Ar 15 & ak 47


PDA






GunLvrNLearner
November 24, 2008, 11:19 PM
I've always heard a lot about these but know nothing about either.

What is each mainly used for?

What caliber is each?

What are the price range on these?

Do certain manufacturers make each?

When ppl think there may soon be restriction on guns these 2 gain popularity at local gun shops here,why is that?

Thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "Ar 15 & ak 47" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
elmerfudd
November 25, 2008, 12:03 AM
They do pretty much the exact same thing, but they were designed with very different philosophies. The AR was designed around the soldier. The AK was designed around reliability and cheap manufacture.

The AR has excellent ergonomics and is extremely customizable. The sights, safety, mag release, etc... are all right where they ought to be. It's also somewhat more accurate than the AK.

The AK is the standard for reliability and it is much cheaper, but the AK is not designed around you and you will have to practice more to develop the same skill with it. You can customize an AK too and there are plenty of aftermarket parts out there for it, but it just doesn't lend itself to it in the same way.

Coal Dragger
November 25, 2008, 12:10 AM
Given my experiences with both rifles I can say for a fact that the AR platform is much much much more accurate than the AK platform.

jackdanson
November 25, 2008, 12:29 AM
Given my experiences with both rifles I can say for a fact that the AR platform is much much much more accurate than the AK platform

Yes, that is definetly true, but that's not the whole story. The difference between a 1.5moa AR and a 2.5 moa AK isn't as pronounced in real-life situations. (not shooting from a bench and not shooting 300+ yards)

To put it simply I'd rather have my AR in a combat/battle situation with others around me and plenty of supplies. I'd rather have my AK in survival/long term situation.

Both do similar jobs, both do them well, although quite differently. Anyway on to the questions.

What caliber is each?

Generally .223 or 5.56 Nato for the AR and 7.62x39 for the AK. That being said there are many other options for both rifles. AK (saigas) also come in .308,.223,5.45x39,12-20 gauge,.410, probably more I'm missing. AR's can be had in uhhhh a LOT of calibers.


What are the price range on these?

I'm not sure with the current "situation" so someone correct me if I'm wrong. Generally a decent AK can be found in the $400-$600 range, some cheaper some more expensive. AR's range from $600-$2500+ with rifles in the $800-$1000 range being the best quality/price compromise.

Do certain manufacturers make each?

Yes, many. AK saiga, century arms intl., norinco, arsenal, many, many more.

AR smith-wesson, bushmaster, del-ton, olympic, dpms, stag, Lewis Machine Tool, many, many more.

When ppl think there may soon be restriction on guns these 2 gain popularity at local gun shops here,why is that?

Obama, potential "assault weapons" bans could make both rifles illegal to buy. But they aren't even "assault rifles" in the form that you would buy them at a local shop. Politicians like to use that phrase to scare the average Joe into thinking they are only used for killing innocent people. The are carbines, pure and simple, no more dangerous than a ruger mini or any other auto-loading rifle.

RaisedByWolves
November 25, 2008, 02:29 AM
IMO, I would rather have the AK if stuck in a swamp or desert and or fighting alone......or in an urban environment.




Id rather an AR in all other situations.

Destructo6
November 25, 2008, 02:38 AM
The SIG 556 is a great mix between the AK's reliability and the AR's ergonomics and accuracy.

People are having flashbacks to 1992, where the "Assault Weapons" ban followed two years after Clinton's entry into the White House. Lots of folks, me included, didn't have an opportunity to get what they wanted then (I was overseas).

Brian Dale
November 25, 2008, 05:00 AM
elmerfudd, that's one of the clearest, most concise comparisons I've ever read.

Coal Dragger
November 25, 2008, 01:46 PM
Jackdanson,

I have yet to encounter any AK that is capable of a consistent 2.5 MOA at 100 yards, much less 200 or 300 yards. More like 3.5-4.0 MOA given commonly available ammunition.

You can keep a common AR reliable through proper maintenance and it will be fairly accurate, but you can't make a common AK-47 accurate no matter what you do.

KBintheSLC
November 25, 2008, 06:40 PM
Given my experiences with both rifles I can say for a fact that the AR platform is much much much more accurate than the AK platform.

Coal Dragger... I think there are many errors in your opinions...

I wish it was that simple. I have both rifle platforms... including a scoped Yugo AK that consistently fires 1.5 - 2 MOA. I can make 400 yard hits on a 7" steel plate all day long. The problem with the "accuracy" of the AK comes from two things. 1) Lack of training in the user. Most AK-armed fighters are gorilla fighters will little or no training, and 2) the crappy stock sights. This can easily be fixed by upgrading the sights or adding a railed fore end and mounting an optic.
If you address issues 1 and 2, a good quality AK is capable of being a very accurate rifle, and it still has lots of energy out passed 300 yards. This doesn't count for a very cheap, crappy build... nothing will help that.
The AR is a great weapon as well, but is more vulnerable to lack of cleaning. Also, AK ammo is still quite a bit cheaper than AR ammo.

I have yet to encounter any AK that is capable of a consistent 2.5 MOA at 100 yards, much less 200 or 300 yards. More like 3.5-4.0 MOA given commonly available ammunition.
If you are ever in SLC, give me a holler and I'll show you one.


To put it simply I'd rather have my AR in a combat/battle situation with others around me and plenty of supplies. I'd rather have my AK in survival/long term situation.

Well put. The AR is for organized military/police operations where you have cleaning stations and parts drops. The AK is a long-term survival gun that will endure the hardships of mother nature and still go bang.

For a civilian, I would always recommend an AK as your go-to rifle.

Loomis
November 25, 2008, 07:24 PM
I'm gonna be blunt, and probably upset some peeps here.

We aren't allowed to have full auto or 3 round burst. Civillian ARs and AKs are single fire only. THis FACT virtually makes AKs WORTHLESS. It harms the utility of the AR as well, but not as much as the AK.

ARs are a long range rifle, first and foremost, and can be used fairly well as a close range firearm also. AKs are not a long range rifle. THey are an extremely powerful medium range sub machine gun. Take away full auto capability from a high powered medium range sub machine gun and you are left with an oddball nothing.

Take away 3 round burst from a long range rifle, and you are left with a long range rifle that lost it's close to medium range usefulness.

Now, there's some more points to argue about for and against each, but that is the main reality we are left with due to the stupid gun control laws we have to live with. AKs are cheaper to buy and simpler to maintain. They shoot a bigger bullet that you can technically hunt deer with if you are kind of strange and would consider doing something that strange. ARs are more modular, more cusomizable, more accurate, more expensive, more finicky and harder to maintain. THey are also way more available because they are american made. THere are so many different manufacturers right here in america, you would be very hard pressed to name them all. I recently learned of a company that makes AR lower receivers in iowa, of all places.

If you want an AR for doomsday scenario, you'd better have a good sized stockpile of tools an spare parts too. THere are so many itty bitty little bits and pieces in an AR that you could lose or break, you'd better plan for that to happen. Alot. You also better practice practice practice taking it all apart and putting it all back together again. It helps if you are somone that enjoys puzzles, is mechanically enclined, and loves to clean and polish things over and over.

wyocarp
November 25, 2008, 08:15 PM
Well, I'm used to being the odd man out in these threads. I almost entirely disagree with most posts on here. The AK can be customized beyond what most people will want to and is nearly as accurate. My experience is that the AR has more problems. Better than 2.5 MOA at 100 yards from an AK isn't a problem, contrary to what an earlier person said. The lack of 3 round burst hardly makes the AK worthless.

If one wants to shoot, get an AK. If you want to play around with cleaning and fixing, get an AR. If you have the money, get one of each in the same caliber and find out which one you like the best and which one you take with you more often.

WardenWolf
November 25, 2008, 08:38 PM
Saigas average around 2 MOA. Lower-end AK's, predictably, are worse. You can shoot dime-sized groups out of an AR, but it's not exactly necessary since the maximum effective range of the 5.56 / .223 round is about 500 yard. AK's are also very comfortable weapons, or can be made comfortable with a minimum of effort and money.

45B@cav
November 25, 2008, 08:48 PM
Yes the AR is a little finicky with cleaning but my job is to maintain these rifles for a living and I am way more lonely than that Maytag repairman. I also own 3 AR's of different lengths 2 AK variants 1 in 5.45X39 and the other 7.62X39 I shoot all my rifles alot and I enjoy them for what they are. My 5.45 bulgy shoots 2.5-3.5 all day hot or cold. My 7.62 Polish shoots 3.5-4.5 and these are from a bench best case scenario. My Carbine AR shoots 1-2 all day and my 20"ers shoot 1-1.5 no problem AK's are so reliable that I honestly only clean mine 4 times a year but I only clean my AR's 6-8 times a year and yes the bench shot groups were all with spotless rifles. Buy both and have fun.

benEzra
November 25, 2008, 09:41 PM
We aren't allowed to have full auto or 3 round burst. Civillian ARs and AKs are single fire only. THis FACT virtually makes AKs WORTHLESS. It harms the utility of the AR as well, but not as much as the AK.
Ummm, would you consider a lever-action .30-30 Winchester "worthless"?

If you don't, then why would a rifle that is just as accurate, more rugged and reliable under adverse conditions, and ballistically superior beyond 100 yards be "worthless"?

Inside 200 yards, an AK will do anything an AR will, realistically speaking. Yes, the AR has a significant edge between 200 and 300 yards and is vastly superior beyond 300, but that doesn't mean the AK is worthless; a 300-yard rifle covers pretty much any likely civilian defensive/SHTF scenarios I can think of, and can be used for hunting in a pinch (inside 125 yards or so, like a .30-30).

If you need to be shooting further than 300, you would probably be wanting something larger caliber than .223 or 7.62x39mm anyway.

They shoot a bigger bullet that you can technically hunt deer with if you are kind of strange and would consider doing something that strange
Why is hunting deer with a 5-shot .30-30 "strange"? Because that's what a civilian AK with a 5-round hunting magazine is...

RP88
November 25, 2008, 10:03 PM
well, since you'll need a good time to learn on this, I'll list the basics:

ARs run from 750-2400 bucks depending on what you want. There are dozens of good companies putting ARs out now. They shoot the .223 and/or 5.56 NATO round, which is very accurate round for target and varmint hunting. The round itself possesses great terminal ballistics if it fragments; the fragmenting causes severe tissue damage. However, actual hard-hitting stopping power is something that the round lacks in - at least compared to larger rounds. Either way, .223/5.56 can do just about anything in one way or another. There are a variety of calibers you can choose from for ARs to suit any need, from the base .223/5.56 chambering to hunting, to pistol calbiers, to bullets like .308 and .50 Beowulf. ARs require more maintenance, but are very reliable and balanced, versatile weapons. Your general accuracy with one is good enough to make a quarter-sized hole at 100 yards.

Before getting into ARs, do alot of research. Shoot some. read up on what certain features do so you know what you need/want and don't need/want.

AKs:

Very rugged, reliable, and accurate enough (you can hit a human torso out to its approx. 300 meter range). The sights are crude, and the gun does not allow much modularity or attachments. A red dot on the side mount or maybe a scope is all you can put on it, but that is really all you'll need. The gun has the 7.62x39mm round, which has more recoil, but has alot of power to it. It does not rely on fancy fragmentation, but instead just drives a hole straight through you. This thing can pretty much split cement blocks with relative ease. the gas-piston operation makes the gun able to work without being maintained in even the harshest conditions. your main makes are going to be the Century WASR-10 (about 400 bucks before the election), the Century M70 stock and underfolder models (about 600 before drying up), the Saigas (280 before being converted; 580-700 after being converted), then the expensive Arsenals (1100-1400). The Saigas are Russian AK sporter rifles that we import, then convert it to accept 30-round mags, have a pistol grip, etc.

Your Saigas are you best for the money in my opinion. But, any AK will shoot about the same once you get it 'adjusted'. All in all, any AK you get is mostly a choice of cosmetics. Wood or synthetic furniture? Grips? Muzzle breaks? Whatever. it'll shoot and work as good as any other.

Coal Dragger
November 25, 2008, 10:35 PM
KBintheSLC,

If you can consistently (as in 90-100%) hit a 7" diameter or 7" wide steel plate at an honest 400 yards with your AK, then you should take it to Camp Perry as you have an extremely unusual AK. You must also have access to some very outstanding ammo to do that.

To be honest I view your claims with quite a little bit of skepticism. What kind of optics do you have on this AK? I ask because according to my handy online ballistics calculator a 123gr 7.62X39mm military FMJ bullet at a nominal 2396ft/second and b.c. of .266 will drop 59.1 inches below the point of aim with a 100yd zero by the time it has flown 400yds. Furthermore even a light to moderate 10mph crosswind (full value) will drift that round 30.65 inches at the 400yd line. You must have one heck of a nice piece of glass on there to accomplish consistent enough adjustments/hold over to do what you claim.

For comparison a fairly common .223/5.56mm load of a 77gr OTM bullet (Matchking) will move out at around 2790fps and has a b.c. of 362 at that velocity. At 400yds the round will have dropped 36.2 inches below the point of aim with a 100yd zero, and with the same 10mph crosswind will have drifted 16.88 inches. The round will also have more energy at this distance than your 7.62X39mm round (481ft-lbs vs. 597ft-lbs).

If we take this to the 500yd line the 7.62X39 might as well be left for dead. 111.85 inches of drop below a 100yd zero point of aim, and 50.45 inches of drift with a full value 10mph crosswind. The 77gr (MK262) had "only" dropped 65.91 inches below a 100yd zero point of aim, and drifted 27.45 inches. It also still has over a 100ft-lb advantage in retained energy.

Either way a very refined and consistent sight will be needed for consistent performance with either round at these distances, and of course a very accurate rifle.

Loomis
November 25, 2008, 10:40 PM
THat's funny. Next time the military is testing for a new rifle, you should tell them to adopt the 30-30 winchester...since it's so not-worthless...LOL.

We're talking about military rifles here, you dangfool.

Brian Dale
November 25, 2008, 10:46 PM
They shoot a bigger bullet that you can technically hunt deer with if you are kind of strange and would consider doing something that strange.This is the reason that it was appropriate for him to bring up the .30-30. You wrote it. The 7.62x39 is ballistically a .30-30 class cartridge. He's no danged fool.

ccsniper
November 25, 2008, 10:57 PM
this has turned into an AK V. AR thread which i thought we werent supposed to do, back to the OP, they are more likely to be banned because they have pistol grips and high capacity mags.

AR 15- 5.56x45
dpms, colt, stag, star, etc. etc.
$700-2500
AK 47 (style actual ak47's are illegal for normal citizens)
7.62x39
romarm, cia, tennesee arms, etc. etc.
$450-1000 (depending on make and quality)
personally, if i am shooting long to medium range, AR no question.
urban to jungle ranges/shooting AK hands down.

benEzra
November 25, 2008, 11:00 PM
THat's funny. Next time the military is testing for a new rifle, you should tell them to adopt the 30-30 winchester...since it's so not-worthless...LOL.

We're talking about military rifles here, you dangfool.
I'll ignore the schoolyard insult, and simply point out that the OP was talking specifically about CIVILIAN available guns (read the OP). And so were you when you spoke of the "worthlessness" of non-automatic civilian AK's, which aren't military rifles but rather civilian guns.

Civilian AK's can be thought of as autoloading .30-30's, and are just as useful for civilian purposes.

If you can consistently (as in 90-100%) hit a 7" diameter or 7" wide steel plate at an honest 400 yards with your AK, then you should take it to Camp Perry as you have an extremely unusual AK. You must also have access to some very outstanding ammo to do that.
The average AR-15 owner with the average AR and Winchester white box ammo won't be hitting a 7" diameter plate at 400 yards, either.

But to the point, AK is a 300 yard rifle, and the AR begins to have a significant advantage over it beyond 200 (not only accuracy-wise, but simply because of the much flatter-shooting cartridge).

Loomis
November 25, 2008, 11:02 PM
You're both dangfools. He basically just told me, you, and everyone else that a single fire AK is the same thing as a 30-30 winchester. And stated that THAT is proof the single fire AK is NOT almost worthless.

Goodlord, ya dangfools. If that's all the better a single fire AK is, then why would anyone be dumb enough to buy it? Like I said, take away the full auto capability of an AK, and you've pretty much made it worthless. Go buy yourself a copy of gramp's john wayne rifle instead...a piece of 130 year old technology...LOL!

Thanks for prooving my point.

benEzra
November 25, 2008, 11:18 PM
You're both dangfools. He basically just told me, you, and everyone else that a single fire AK is the same thing as a 30-30 winchester. And stated that THAT is proof the single fire AK is NOT almost worthless.

Goodlord, ya dangfools. If that's all the better a single fire AK is, then why would anyone be dumb enough to buy it? Like I said, take away the full auto capability of an AK, and you've pretty much made it worthless. Go buy yourself a copy of gramp's john wayne rifle instead...a piece of 130 year old technology...LOL!

Thanks for prooving my point.
The civilian AK has most of the advantages of the lever-action .30-30, but a lot fewer drawbacks, IMO.

Compared to the Winchester, the AK is easier and quicker to reload, more rugged, has better performance beyond 100 yards, offers the flexibility of detachable magazines (and higher capacity, if you so choose), is arguably more flexible with regard to optics, AND is considerably cheaper to shoot. Not to mention that the AK looks far better to my Gen-X eye.

A civilian AK is identical to a Ruger Mini Thirty carbine in every way but looks. Same caliber, same range of capacities, same rate of fire, same all-around utility. Plus, arguably better reliability and accuracy, for less money.

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/firearms/FAProdView?model=5806&return=Y
http://www.ruger-firearms.com/firearms/images/Products/199L.jpg

Again, for civilian purposes, the civilian AK carbine is a great all-around rifle.

FWIW, I shoot competitively and recreationally with my SAR-1, and if I take up hunting at some point (eastern whitetails, around here), it will be with that carbine.

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1168567538/med_gallery_260_23_20379.jpg

offthepaper
November 25, 2008, 11:30 PM
Whipper-Snappers. :neener:

Coal Dragger
November 25, 2008, 11:54 PM
benEzra,

I would no sooner try to engage 7" diameter plates at 400yds with 55gr Winchester white box, than I would throw the bullets at it by hand. However I would wager than the 55gr bulk ammo in 5.56mm (US made) will be more accurate on average than 7.62X39 bulk ammo at the 400yd line. Even better if you could find some bulk 62gr 5.56mm ammo, in my experience it is more accurate in 1-7 twist barrels than the 55gr stuff.

Or I could just throw on a barrel and bolt for 6.5mm Grendel and we can really have a comparison, but that isn't in the spirit of original caliber arguments....

Brian Dale
November 25, 2008, 11:56 PM
Goodlord, ya dangfools. If that's all the better a single fire AK is, then why would anyone be dumb enough to buy it?

They're fun. I don't need any other reason.

Like I said, take away the full auto capability of an AK, and you've pretty much made it worthless. Go buy yourself a copy of gramp's john wayne rifle instead...a piece of 130 year old technology...LOL!

Already got one. Good rifle. Chemistry and physics, ballistics and physiology haven't changed a jot during those 130 years. A 125- to 150-gr bullet leaving the muzzle at 2200 to 2400 fps, be the platform an AK or a levergun, still works.

Dude...please check your next epistle against the original post in this thread. Re-read it, change your aim if it's appropriate, then slowly...squeeeeze...the Enter key.

jackdanson
November 26, 2008, 12:02 AM
I have yet to encounter any AK that is capable of a consistent 2.5 MOA at 100 yards, much less 200 or 300 yards. More like 3.5-4.0 MOA given commonly available ammunition.

My saiga 7.62x39 gets 2 moa at 100 yards using "bear" russian ammunition and a 3-9x scope. My sw m&p 15 gets 1.5-ish moa using the same scope and m193 ammo. If I was using brass case handloads I can easily see the saiga performance becoming even more impressive.

That being said, saigas do tend to perform better than most other AK's. My wasr gets the 3-4 moa you quote.

wyocarp
November 26, 2008, 12:07 AM
I wouldn't use either an AR in .223 or an AK in 7.62 x 39 to make 400 - 500 yard shoots if I was serious about killing something at that distance. At distances out to 300 yards, I doubt that I would do any better at killing something with one or the other, but if I wanted to pick up a gun and dispatch numerous magazines of ammo without a problem, I'll pick up an AK and leave the AR in the safe.

benEzra
November 26, 2008, 08:11 AM
enEzra,

I would no sooner try to engage 7" diameter plates at 400yds with 55gr Winchester white box, than I would throw the bullets at it by hand. However I would wager than the 55gr bulk ammo in 5.56mm (US made) will be more accurate on average than 7.62X39 bulk ammo at the 400yd line. Even better if you could find some bulk 62gr 5.56mm ammo, in my experience it is more accurate in 1-7 twist barrels than the 55gr stuff.
I totally agree. The AK is a 300-yard rifle at best, and is most comfortable inside 200. If you are shooting at 400 yards, 7.62x39mm is not a good cartridge to do it with, regardless of platform (if you are sighted in at 200 yards with an optic, you are already 4 feet low at 400 and only barely supersonic). Stepping up to higher-BC, 154-grain bullets will help you some, but at the cost of an even lower starting velocity.

Having said that, a civilian AK is a very good civilian rifle inside 200 yards, and will let you hit out to 300 if you need to.

Izaak Walton
November 26, 2008, 09:19 AM
Whipper-Snappers. :neener:


Iím glad I donít put sugar in my coffee. It makes monitor cleaning easier when I read a post like this.:D

camslam
November 26, 2008, 10:32 AM
BenEzra wrote:
If you need to be shooting further than 300, you would probably be wanting something larger caliber than .223 or 7.62x39mm anyway.

I think those are the most wise comments of this thread.

I'll agree that both the AR in the .223 and the AK in the 7.62 are both useful tools for certain jobs, but I believe the vast majority of conflicts that civilians would be engaged in would be well within 300 yards. If you are engaging multiple targets past that, you are telling me that you don't want something with more punch than the .223?

That is the primary reason I went with an AK over an AR. When I looked at how far 300 yards actually is, I didn't see myself engaging in lots of combat past that range.

If I do have situations requiring gun fire past that, I DEFINITELY want something that is heavier hitting than the .223.

If money wasn't an issue, I would have outfitted myself with a battle rifle/assault rifle that shoots a .308, probably in an M1A, or DSA Arms Fal. The AR-10's have a reputation of being even more finicky than the AR-15's, especially when it comes to ammo. (Not owning one, I don't know that to be true) Based on the cost of rifle, ammo, and mags; reliability and ease of use, size of caliber, and overall effectiveness, the AK was the choice for me.

I think it is all relative as to what you use or shoot. There is no question the 7.62x39 is a more damaging round within 200 to 300 yards, than the .223. I'll repeat, if you are shooting past 300 yards, go with BenEzra's advice and get a bigger caliber.

regal
November 26, 2008, 10:49 AM
I'm not sure with the current "situation" so someone correct me if I'm wrong. Generally a decent AK can be found in the $400-$600 range, some cheaper some more expensive. AR's range from $600-$2500+ with rifles in the $800-$1000 range being the best quality/price compromise


Basically double your prices, WASR's are selling for over $800.

expvideo
November 26, 2008, 11:20 AM
First of all, Google is your friend. That being said, let's break this down.

What is each mainly used for?
They are both used as the main battle rifle for infantry forces in several countries.

What caliber is each?
The M16/M4/AR-15 is 5.56/.223, but it is available in just about any caliber you would like from .22 to single shot .50BMG.

The AK47/AKM/AK74 is 7.62x39, but is also available in 5.45x39 and 5.56/.223

What are the price range on these?
Currently civilian models of the M16 (AR-15) can be had for anywhere between $800 and $2500 for standard models, depending on brand and features. There are cheaper and more expensive, but the majority will fall between these price ranges. As for the actual M16, the sky is the limit. You're probably looking somewhere between $15000 and $20000.

The civilian variations of the AK47 can be had for anywhere from $400-1500 depending on model and brand. Again, there are exceptions to the rule, but these are the average prices. A real AK47 is going to run you a lot more, but I assume you are talking about the civilian models that are semi-automatic only.

Do certain manufacturers make each?
Yes, there are countless manufacturers of each.

When ppl think there may soon be restriction on guns these 2 gain popularity at local gun shops here,why is that?
People want to own them, and if it looks like they won't be sold in the future, they want to own them before that is the case. It is argued as hysteria and as preparation. Many people believe that the next president will ban them, and that unless you already own one, you will never be able to get them again. That is why they are flying off of the shelves and the prices have gone up 10-100% depending on location. There are also many people who believe that the ban will not happen or that it will not happen in the near future. The people in this camp beleive that by spring or summer of next year, there will be a surplus of so-called assault rifles, and that the prices will have dropped significantly. Obviously, neither group has been proven right or wrong, so you can make your best judgement as to whether it is worth investing in a rifle now.

Thanks
Don't mention it.

KBintheSLC
November 26, 2008, 02:14 PM
If you can consistently (as in 90-100%) hit a 7" diameter or 7" wide steel plate at an honest 400 yards with your AK, then you should take it to Camp Perry as you have an extremely unusual AK. You must also have access to some very outstanding ammo to do that.

To be honest I view your claims with quite a little bit of skepticism.

Coal Dragger

Weather you believe it or not is of no concern to me. I have nothing to gain from making false claims. If I have a gun that is a piece of crap, I'll be the first to tell you.

I love hearing all of the ignorant claims about how the AK is "worthless" and "inaccurate". I say let people think that if they want to. I don't want these people to know what an awesome weapon it really is.

If you are shooting at 400 yards, 7.62x39mm is not a good cartridge to do it with

Again... not true. Yes there is quite a bit of drop at that range, however, a simple ballistic calculator and a decent scope will help you compensate for that. Also, the 7.62 round will have more energy at that range than M193.

Anyway, you folks keep on believing what you want. I am all for it. I love seeing the look on peoples face at the range when I keep tagging the 400 yard steel.

benEzra
November 26, 2008, 03:14 PM
Again... not true. Yes there is quite a bit of drop at that range, however, a simple ballistic calculator and a decent scope will help you compensate for that. Also, the 7.62 round will have more energy at that range than M193.
Agreed, for known-distance shooting. For shooting other than at measured distances, the cartridge is much less forgiving than higher-velocity, higher-BC choices, though.

Anyway, you folks keep on believing what you want. I am all for it. I love seeing the look on peoples face at the range when I keep tagging the 400 yard steel.
That is awesome, and more power to you. A lot of people badly underestimate AK's, but they are great little rifles.

expvideo
November 26, 2008, 04:10 PM
Regardless of how well an AK can shoot precision groupings at 400yds, it was designed as a medium range rifle, and performs outstandingly within 300 yards, as designed. If you rifle makes it to 400yds, great. If it doesn't, who cares. The fact of the matter is that it was designed for combat within 300 yds, and for that it is an exceptional weapon.


Back to the OP's questions, another important thing to note about the M16 and the AK47 is that they were designed with different ideas in mind.

The AK is designed for use in cold weather by poorly trained soldiers. That means that it is reliable and durable, while being simple to use. It also means that you can easily operate any of the AKs controls with thick gloves on.

The M16 was designed to be used by professionals in medium-low to high temperature climates. If taken care of and cleaned, it is also very reliable. Unlike the AK, it does require proper maintenance and cleaning to function properly. Remember, this rifle was designed for use by well trained professionals, so this should not be a problem. The M16 only slightly sacrifices stopping power for a significant increase in accuracy. This is because the operator is expected, again, to be a professional soldier who would rely on accuracy more than stopping power. And finally, the M16's controls are designed to be operated quickly and easily, but sacrifices the large controls that are easier to use with thick gloves.

So again, the AK was designed to be rather maintenance free and easy to use in every climate, while the M16 was designed to be used by professional soldiers. Both have distinct advantages and shortcomings, but they are both very capable medium range combat rifles.

phoglund
November 26, 2008, 04:31 PM
I have both and love to shoot both. I also have an AR in 9mm which is great for short range shooting for fun and practice. Lots cheaper!

I also have a Saiga with a 16" barrel in .308 that is a 1.5MOA shooter with Australian Ball Ammo. (The only ammo I've grouped with it.) I bought it when prices on them were far less than they are now. ($279) I put a PSOP 8X42 side mount scope on it. I'd consider it deadly out to 500 yards and perhaps farther if I do my part better than I usually do. I also picked up 3-20 magazines for it. Short range or long range it would be a pretty effective battle implement.

I'd suggest picking up one of each if possible. They are both fun to shoot and might end up a good investment in the long run. That being said, they are pretty hard to find right now.

WardenWolf
November 26, 2008, 04:35 PM
As a general rule of thumb, it's better to pick up the AK before you get the AR. Why? Because the AK is a better survival tool and a lot more dependable in an emergency situation. The AR is a toy. A cool toy, but a toy nonetheless. It's got great accuracy, and is great for competitions and light hunting, but when it all comes down to it I'd trust my life to an AK long before an AR. Separate an AR from its cleaning kit, and see how long it stays working.

ZeBool
November 26, 2008, 08:05 PM
I would much rather have a weapon that is a little less accurate, but fires every time I pull the trigger. Also, AKs are far less expensive than ARs.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ar 15 & ak 47" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!