[HerrWolfe]

Thinking about buying either an AK-47 or AR-15 semi-auto but am not that familiar with either to the point that I could decide which one. For a decent weapon that is not worn out or in need of repair, and assuming the ammo cost for practice is much less for the AR-15, is there an obvious benefit of the AK other than inital price is probably much less? What would be the expected price to obtain one...and no, there are no restrictions for semi at my location? Or am I barking up the wrong tree and should be looking at something else?

[wingnutx]

I love both of my rifles, but the AK is definitely cheaper right off the bat.

I keep the AK loaded in case of zombies, largely because it is a lot shorter than the AR at this point in time. That is subject to change :)

[chrisbob]

I have an ak 74 (5.45x39) very similar to the .223 AR round. I like the AK better for the price, bUT the AR is more accurate at longer distances atleast the few AR's that I have shot were. The ak-47 except variants shoot the 7.62x39 more knock down than the .223 for home defense compared to long range shooting. I choose the AK 47 in 7.62x39. just my opinion and I am sure there are many others here that can help you at THR

[whm1974]

For a decent weapon that is not worn out or in need of repair, and assuming the ammo cost for practice is much less for the AR-15, is there an obvious benefit of the AK other than inital price is probably much less?

Until recently 7.62x39 was much cheaper then 5.56x45. Looking at ammoman it still is for american made ammo. And not every AR-15 will shoot Wolf or other cheap ammo without problems.

And you can get an AK in 223, mags cost twice as much however.

-Bill

[beerslurpy]

I wish someone made a 5.56mm AK that took AR mags. Of course there is always the FNC, the new SCAR-L, the new Sig556, the AR180 and the kel-tec SU16.

IMO the only real shortcoming of the AR is reliability. It has serious design flaws in this department. Extractor, gas system, etc etc. Ergonomics are wonderful IMO.

The only real shortcoming of the AK is trigger pull (mediocre by design, pretty much) and accuracy. General ergonomics arent terrific, but it isnt a deal breaker.

The best of both worlds would be a gun that has the ergonomics and trigger pull of the AR with the reliability of the AK and decent terminal ballistics.

[The-Fly]

i have both, ak in 7.62 and ar in 5.56.

AR thoughts

incredibly customizable - anything from a SHTF gun to varminting.

accuracy can range from very good to incredible depending on how your gun is set up and the ammo you use. My varmint ar can do 1/2 inch groups at 100 yards with black hills 52gr match ammo. Ammo choices are huge, from 40gr up to 77gr, and all styles of bullets.

very low recoil.

great ergonomics and fairly low weight. Ammo doesnt weigh a ton either.

AR's tend to be a bit pricey.

good quality mags can be had for $10 and are lightweight.

AR's do get tempermental in the following circumstances.

If they get excessively dirty (like not cleaning them after firing a 1000 rounds or after shooting dirty ammo like wolf) or over lubed. It's been my experience most AR owners (including myself at one point) over lube the guns and dont clean them properly. Clean them the right way, dont over lube, and they do fine. I had a rifle class where i shot 500 rounds of laquer coated barnaul without issues. AR's DONT need much lube to run.

If you need to count on an AR for SHTF, use GOOD quality mags and ammo (wolf is fine for the range, but not for bad guys) like Q3131 or blackhills. Stick to USGI type mags like D&H, Cproducts, etc. They're cheap and reliable.


AK thoughts

Probably the most reliable semi automatic rifle known to man. You can abuse the hell out of em, rarely clean em, shoot the crappiest ammo, etc, and it will still shoot.

AK's are fairly cheap, $300ish for a cheap one, better quality ones are $500-700


Recoil isnt bad, but it will get your attention.

Tend to be a bit heavy compared to AR's, and the mags and ammo arent light either.

Not much in the way of ammo choices. Fortunately the mags arent expensive, a little hunting will turn up piles of $10 commie mags that are indestructible.

Ergonomics are so so, not great but not horrible.

Accuracy is fine for minute of bad guy, but you wont be varminting with an AK. Effective range (due to accuracy) isnt as good as an AR.

one nice thing about AK, for self defensive uses, pretty much any kind of ammo it chucks will work great (even wolf), as opposed to an AR where you want to use the right kind of ammo for the job at hand.

Not quite as customizable as AR's (AK's arent suitable for a lot of things that AR's are good for)

AK ammo tends to be cheaper then AR ammo.

Cleaning an AK is a snap. And its a lot more tolerant of cleaning styles: if you over lube, or dont do a very good job, the rifle will still fire reliably.


Summary thoughts

AK's are fun guns for plinking, and a good choice for defensive /shtf situations. If thats all you need from a rifle, then definitely consider an AK.

If you want better accuracy, more flexibility, less weight,and are willing to learn how an AR works and how to take care of it (its not hard, just takes a little learning), then the AR will work for you.

Of course, you can do what I did and buy both ;)

[MTMilitiaman]

The Fly pretty much covered it.

I am not sure how much the AK really lacks in effective range to the AR. Even my Romanian WASR can keep most of them COM at 200 yards and with a little practice, probably do pretty good out to 300. It isn't as accurate as an AR, but its cartridge is more potent, even at range, because its .311 caliber bullet packs twice the mass so it isn't as dependent on velocity. At 300 yards it still has more energy, and similar mass, as the .357 Magnum at the muzzle. The AR is accurate enough to put rounds COM much farther--the Marines qualify to 500 with theirs--but the fight stopping power of the cartridge is very much in doubt at half that range. All of this is moot for home defense, but for a general collapse of society, could be a consideration. I really don't think the practical effective ranges of the Kalashnikov and Stoner are as far apart as some say they are.

I keep an AK with a red dot sight for home defense and end of the world situations. I think it will do just fine, at least until I can get a FAL or other MBR to take over.

[CK]

For home defense, I would think that AK is quite sufficiently accurate enough given the short distance engagement.
Hehe, imagine a burglar breaking into your home. Now you have two cho choices what do you want the burglar to see you in,

1. Looking like a swat team, wearing a cool bdu with tactical gear, with the AR in your hand.

or

2. Looking like a wildman terrorist mujaheedin henchman. Wearing dirty white T shirt/rag pants/sandals(no shoes), and those bandana that tied around neck that somehow prefered in middle eastern terrorist attire. grew long beard, and speak in incomprehensible language. Aiming with AK in your hand.


Which one is more menacing?:neener: :neener:

[goon]

I have owned both, and with the AK in several variations.
I have found that for some reason I can't seem to hit a damn thing with an AK.
I can pop coffee-cup size rocks at 100 yards almost every time with my AR.
Ammo for the AR is more expensive but it is a US cartridge. You can at least get it, which is more than I can often say for 7.62x39. It is also better quality because you are talking $4.69 locally for 20 rounds of American Eagle (Federal) .223 versus $3.79 for 20 rounds of Wolf 7.62x39. I'll pay the extra money and shoot the better, brass cased, more accurate, reloadable ammunition.

From what I have seen with my civilian versions of both, the AR works better for me. I will stick with a proven AR over a proven AK any day. (Proven meaning one that I own and know will work).

If I were you I would shoot a couple of both, figure out what you like and what you need it to do, and then make the decision.

[lurkersince03]

Most affordable of each I've seen thus far (and what I own):
~Century International Arms imported Romanian GP WASR-10 7.62(x39)mm (AK variant, "RomAK"): $349 at my local gunstore.
~DPMS A-15 M4-type with 5.56(x45)mm 16" barrel (AR15 variant): $789 at my local gunstore.
Those prices are both without tax.

Start with an AK. It's obviously more affordable. For home defense, it'll be more than adequate. Practice with it. A lot. And not just to aim, but with cornering techniques that you feel would be relevant to the inside of your home, or even as basic as how to hold it properly. Just be mindful that 7.62 will over-penetrate more likely than 5.56 will, particularly in a close range situation as home defense.

Don't disclude the AK because of its range, either. Some people would like to think that even in a collapse of society, they'd be counter sniping at long ranges upon enemy snipers hidden in every open ventilation grille of the local Wal-Mart (get a true long range, scoped rifle in .308 or better if you want to engage in long range interdiction). As well, there are plenty of accessories available for the AK, though I wouldn't count on things like scopes unless they're reflex red dots or whatever. Check out www.krebscustom.com for a taste of the things you could do.

And finally, once you get to know how simple an AK is to use, start saving up for an AR and a good gun safe because as soon as you own both you'll be craving for a real battle rifle in 7.62(x51)mm/.308.

[Hokkmike]

The AK is more reliable. That should be enough said. I have owned and shot both. Currently I shoot the AR and the word is "fickle".

[MrAcheson]

The AKs are cheaper than the ARs and are likely to stay that way. But I wouldn't count on 7.62x39 maintaining a huge edge in price on 5.56x45. It certainly isn't as cheap as it used to be. 7.62x39 sold in the US is almost completely foreign produced which means you are at the whims of the world arms market.

But yes for HD at short ranges, AKs are probably as good as ARs unless you feel the need to mount red-dots and lots of toys on the gun. The AK just isn't as customizeable as the AR if you plan to do that.

[Hoploholic]

Rather than mull over the different platforms, I would rather discuss the rounds they employ. For a strictly HD setup, I would go with 223/5.56 over the 7.62 for one and only one reason. 223 will not over penetrate nearly as much as 7.62. In the home, you may not want to take the chance of a round penetrating a BG and or a wall and hurting someone you love...or anyone that was not threatening you for that matter. A shotgun with #4 buck would be my first choice, and then a shorty AR would be a close second.

[benEzra]

For HD in a typical suburban situation, an AR-15 would win out, not because of the rifle but because of the cartridge, as Hoploholic points out. 40-grain and 55-grain .223 JHP's or VMAX varmint rounds penetrate less in building materials than even pistol rounds, whereas even a VMAX round in 7.62x39 is weighs twice as much and is much more robust, so it would probably penetrate more.

[MTMilitiaman]

First off, a Wolf hollow point in a 7.62x39 is an awesome thing to witness when it hits a liquid medium. I've shot ground squirrels with both a Mini-14 loaded with Vmaxs and an AK loaded with Wolf HPs, and the effect on target there was more dramatic with the AK, believe it or not. The round basically turns inside out when you shoot it into water. I've never shot anything living larger than a ground squirrel with it, but even recovering it from sand and such, it typically displays a good mushroom, as compared to the FMJs, which flatten, send a little core material out the base, then yaw. Speaking of which, I saw a deer shot with an SKS loaded with Wolf FMJs and can tell you that isn't a friendly thing either. It will penetrate barriers much better than pretty much anything in 5.56mm, but I've seen what it does in water and in tissue. The deer shot broadside at about 50 yards collapsed within 30. The exit wound through the offside scalpula was oblong, indicating the bullet was sideways, and there was lots of bone fragments in the muscle tissue. So the Wolf FMJs are pretty deadly in their own right, and certainly not patterned after the original M43 but rather the far faster yawing Yugo M67 pattern. If I get a chance sometime in the future, I may just pop a deer with my SKS loaded with Wolf HPs to see how they do on something living and about the size and weight of a human. My experience indicates that even if it does perform like the FMJ, I am still looking at backstrap for dinner.

Bottom line is that bullet choices may be more scarce, but properly loaded, the 7.62x39 can do anything for home defense the 5.56 can do, but better.

[roscoe]

There are lots of threads here and at TFL on this topic. Be ready for the mud to sling in all directions.

I will condense the opposing positions for you:

1. The AR is a tempermental, finnicky tool that will only cycle through a full magazine when blessed personally by the pope, plus it shoots a round that won't even stop a well-fed hamster. The AK can be filled with concrete and it will still fire 10,000 rounds without a stoppage. Plus, it shoots a man's round.

2. The AK is so inaccurate that you couldn't hit a barn from the inside with a full magazine. It was made by communist slaves who used rocks to assemble the receivers, in the dark. The round has such a curved trajectory that you have to aim at a target's hat to hit his feet at 150 yards. On the other hand, the AR is a precision weapon that can hit a matchhead at 600 yards consistently, and should have night vision, IR, a red-dot scope, a tactical sling, and a tactical flashlight, making you a single-man ninja army.

[Still 2 Many Choices!?]

Whichever one you can ,"point and shoot", with better when awakened at 3 O'clock in the morning, by the odd," Bump in the night", since both will generally penetrate home construction(like a bad guy hiding behind your couch):evil: ... I would say that neither would be much of a danger after penetrating a B/G, so the plan should be not to shoot unless you can hit what you are aiming at under 15-25 yards:scrutiny: ! Optics, lights, or lazers are only the icing on the cake IF you know how to use them... I say get one of each and use the one that handles better for you;) .

[beerslurpy]

Plus, it shoots a man's round.

Youre not wrong about that. I personally dont buy into the 5.56 and 5.45 caliber projectile school of thought.

You know when a round is referred to as a "poison bullet" that there is something wrong with it. In the old days, being shot with a 45 pistol or a 30 caliber rifle just killed you on the spot by making big holes. You didnt celebrate your victory, go home for dinner and then die the next day during the victory luncheon. You knew you were fatally shot the moment it happened and you wanted to lie down right away.

I think the effectiveness of the 223 is exaggerated due to:
-vietnamese soldiers being about the size of cats, ideal for a varmint round
-engagement range was typically about 10 feet
-the 5.56 originally used a super high velocity loading from a very long barrel

[Don't Tread On Me]

Uhh...


Home defense is different from SHTF.


If I were to need a rifle (carbine) for a SHTF that would be used locally, ie, suburban/neighborhood use - the AR is pretty good choice. More accurate and can hit what you need out to 200-250 easily. Cartridge is not an issue here. 75gr TAP will do the job just fine and there aren't any effectivness issues.


For true home defense, like defending just your property and actual home structure against home invaders such as criminals or whatever...the AK is a great choice as you have little time and speed is an issue and you're left with no choice but 1 firearm at most due to the circumstances. More robust, more simple. Cartridge has NO advantage over the 5.56 except for penetrating through walls and other medium density barriers. That could be handy in a HD situation where you might have to shoot through furniture or walls to reach your target. 5.56 is no joke either. It can actually penetrate thin yet hard barriers better than 7.62x39, like thin plate steel. However, most barriers and materials found in a home are not as hard as steel, but are thicker than just a plate - so the 5.56's tendency to shatter or break apart is a negative.

YEAH I KNOW~ 'target id' and all that nonsense. Remember that thread about the article in the news about the guy who invaded a home and the homeowner shot him through one of the interior doors? (the one where he first shot him with a .410, then got the .30-06)...invader had a .30-30 levergun. That's all I have to say about that!


If there's a SHTF, or you need to defend yourself when being out and about in a locality - AR is better due to lightness, ergonomics and better sighting options and ballistics/accuracy for further ranges (250yards). It is also faster from target to target. Allowing better engagement against multiple threats. Assuming a situation like this -- you know its a shtf, so you *should* be packing a sidearm for back up to the AR. That totally negates any "reliability" issues people claim of the AR. AR works best as part of a system - carbine, ammo, sighting, sidearm etc...


For grabbing something in the middle of the night - AK is better choice.

[Bergeron]

Well, it would be worthwhile to consider how you intend to use it as a home defense rifle.

In both cases, ammo selection is crucial, as it would not do to ventilate bad guys and neighbors. Do some homework, find out ammo that works and has good terminal ballistics. I would feel very well armed with either a 5.56 AR or a 7.62 AK.

If you are looking for a relatively inexpensive rifle you can load up, lean against the bedside dresser drawer and not ever worry about, the AK would seem to be a better choice. The controls can be awkward, but they are very simple and very positive.

If, however, you would like to "doll up" your rifle with vertical foregrips, flashlights and optics, the AR platform supports more accessories. It will be easier to find the exact features you would like, and ARs have excellent ergonomics. The AR is a more fragile design than the AK, but if all the rifle will do is sit inside and wait to be used, this is not much of a concern, and besides, it's 40 year old combat rifle design, not a glass chandelier.

I would encourage you to try them both out, shoot 'em, strip 'em, and clean 'em, just to see what you would be getting yourself into with a particular rifle. If one or the other really pulls at your chain, there are solutions and work-arounds to each peculiarity or shortcoming that either possesses. You can get quad rail systems, thumb safties, and collapsible AR stocks that fold on an AK. You can get gas piston uppers on an AR. Decide what you must have, what you would like to have, and how much money you would care to spend. One design will probably stand out as more suitable for you once these questions have been answered.

As for myself, I use an 18.5"-barrelled Saiga AK in 12 gauge as my home defense long gun, but would like to eventually build up a larger caliber AR-15 to complement it.

[swingset]

AR.

For many reasons.....better round in HD scenarios, ergonomic, faster mag changes, adaptable, modular, more accurate, lighter, potentially shorter (better in CQB), less recoil, better sights, easier to mount optics/lights/whatever, etc.

The only advantage the AK has in my view is reliability, but a good AR that's clean shooting decent ammo is a combat-proven and effective tool, whose many advantages overshadow its inability to operate with mud in the action. I don't have mud in my house.

[possum]

The ak cost less, mags are cheap. And i love mine, but
The ar15 is more expensive but there are many, many mods that you could put on there for any situation. I know that you want it as a HD rifle so accuracy at longer ranges won't really be a factor right now. So you might want the ar right now for home defense,all kinds of flashlights and lazers could be had for night time home defense, but later down the road, you might want it to be an DMR, with acog, and bi-pod, or you might want to have fun and put a 37mm launcher on there. I personally think you will be much happier with the ar. Just owning one is an amazing feeling. If you already had an ar then i would say ak then you would have both, but i would say pick up the ar, and get the ak later.

[HerrWolfe]

Trying out a pistol is rather straight forward by visiting an indoor range, but a rifle is another story. Perhaps getting involved again at the range in a nearby town might open some opportunities to observe and even participate. I am particularly interested in the quickness of use and handling between the two. Already have the Garand, so don't want another that cumbersome and unwieldy, and if not for the ammo already available, would perhaps replace it with an AK or AR. It does provide some awesome firepower though, but you guys might say I haven't seen anything until trying an AR or AK! From all the posts, and thanks so much for the information and your efforts in providing it, seems the AR would be the better choice except maybe for the reliability question. In my instance the home is not only the dwelling, but also a vehicle and/or RV as conditions may dictate.

[MrAcheson]

In the old days, being shot with a 45 pistol or a 30 caliber rifle just killed you on the spot by making big holes. No it didn't. People only think it did because the grass is always greener and grandpa tells good stories. There were hundreds of thousands of survivors from WWI and WWII who were shot with these calibers. Sometimes they were shot multiple times. Yet they came home and died of old age or car accidents or whatever.

There ain't no magic bullet.

[KC&97TA]

No it didn't. People only think it did because the grass is always greener and grandpa tells good stories. There were hundreds of thousands of survivors from WWI and WWII who were shot with these calibers. Sometimes they were shot multiple times. Yet they came home and died of old age or car accidents or whatever.

There ain't no magic bullet.


I was reading this thread, Laughing Histerically... then I came to this post and I've got a side ache from laughing so dang hard; GreatGrandpa, Grandpa's and my fathers storys... some day my kids will hear about Fallujah and the M16 that everyone lied about.

I'd go with the AR-15, but I'm partial too it. As long as it's 1/2 clean, a little lubed, only 28 rounds in those 30 rounders and loaded with Civilian Ammo and at ranges under 200 yards, you'll knock em dead. Just don't put on too many Ninja Accessorys.

[MTMilitiaman]

I'd go with the AR-15, but I'm partial too it. As long as it's 1/2 clean, a little lubed, only 28 rounds in those 30 rounders and loaded with Civilian Ammo and at ranges under 200 yards, you'll knock em dead. Just don't put on too many Ninja Accessorys.

That seems like an awful lot of "ifs" for a rifle you are trusting your life to.

[Crosshair]

Fortunately the mags arent expensive, a little hunting will turn up piles of $10 commie mags that are indestructible.
Ran over one of my $6 East German mags with my car on a bet and it still works.:D

[C-grunt]

A wise man once told me that the M-16 is a profesionals gun and the AK-47 is a peasant guns. The AR might need a bit more TLC than the AK, but it will do things the AK cant. But, if you want to bury your rifle in a rice paddy until the Hueys come, go with the AK.

[Foxtrot427]

The AR just about has it all over the AK besides in reliability. You can pour w/e over an AK, dunk it in anything and it will continue to go bang bang. Not the AR however. If it were up to me, Id go with an AR-180B, Daewoo DR-200, or Kel-Tec SU-16. I KNOW the DR-200 is more reliable than most ARs and Im sure the 180B is. Im not sure if the SU is but Ive heard good things. If you wouldnt mind a .308 a FAL or Cetme would also be good.

I think I want a 180B more than anythng else out there right now. AR mags, ar accuracy, AK reliability, and pretty cool looks.

[3fgburner]

Mossberg 500, 18.5"bbl, 5 rounds of #1 buck in the mag, empty chamber.

[MTMilitiaman]

A wise man once told me that the M-16 is a profesionals gun and the AK-47 is a peasant guns.

Which is bullpucky. Some people seem to forget that Russia has a professional army, with elements in it that are feared and respected worldwide, OMON and Spetsnaz aren't exactly boyscouts. They use or have used the Kalashnikov for decades to good effect. In fact, the effective range of the current crop of AK-74s when equipped with a popular Russian PK-AS red dot sight is said to be 450 meters--not too far from the stated effective range of the M16A4--and probably equally optimistic given their cartridges. Likewise, China did really good at creating a respectible fighting force with the Kalashnikov for a lot of years, and lest we forget, the Valmet is still at its heart a Kalashnikov, and you don't exactly see people lining up to invade Finland.

Lastly, I've seen pics of Hamas with M16s as well. The AK is simpler in design and as such easier for conscripts and peasants with little or no formal education or mechanical knowledge to employ, but that doesn't mean the AK is by definition a peasant's gun.

[kbarrett]

I think this debate was best handled by the now defunct blog, Headsbunker:

http://tinyurl.com/gzddh

In the AR vs. AK debate, the winner is obviously the Mosin-Nagant.

[RNB65]

I love all these folks who say AR's have reliability problems. I've got one, I've fired it thousands of times when it was plenty clean and plenty dirty, never had a jam, never had an FTF, never had an FTE, it's by far the most reliable autoloading gun I'ver ever owned.

That being said, I'd take an 870 pump with 00buck over either of them. :evil:

[MudPuppy]

1) An AK and an AR can be had in either 5.56 or 7.62. The platform and the cartridge have not be married for years.
2) Someone DOES make a convertor that snaps into an AK mag well that will accept AR mags (a 5.56 AK variant, obviously).

If you can only have one, I'd suggest an AK in 7.62x39. It is more reliable (imo) and I think that round is more capable than the average shooter. However, my AR is stupid accurate with an easily and expensive mount and scope and ergonomics on it are great. See? I can't even agree with myself--try 'em both if you can, they are both viable choices.

[goon]

I just put a little over 100 rounds through my AR tonight. It was pretty clean but entirely dry and it ran without a hitch with Federal AE .223, XM193, and Winchester 55 grain FMJ and a couple strippers of Radway Green SS109 I had taking up space.
Before that I put over 1K of assorted 5.56 ammo through it without a single failure to feed, fire, or extract. I even tried Wolf and Olympic ammo in it just to see what would happen. No problems. All I did was pull a boresnake through the bore to get any excess oil or crap out of the bore. No scrubbing and no lube and the bloody thing runs perfect.
That is more than can be said for my first FAL, my first SKS, and a couple of AK's I have seen.
I would rate the AK and FAL above the AR in terms of durability but people badmouth the AR for no real reason. When I was in the Army I saw M-16's take some pretty hard raps and falls with no apparent ill effects. They are tough enough.
Any of them in good working order will do fine. None will need to be slathered in oil and grease to work (although I have found that if I don't keep the gas tubes of my FALs spotless and well oiled they rust like hell).
I am leaning hard to an AR for my own personal favorite.
I have an M4 on layaway that may well wind up being the perfect defensive rifle to me.
Common ammo.
Common parts.
Lots of knowledge around about them.
Accessories everywhere that allow you to modify it to fit exactly what you need it to do.
Brand new, prefectly reliable mags for about $10 each.
Low recoil.
Ammo choices to have the least chance of penetration (something to consider for HD).
And in my experience, assuming that it is in good working order, just as reliable as any other gun.

[Cosmoline]

The AK suffers from a much poorer ammo selection for HD. I would not trust any military ball or the low-tech SP/HP ammo sold by the Russian outfits.

[_N4Z_]

Was US Army, lived and learned with an M16A1 for many a year. Very accurate weapon. Did experience jamming. Clear and continue on.

Now own and use a semi AK clone. Accuracy is real world deadly @ 100 or less. Still gonna make a baddie bleed real good within 200. 1000+ rounds and going, not even a hiccup.

Any HD range = less than 100 yards.

Both excellent rifles. Both are effective as butt stroking clubs. 7.62 makes a bigger, nastier hole.


I own and use a semi AK clone.

[Yeager]

Don't forget that if you DO shoot someone with an AK they're more likely to present it before a jury and pull the old " Look at this gun he has! It is t3h evil terrorist gun!" :barf:

[torpid]

Don't forget that if you DO shoot someone with an AK they're more likely to present it before a jury and pull the old " Look at this gun he has! It is t3h evil terrorist gun!" :barf:

If that's a concern then you're just plain screwed with either of the (gasp) "automatic military assault machine guns". :rolleyes:

[MrAcheson]

Which is bullpucky. Some people seem to forget that Russia has a professional army, with elements in it that are feared and respected worldwide, OMON and Spetsnaz aren't exactly boyscouts.But OMON and Spetsnaz are special forces units. They better be good because they're special forces units.

I've met several former grunts in the then Soviet army. The only training they remembered was training to consume massive quantities of liquor. One of them also emigrated to Israel and subsequently served in their military. He said the Israeli military was hard because they expected him to actually get up in the morning and march places.

When Kalashnikov designed the AK, he very much had a peasant army in mind. Not because the Soviets didn't have a professional army, but because he had just gone through WWII where millions of peasants were conscripted. Kalashnikov was one of those conscripted peasants. He wanted his fellow peasants to be armed as well as possible when the next war came. He also thought that making the rifle simple would both make it easy to use and keep it reliable.

[baz]

When Kalashnikov designed the AK, he very much had a peasant army in mind. I suspect that there are more of us here who are "peasants" as opposed to "professionals" than are willing to admit it. How many of us are actually using our AK/AR's "professionally?" I know, I know...some are going to say you don't have to be doing something "for a living" to be "professional" at it. But even so, I will be the first to admit that my need/use of an AK/AR platform is occasional, recreational, and prophylactic. A peasant gun suits me just fine.

[chrisslamar]

Just to add to the HD discussion. What would be a good HD round, for both rifles, that would work well so that you dont have to worry about excessive penitration if you were to miss. So you don't have to worry about the round going through the wall and hitting anyone else.

[Zundfolge]

I'd say the AR is a "better" rifle overall than the AK ... but for home defense the AK is the better choice because you can get one chambered in 12ga.


Saiga-12 (http://www.fbmginc.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=60&category_id=37&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1)

http://www.fbmginc.com/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/15e6336b0b78309ab6c99453dc745db5.jpg


When Kalashnikov designed the AK, he very much had a peasant army in mind.
No, he had a peasant run factory in mind.

[KINGMAX]

Get an AK-47 and abuse the :evil: out of it. Get the AK, find you a supply of 7.62 X 39 ammo. Everyone loves to shoot an AK. I have two of them, (1 Laminated stock that uses HI-Cap mags, and 1 single stack 10 shot paid $102.00 for it, I let my freinds shoot this one), and a YUGO SKS.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Both will serve the purpose well if you will, get whichever rifle you prefer and if you can't decide, then get the one that allows you to spend more money on formal training. Ultimately, I think the AR15 offers more options than the AK; but neither one is capable of transforming a novice into something else.

A new shooter with either rifle, formal training, and regular practice will outshoot a new shooter with the opposite rifle and all the gadgetry in the world. Pat Rogers has a good article in the September 2006 SWAT evaluating the merits of the AK in broader terms but there are a lot of good points made relevant to this debate as well.

[longeyes]

I don't have either one and I can't get either one (Los Angeles; yeah, I know; for now).

Why is it I don't see myself taking a lot of 250m shots in a SHTF situation? Reliability would be EVERYTHING if I had to use a longarm in Big Trouble. And I don't see how packing a sidearm, or two, or three makes up for the fact that...@#$% this sucker just jammed on me!!!

I'll buy an AK. When I can.

Maybe Kel-Tec could build an American Home Defense rifle on that pattern? (I know about the SU-16, but I mean something a bit, well, beefier.)

[rangerruck]

this is a rifle, which it's primary function will be home defense? then the Ak is the way to go. Period, end of story. If you wanna target shoot, varmint shoot, bench shoot also , for very good accuracy, then ar. if you wanna hunt for larger stuff or pig hunt, then ak. If your priorities will allways be home defense first, everything else second, then ak.

[rra_casper]

I'm new here, but I'm no stranger to this debate.
Like RNB65, I'm unimpressed by this "ARs are unreliable" jazz. I've put close to 1,000 rounds through my mid-length RRA LAR-15, most of it Wolf (because I'm a poor college student), and I've had ONE feed problem. This came after firing nearly 400 rounds of Wolf 62gr JHP over the course of three extremely dusty and abusive days, and not having a chance to clean it. The chamber got kind of gunky, and the round had to be forward-assisted in. I did a quick-clean and fired another 100 rounds with nary a problem.

On the flip side, I have been unimpressed with the AK-47 (although admittedly I have only shot cheap Romanian semis). Call me crazy, but I like my bullets to go where I tell them to... Basically, the whole thing felt cheap (because it was) and its ergonomics weren't natural for a big American man like myself.

Neither gun is a very complicated machine, when you get right down to it, and learning the ins and outs of their functionality should only take a couple hours of fiddling, which is fun anyway.

[Foxtrot427]

I wouldnt call the AR unreliable. Just on average less reliable than the AK. Less consistant durability. Little more refined and accurate but not the brutal shooter the AK is. Id trust a recently buried in the sand AK than an AR for sure. But if it meant taking out a bad guy at 100yds with irons offhand Id rather have an AR.

[possum]

no matter which one you have it dosen't matter, if you can't shoot it or know how to empliment it in combat. than neither one will get you anywhere. for example the iraqi's spray and pray, good weapon but they don't know how to use what they have. they don't understand that a few well aimed shots beat a blast of full auto in almost every situation. but i won't hold it against them, they can keep missing me and my buddies all they want that is fine with me.:)

[Dr.Rob]

With either you better wear goggles. That brass comes out of the ejection port at a 45 degree angle with authority.. and in an enclosed space, like a hallway it's more than distracting, it's a secondary projectile. I speak from experience.

"Home defense" isn't likely going to require you to fire 30 rounds of either caliber.

I don't think, as an intruder looking to score a few bucks I'd want to be confronted by a wanna be ninja swat guy or an unshaven intifada enthusiast armed with either.

[Stan_TheGunNut]

I have no experience with an AK other than firing one that a guy had at the range once. I do have experience with M16/AR platforms, from both my time spent in the Army, and my own personally owned guns. I have to disagree that the AR is a POS as some of you imply, and that it jams constantly. One of my AR's, a standard 20 inch barrel (Colt), has had thousands of GA Arms ammo shot thru it, and I"ve never cleaned it. It has never had a malfunction of any kind, using old GI mags that I aquired in the Army. I take it to the range, throw it on the table, in the back of the truck, in the gun safe, and repeat. It has been dropped on the ground a couple of times.

I have never personally seen either an AR or AK soaked in mud for months, and taken out and shot. Perhaps someone living in New Orleans has one of each and could conduct a test? The ONLY time I've seen a M16 not want to work was shooting blanks out of it. It needed LOTS of lube to cycle.

As far as caliber goes, I think the 7.62x39 beats the 5.56, but I also think the 7.62x51 beats the 7.62x39. The AK round is probably a really good compromise between the two, and I want an AK.

For a home defense situation, I think you'd be okay with either an AK or AR platform. You'll just have to decide for yourself, based on where you live (apartment, farm, somplace in between), what you can afford, and all the other factors that come into play. I also would get a pistol as a backup, and a shotgun would work really well. If you're anything like me, you won't stop with just one gun, but you'll end up with a safe full of them. Each has a niche it will fill.

[rra_casper]

Yeah, the situation would have to be seriously SHTF before I would break out an intermediate-cartridge rifle for home defense. Until the day I (God willing) live in the middle of BFE, I wouldn't take the chance of over-penetrating. Even with no neighbors to worry about, I'd still pick my shots carefully, lest my family be unwitting casualties. That said, my bump-in-the-night weapon is, and shall remain, an 870 with an 18.5" barrel, 7+1 loaded with a combination of 00, #4, and slugs. I need to get a good-sized Surefire, too...

[hankdatank1362]

Aren't there enough mounting options today so as to render the AK equal with the AR? I've seen AKs with vertical foregrips, pic rails (both fixed and the clamp-on barrel variety), tac lights, lasers, M4 collapsing stocks, tactical slings, etc. Apparently, mall ninjas carry a lot of purchasing clout these days. Enough so whatever rifle you own (even SKS) can be tricked out like you're in the sequel to SWAT.

[possum]

Aren't there enough mounting options today so as to render the AK equal with the AR? I've seen AKs with vertical foregrips, pic rails (both fixed and the clamp-on barrel variety), tac lights, lasers, M4 collapsing stocks, tactical slings, etc. Apparently, mall ninjas carry a lot of purchasing clout these days. Enough so whatever rifle you own (even SKS) can be tricked out like you're in the sequel to SWAT.

hey there is nothing i would want more than a "tricked out" krebs custom ak, with all the trimmings!

[benEzra]

Yeah, the situation would have to be seriously SHTF before I would break out an intermediate-cartridge rifle for home defense. Until the day I (God willing) live in the middle of BFE, I wouldn't take the chance of over-penetrating. Even with no neighbors to worry about, I'd still pick my shots carefully, lest my family be unwitting casualties. That said, my bump-in-the-night weapon is, and shall remain, an 870 with an 18.5" barrel, 7+1 loaded with a combination of 00, #4, and slugs. I need to get a good-sized Surefire, too...
Do be aware that slugs penetrate a heck of a lot more than a lightweight JHP out of a .223, or even 7.62x39mm. If you head over to the Box o'Truth web site, you'll see that 12-gauge slugs often rival .45-70 rifles in terms of penetration of building materials.

I haven't seen data on 00 buckshot penetration vs. that of lightweight 40- or 55-grain .223 JHP's, but I don't think it would be terribly unfavorable to the rifle. I wouldn't use rifle FMJ for HD, though.

[c_yeager]

In terms of home defense they both accomplish the same task in pretty much the same way. They are both way more accurate than necessary for "down the hall" ranges. Both of them cause obscene amounts of tissue damage at that range, and a quality example of either is not likely to fail.

I suppose that the AR is going to be a little lighter, while the AK will be cheaper to practice with (not by much these days though, although the difference in initial price means an extra case or two for the AK). Magazine changes are a little faster with the AR, but seriously, if you run into an HD situation that requires more than 30 rounds of rifle ammunition then it isnt going to matter since your dead long before you get halfway through the magazine anyways. I will say that the AK magazine is flat our better than the AR magazine though. Again, it doesnt really matter since your not crawling throught the mud and banging the crap out of your mags.

Its probably completely irrelevent to most people, but by definition the AR is a takedown rifle which can fit into a pretty small package when broken into its two main parts. This only really matters if you need to carry it in a pack or store it in a very small place. This matters to me as I cannot easily practice with a rifle that I cant fit into a backpack.

The short answere is this: For this particular application it doesnt really matter.

[Don't Tread On Me]

AR.

For many reasons.....better round in HD scenarios, ergonomic, faster mag changes, adaptable, modular, more accurate, lighter, potentially shorter (better in CQB), less recoil, better sights, easier to mount optics/lights/whatever, etc.


Bizarre. How does faster mag changes, adaptability, modularity, accuracy, and light weight possibly help in a home defense scenario? Optics are useless. Accuracy is moot. Ergonomics don't play a role since both the AK and AR are both ergonomic enough. In a HD scenario, you aren't going to lug either around for days or weeks like in a war. They are both plenty ergonomic enough to achieve the necessary accuracy in a HD situation.



The idea of using a semi-automatic is the faster rate of fire over a pump, lever or bolt action, and the 30rd magazine capacity. I'm definately one for "more is better"...but a mag change of a 30rd mag in a HD scenario? WOW, that would be quite a situation.


Now, lower recoil - that's a plus. That translates into greater rate of fire that remains on target. Sights? Will never be used in a HD situation unless you're shooting at greater than 30 yards. Even then, with the speed, pressure and stress of the situation, you'll default to point and shoot anyway.


Shorter barrel only comes into play if you go the SBR route and pay the tax. Lights...I'm not a fan of them, but I'll say that's a plus for the AR for "target ID"...

The AR just about has it all over the AK besides in reliability. You can pour w/e over an AK, dunk it in anything and it will continue to go bang bang. Not the AR however.


The above is a reoccuring theme in this thread. I agree with this for the most part, HOWEVER...who the hell is going to have a mud-packed, sand filled, filthy dirty AK as a HD weapon? Whatever you keep as a defesive weapon must be kept tip top shape. Regardless of its reputation. You know, the Soviets trained their men to clean their AK's after every single use. Filth accumilation is not only irresponsible firearm ownership, it is totally moot for the discussion of a HD firearm.

The AK suffers from a much poorer ammo selection for HD. I would not trust any military ball or the low-tech SP/HP ammo sold by the Russian outfits.


I think that caliber choice is over-rated and over-played for HD scenarios. So long as you choose a centerfire, you're 95% of way there. I think though, that a centerfire with a sufficient ability to penetrate medium density barriers, such as sofas, interior walls, kitchen cabinets etc...is a benefit, not a liability. That's why I prefer the x39 over the .223. But you're not undergunned with a .223 by any stretch of the imagination. Either is going to seriously wound or kill a home invader. And regardless of what you use, whether it be a .223 or a .308 FAL...don't use 1 bullet. That's why we have magazines. Anything worth shooting, is worth shooting twice (or more for that matter)


Don't forget that if you DO shoot someone with an AK they're more likely to present it before a jury and pull the old " Look at this gun he has! It is t3h evil terrorist gun!"

Right, as opposed to the civvie/hunter friendly looking AR? LOL...


I suspect that there are more of us here who are "peasants" as opposed to "professionals" than are willing to admit it. How many of us are actually using our AK/AR's "professionally?" I know, I know...some are going to say you don't have to be doing something "for a living" to be "professional" at it. But even so, I will be the first to admit that my need/use of an AK/AR platform is occasional, recreational, and prophylactic. A peasant gun suits me just fine.


I think this has nothing to do with why one is better suited for peasants. It isn't really what you do for a living, it is how you are as a person. As gunowners, we probably clean and treat our firearms even BETTER than the typical US ARMY soldier does. So, it doesn't matter what we own, we have all day and all night to clean, scrub and oil our firearms into a spotlessly clean perfection. Just because we aren't professional soldiers doesn't mean we are lacking in maintenance skills. Peasants do though, from lack of supply and from ignorance.


***


Barth has it right, training is probably a bigger factor than rifle. Warrior mindset and being able to produce and perform when you are about to die is bigger than all the little details about guns. However, assuming that's already in place, it is useful to determine which platform offers the most advantages and least disadvantages.


I tend to favor the AK for simple HD, but am not one of these delusional AK-fan boys that believes it is the most reliable, unstoppable rifle ever. I've seen plenty of them jam. And some have had trigger parts break. Enough to where I don't bet on anything.


You're digging your own grave when you start to believe that you own a rifle so reliable that you don't have to worry about malfunctions. Everything fails. Remember that.


Familiarity also plays a role. If you took carbine classes that used the AR, you practice with an AR, you drill with the AR, you use an AR at work (police)...it would be a bad idea to use an AK. Because under stress, your hands and fingers will be trying to work an AR, not an AK - and that's bad.

I favored the AK in my first post in this thread, and I still do. I like the rifle design, controls and caliber as a "system"...

[chrisbob]

7.62x 39, 5.45x39, and .223 all of these rounds will penetrate 1/8" steel at 100 yards. I do not have the pic's to show , but I have proved it on the range. 4 in. sq. plate 1/8 thick.

In my own opinion a 12 or 20 gauge w/ any shot is best for home defense in in quarters less than 25 feet up to 40 feet. Depending on the load?

If you have a perpetrater outside of the home an AK or AR may help. That is if you know they are coming or out there.

In most real cases people don't know until they are surprised by the intruder. In this real case scenario you are better off having a scattergun.:neener: