcr%207.62x39%20conversion%20mpg.mpg

http://www.robarm.com/xcr%207.62x39%20mpg.mpg

what is it :)

XCR Modular Weapon System

http://www.robarm.com/xcrtm_gallery.htm

Thank you,

Adam

[ak47nevada]

The XCR hasn't been proven in field yet and who knows what the availablility will actually be and spare parts, etc.

[rock jock]

From what I've read about the reliability of the Weapon System Don't believe everything you read. The AR has fine reliability.

[bbaerst]

Has it been proven in the field? Maybe not.

Do I want one? Hell yes.

[Texian Pistolero]

If you are young enough, sooner or later you'll have both.

I've got SAR -1, A Bushy short barrell, a full sized pre-ban Colt.

It took some doing, but I've got them.

If you are currently on a budget, buy one SAR this year, and get the Bushy next year.

Over time, just buy quality, it always is cheaper in the long run.

I've bought post ban U.S. Milspec mags M-16 mags for $15, I'll get a few more.

[JeepDriver]

If you look around you can build a decent AR for about $700, they do require USGI mags, but I've seen them for $15.99 on-line, as far as ammo, I plink with Wolf ($107 per 1000rds 62gr FMJ, delivered ) from Sportsmans Guide.

I do keep the good stuff for Zombies and Blue Helmets though. :evil:

Not as cheap as the AK. But a little cheaper.

[BlkHawk73]

They command the prices they do becuase people will pay that so they can look cool, brag about thier particular model, "be tactical", and just put lots of rounds downrange in a hurry.

Why do they cost so much? Because people will pay the prices - period.

[Kaylee]

You're comparing apples to oranges.

First, you're looking at Romanian imports and Cold War leftover mags compared to current US manufacture. Compare say a no-frills Bushy AR and a Krebs AK, and the price difference narrows drastically.

Further, remember the East Block of the Cold War era followed the mantra of "quantity has a quality all of its own." Hence, the AK design is designed to be able to stamped out cheap in a hurry for third world peasant conscript armies, while the AR design was designed to be milled out of aluminum forgings and put together for highly trained professional soldiers.

The wonder is not that the AK is all-fired great, the wonder is that something made so cheaply can still run, much less run well. (And that it does, certainly!) Thus, by focusing on "bang for the buck" you're pretty much taking the East Block perspective.

Still, remember that most every time East ran up against West resulted in a victory for the good guys (southeast asia being the one very notable exception) -- I'd say that history has proven the "tech-n-training,training,training" model to be superior on the field. Now granted a lot of that has to do with air power, superior targeting and stealth tech, etc etc etc... but I'd argue it trickles down to rifles to.

If you've got enough people to throw at the problem, the quantity-over-quality approach is fine. Personally, since I've only got one me, I don't like that answer so much. :p (though I guess that means one of these days I should take my own advice and get my lazy pink butt over to front site or somesuch. :uhoh: )

Play with both systems, come to your own conclusions.

[nipprdog]

http://glocktalk.com/images/smilies/goodpost.gif

[feedthehogs]

The few who buy the AR to look cool as you put it, are by far the minority and mostly immature.

As far as putting rounds down range fast, any semi will do that.
Those that shoot as a skill do not dump a 30 rounder in seconds as they know it heats up the barrel and reduces accuracy.

I've used the british mags, GI mags, thermold, and orlite mags without a failure in any of the AR's I have. I never paid more than 12 bucks for a new mag.

The other thing is whether you just want to plink and hit the broad side of a barn or you really want to improve your shooting ability by grouping shots at long distances.

Trying to justify the cost of something is a waste of time. It is what it is.

And you will always have the AR haters club.

[Dave Markowitz]

One reason ARs ain't cheap -- aside from supply & demand -- is that the upper and lower receivers are forged out of blocks of aluminum. That's an expensive way to make guns. SARs, WASRs, and other AKM derivatives have receivers made from steel stampings, which is considerably cheaper.

Note that an AK with a milled receiver is going to set you back around $600 or more, which is approaching AR-15 pricing.

[KW]

Just to add my $.02, you can build a very nice AR for $600-700. $100 will get you a quality forged lower reciever - $50 will add a RRA parts kits. Another $50 or so will get you either a new A2 stock or a used telestock. Then you just need an upper reciever you can get a nice complete RRA upper for $400, or for an extra $100 you can get a 4150 steel, chrome lined, T numbered M4 upper from CMMG inc.

The only special tool needed would be a wrench for the telestock if you go that route - otherwise a hammer and a screwdriver out of your average joes tool box will handle the assembly.

USGI mags can be found for less then $20 each, and there is plenty of ammo out there that is cheaper then $200/1000 and will work well for you.

So the WASR is still going to be cheaper, but the AR is going to be more accurate, more ergonomic, and more flexible. With an AR you can use a .22lr kit for cheap plinking one day, take it to a three gun match for some .223 action shooting the next, do some long range target practice the day after, and then go deer hunting the next (either with .223 or with a large caliber upper like a .458 socom or .50 beawulf etc). And it can easily accept any optic/accesory you heart desires for any of these roles. You are honestly getting a better made gun (US forged parts vs. stamped Romanian surplus), that is capable of doing a lot more things.

And ARs are very reliable guns as long as you use decent ammo and decent mags. In the 2000 rounds of XM193/Fed AE223/Wolf Poly I've put through my CMMG/Bushy M4 so far I've had one failure as a result of a bent feed lip (on a steel Brit mag no less).

So IMO the AR was worth the extra money for me. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to get myself an AK to go with it though. :D

[BlkHawk73]

The few who buy the AR to look cool as you put it, are by far the minority and mostly immature.
As far as putting rounds down range fast, any semi will do that.
Those that shoot as a skill do not dump a 30 rounder in seconds as they know it heats up the barrel and reduces accuracy.

These are the ones I see and hear about mostly. I do understand there are the erious shooters out there with the understanding of precise shooting. Just seems it's the majority that fit into my categories of "braggers and spray & pray" shooters. I'm not an AR hater. Just annoyed at some of those with them.

Also, like you said, Trying to justify the cost of something is a waste of time. It is what it is. couldn't be said better. :cool:
After all, you get what you pay for.

[Texian Pistolero]

OK, let's cut through the crap.

At this point of writing,

the stalwart defenders of freedom are using the AR-15/M16 design.

At this point in writing,

the [Racist term removed by moderator], (AKA "the bad guys")

are using some variant of the Kalishnikov.

(a Russian gentleman who has recently expanded his expertise into vodka brand imaging.)

Okay. The answer is simple. Buy and learn how to use BOTH designs.

Then you got "all of it" covered.

Next question?

[ak47nevada]

KW and Kaylee thanks for those posts (and all the rest of ya).

Mabye I'll give the AR another look. The main problem is I'm terribly worried that if I ever have an AR in my hands when I REALLY need it it's going to malfunction in my hands.

Looks like I'll have to spend about $1000 to see if they will be reliable... Or wait for that XCR :o

[ak47nevada]

"Over time, just buy quality, it always is cheaper in the long run."
-Texian Pistolero

I totally agree. I've been thinking of 3 WASRs but mabye I'll wait. I remember the last time I bought the Entreprise FAL instead of the DSA because I couldn't wait two weeks :banghead:

[lycanthrope]

KW has it right.

Eagle firearms has great AR complete lowers for $191.

You can get a good upper from Model 1 and get out for under $550. Get a great RRA upper and you're out for under $700. I built a service rifle with 1/4 MOA sights and hooded aperature and floated 1:7 barrel for under$1000 (White Oak Armamment). It holds 1/2 MOA with handloads. If you pay over $1000 for an AR you are being ripped off. Period.

[Harry Tuttle]

whats a case of 5.56 gonna run ya?
$150 - 200 bucks?

ARs are not cheap to run

[WhoKnowsWho]

My home built AR was less than $550 and mags cost me $11 before the ban expired. Didn't seem like too much to me? :confused:

[Onmilo]

Do you really think an AR15 is expensive??

I don't consider a rifle set up the way you want it and priced between $800.00 and $1500.00 to be expensive.

This is especially true when a pick-up truck set up the way a customer wants it runs $35,000 to $55,000 now.

[MrAcheson]

At this point in writing, the **********, (AKA "the bad guys") are using some variant of the Kalishnikov.The Iraqi National Guard are also the Good Guys and use the AK as well. Last I checked there were almost as many ING soldiers on active duty in Iraq as there are US/Coalition forces. In fact there may be more ING soldiers than Coalition now.

moderator note: The only edit to this post was in the quote

[rock jock]

These are the ones I see and hear about mostly. I do understand there are the erious shooters out there with the understanding of precise shooting. Just seems it's the majority that fit into my categories of "braggers and spray & pray" shooters. I'm not an AR hater. Just annoyed at some of those with them.
Well I guess your limited experience is plenty qualified to stereotype. BTW, please tell us what type of firearms you own so we can describe the "typical" owners of these guns. :rolleyes:

[lycanthrope]

whats a case of 5.56 gonna run ya?

$150/1000 if you don't reload. Any centerfires cheaper?

[jeff-10]

I have seen Armalite and Bushmaster ARs in the M4 configuration at gun shows for $725 new. I do not consider this exspensive at all for a quality weapon made by a quality company. You are comparing the cheapest version of a weapon (WASR) that was already designed to be as economical as possible with one that was not. Look at the more upscale version of the AK and compare it to the AR's, even then it is not a solid camparison.

Gun owners maybe the only consumer group in America that want a product priced so cheaply that the company would fail as a business if it charged what most consumers want to pay. Especially for a product that will outlast the person who bought it, if properly maintained. I understand trying to get the most value for my money but I never understood being cheap when it comes to buying guns. BTW, the AR pattern rifles are exceptionaly reliable if properly maintained.

[borderguy]

I just built an 16" Lightweight AR for $420.00. I was able to buy a Cav-Arms SEBR Lower at AR15.com for $165.00 and got an upper off the parts board for $175.00. Then bought a Bolt Carrier Group and Charging Handle for $85.00.

Then I found a 20" Parts kit minus the lower for $320.00. I bought another Cav-Arms SEBR Lower for $110.00 (I had the lower parts kit this time).

With complete lowers from Mega running $149.99. All you need is the upper, Bolt Group and Buttstock. You can find this stuff cheap on the gun boards.

[Coronach]

Most of this has already been covered:

1. The AK is designed to be as economical as possible. The AR/M-16 is not.

2. Both are reliable. The AK is VERY reliable, but the AR is, frankly, good enough for army work (literally).

3. You're getting a bad deal on mags. ;)

4. You're comparing a bargain basement surplus AK to a new production AR.

5. The AR has the whole modularity thing going for it. The AK much less so.

6. AK sights and trigger are awful, but can be fixed.

Basically, you have to ask yourself what you want the rifle to do. If you want an iron sight plinker that eats cheap food, go with the AK. If you want an uber-accurate ninja gun with multiple tactical doodads, that seems more like an AR. You can probably make either one to perform either role (and most in between), with varying efficiency for varying amounts of money. So, just get the one you want. ;)

Mike

[Black Snowman]

Because once you have a lower, you realise you want a bunch of uppers, once you have your uppers then you realise you're lazy and find excuses to buy lowers for all of the uppers :)

In reality it's fairly economical for what you get. Lots of competition. There wouldn't be all this competition if the AWB hadn't popularized EBRs. So, the AWB drove up demand but supply has jumped to compensate. So, I think now you're in the same boat as the 1911. You've got umptean mfg making parts that very from worthless junk to art and everything in between making the results and the reputation highly variable.

Now that the AWB is gone I think this is the golden age of the EBR.

[browningguy]

Rockjock, I thought Blkhawk73 was making a pretty good point, and very reasonably pointed out his experience. Now I will say that in my limited experience (I've only been shooting about 40 years and usually only get to shoot every other weekend) you see similar numbers of yahoos with AK's as with AR's, it's just that the guys with the AR's have a little more money to spend. Very, very few of the AR/AK shooters I see around ranges in Houston would qualify as precision marksmen. I don't know the numbers, but it would be an incredibly small percentage of owners that actually shoot NRA Hipower or 3-gun with their AR's. Since you're the expert why don't you describe the typical owner of a couple of mine:
Kel-Tec Sub2000 - Glock 17 mag well (31 rd. mags, fits in a briefcase)
SKS 59/66 - 7.62x39 (a lot of cheap fun for plinking)
FN 49 - 8x57 (this is a real battle rifle, no AR's/AK's need apply)
Remington 81 - 300 Savage (fun to shoot with no recoil)
HK SLB 2000K - 30-06 (2,5 and 10 round mags, although the 10 rounders are $65 ea. now that they quit importing them)
Gr. III BAR - 30-06 (no reason you can't look pretty when you're in the woods)
Gr. IV BAR - 270 ( when you really want to look your best for the deer)
Dumoulin Mauser- 338 Win (Late 50's vintage, FN Mauser based rifle)
Argentine Mauser 1891 - 7.65x53 (customized in the 50's, an incredibly accurate old warhorse)
Weatherby Vanguard - 30-06 (well Walmart was closing the display Deluxe model out for $249, how could I leave it there)
Plus a few small size Martini's in 300 Sherwood through .450 x 1 1/2" and a custom or two. For Pistols I usually carry Browning Hi Powers although I do have a Bersa .380 for a BUG, and a couple of Beretta .22's, and a couple of High Standards, and, you get the picture.

Crap, I just noticed I don't have an AR or AK in the safe. I guess I need to get myself to a gun show pretty soon to correct that. Everybody laugh, don't take this stuff so seriously or you'll have a stroke.

[albanian]

I can get Wolf .223 for $99/1000 at gunshows. It runs fine in all the ARs I have had. I have had more jams in my SAR-1 than in all four of my AR-15s combined. All of my ARs have been parts guns as well!

:The main problem is I'm terribly worried that if I ever have an AR in my hands when I REALLY need it it's going to malfunction in my hands."

Lets be honest here, what is the chance that you are going to need an AR-15 in a self defense situation? DO you really think a $800 AR-15 is less reliable than a pieced together Romanian SAR-1 that sells for $300? Those SAR-1s are not exactly what I would call quality firearms. Some of them do work but the level of cheapness involved makes me leary that something could go wrong with them as well.

The AR-15 is going to be far more accurate than an SAR-1. It is also going to be much lighter as well. It will recoil less and be easier to keep on target in rapid fire shooting. If you plan on using it in a self defense situation, the fact that it will not jump all over the place might be a concern. Most SAR-1s have trigger slap that can vary from minor to really painful. Mine was so bad that I stopped shooting it because I didn't like having a bruised trigger finger.

I can't imagin a situation where I would choose an AK over an AR-15. I started out thinking that the AK was great like most newbies but after shooting both types, I found that the AR is more to my likeing.

[cracked butt]

Why is a SAR cheaper than an AR-15?

Why is a HiPoint pistol cheaper than a Kimber?

[LeonCarr]

I guess it is what you like best. Either one will get you through the night with proper training. I prefer the AK myself, but a plain jane un-pimped out AR will work also. I have never been a gadget person, and it seems like all of the people that have reliability problems with ARs are the ones that have every "new better idea" thingamajig hanging off of it. IMO the only accessories you need for an AR or an AK are magazines and ammo.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[Tamara]

Very, very few of the AR/AK shooters I see around ranges in Houston would qualify as precision marksmen.

Personally, I got my AR as a replacement for my 870, not my Garand. :o

[Jon Coppenbarger]

Well I like them both and do not care what the other guy at the range thinks as I think they are both fine weapons. As far as price goes never gave much thought to what I wanted do to cost as I really wanted a few ak type of rifles and bought what I wanted when it was possible.

I have 3 of the match service rifles put together by a mentioned gunsmith
and use them in matches and one is just a back up rifle and only was shot like less than 200 rounds down it last year. One is my NTIT rifle and besides practices for that 1 match a year it gets only 64 rounds down it in 1 match a year. The other is my main rifle and it gets shot all the time during the season.
I also have a custom built spacegun match ar15 that I just picked up and it will get shot in a few matches this year not not alot.
Did buy a pre ban on sat also so thats like 5 ar15's for me.

Now my main goal is matches with most of them but I also like the ak's

I bought a sar 1 back in 2000 and put a adjustible sight on it and it shoots just fine with no trigger slap. did pick it out of a larger group of them a dealer had so I made sure it did not have any off center barrels or sights.
Also had a amd-65 built and have only test fired it but it works fine.
I only use usgi mags for the ar15's and with the ban gone the prics have fallen alot on good mags. I have seen them at shows around here for the last couple of months at under $10 and I man piles of them. The ak mags are also pretty resonible also if you buy them on the internet when you find a deal.

[trapshooter]

On another front, in the M4 profile, I'd go with M193 as opposed to the green tip M844. Same price, and you get a bit more effective range. The M855 is fine, though. Just my preference. I have both. :evil:

[Lonestar.45]

We all have our different reasons for buying what we buy.

For me, personally, I'll probably never own an AR. I can't see spending $800 or more for a rifle that would sit in my safe and I'd plink or range shoot occasionally. If I was going to spend that kind of $, it would be something more useful to me, like a higher end deer rifle, better optics, a custom carry pistol, sporting clays shotgun, etc. etc. I basically can't see spending that kind of $ on what would be a "plinker" for me anyway. They're great guns, I don't have anything against them.

That said, I'm about to get an AK variant, because, I don't have a problem spending $300 on a plinker, especially when ammo is just so dirt cheap, mags are so cheap, it's reliable as heck, and I don't think I'd be taking 400yd shots in a "shtf" scenario anyway. They're easier to break down and clean, battle tested, and I like rifles with wood. And since I don't get into being a "tactical Joe", and could care less how many Surefires I can mount on it, it will be perfect for me. To each his own.

Of course, if there ever comes a time when the morons in Washington decide they are going to ban AR's, well, I'll probably go out and buy 5 of them, just because. ;)

[ak47nevada]

"That said, I'm about to get an AK variant, because, I don't have a problem spending $300 on a plinker, especially when ammo is just so dirt cheap, mags are so cheap, it's reliable as heck, and I don't think I'd be taking 400yd shots in a "shtf" scenario anyway. They're easier to break down and clean, battle tested, and I like rifles with wood. And since I don't get into being a "tactical Joe", and could care less how many Surefires I can mount on it, it will be perfect for me. To each his own."
-LoneStar .45

I completely agree. In a SHTF scenario the AK will provide absolute reliability for within 100 yards and the scoped bolt action can meet 100+.

[browningguy]

Tamara, that's the spirit, those M1's are an excellent tool. By the way, my own Tamara (eldest offspring) just finished graduate school in December and got a job in NYC. With her off the payroll now I can afford to go look at the AR's.

[Slater]

Then there's those of us on a Mosin-Nagant budget :D

[KaceCoyote]

I went probably the route less traveled. My weapon is a Saiga Converted AK, ran me about 400 bucks from a seller here on THR. My first time with the rifle, eager to test that AK reliability I sat down in 12 degree weather and worked through a thousand rounds, with occasional forays into "Christ My hand is roasting through the forestock!". That said the rifle grouped a few times at 1.5" on a filthy barrel(I'll call it a fluke) but is mostly a 2"-3" rifle on the 89 dollar case of a thousand dollar 122 grain Wolf FMJ.

I have 4 Bulgarian Wafflemags:12 bucks each. 100% reliability
I have 3 Russian steelmags:10 bucks each 100% reliability


Not ergonomic? My AK fits me a hell of alot better than my dad's DPMS or Wilson combat m4 thing thats in a gawd awful shade of green. One handed mag changes, done. Magdrop from the pistolgrip, done. Operation of the safety from the pistolgrip, done.

Right now as we speak I've got maybe 1600 rounds through my AK, will be 2K plus my next range trip. I've encountered 100% reliability. My Ak is not flimsy, it is not poorly made.If you really just get sick to death over a stamped receiver, buy an RPK based Vepr and forget about ever buying something like the AR-180.


I dont get why everyone with an AR has to dump on us lil'ole AK guys. Ok not everyone. I'm not a conscript, your not a Delta operator. Cant we all just get along? I like my AK, you like your AR. We have rifles which make us smile everytime we bring them out've the case and make noises fit to write poetry about. The sound of the AR charging handle dropping, or the AK bolt dropping onto a loaded magazine? Just be happy for one another folks.

You'll take your AR, I'll take my Ak. We'll both end up killing plenty of zombies.

[The Grand Inquisitor]

It's not surprising to see that stupid sterotypes have not died.

[InfernoMDM]

You're comparing apples to oranges.
Your completely wrong they are two battle rifles made by the lowest bidder for national defense. The difference is ammo and constuction. I think your comparing a green apple to a red one here.

Further, remember the East Block of the Cold War era followed the mantra of "quantity has a quality all of its own." Hence, the AK design is designed to be able to stamped out cheap in a hurry for third world peasant conscript armies, while the AR design was designed to be milled out of aluminum forgings and put together for highly trained professional soldiers.
Comparing construction is nuts. If I take a M-16 varient of any kind, and drop it off a 2 story building it would shatter. An AK can fall 2 stories and be run over by a double decker bus and still shoot. Cheap doesnt always mean poor quaility and in this case it is disproven. As for the M-16 for highly trained soldiers should I point out vietnam?

The wonder is not that the AK is all-fired great, the wonder is that something made so cheaply can still run, much less run well. (And that it does, certainly!) Thus, by focusing on "bang for the buck" you're pretty much taking the East Block perspective.
You realize the US military bought the first M-16s because of bang for the buck IE lowest bidder. Tell me who was smarter a battle rifle made fro 45 bucks that works reliably every where and can be beaten, or the US that has a M-16 that is less then reliable?

Still, remember that most every time East ran up against West resulted in a victory for the good guys (southeast asia being the one very notable exception) -- I'd say that history has proven the "tech-n-training,training,training" model to be superior on the field. Now granted a lot of that has to do with air power, superior targeting and stealth tech, etc etc etc... but I'd argue it trickles down to rifles to.
How does training come into the point of a reliable useful weapon? This point is moot and shows nothing more then the US has superior forces not superior firearms.

If you've got enough people to throw at the problem, the quantity-over-quality approach is fine. Personally, since I've only got one me, I don't like that answer so much. (though I guess that means one of these days I should take my own advice and get my lazy pink butt over to front site or somesuch. )

Play with both systems, come to your own conclusions.
Great answer I wish you had said this at first

Look I havent had the experince of many of you. Plus I havent personally owned a M-16, even though I shot a good many of them. However the M-16 is better is propaganda. In the hands of a person who cleans and takes care, pampers and love the newer ones they work great. I however have shot a good bit of M-16s and every last A2 I have touched in my life has jammed. One AK has jammed. I dislike the belief that the M-16 is a great weapon because they have a 2000 dollar tricked out masterpiece. They can be a great gun, but pound for pound the AK beats it. Accuracy and all it seems to me the Russians did a far better job at creating a cheap battle rifle then anyone. You can make your own decision and a M-16 will kill just as well as a AK. By the way those of you buying Armor Piercers for home defense etc, need to read the original Black Hawk down and see what M-16 AP did compared to say a M-14.

[Joemidd]

I have a colt competion Hbar and a norinco mak 90. The trigger in the colt is so horrrible that the rifle is a safe queen. Its off the scale on my rcbs trigger gage. I have had the AR for 2 1/2 years and only put 60 rounds through the rifle. The AR was my gonna be m 2nd rifle on pdog trips, to let my 22-250 cool down a bit. But I cant hit $hit with it. My MAk gets @ 2k fired in a it year without many probs. The MAK is by no means a varmint gun. but neither is my $1000.00 Ar!!!!!! :cuss:

[g56]

I built an AR about a year ago, using quality parts it cost me around $550 to build, it's not exactly a safe queen, I've put a couple of thousand rounds through it in the last year, and I don't go out and just blast away, each shot was a careful aimed shot.

In December I built my second AR, it is built for varmint/target use, it cost me about $650/700, and I must say it shoots quite nicely! I have used the JP Rifles spring kit on the hammer and trigger springs on both rifles, it cleans the triggers up a lot!

I might also mention I have never had a malfunction of any kind with either one of these rifles. (2,000+ rounds)

This group is from the new rifle.
http://www.pbase.com/wingman26/image/38720321.jpg

[wanderinwalker]

Hmmm... I shouldn't drop an AR-15 out of my second-story window because it will fail miserably when it hits but an AK will survive just fine. The drop from the second story doesn't seem that bad though... :rolleyes:

I like the AR myself, as it fits me way, way better than an AK. I imagine the AK as being better suited to those people who agree with a gunwriter or two about shotgun stocks needing to be shorter than 14" LOP for a turkey gun, to "accomodate shooting from sitting" or Col. Jeff Cooper's assessment that rifle stocks are too long for the average shooter. The fact that the AR is accurate enough that it makes hitting things easy and the recoil is non-existant are just icing on the cake.

[lycanthrope]

The trigger in the colt is so horrrible that the rifle is a safe queen. Its off the scale on my rcbs trigger gage.

Have you done the AR15 15 minute trigger job?

trigger job (http://www.sargenthome.com/15_Minute_AR_Trigger_Job.htm)

Mine came down to 3lbs and no creep.

[444]

"For that price I can get 3 WASRs, 3 krebs custom peep sights, creep trigger done by armorer and some mags for $6.95 a pop."

Think how many High Points you can get for the same money.

[AZRickD]

a Russian gentleman who has recently expanded his expertise into vodka brand imaging.I don't 'spose you ever heard of Colt .45 Malt Liquor?? :neener:

[Texian Pistolero]

I hope that I have finally reached the point where I have achieved Musashi's principle:

"Have no preference in weapons".

IF SHTF tommorrow,

I'd go Bushy.

If I was going into the swamps for a long time with limited cleaning kit,

I'd go AK.

I currently favor the AK,

because the ranges on my current domicile are quite short,

and I favor the open leaf sight over an aperture.

Lengthen the range,

and my choice would flip.

Both are just tools, and the upside/downside of each should be soberly appraised.

Even if you are involved in a righteous shooting, the cost differential between the AK and the AR is only about an hour's billing from your deefense lawyer.

[KW]

Comparing construction is nuts. If I take a M-16 varient of any kind, and drop it off a 2 story building it would shatter. An AK can fall 2 stories and be run over by a double decker bus and still shoot. Cheap doesnt always mean poor quaility and in this case it is disproven.

I'm really curious as to when you conducted your 2nd story window drop/bus crush test. Have any pics, or a write up? Thought so.

Look I havent had the experince of many of you. Plus I havent personally owned a M-16, even though I shot a good many of them. However the M-16 is better is propaganda. In the hands of a person who cleans and takes care, pampers and love the newer ones they work great. I however have shot a good bit of M-16s and every last A2 I have touched in my life has jammed. One AK has jammed. I dislike the belief that the M-16 is a great weapon because they have a 2000 dollar tricked out masterpiece. They can be a great gun, but pound for pound the AK beats it. Accuracy and all it seems to me the Russians did a far better job at creating a cheap battle rifle then anyone. You can make your own decision and a M-16 will kill just as well as a AK. By the way those of you buying Armor Piercers for home defense etc, need to read the original Black Hawk down and see what M-16 AP did compared to say a M-14.

Where in this post did anyone say anything about a $2000 tricked out AR? We are talking about $600-800 ARs.

And as for the BHD reference, here's a rundown of the weapons references from the book: http://groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/bhdweaponreferences.msnw

[orionengnr]

Buy what you like, defend it if you must. I've lived in three places in five years (no, I'm not staying a step ahead of the law, but I am staying in a job) and at each range I've been to, most AR shooters had scopes and heavy barrels and were working hard at putting together good groups.
I thought of buying an AK a couple times, I know the ammo is cheap and plentiful. So I bought a Ruger Mini-30. It's got a nice wood stock and fires the 7.62 x 39 round, mags are reasonable, accessories are plentiful and you can get it in stainless if you like. Best thing is, with a scope and a flush-mount 5-round mag it looks a lot more like a hunting rifle and a lot less like an assault rifle (please don't alarm the sheep!). Liked it well enough to buy a Mini 14 as well. More than one way to skin a cat.

[Texian Pistolero]

One OBVIOUS point that no one has mentioned.

The reason that the AK is so cheap is that it is greatly subsidized by the governments of present and former Commie countries.

It's like the U.S. government suddenly decided to give Colt or Bushmaster $200 to cut the cost of every AR-15.

(Yeah, in our dreams!)

The simple economic facts are,

is that part of the plant, parts, and prexisting stocks of components, have already been funded by these present (or former) socialist governments.

(We are often buying surplus.)

What they have they already have.

Now they are hungry for U.S. dollars.

Essentially. they are exporting excesss weapons production to obtain Western currency.

That is the reason AK's are "cheap".

That does not , in this case, mean, low quality.

[rbernie]

Even if you are involved in a righteous shooting, the cost differential between the AK and the AR is only about an hour's billing from your deefense lawyer. But evidently it's much more entertaining to argue about hardware than it is to improve the software. :rolleyes:

[Warbow]

InfernoMDM wrote:

Comparing construction is nuts. If I take a M-16 varient of any kind, and drop it off a 2 story building it would shatter. An AK can fall 2 stories and be run over by a double decker bus and still shoot.

LOL. :rolleyes:

[ak47nevada]

InfernoMDM. Great post dude. :what:

[greyhound]

IMHO, because it is the civilian version of the rifle the US Armed forces carry as their main weapon. That really matters.

Look at how much the M1 Garand (re-imported from Greece/Netherlands!) etc go for.

The average "gun nut" has a real appreciation/affinity for the armed forces of the US, and is apparently willing to pay for it.

I count myself as one of those people!

[InfernoMDM]

KW......KW......KW...... (shakes my head)

Since you havent seen it then it must be a lie? Well if you want to run by then I'll show you the video of it being done. Its a older Russian video, with many stress tests. I only have small portions of it, from repeated drops from about 5-6 feet, to the more amazing drop off the two story building. I have heard far more terrible things being done to AK's like haveing them in the ground for 40 years no protection. They were pulled out banged off and shot fine. Can your M-16 do that? Durability the M-16 is whipped like a red headed step child.

On that note I should say the M-16 varients are pretty nice. I have had some terrible times with them, and think that many over rate them for combat, and durbaility. They fire just fine and work pretty well if they are cleaned.

I remeber before the ban a good M-16 was about 2000 with all the bells. My apologies on that mess up.

[artherd]

But then again, is the accuracy @ 200 yards so bad that the cost of the accurate AR15 is worth it?


The Wilson Combat I tried over the weekend was poping eggs at 150yds all day long withought breaking a sweat.

Try that with your ak.

[LeonCarr]

When is the last time an egg tried to kill somebody?

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[cracked butt]

When is the last time an egg tried to kill somebody?
There is only about a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance that you'll ever need to use your rifle to defend your world,country, or family against mutant zombie bears, space aliens, or the Chinese while fighting in waste deep mud or in a desert. That is why "only accurate rifles are interesting."

[LeonCarr]

My point was that hitting eggs is great, but eggs don't shoot back. Accuracy can only be exploited if the rifle is reliable in adverse conditions. I would put an AK up against any AR for reliability, especially against one of Bill Wilson's overpriced baby s--- green pimp guns :). For the cost of one of his rifles, I could arm a squad of guys with AKs. Is it as accurate as an AR, no. Is it more reliable, yes. The choice is yours.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[artherd]

When is the last time an egg tried to kill somebody?

I dunno, these were rotten, I guess you could call them 'bad eggs' ;)

It's expensive, that's why it's bad now? I thought they were Matell built junk that was cheap and unreliable? :)

PS: I would not want to go up against someone who had a real rifle with an AK winging lead out there :) What's 3 MOA at 500yds? Oh, right, 7.62x39 is all but useless at 500yds :P :neener: Perhaps there's a reason that a AK weilding Taliban is no match for a Marine armed with a rack grade A2/A3/A4 and just an ACOG? No, it can't be, it's DUSTY over there, the AR would just clog up on the plane ride over in fear.

[LeonCarr]

Mr. Artherd,

I never said ARs were bad, just not as reliable as an AK, and I think all of Bill Wilson's stuff is way overpriced.

As far as shooting somebody at 500 yds or farther, I wouldn't have an AK or an AR. I would have a big rifle like that one you have :).

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[NMshooter]

Whether or not you own an AR or AK (or ever intend to) learn how to shoot both.

[kaferhaus]

I own both... While I've owned maybe a dozen AKs, the only one I thought enough of to keep is a poly tech "legend" (milled) definately one of the best quality AKs that were available. I've had most all the combloc offerings and the Norincos.... The Norinco's were the worst by far and the other east euro's were not far behind.

None of these guns could be described as "accurate" if you were talking about a run of the mill hunting rifle... The sights are horrid, the sight radius is something you'd find on a long barreled pistol (okay that's maybe a strecth but you get the point).

What ALL of these guns are/were is reliable. I have had a few failures to feed over the year with some of them which was mostly due to bad magazines.

I carried one of the early M16s in Vietnam. you know the ones that "jammed" every time you needed it? Well I fired at least 700rds under under combat conditions sometimes after having waded through a stream or right after diving into a muddy rice paddy and you know that damned piece of junk never jammed a single time.... imagine that.

Further, I don't recall a single soldier in my company having a single jam the entire 13 months that I was there... could have happened, but that kind of news would have been spread all over the company within minutes (what else was there to talk about?) LOL

Also I think few people on this board even realize tht since WWI, the vast majority of casualties are caused by indirect fire (artillery, mortars, bombs mines etc.) Only about 10% of them are from rifle fire... even in Vietnam the "jungle war" this was true.

IF (and I'm not a believer) you can throw your AK out a two story building and then run down there and pick it up and continue to fight (internet commandos don't you know) without getting your ass blown off trying to retrieve your weapon, good for you!

I'll not throw my AR off the roof, thank you very much! And if I were to be so stupid as to drop it out a window then I guess I deserve what's coming to me.

The best AK I've ever shot will shoot 3" groups at 100M. At 200M they become 8-10" groups.

My AR shoots under 1.5" at 100M and just over 5" at 300M. An AK is pretty much useless past 200M. But most rifle engagements happen at under 100M! so the AK is fine for what is was designed for, close range combat.

The AK doesn't hold a candle to the AR quality wise. That arguement is just fallicy.

The AR is much more expensive to build because it's built from quality components/metals, the AK is basically made from sheet metal and stampings. The AR is much more versatile than the AK and can be used in many senarios including longer range engagements and is well suited to fighting at night becasue of it's modular design.

I like them both, but the tired arguement that the AK is a superior weapon to the AR is just plain BS. Yep you gotta clean your AR just like any other precision peice of equipment... you have to take care of it. But nothing like some yahoo's on this thread would lead people to believe.

[Master Blaster]

Since you havent seen it then it must be a lie? Well if you want to run by then I'll show you the video of it being done. Its a older Russian video, with many stress tests. I only have small portions of it, from repeated drops from about 5-6 feet, to the more amazing drop off the two story building. I have heard far more terrible things being done to AK's like haveing them in the ground for 40 years no protection. They were pulled out banged off and shot fine. Can your M-16 do that? Durability the M-16 is whipped like a red headed step child.Since you havent seen it then it must be a lie? Well if you want to run by then I'll show you the video of it being done. Its a older Russian video, with many stress tests. I only have small portions of it, from repeated drops from about 5-6 feet, to the more amazing drop off the two story building. I have heard far more terrible things being done to AK's like haveing them in the ground for 40 years no protection. They were pulled out banged off and shot fine. Can your M-16 do that? Durability the M-16 is whipped like a red headed step child.


You know I saw the same video on the error net, but I got to tell ya, that my SAR-1, I can flex the receiver between my thumb and fingers, same for my two SAIGAs. So my guess is that the video was edited after the truck ran the AK over, or the truck missed the reciever.

I would not like to try it with any of my three AKs, because I'm 100% sure running over the AK sheet metal receiver would result in a crushed flat NON functional AK.

As far as burrying it in mud goes the low quality carbon steel in an AK would be rusted to non function in a month or less.

Videos on the internet shouldnt be taken as evidence of the superiority of one weapon system over another. I'l rely on my own actual experience, and that of folks who use them every day. The AK is not even close to being the equal of the AR system, its a cheaply made weapon its reliable enough and durable enough for what it does.

[Lonestar.45]

For civilians, does the ability to throw an AK off a roof, pick it up, and have it fire, really matter? No. Not one bit. But it's nice to know it could do it, which is why I like the AK.

I like the AR as well, there is no substitute for accuracy. Being able to hit your target where you want to hit it is what it's all about, eh?

I will say this though, I have a feeling that the soldiers in Jessica Lynch's squad that were ambushed, killed, and captured probably would have given their left, er, arm for an AK during that battle. Something about driving 18 hours in a sandstorm just doesn't sit well with the M-16 methinks. Most of their weapons didn't work, and the ones that did, they were shooting single shot. Would that have happened if they were cleaned? Nope. Did they have time to clean them in the 18 hour drive north out of Kuwait? Nope. Did it cost lives? Yep.

Both weapons are exceptional at what they do, obviously, or they wouldn't have stuck around so long. Like everything, it is a trade-off.

[InfernoMDM]

I have seen people who shoot a AK at 500 yards just fine. Thats propagandist bullcrap. Granted its no M-16.

The Teliban didnt loose because of weapons they lost because of training. Pure and simple. A US soldier shoots thousands of rounds in training most of the enemy shoot less then 500 before combat.

Making the comparison is like trying to compare a ACE pilot and a guy thats never sat in a airplane, not a F-16 to a biplane. Sorry thats a terrible point.

To Master Blaster: I post this here since he degraded me in public and instead of being a Man and PMing me.

Since you wanted to call me 12-13 I guess you dont want to play on the HIGH ROAD. Seems interesting a senior member as yourself cant stay on the high road, and understand opinions over your personal prejediouses toward a weapon. Further more I see you cant stay on the HIGH ROAD and keep your prejedious and myself seperate. Attacking me shows your maturity, and I dont think its necessary to say anything bad about you. You already have.

Yeah I am 23 been to Iraq and seen US soldiers carrying the AK a good bit. Tell me again how the M-16 is such a great weapon and I dont know my ????. Then tell me why a good many soliders in Iraq and vietnam liked the AK's reliability of the M-16. Ganted not everyone likes them and some commanders restrict use. I may not be some old individual as yourself with years of experince on the range, and I may not be a marine, but I learn from others mistakes. I have seen tons of mistakes in the average M-16. So love your M-16 its not a terrible weapon, but reliability isnt there when you compare it with a AK.

THE M-16 is not a terrible weapon! For Christ sakes I just think reliablity isnt on par, and history proves this time and time again.

[shoobe01]

Its in a print book, at home, so you have to trust me, but a machine rest test of a stack of battle rifles put them all around the same accuracy. The rest is all man-machine interface. The AK is trying with its little notch, but it can get there.

The AR-15 was very specially designed to be both light and cheap to make. It wins a lot of the overseas contracts because of the price (yes, the government also provides no cost loans for them). But saying that machining it means its expensive is wrong. Its one of the cheaper guns to produce now.

So, why's it so expensive? A little bit because they are not the M16/M4, and those differences induce manufacturing inefficies. A bit for marketing, packaging, middlemen and retail markup, and so on.But mostly: because we pay it. Market forces entirely. You and I have decided that $800 is the price we will tolerate for an AR-15.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The proper place to work out personal differences is in PMs, not in thread. There are no "he started it first" exceptions to this rule. We have no shortage of AR vs. AK threads archived at THR, so I have no qualms about locking this one if we can't keep it civil and somewhat on topic.

[c22m22c]

ok...here comes my opinion.

based on fact of course, although i think it might be kinda hard to prove. take it or leave it.

israelis...people who have been fighting since the dawn of time. they wanted a battle rifle. their test was to take all the major battle rifles, and store them about 30 feet deep in salt water for 30 days. at the end of that test, the weapons were to be taken out, shaken for excess water removal, loaded and fired. only 2 weapons survived. the AK. obviously. and the Galil. the ONLY reason why they carry M4's today...is cause of their relationship with the US. verified.

my own personal philosophy? i want reliability every time. never gonna happen no matter what gun i put in my hand. BUT i'm better off with the AK. i fired the M4 in iraq, and a small bit in Afghanistan. i had my share of problems, thankfully never when it mattered. but i came to a conclusion...any weapon DESIGNED with a forward assist, has a flawed design to begin with. but that's my opinion. i know how to take care of the rifle, to such a degree that even the "used and abused" M4's could save my ass in combat. but that was my own personal preferrence to maintain the weapon that highly. i watched AK's yawn at the chance to fire while nearly completely covered in sand. most of our M4's would hiccup at the thought. and i think that comes down to the design tolerance. your accuracy comes from how tight your parts fit together. i think. but the tighter the tolerance, the higher capability for problems.

in the end...i think a blend of the two rifles is the best course. the reliability of the AK matched with the modularity of the AR. to that end, i'm building an "AR-47...or an AK-16" its gonna have the rails in places i like to mount things, and its gonna have the innards tweaked to match my demands. after i take the 300 dollar AK, and attach to it all the doodads, and thingy's i want, i'll have basically "squandered my money" on an AK. BUT...the AK i'm going to build will have its legendary reliability from history, blended with the legendary modularity.

i'm running out of time to reply here, i've got to go to work and carry an AR-15. not a bad gun...not the best. one last note...from the dark recesses of MY mind, i consider the AR to be the GLOCK of rifles. which is also saying i consider the AR to be the HONDA of rifles. make the VOLVO more cheaply...and you have an AK.

[Texian Pistolero]

In the late '70's I was a an infantry LT in the U.S. Army. I had to do the occasional "report of survey", where a soldier lost govmint property.

If a soldier lost an M-16 (full auto), how long he spent in jail depended on "how" he lost the weapon.

But the charge against his pay was $125.

So that's the real cost in the late '70's.

[kaferhaus]

israelis...people who have been fighting since the dawn of time. they wanted a battle rifle. their test was to take all the major battle rifles, and store them about 30 feet deep in salt water for 30 days. at the end of that test, the weapons were to be taken out, shaken for excess water removal, loaded and fired. only 2 weapons survived. the AK. obviously. and the Galil.

Boy I'd like to see that statement proven! You've obviously never put anything in salt water for any length of time....

Same BS as the one they "buried" for a month and dug it up and it just worked great....

I've recovered them that had been laying in a rice paddy for no more than 2 days after an engagement and they rusted to hell.... yeah 30 days in salt water.... I'm believing it..... really, I am....

Same with the russian "tests", probably a sales tool.... i got a kick out of that too. We used to disable AKs by pulling the bolt carrier and then stomping the reciever with our boot on either a rock or concrete...

If you don't think it will work, TRY IT! LOL


I carried an M16 for 26yrs, fought one war and two "battles" if you wanna count Grenada and panama... and never used the FA.... don't know anyone that's ever had to use it either...

[wanderinwalker]

Originally posted by c22m22c
your accuracy comes from how tight your parts fit together. i think. but the tighter the tolerance, the higher capability for problems.

Yes, exactly. Well, mostly.

There is something about the AR-15 design that makes it as accurate as it is. Could be the gas system, could be the locking system, could be the alignment of the stars and moon (but more likely the former... ;) ). Example: My competition AR-15 has a float-tube and a good-quality barrel. Other than that, there is nothing about it all that different from my dad's old SP-1. My Armalite rattles nicely when shaken, lotsa light visible between the recievers. Yet any group larger than 1.5 MOA (with good ammo) is purely the result of operator error. There is no further tightening of reciever fit, lapping of bolt lugs or any other gobble-dee-guk. None of the traditional pain-staking care required to get "match" accuracy out of many other semi-autos.

Additionally, I've never had a malfunction with this rifle, and it sure isn't from keeping it scrupulously clean. Sure, I haven't had blowing Middle Eastern-style sand storms (and man is that stuff fine over there, I've been to Egypt and seen the Sahara), but rain, freeze, snow and light sand blown up on the range have never bothered. Yet oddly I have seen an SKS, an M-1 Garand, a Ruger M-77, a Mauser 98 and a G3 choke under the friendly conditions of shooting at the range. Go figure.

[InfernoMDM]

I think its time to test this bad johnny out. I guess I'll have to beat the snot out of my AK, but thats ok. Anyone up for testing this bad johnny on there AR-15? If so I'll do the same to my AK and see hot it comes out.

Its probably going to take me a couple weeks to get to the range. Make sure you document everything. Hell I'll take some pictures and see how it does.

Note not all Dirt is the same and I will understand if a gun reacts differently with soil issues. Sand however should be pretty straight forward?

So anyone want to test this out?

Should we test it out like this guy? or some other technique?

Reliability test AK-47 (http://www.doingfreedom.com/gen/0304/reliability0304.html)

[cracked butt]

The Ak reliability test just shows that if you put sand in an AK it starts to jam. Whooptie-do. The same thing will happen to any firearm.

I for one don't understand why anyone would abuse a firearm in such a way, dropping them out of buildings or burying them in sand or mud is foolishness. I wouldn't do this with a $300 AK and I certainly wouldn't do it with a $800 AR.

An old aviation mechanic once told me "if you want something to last, treat it like you would treat your watch."

[InfernoMDM]

Hahaha I beat the hell out of my watch. This things been to Iraq and back(beat the snot out of it there). Its lasted, but a Casio G-shock is designed for abuse:).

I doubt anyone will take me up on the AK vs M-16 test. I may test it anyways, when I have cash and time to beat the snot out of it and replace it.

[Litefoot]

Without getting into the actual performance and/or reliability data in regards to the AR vs AK argument, let's looks at it from a "human nature" perspective.

People who buy something less expensive oftentimes want to feel like they got a good deal and were smart to not spend more money on an alternative item which they perceive to be "not better".

People who buy something more expensive oftentimes want to feel justified by claiming that more money bought better quality.

In regards to the AR/AK thing, both views have merit. And likewise, both could be argued passionately.

[KW]

Just don't forget to throw the AK out a window, run it over with a bus, and leave it soaking in salt-water for a week.

Seriously, I don't think anyone is arguing that the AK isn't a durable, reliable weapon. But it's made out of 1-2mm of stamped steel, and subject to the laws of physics like everything else.

And despite internet lore to the contrary, the AR-15/M-16 series have proven to be reliable and effective weapons over the past 40 years.

In the vast majority of cases, deciding between these two based on reliability is like deciding between a Corvette and a Porsche based on their top speed when all you do is drive around downtown New York.

[InfernoMDM]

Well I have seen several (6-8) M-16s jam repeatedly and it wasnt a magazine issue. Thats why I completely disagree on reliability. I have seen many M-16s work fine, but I havent see a AK jam repeatedly yet. Thats not internet lore thats from personal experince.

[bnolsen]

I thought of buying an AK a couple times, I know the ammo is cheap and plentiful. So I bought a Ruger Mini-30.

Dude, the mini-30 isnt' designed to fire russian 7.62x39. The russian ammo is .311, the mini-30 fires .308 ammo. I'd bet your accuracy is absolutely lousy.

[bnolsen]

And despite internet lore to the contrary, the AR-15/M-16 series have proven to be reliable and effective weapons over the past 40 years.

Arguments like this are stupid.

Look at the freaking weapon. The gas fouls directly back into the action.
Now please tell me that this is a wise, smart, rational design?

It isn't! When I go to a firing range I see powder swirling around downrange (indoor). In an AR-15 portions of that powder that should be swiring downrange or going out an isolated gas tube is going directly back into your receiver where the rounds feed.

Yes, 40 years has refined the design to the point that they've done everything they can to compensate for the fact that huge amounts of unnecessary, sticky crap is blown back into the action. I'm sure getting around these gigantic design faults has resulted in some major feats of clever engineering.

If the crappy FRENCH design had never been used that wouldn't be an issue. Yes, the AR-15 is directly descended from a line of FRENCH rifles. :eek:

It's always fun to go after the AR-15 lovers. It's almost like teasing democrats.

:neener:

[mtnbkr]

In the vast majority of cases, deciding between these two based on reliability is like deciding between a Corvette and a Porsche based on their top speed when all you do is drive around downtown New York.

Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner.

Arguing the durability of one design over the other or the accuracy of one over the other (unless you hunt or compete with the rifle) is silly for most of us. If you observe even basic firearm maintenance, you're not going to have problems with the AR. The AK isn't as accurate as the AR, but unless you're shooting paper off the bench, you're not likely to notice or care. I doubt many buy it for anything other than a plinker anyway.

That said, I'm building my AR because I'm interested in the modular nature of the gun. I intend to have at least two uppers for it, one in 5.56 and one in 458 or larger. I definately won't have a bunch of crap bolted to it (maybe a scope, but no lights, lasers, handles, can openers, etc).

Chris

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Dude, the mini-30 isnt' designed to fire russian 7.62x39. The russian ammo is .311, the mini-30 fires .308 ammo. I'd bet your accuracy is absolutely lousy.

Maybe you should inform Ruger that their rifle isn't designed to fire 7.62x39 ammo (http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/PDF/25.pdf) since they market the rifle as taking that ammunition.

[Wedge]

I think he was talking about the bore diameter of the Mini-30, not the cartridge it is chambered for.

The foreign made bullet for the 7.62x39 is 0.311" but I am pretty sure that while the mini-30 is chambered for the 7.62x39 (NOT .308 Win) it actually has a bore diameter of 0.308"...

[Master Blaster]

As far as the fouling issue goes, when I fire my Ar's and my AKs at the range 100 rounds each in a sitting, I take them home and clean them, there is just as much and often more fouling in the AK as there is in the AR. Using decent clean ammo, and my own hand loads as well, the AR- has surprisingly little fouling in the bolt lugs and carrier group.

I have yet to see that tiny gas tube plug with the sticky fouling some here have mentioned, and the gas tube has a pretty small diameter opening.

Anyone here who actually owns an AR ever have to clean out their gas tube because it plugged shut with fouling??????

My guess is that the reason you heard about M-16's jamming in Iraq, was due to the fact that SOME of our soldiers did not properly clean or maintain their rifles. Since they were new to the desert environment its not that surprising, but I suspect that they have all since learned to clean their rifles.
You dont hear complaints from the Iraqis about AKs jamming because they have all lived in the desert their entire lives, adn are well aware of how to clean sand out of their AK's.

The AR system has a small multi-lug rotating bolt that is very closely fitted, and the system is pretty well sealed, but not impervious to fine dust. The AK had a two lug rotating bolt system and lots of big holes that dust can enter through. I'm sure that if you neglected an AK for a few days in the desert it would jam also.

Another factor is the type and quantity of lubricant used by the Iraqis to maintain the AK, a heavy dose of oil will cause the mechanism to attract dirt and jam. I suspect that they use very little or even no oil.

If the crappy FRENCH design had never been used that wouldn't be an issue. Yes, the AR-15 is directly descended from a line of FRENCH rifles. The french design, thats a new one on me what french rifle is the AR based upon?????????

[c22m22c]

kw...i have put things in saltwater and used them. have i put an ak in it, and used? no. have i put an ar in it, and used it? no. but i'd feel more comfortable with the ak based on my personal observations of the two systems in "less than ideal" conditions.

i read from some other people that the probability of having to use the weapons in the conditions we've described is remote, and those people are absolutely right. very remote.

also, the people who say learn to shoot both effectively are saying good things.

as you (kw) said, the issue of the ak's reliability/durability isn't an issue. fine. then we'll just accept that they're reliable AND durable. a point which kinda conflicts with your previous statements about saltwater/vehicle crush tests. i think i know what you're saying though. we've all seen weapons of legendary quality fail. some catastophically.

i'd like to appologize if my initial post came off too "high-handed" or too "over-the-top-ish." not my intent. i tend to use exageration to illustrate my points. my fault, so allow me to correct it. the israeli test performed was related to me by a person i work with. someone who's intelligence in the matter I trust. i don't expect anyone else to believe this, which is why i'm gonna press him for information concerning that test, and i'll post it here for all to see. that to me, seems the most reasonable, and logical response.

and whoever said that AR malfs in iraq was partially due to the inability to properly maintain the weapon on the behalf of new guys...you are PARTIALLY correct. these rifles, in current issue, aren't the "hot of the shelf models" we want or think them to be. they are old. they are tired. and they are abused. and in most cases, they are cleaned to some of the most intense levels. (a point i've argued MANY times against) so...yeah...the new guys, who oil their weapons down in the desert WILL have problems, thanks to that oil holding the sand. and the "ak-totin' hordes" who've been there all their lives will know better. in the end however, the "exact, and precise design tolerances" of the AR, will be a detriment in THAT sandy environment. my opinion. the AK's out there, aren't under the best maintenance in the world. in fact, i don't even think you could remotely call what the local shepherd does to his weapon "maintenance." US soldiers (at the least, the ones i served with on the line) MAINTAIN their weapons. q-tips, rods, wire bristle brushes, etc...always out and cleaning. from that HIGH maintenance you get highER performance. the AK's don't get that HIGH maintenance, and STILL perform just as lethally, and just as effectively. a fact i can't deny, especially since i observed the phenomena directly.

and now, i suppose in the never-ending battle of AK vs AR we'll each leave it to personal preference. and it's MY personal preference (after watching most of the AR's in my history fail, and watching the poorly maintained AK's succeed) to select the AK as my preferred weapon.

and i'll get that israeli test info out to you people as soon as i get it. I LOVE THESE ARGUMENTS!!!! :-D

[zahc]

Its lasted, but a Casio G-shock is designed for abuse


I broke my gshock in 2 months. I have never found a wristwatch I could not destroy.

[kaferhaus]

My guess is that the reason you heard about M-16's jamming in Iraq, was due to the fact that SOME of our soldiers did not properly clean

And the ONLY verified instance of this happening was with support troops who are not near as well trained as the combat arms troops are.

These folks often only fire their weapons for annual qualification purposes or sighting in when they're issued a new one..

The "Jessica Lynch story" of them trying to fight back but having equipment problems turned out to be false

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The french design, thats a new one on me what french rifle is the AR based upon?

A French engineer named Rossignol developed the first direct gas impingement system and MAS produced several prototypes of semi-autos using that system in the 20s and 30s.

Erik Eklund of Ljungman AB was the first to develop a production rifle using direct-gas impingement with the Ljungman AG-42.

Personally, I have no problem with the argument that, in general, the AK is more reliable than the AR. I think most of us would agree with that statement. My main issue with this argument is that both rifles have excellent reliability and are more than capable of meeting the reliability needs of most of their users. The AR15 is in widespread international use with groups that have considerable latitude in their choice of weapons. If there were something that was both more reliable and offered everything the AR15 series did, you can bet they would use it.

I also think the "eats where it poops" argument is overblown (besides being a tiresome cliche). There are several instances of ARs running 6k and 7k rounds without malfunction and no cleaning. In most cases the fouling is self-limiting as it is very hard to foul a pathway that is seeing 15,000psi of hot gas shot through it every time the trigger is pulled. In fact, I haven't seen an AR stop functioning solely from fouling as long as you continue to add lube to the system through the ejection port every now and then.

[mikemex]

remember that most every time East ran up against West resulted in a victory for the good guys...

I tought the good guys were in the East, trying to convince people that equalty and fraternity are ends by their own.

And no, I am not talking about those communist bastards, but the anarchists who knew that goverments are the main reason why people goes to kill each other...

If Kropotkin could hear this, I am sure that he could say "a good book can accomplish what a million of bullets can't".

Maybe that's why anarchists were extermined: they could guide people out of manipulation.

And if we understand "West" by the same thing, it is definetly not filled up with good guys.

[Kaylee]

I tought the good guys were in the East, trying to convince people that equalty and fraternity are ends by their own.

smart-aleccy comment deleted to stay high road and all. :)

Anyhow, the place for political discussion is over at the Roundtable (http://www.thehighroad.org/forumdisplay.php?f=42) part of the forum, so more comment on this topic should be directed there. If you want to talk about the superiority of anarchist-produced rifles though, this is the place. :)


-K