[synapse]

I have a Romanian SAR1 (which I am very fond of) and several handguns (yep -fond of those too). I have been told several times that an AR15 (colt, bushmaster, etc) are far superior to my Romanian SAR1. I would not mind purchasing an AR15, but first one would have to tell me specifics as to why it is superior. Looking for advice.

Thanks in advance,
synpase

[Chipperman]

In general AR's have better sites, and are more accurate when reaching out. They are more adaptable to Ginger Bread, if you're into that.

In other categories the SAR comes out ahead.

"Far Superior" -- That statement needs to be qualified.

[MiniZ]

Well, this is going to turn into the proverbial "AR vs AK" thread REALLY fast.

Better, Superior, etc. are all relative to what you use as your criteria to determine superiority.

[BigG]

The AK.xx is a fine rifle, rugged and dependable. But, unless you are built like a mutant dwarf with about 18" arms, the stock will not fit you so well. The sights are too close together and there is no bolt hold open. So your best accuracy work will not likely be done with an AK.xx. All those areas are much better executed on a std 20" AR15.xx

[Redlg155]

The only way I find an AR is superior is that you can easily change the configuration of the rifle from a short entry type weapon to a 24" barreled "sniper" rifle using the same lower.

The AK gets the nod in reliability and durability.

Good Shooting
Red

[SodaPop]

I've compared my two Russian SKS rifles and my Russian Saiga to my Mini 14 at a 100-500yd rifle range. My Mini 14 was more accurate and had more hits on paper at 300-500yds. All of my Russian 7.62x39 rifles had trouble hitting anything past 300yds.

The 5.56mm round is just a better target round.

I personally think the AK47 is the best military rifle under 200yds. If I went into combat for ranges further than that, I'd rather have an AK74.


Compare an AK74 to the AR15 and you won't see much of a difference in accuracy or range.

[Onslaught]

I don't now nor have I ever owned an AK....

I have had an AR15 for about 10 years now...

My AR15 is my favorite rifle, and I wouldn't part with it for 10 AK's...

But would I ever tell you that an AR is FAR SUPERIOR than an AK?

Absolutely not!

I wonder if the people who told you the same have any more experience with an AK than I do :rolleyes:

I do have a buddy with a US Arsenal(?) AK, and it sure is fun to shoot... He enjoys shooting my AR too, and even sold his Mini 14 to buy a 20" HBAR... but would he sell his AK for an M4? Nope!

About the only thing I can note for sure is that I can hit a 300 yard sillouette 8 times out of 10 with my 14.5" barrelled AR, while none of us have been able to do that with an AK. Well that, plus I'm left handed, which leaves the AK safety a bit awkeward as well.

I know I'm babbling, but I've been offline for a couple months now, and I just missed you guys :)

[SodaPop]

If anyone ever asks which rifle is superior the answer should always be FOR WHAT?

[Soap]

I own both. They both rock. For me it boils down to ergonomics. The AR just fits me perfectly.

[444]

To me, there are a number of catagories in which the AR excels. First is accuracy. The rifle itself is very accurate (right out of the box), and the sights are far superior making practical accuracy easier to realize. If you demand even more accuracy, this is very easliy attained with very little work required. Since I am a civilian sport shooter, accuracy is very important to me. Second is ergonomics. The AK safety is not handy or easy to use. The mag release likewise. I suppose in a military situation, in very cold weather (which I will never be in) the controls might prove their merit. Although I still don't think that having to remove your firing hand from the grip to disengage the safety is a good thing even under those condtions. Third is the caliber. I personally feel the 5.56 round is the better round, and I feel that the AVERAGE ammo quality in 5.56 is superior, mainly bullet construction. As a civilian, I can readily buy everything from match ammo to varmint bullets, to frangible ammo in all kinds of bullet weights. The trajectory of the 7.62x39 round basically sucks. Finally, the AR15/M16 is a weapons system. As was mentioned, it can be adapted into almost an infinite number of configurations very easily. Within seconds, you can go from a 24" heavy barreled varmint rifle to a 10" upper with a suppressor and everything in between. You can add optics easily and take them off just as easily. With a flat top reciever, and a rail system such as the KAC RAS, you can hang just about anything you can imagine on the rifle, and just as easily remove it all in seconds. Not to mention the addition of a KAC RAS gives you a full floated barrel. This last point brings up the point of the AR/M16 weapon evolving to meet state of the art requirements. Neither rifle is anything new. The M16/AR15 has been around for over 30 years. The AK over 50. The AR has evolved, the AK hasn't.

[SteelyDan]

I wouldn't say the AR is "better," just "different." I own both, and like both very much. The AR is more accurate, it allows you to carry more ammo, the stock sights are better, and there's a much better selection of after-market sights. On the other hand, the AK costs half as much (or even less), will function more reliably under adverse conditions, shoots cheaper ammo, and has a heck of a lot fewer moving parts that could potentially screw up. For someone who owns neither, and like most of us is on a budget, I think the AK is a "must have." The AR is an excellent addition, but it's not quite a "must have."

[ReadyontheRight]

Both are excellent rifles.

-Has an AK ever won a High Power shooting competition?
-Can you own an AR for less than $500?

Both serve their purpose.

[SodaPop]

The AR has evolved, the AK hasn't.

I know what you are saying, but the AK47 evolved into the AK74. Mechanically the gun is pretty much the same, but the range and accuracy of the AK47 was increased by changing to the 5.45x39 round.

I've noticed a drastic lack of experience with the AK74 and SAR II rifles here at THR. If anyone compared the AK74 to the AR side by side, there wouldn't be as much of debate about accuracy.

Besides, most AR15 rifles are more accurate than the standard issue M16A2.

[444]

I don't know anything about the AK74. It seems like we never see a thread discussing what improvements were made.
I for one, would like to know more about it.

[Jon Coppenbarger]

can you win with a ak in a highpower rifle competition.
I did not but had fun and took third overall out of around 30 guys with a sar-1 three years ago. it was out to 300 yard match. wolf ammo with a ak74 rear adjustible sight.
we still get alot of fun out of that match as it was the only ak there also.

can you build a ar15 for under $500 yes but not a match rifle.
my ar's rock but the ak47 is my favorite close rifle.

[Texas Gunman]

I have always liked the AK-47, been shooting mine for a long time, red dot sights helped drastically in accuracy.
Not long ago, I'd purchased a bushy A2 shorty, it hard to put in a few words, but it is winning me over, my AK is feeling neglected. :D

I taking both rifles out to the ranch and spent a whole week shooting both at various targets, ran 1000+ rounds in each rifle with out cleaning.

No function or cycling problems out of both of them, the AR not only felt better and quicker follow up shot, it was just plum accurate, just using the A2 iron sight, the red dot sight helped the AK alot, but that being said, the AR still out shot the AK, plus the handguards didnt get hot on the AR.

A semi auto AK, isnt worth as much as a full auto AK in a combat situation, it more of a spray and pray method.

The AR, is more of a riflemen rifles, it can just out shoot your average semi auto, it make up for what lacking in most situations.

If you knew me, you would know thaat I have always been fond of AK's, but, that kinda dumb founded me has to how come the AR is winning me over.

Im going to keep my AK, but the AR is now my new MBR.

TG

[swingset]

The AR is far superior to an AK if you own the former and dislike the latter.

And vice versa.

Both will kill you really dead. :D

[MAKOwner]

I don't find my SAR2's accuracy THAT much better than my SAR1's (although my SAR1 shoots better than the 3 other 7.62x39 AKs I've had already). It is a little tighter average group at 100 yards but it's still no MOA rifle... Of course if I was shooting at 250+ yards maybe it makes a bigger difference since it's a faster round with a better trajectory. I haven't shot either past 175-200ish, and then not back to back or at a paper target to get a group to compare... I need to get a receiver mounted rear "peep" AR-style sight for my AKs, I have a feeling that would drastically improve accuracy. Been eyeing that new sight from Krebs but I just don't have $50 to throw out per rifle for a lousy rear sight...

But I love my little "AK74", my SAR2, such a sweet shooter, has even less recoil/muzzle flip than the .223 weapons I've fired, and I don't yet have the supposedly great functioning AK74 muzzle brake on it yet either....

[AK103K]

I think swingset pretty much hit it on the head. :)

If you take the time to learn to use what you have, both will do you fine. At realistic ranges both have acceptable combat accuracy, and both have acceptable combat power.

[Marko Kloos]

Bad things about the AK:

It has vestigial sights, shoots a round that's ballistically inferior to both 5.56x45 and 7.62x51, has a stock length of pull that's only suitable for Siberian midgets in winter clothes, and can't be scoped worth a crap without building outriggers on the rifle. Even if you could scope it easily, it would be like putting a 200 MPH speedometer on a Pinto. The ergonomics are horrible, the safety lever is arguably the clumsiest solution ever put on a fighting rifle, and the trigger is mediocre and can't be tuned well thanks to the archaic cable spring. Even if you could tune the trigger well, an AK will only yield "combat accuracy", i.e. minute-of-Western-Imperialist at 200 yards. Quick magazine changes are difficult due to the paddle-only release, and the rifle lacks a bolt hold-open anyway.

Good things about the AK:

It is sturdy as a truck, tolerates lots of dirt and abuse, and can be gunsmithed by a peasant blacksmith. The magazines are dirt cheap and just as tough as the rifle. A tolerable AK clone is inexpensive.

Bad things about the AR-15:

The direct-impingement gas system blows all kinds of crap straight into the bolt and receiver. The A1 and A2 configurations are difficult to scope well, due to the fact that the scope sits on the carry handle and therefore six inches above the centerline of the bore. The greatest weakness of the AR system is its reliance on flimsy magazines, which are probably the single biggest cause of AR problems. The spring tube makes the use of a proper folding stock impossible. The bolt assembly has a bunch of small parts in it, and the firing pin is held in by a decidedly flimsy cotter pin that can render the whole thing inert if it breaks. The receiver is lightweight aluminum and will not stand up to much abuse before things bend or break.

Good things about the AR:

It has excellent sights, great ergonomics, and plenty of mounting options for optics and other doodads. It has a proper bolt hold-open and a fast magazine release button. It's the most modular design out there, and can be readily converted from a CQB carbine to a 24" varminter simply by swapping out the upper receiver. Due to its modular nature, the AR can be tailored to a specific mission or a specific shooter's requirements much more readily than any other rifle design. Recoil is virtually nonexistent, and a rifleman armed with an AR can carry a *lot* of spare ammunition. Lastly, the AR is capable of some outstanding accuracy.

[Master Blaster]

When I shoot my AR at 100 yards, using the iron sights (A2), I some times wonder if I hit the target, when I walk down to the target, I am ALWAYS amazed to find a small group right on the bullseye, or close, and I say wow I didnt think I shot that well this time!!!

When I shoot my SAR-1 I wonder did I hit the target, I walk down and look and I am amazed that I missed the bull by 6" and half my shots arnt even on the target, the rest are all over.

AR-15 amazing accuracy, I always shoot better than I thought.

AK-47, terrible accuracy, I always shoot worse than I thought.

I like and will keep both though.

JMHE, YMMV

[Joe Demko]

I owned 1 AK and have shot a bunch more. They were all reliable. So was the M-16A1 Uncle Sugar issued me and so were all the AR15's I've owned. The stories about AK's functioning after having the bore and receiver packed with a mixture of acraglass and volcanic ash are amusing but have little bearing on what any of us here at THR are likely to do with a rifle.
The dirty little secret is that few, if any of us will do anything with our rifles but take them to the range and shoot them from time to time. We aren't going to be crawling through minefields under enemy fire. We aren't going to be fighting a winter war crouched in frozen trenches. We aren't going to be squatting in the jungle. So, the issue of which rifle will function the best after the most neglect and abuse isn't terribly important, IMO. The AR series is reliable enough. It is also, in general, more accurate and more ergonomic than the AK. I don't know about anybody else, but when I go shooting, hitting stuff is fun. Missing stuff, no matter how reliable the rifle is, isn't fun. Semi-auto AK's just don't do it for me. If I want to shoot a semi-auto 7.62X39, I prefer the SKS (which has its own shortcomings).

[Warner]

Toughness and reliability are at the forefront in this type of rifle, and a lot of the rest of the world seems to find AK's accurate enough.

[Steve Smith]

STOP THE INSANITY!!!



We've done this already, folks. Please, stop feeding this thread.

[Tamara]

I dunno, this may be a record for the number of posts a thread on this topic has gone without the words "sucks" or "rules" being used. ;)

[Steve Smith]

Well, Tam, you just blew that.

[BigG]

For my purposes, missing stuff sucks, hitting stuff rules. So I use the Colt AR15. :cool:

[Warner]

Well for what it's worth, being referenced to as "insane" sucks! LOL

Sure, folks with thousands of posts are bored my these discussions, AK vs. AR - 9mm vs. .45, and so on. But what about newcomers? I would hope that a little rehash of things from time to time wouldn't evoke any hostilities.

[Steve Smith]

Search function. This is a topic that has been on internet forums since they all began. I'm not being hostile, but there are folks who live for this discussion. They exist only to argue for their favorite rifle. Those people have no life.

[444]

Ok, so I have no life. What does that say for someone that reads all this stuff just to keep the rest of us in line, and don't want to participate in the converstation ?

By the way, I said that the trajectory of the 7.62x39 round basically sucks, way back in the thread.

[Steve Smith]

Ok, fine guys, you obviously love dragging this out of the trash. Go ahead and play. Sorry to be such a killjoy.


Question: If I started a website called www.AKvsAR.com would you all just post this over there? We wouldn't need different forums, or even different topics!

[Joe Demko]

You know, military-style autoloaders in general all, like, suck n' stuff. The Savage 99 lever action rulez! S-money (Stoner) and K-spank (Kalashnikov) wuz both nothin' but posers. Dude.

[Correia]

Steve, I know your right, but I can't help myself! :D

I think it comes down to personal preference. Find what suits you better and practice with your gun until it becomes an extension of your body.

I'm addicted to a sport absolutely dominated by AR type rifles, but I shoot a Vepr or a FAL. Why? Because of what suits me personally.

And if you are totally familiar and in harmony with your weapon, you will hold your own no matter what. All of the ergonomic arguments go right out the window if you personally are 100% comfortable and familiar with your personal weapon. I can do an AK mag change faster than 98% of the shooting public can do an AR mag change, even though it is supposed to be much more difficult. (that last 2% whoops me good though. :) )

Now most ARs are more accurate than most AKs. And in sports that accuracy is the single most important thing (like High Power) then you should go with the accurate rifle. But everybody is different, and accuracy isn't everything in every sport/use.

And many of the criticisms of the AK go right out the window when you look at some of the high quality AKs out there vs. some of the cobbled together weapons most of us are familiar with us. I have an AK with high quality rear mounted peep sights, a safety I can operate with out taking my hand off the grip, and I have shot some pretty dang good groups with it, about as good as I could shoot with any iron sighted rifle in fact. Plus it has a longer stock that fits me, a burly 6'5" guy really well.

7.62x39 has a lousy trajectory. That is a fact. Can't be helped really. But I use it as my 3 gun rifle because I can get 7.62x39 for $75 a case, and I hardly ever need to engage anything past 200 yards. (I really like .308, but ammo costs twice as much, so I get less trigger time).

Also there are quality AKs available in .223 and 5.45. Also the cheapest steel cased practice .223 will work through an AK just fine, but may or may not work through your AR.

I think both are good guns, for me PERSONALLY I get more use out of my AKs that I ever have with my ARs. I have sold every AR I have ever owned. (I buy one every couple of years, shoot it for awhile, don't fall in love with it, and sell it).

[DJJ]

Well, some of us need these threads - those of us in the occupied territories who can only dream of conducting our own personal evaluations of ARs, AKs, and so forth. As it stands, we have to live vicariously through the rest of you. :fire:

[Art Eatman]

Ah, but there's just something about the attractiveness of a well-proportioned, long-barrelled bolt-action that soothes the soul! There's satisfaction in the knowledge that anything inside of 500 yards belongs to you.

:D:D:D

Art

[Correia]

Art, true, very very true. :)

[AK103K]

Then again Art, with a 155mm, anything within 20,000 meters belongs to you. If you can find it after you shoot it. :D

[SodaPop]

Atleast we don't hammer the Mini 14 vs AR threads anymore.:)



It has vestigial sights, shoots a round that's ballistically inferior to both 5.56x45 and 7.62x51

Except the 5.45x39 round.



I wouldn't mind see more threads get locked down in this forum. Once a month is about as much as I want to see the same questions asked.

[rock jock]

I have owned what are arguably the best AK's on the market - a VEPR II in 7.62x39 and now, a Kreb's AK-103K. Both are VERY nice AKs. But I still like my Bushmaster M4gery better. AR has the edge on ergonomics, accessories, recoil, accuracy, sophisticated appearance. AK has the edge on power, reliability (only slightly), evil appearance.

[Blain]

The AR "evolved" because it HAD TO!


With the AK the old adage goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

[444]

Well Blain, as was so rightly pointed out to me earlier, I was wrong. The AK did evolve, so appearently someone thought it was broke and needed fixing.

But, on another level, you are right; the M16 had to evolve. The U.S. is a first world nation. Our military is using state of the art technology in all aspects of warfare including the basic infantry rifle. Our military uses things like night vision equipment, lasers, and sighting systems that markedly increase the first hit potential of the average soldier. We wanted the ability to attach things like grenade launchers to increase the firepower available to the infantry sqad. And the standard infantry rifle had to adapt to use all this technology. However, the basic weapon is basically unchanged since the Vietnam war. This adaptability is a credit to Eugene Stoner.

[ACP]

I will second all of what 444 originally said. And adding to that...

Don't understimate the flexibility of AR platform or the value of a lightweight rifle, even if its receiver is made of aluminum.

Certainly, don't underestimate accuracy. That's really what it's all about.

Caliber -- both will kill a human in under 100 yards. And, if you're not looking through glass and you're a civilian, what right do you have to take that shot anyway? Self-defense? That's a far-fetched scenario, IMHO.

Reliability -- the only full-auto AK I ever fired locked up on me. Not the M16 or the Bushmaster XM15 I have. The AR series will blow a lot of junk out all by itself. But, do you not plan on maintaining your weapon? Don't fall into that trap of "I went 5,000 rounds without a cleaning." Clean your rifle! Use ONLY USGI mags, and shoot quality ammo (I shoot GI surplus M193) and you'll notice those AR "reliability" problems go out the window...

But vastly superior? To each their own... I think it is "superior."

[BigG]

444 basically made the case. SHTF is hardly a criterion, imho. The BIG difference is bucks; no bucks, no Buck Rogers.

[762x51]

I had this AK built to kind of fill the AR spot in my collection. I think it overcomes most of the shortcomings people associate with AK's quite well including the accuracy issue. I'll probably buy an AR at some point anyway......but this rifle really does everything an AR can.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37689

[Blain]

No, the AR didn't origonally evolve because they wanted it to be even more effective. They had to evolve the AR to even get the thing to work! Infact they spent 30+ years tinkering around with design of the gun, mags, and ammo to get something which was slightly less than a POS. Finally after so many years it is a "decent" rifle, but far too weak and finicky to be effective in real combat.

[444]

By all means let's hear about the evolution. What modifications have been made over the years ?

[BigG]

Blain, you forgot to mention it is chambered for a prairie dog cartridge... :neener:

[Bugs66]

I have shot M-16s and ARs most of my adult life, starting in the Marine Corps when I was 17. I never shot an AK until just recently when I decided to buy an SAR-1.

First impression after firing the SAR-1? No wonder those poor bastards always loose the battle. The AK may keep on firing after a lot of abuse but it will take a magazine full of ammo to make the same kill one shot in an m-16/AR will take. The AK accuracy is poor. The fire control is crappy. The recoil tenderizes your shoulder.

Ok, enough slamming the AK. It IS somewhat fun to shoot and I am going to work on my technique to shoot it better. I also admire it's simplicity.

The M-16/AR is really the battle Cadillac. It's really a no brainer after you have fired both of them. Yes, you do need to take care of them and CLEAN. It's not so bad for the reward.

Bugs66

[SteelyDan]

As further evidence of my mental deterioration, I'm still waiting for a board to open up that has only six topics:

1. AR vs. AK
2. SHTF firearms
3. 9 mm vs. .40 vs. .45
4. Should I vote Libertarian?
5. Mall ninjas
6. Bear defense

Really, what more do we need?

[Blain]

6. Bear defense
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:evil:

[MAKOwner]

lol, that's true, what more do you need... THR has all that but too much extra baggage, time for some really anal board nazis to close all the posts not relating to 1-6. LOL

[Kaylee]

Hi.

This is your friendly really anal board nazi, saying it's time to get back onto topic 1. Or take it to general.

:D


-K

[BryanP]

Okay, AR vs AK. I don't own either (well, I own all the parts to build half an AR :) ), I've fired each exactly once thanks to friends and acquaintances and I can honestly say I want one of each eventually. Part of me says "finish building the AR." Another part says "You could buy the AK for less than the cost of the upper you still need for the AR."

[Master Blaster]

762X51

Making an AK look and shoot as well as an AR-15?

As far as the cost.....not cheap. The whole project, not including the mags or the Aimpoint, was about $1100.

So for $300 more retail than a bushmaster you can make an AK almost as accurate, with sights that are almost as good, and almost as aesthetically pleasing (top cover movement on AK with peep sights?) as an $800 Bushmaster?

How good does that AK shoot anyway???

My thought is to appreciate each for its advantages, and try not to see the flaws.

Get both and enjoy.

[762x51]

So for $300 more retail than a bushmaster you can make an AK almost as accurate, with sights that are almost as good, and almost as aesthetically pleasing (top cover movement on AK with peep sights?) as an $800 Bushmaster?


Almost? It's AS accurate as my buddys Bushy M4....if not moreso. That was one of my goals. True....it cost a couple of hundred more but that can be attributed to some of the parts I used. Money was not a concern for this project but the price can be cut down to about $850 or $900 and still have the same basic weapon without some of the sugar coating. The brake I used was $115 alone. As for the top cover movement.....there is none....or at least not enough to make a difference. This is what you get with a QUALITY made AK. Unfortunately, everyone out there thinks that SAR's are the norm in fit and finish for an AK.....not so. The Izhmash and Arsenal built rifles are much more detailed and solid. As far as aesthetics goes.....that is a subjective thing. I happen to think AK's look a hell of a alot cooler than AR's and ones things for sure.....I won't find myself shooting next to another one at the range. This past weekend I must have seen about 35 AR's at the range all pretty much the same.

As to how well it shoots......I posted a mini range report on the original thread. It's a great gun to shoot. Everyone else who shot it thought so too.

I too try to see a weapon for it's advantages not flaws, however this was a purpose built concept rifle just to see if all the issues generally associated with AK's could be solved. I think it was a success.

[Master Blaster]

As for the top cover movement.....there is none....or at least not enough to make a difference. This is what you get with a QUALITY made AK.

The handle on my A2 bushmaster does not come off, like the cover on an AK, its not held on by the recoil spring rod, so I would guess that the long term accuracy and durrability of the A2 sight on a standard (non detachable handle AR) would be much better. The AK could have a screw added on the front of the cover to help that peep sight retain long term accuracy.

I realize you are not going to take the AK into battle or have it run over by a truck, Nor do I plan to do this to my Bushmaster, or even my SAR-1 (which has a movement free top cover, but it is still a thin sheet metal cover that will loosen over time, since it was not designed to be a platform for a peep sight by commrade Kalishnakov).

The point is that better is subjective here since both will be combat accurate. The question is better for what???????
The other point is that you get what you pay for, and a really good AK can be just as expensive as an AR-15.

I would still say that match grade accuracy is the domain of the AR not the AK (custom or not), while reliability may be the AKs strong point.

[762x51]

I'll agree with you there.....MATCH accuracy (specifically highpower) is still the AR's domain. I personally have no interest in high power competition though as i'm sure most out there who are buying these rifles are not. (I'm not knocking high power here please don't get upset Steve ;) ....I just don't have an interest in doing it) Not to mention the fact that most of these highly accurate AR's are accuracy tuned in one way or another. Maybe if I could get Douglas or Shilen or someone to make a 20 inch match AK barrel......hmmm....

So maybe there is ONE thing the AR can do better.....for the moment. ;)

[Steve Smith]

Everybody's got a right to their own opinion of Highpower, politics, sex, and all the rest of the important stuff. ;)

[Sir Galahad]

Hey, why not combine Steve's statement with a TV show and ths thread and we'll have "Sex, ARs, and AKs"?

I'm an AK man, of course. But think about calling the networks about the TV show idea. They won't take my calls anymore since I suggested making the Democratic Presdential Debates into a new TV show. It was going to be along the lines of the old show "Make Me Laugh" (remember that show? Where stand-up comedians did their shtick and you had to keep from laughing to win?) In my show idea (I call it "Voting For Laughter"), the candidates stand in front of a contestant and the contestant has to keep from laughing as Dean and Kucinich and Co. explain their foreign policy and economic policy. If the contestant doesn't laugh, he wins. Think about what a great show that'd have been!

[Art Eatman]

Whut Kaylee sed.

Art

[Dave R]

Here's my version of the whole debate. The AR-15 is better because it has better sights, better ergonomics, and bolt hold-open. And you can swap uppers.

The AK is better because it is less expensive, and will run forever on minimal maintenance.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

[Sir Galahad]

Somoeone said tha the AK recoil "...tenderizes your shoulder..." HUH??!!! You need to get out there and fire some substantial calibers more often! My AK is the lightest centerfire caliber I own. And I'm not a big guy either at 5'7" 125 lbs (and that's after putting on weight!.) I was ROTFLMAO in basic training many, many years back when guys were whining about the recoil and noise of the M-16A1. I went in there having shot only Mausers and Lee Enfields. The 5.56 was recoil non-existant. Well, maybe it floats some boats, but low recoil does not necessarily a good rifle make. A .177 pellet rifle has pretty low recoil, but I doubt many would want to rely on one of those in a defensive role.


AK vs AR is an argument that will never end. I've said it before, I'll say it again. I repaired the M-16A1 in the army. I bought an AK.

[sm]

Don't own either, don't have an opinion. Since I have never jumped in and posted on this "topic"...thought I would. Ahhh, now I've participated in all the hot topics of never-ending debate. :D

Carry on...I may actually own one, both...oh my!...I see what happpens when treading new waters... bye...;)

[The Silver Bullet 1719]

Yep, the AK SUCKS, its accuracy is horrible (Never designed for accuracy, a 7.62x39mm bullet in the chest, leg, pelvis really hurts). The AR SUCKS also, its SOOOOO unrelible (Granted the gas system is a weak point, but for being around in service since the 1960s, I think its not THAT unrelible, also). The AK works, the AR works.

PS: The AK has been through several evolutions:
AK-47, first a stamped/milled, then totally milled, then totally stamped (AKM). Don't forget the AKS (folding stock) on milled receiver, and the AKMS (folding stock on stamped). The AK-74 has several different evolutions also.

[Pumpkinheaver]

The FN/FAL and/or L1A1 are better than both of them.

[AK103K]

mmmm, you dont suppose that the weapons involved in all these threads are all really pretty much equal,(when employed realisticly and at realistic combat ranges) and its in fact the users that are lacking do you? :neener:

[pignock]

what this thread really needs is a post from SR_15_M4 from TFL to straighten things out!

[makarov1]

Can't we all just get along?

[Joe Demko]

what this thread really needs is a post from SR_15_M4 from TFL to straighten things out!

Why? We have Blain.

[Kaylee]

okay. we're done.