[Forseti]

Just curious...ONLY for owners of BOTH AR-15 and AK-47 variants...which actually are taken out and shot more often? If everyone who responds is honest, it should reveal which is the better, more "user friendly" shooter.

Don't vote for your favorite...just the one you know you shoot more. Really.

[Bostonterrier97]

Neither..they both collect dust in my safe. The only rifles that I shoot frequently is the M1A and the Lee Enfield.

I like the AK for its RELIABILITY..it will go bang everytime..but it won't hit worth a damn..

I like the AR for its Accuracy..but it is always having a Malfunction..

Which is why I prefer the M1A...Decent Accuracy and Decent Reliability..a nice trade off.

Not to mention..the range and penetration.

[BBall]

Hrmm, great question.

I have a MAK-90 and a SP1. I have to say I love my AR more but like shooting the MAK more, its just FUN. Not to mention a tad cheaper to feed.

[Hkmp5sd]

M16A1 get's shot a whole lot more. My polytech AK-47 isn't full auto.

[Redlg155]

Actually it all depends on what ammo that I have the most of on hand. Right now It's 7.62x39 ammo. I'm getting that stuff cheaper than 5.56 ammo at the gunshows.

Good Shooting
Red

[Smoke]

I have owned both.....I sold the SKS.

I never had a problem with the SKS functionally. I didn't care for the asthetics, I didn't like the sights, I didn't like scope mounting options, I didn't like it being a Communist Bloc weapon.

I bought an AR and loved almost everthing about it. (Hate the SSppprrraaaaaaaaannnnngggg) But all else is great.

I eventially sold the SKS and haven't missed it much.

[Oleg Volk]

AR15, by 5:1 at least.

[Correia]

Vepr K vs. Bushmaster (sold it) vs. Cav 15 (current AR)

I shoot the Vepr probably 10:1. 7.62x39 is super cheap. The Vepr never jams. I can get it filthy and beat it up with no problem.

I just wish it had better sights. Other than that it beats my ARs pretty good.

My favorite rifle to shoot is my FAL. But .308 is more expensive.

[boing]

AR-15.

I have a Bushmaster and an SAR1, which are at opposite ends of the quality spectrum for the respective designs. If I had a really low-end AR, it might be a more fair comparison.

But I don't. :cool:

...it should reveal which is the better, more "user friendly" shooter.

If you define "better" as being "user-friendly", then...maybe.

"Better" has lots of definitions, depending on what you're doing with your rifle.

The FAL beats 'em both, BTW. It's "better". :)

[Coltdriver]

Got a MAK 90 and a Bushmaster Shorty.

The MAK 90 is like a hammer.

The Bushmaster is like a scalpel.

Both of mine are absolutely reliable.

My Bushmaster settled in after about 400 or 500 rounds and now just works great.

Mac at www.shootiniron.com gave my MAK the tuf gun treatment and smoothed out the trigger in the process. It is as good of a trigger as anything which is probably saying a lot for an AK

The AR is a precise shooter. The AK is not.

Both of them have a tremendous amount of firepower. I saw a documentary on tv the other day and was kind of surprised to see that the AK will reliably shoot through a car door.

I think the biggest difference is the level of quality control behind the creation of each one. My local gun dealer had a Norinco AK barrel checked out once and they came up with 10 different Rockwell (hardness) readings as they checked up and down the barrel:D

I don't know how many rounds you can put through an AR before you wear it out. But most of the MAK's are good for about 20000 rounds and they are pretty much worn out.

I hunt with the AR. I would'nt bother with the AK.

[444]

I have owned both. I sold the AK and now own six ARs. I wish I hadn't sold the AK, but my wife had just left me and I couldn't pay the bills. If I still had it, I would rarely, if ever shoot it. I have also had a couple SKSs and sold them; a move which I don't regret. It is a perfectly good rifle, it just doesn't pull my chain.

I am a civilain. I am not dragging my rifle through sand, I am not tossing my rifle in the mud. So, reliablility isn't an issue for me. I shoot my ARs on average of at least once a week. Maybe 120 rounds at a time, almost always using Wolf ammo. Out of all the rounds I have fired out of my ARs I have had two stoppages. One was while trying a 40 round USA mag. the other was while trying to use a really beat up USGI mag. Never used either mag again and never had another problem. When I was in the military I was issued an M16A1. There were times when I was low crawling through sand that I got sand in the action and the rifle wouldn't function reliably. I brushed the sand off the bolt, and the problem was solved. If I hadn't been trying to do things at a breakneck pace (no choice in the matter), I would have been more careful of not getting sand in the rifle. I dare say that as a civilian, the reliability of either rifle isnt' an issue.
As a civilian I am much more interested in hitting my target than I am about being able to fire 10,000 rounds of questionable quality ammo without cleaning. The AR is a superbly accurate rifle and if I do my part it is more than capable of doing it's part.
Both look good. I personally think the AR looks better, but I do like the look of the AK.
Ammo cost ? $99 for a case of Wolf including shipping isn't bad. And it runs like clockwork in all six of my ARs. Never had a problem of any kind (that was ammo related).

[cratz2]

I've owned both (Rock River and MAK90) and I sold both. Just more interested in non-semiauto rifles, I guess.

I'm sure I put more rounds through the MAK90, if for no other reason than I didn't mind heating the barrel up a bit. I babied my AR but I probably enjoyed my time with it more.

[AK103K]

I have a Bushmaster and an SAR1, which are at opposite ends of the quality spectrum for the respective designs. If I had a really low-end AR, it might be a more fair comparison.

I compare my Bushmaster to my WASR10. They shoot about the same, but my SAR1 isnt really that far behind. My Krebs AK103K actually out shoots my Bushmaster. As for quality, how do you compare? I have a Arsenal SSR-85C AK that is way prettier and better put together than any of my AR's. Now if we were comparing my Armalite M15A4, none of the above come close in the accuracy department, but the Arsenal AK is still prettier.

[Gewehr98]

It's easier to clean afterwards. :D

[cheygriz]

I probably shoot the AKs more because of the cheap milsurp ammo. Often, I'm too lazy to reload 5.56X45 for the ARs.

Recently, however, I've tried some Wolf .223 in the Bushy. In the future, it just might be coming to the range with me more often than the AKs.

[SodaPop]

I joined a gun club that has a 100-500yd rifle range. After taking all of my Russian guns up and trying to hit targets at 300-400yds I was so annoyed at how hard it was to figure out where the heck the bullets were going I SOLD all of them except my remaining Russian SKS. My Mini 14 was a more practical weapon at those ranges than any of my commie guns.

I'm sure there are more accurate 7.62x39 guns out there, but trying to judge hold-overs past 300-400yds is nearly impossible. Even though the .223 is a wuss round at these ranges its still easier to hit your target due to the flatter trajectory.

If I had an SARII I'd probable shoot that alot. I just don't care for the 7.62x39 caliber.

[Forseti]

I've always wanted to play around with an AK...the thing that has always stopped me is the thought of getting a rifle that can't hit the same spot reliably outside of 200 yards. Seems its pot luck if you buy an AK that can.

I want it to do more than just go bang...the point of target practice is to hit something.

I am surprised the poll is fairly close, at present. Assuming everyone is being honest, that is.

[AK103K]

The AK isnt a target rifle, so to speak, either is the AR, though its more acceptable to target shooters. Not that you cant hit out past 200 yards, its really not what I would consider a long range gun. Realistic ranges to me would be more like 0-150 yards, 200 max, at least with my eyes. Where it is fun, is up close, fast, combat/ipsc type shooting and just plain old plinking. I think some of the "distance" complaints are not really valid, just something to use to put the rifle down by people who dont like it. From what I see at the ranges, the majority of shooters seem to have trouble at 1-200 yards from a bench, let alone hit something out past that, even with a scoped varmint rifle. The AK is a fun gun,as well as a serious combat weapon, but just like any of them, you need to be realistic in your assessment of what it is and you can do with it, and when to do it.

[444]

I think any rifle you might pick whether for yourself or the military is a compromise in some way. This is a prime example. The AR and the AK are fine service rifles within reason. As AK103K so correctly pointed out. CQB, house clearing, etc. out to a couple hundred yards and these two rifles are king of the battlefield. If you are trying to shoot at an animate target at 500 yards the cartridges are running out of steam. The AR can certainly hit a target at 500, but the little bullet might not be the best choice. On the other hand, let's say we decided to use an M14, an M1, an FN-FAL, or an HK in .308. Here we have a rifle more suitable for long range work. In standard military issue form, none are up to sniper rifle standards but if you are able to hit targets at longer ranges, the cartridge is up to putting the target down more readily than the little .223. But you pay for this in the size and weight of the weapon. Just like the AR and AK are not long range rifles, the FN-FAL, M14 etc. are not good picks for clearing houses, although they will work they are not as good as a short carbine up close.
The way I look at it is that the AR15/M16 is a couple hundred yard gun. Ironically, I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of people can't hit a human sized target from field positions (let alone in combat) further than that anyway; so we have the perfect compromise rifle: nice short carbine for CQB, lightweight for ease of carry, effective and accurate out to the limits of the average operator.

[Poodleshooter]

AK. The ammo is cheaper for plinking, so it gets more ammo put through it. No other reason than that.

[M1911]

I've got a couple AR15s, an AR10, two 7.62x39 AKs, and a .223 Valmet. I shoot the AR15s more than all of the other guns combined.

[telewinz]

Cheap ammo! 7.62X39 wins

[plateshooter]

AK gets shot the most. I shoot steel plates, and the 55-62 gr bullets don't have the knock down power for that game. 762X39 works much better for me. It's plenty accurate for what I use it for.

[GoldenLoki]

Love them both, but cheaper ammo gets the AK to the range more often.

GL

[Forseti]

Most verbal arguements go like this for one over the other...

If accuracy is what moves you...AR15 gets more attention.
If money for maximum ammo is more critical...AK

And money costs on both (not including rifle cost) is pretty darn close.

[AK103K]

And money costs on both (not including rifle cost) is pretty darn close.

I dont know about that. You get a lot more bang for your buck all around with the AK. Accessories are cheaper by a lot, especially in the mag department. Mags are about half what the AR's are, and are a lot better made. Ammo is at least $20/1000 cheaper, if you buy Wolf for both, a lot more if you use Winchester, etc in 223.

[444]

How much is ammo in 7.62x39 ?

[AK103K]

around $80/1000.

[444]

Wow, that is cheap. I saw Wolf .223 for $97/1000 at the gunshow yesterday. That of course is no shipping, but not including sales tax.

[Watchman]

I have to agree... my Polytech AK gets shot more than the Busmaster AR because of the cheap ammo.

[Forseti]

Sorry, should have said price difference not including rifle AND mags. My poll/question is trying to isolate equipment COST from the "experience" of using the equipment...hence, which experience is better for the user, and therefore results in more use.

$20 per 1000 rounds is not too significant...if it is, then you guys have a lot more time to shoot a lot more ammo than me. It takes me some time to run through 1000 rounds of .223 (are you aiming?!?!)

[AK103K]

$20 is the smallest difference I see, and thats using Wolf as the comparasion. I hear a lot of AR users complain they wont use Wolf in AR's. The last case of Winchester Q3131A I bought was around $170, quite a bit more than Wolf's $100. I dont know how much you shoot, but 1000 rounds doesnt seem like a lot to me, and yes I aim. :) I even aim my full auto guns too. :)

By the sounds of your original post, I take "user friendly" to mean fun. The AR and AK are both fun to shoot. Personally, I think the AK is more "all around" fun, but thats just me. Keep in mind, my kind of fun and yours may differ totally. Ammo counts may have something to do whith that. ;)