Another slant on the AK/AR argument.


PDA






rizbunk77
December 26, 2009, 10:05 PM
Most of the time in the AK vs. AR argument someone says and most agree that the quality of manufacture favors the AR or M16 while AK's are sloppy or not high quality. I've got a couple head scratchers though....
If American manufacture is higher quality why then are the worst AK mags available usually American ones? If the commies are making cheap junk, how can you explain pro-mag or tapco? Want to jam an AK, put an American mag in it!
Another point... AK's detractors are fond of saying that AK's specs vary alot because so many countries make them and they don't have any quality control. If this is the case how come I can pick up damn near any mag at a pawn shop and put it in damn near any AK and it will run without a hickup with the cheapest ammo available. And why when I did the same thing with an American mag for my Bushmaster it wouldn't function! Now don't get me wrong I like the good old USA but the fact is I am not sure you can look down on the AK when it comes to quality and compatibility.
Think about this too... when it comes to ARs within this country alone we have (non milspec) variations in:
Barrel steel
Extractor parts
Receiver alloy
mag followers
shot peened bolts
staked gas keys
pin sizes
magnetic particle testing of barrel and bcg
Wonder how many variations of these things you have on an AK?
1. (Mil-spec) Unless it was assembled (you guessed it) in America. i.e. non chromed barrels, american receivers not properly bent, or heat treated etc.

If you enjoyed reading about "Another slant on the AK/AR argument." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Avenger29
December 26, 2009, 10:13 PM
If American manufacture is higher quality why then are the worst AK mags available usually American ones? If the commies are making cheap junk, how can you explain pro-mag or tapco? Want to jam an AK, put an American mag in it!
Another point...

Notice that those are crappy brands. Promag, national magazine, USA magazine, triple K magazine, etc. . A quality US maker has not stepped up to make AK mags, probably because the need is simply not there at this time.

Also, don't forget a lot of crappy US made magazines were churned out before the AWB of 94...

Now, if somebody like Magpul, Bravo Company, MecGar, etc stepped up to make an AK magazine, they'd get it right. But there is no need for them to, with the wide availability of surplus magazines, both metal and poly that work well.

rizbunk77
December 26, 2009, 10:20 PM
I would think the commies would be making the cheapest ones they can no? Oh thats right they do, but with one hitch "without sacrificing function." Alright hypothetically if you could exclude every American ak mag in the country right now, and go out and test every foreign mag in a test AK and every available AR mag in a test AR which would have the most issues? The AR would. and those mags are American that aren't working. So why do we automatically assume that quality is higher with the AR platform?

Avenger29
December 26, 2009, 10:24 PM
You sure don't want me to do that hypothetical testing. I had two milsurp AK mags, both in good condition and in the importer's packaging that turned out to be completely worthless when I gifted them to a friend.

[Pb]
December 26, 2009, 10:27 PM
AKs can run with crappy out of spec parts because they fit together like a rattletrap and are designed for durability, not precision. If you wan't a truly accurate AK, it's going to need quality, properly machined parts that fit together with minimal tolerances. Even though almost all AK parts and mags will work reliably together, they aren't capable of shooting tight groups. This is because the AK is built with a certain amount of slop, to insure reliability even when parts aren't top notch.

wally
December 26, 2009, 10:27 PM
A quality US maker has not stepped up to make AK mags

I can't think of a quality US mag maker. Mec-Gar is about only non-factory mags you can generally count on and they are Italian.

The AR is the exception with ex & current GI contract holders turning out generally passable product, and niche makers like MagPul making "premium" offerings.

--wally.

rizbunk77
December 26, 2009, 10:28 PM
Ever wonder why they don't have different color followers in AK mags?

rizbunk77
December 26, 2009, 10:35 PM
Not one good response to my first post. Missing the point. Given that there are so many non milspec variations in the AR platform and none in the AK platform (that aren't American) why do we assume the AR is higher quality?

Z-Michigan
December 26, 2009, 10:40 PM
I can't think of a quality US mag maker.

Are you only talking about AK replacement mags? Because for mags in general I can list a number of quality US manufacturers that don't make guns:
D&H
NHMTG
Metalform
Checkmate Industries
Magpul
Tango Down
Lancer Systems
Cammenga
Fusil USA

I'm sure I could add to that list with some more time.

545days
December 26, 2009, 11:27 PM
Variances in the AK platform:
barrell chrome lined.. or not (Yugoslavia)
Receiver sheet metal... or machined
Barrel trunnion diameters differ between some manufacturers
folding stocks and rear trunnions... vary
5.56 magazines... usually not interchangable since there is no standard they are designed to.
Sagia mags vs milspec mags
barrel steels and reciever steel vary all over the map based on the country of manufacture.
Trigger designs (for semi-autos that can be legally imported) vary all over the map, ever hear of trigger slap?
You won't find a shot peened bolt or mag particle tested barrell on an AK - they simply don't use that level of QA/QC.


The AR however has a single full set of military specifications. Any manufacturer can use them to make parts that drop in. There are some variations based on cost savings or "improvements". However, all of the variations (except Colt's pin diameter) do not impact interchangability of parts.

I have no dog in this fight, as I own both an AR and AK. Both have their place, however, I just think it is silly to argue that the AK is higher quallity.

rizbunk77
December 26, 2009, 11:30 PM
ok I apologize, and take it back the first couple of responses were valid.

CYANIDEGENOCIDE
December 26, 2009, 11:30 PM
[pb] got it right. the AK is not a precision system. They're made to easily put holes at about 200 meters (modern battle field ranges).

rizbunk77
December 26, 2009, 11:52 PM
The AK platform adheres to a much more uniform set of specs even across the many countries than AR's do within only one country of manufacture. This is why you would have more confidence that you could pick up an AK rifle in one store, a surplus mag and ammo in another, and everything would work fine probly shooting 2-3 moa for as many mag changes as I wanted.
Now if I go pick up a mismatched upper and lower AR (as is common) and some 15 dollar 20 round mags out of the bargain bin would you be so confident that you could rattle off the same number of rounds without a problem? You would probly be at 1.5-2 moa with the AR due to the design of the gun, but not the build quality. When the AR jams I usually hear: its the damn mag, or this damn cheap ammo. Where's the bad mags and ammo for the AK? I am talking about the real ak's not the Wasr-3 or anything bastardized to a NATO caliber.
The russians expect to get 10,000 rounds out of each AK before it's retired. For example every russian AK I have received came with a QC sheet with group size recorded to prove the rifle ready. Did you know in the russian military the individual soldier is not even allowed to adjust the sights? They are sighted in by the armorers to be sure that someone who knows what they are doing zeros the rifle and then its not messed with at all. Does this sound like a country that doesn't care about how the rifle is set up?

rizbunk77
December 27, 2009, 12:03 AM
I gotta address the AK variances posted previously.
Non chromed lined AKs are build projects done in the USA
All modern AK's are stamped and not milled. The thickness of the receiver only varies among the different rifle types but not within rifles of one type.
Who cares what type of folding stock it has (has a stock ever jammed a rifle)
You got me on the 556 mags.
Do the trunions ever cause a problem? Never heard of it if they have.
Is the fact that the AR is a precision instrument the reason that it jams if it doesn't have "m4" feed ramps? Is the fact that it is a precision rifle the reason it fails to extract because it has a blue extractor spring assembly instead of a black one"?

rizbunk77
December 27, 2009, 12:11 AM
So let me get this straight, the lower quality and sloppier a rifle is the more reliable it is?
I just heard of a bunch of Lancaster (American) AK74's jamming right out of the box because of improper receivers made in the USA. Now Arsenal just brought in a bunch of Russian AK74s that never jam at all. Seeing my point folks? It ain't the design of the rifle making the difference. I am not sure the AR is any damn bit better than it was when it was killing soldiers in Vietnam who were armed with "the worlds newest single shot." The one in Jessica Lynch's hands was so jammed her CO couldn't help her. At least with an AK the damn thing will go bang and there's a reason for that although I am not sure how many folks are open minded enough to see it.

Z-Michigan
December 27, 2009, 12:28 AM
Non chromed lined AKs are build projects done in the USA

One big exception: Yugos. Original Yugoslavian AKs (M70 and M72) made in Yugoslavia for the Yugoslavian military generally had non-chrome-lined barrels. The reason I've read, which I'll admit sounds fishy, was that Yugoslavia didn't have domestic resources of chromium and didn't feel like importing it. Who knows, but it is easy to confirm that Yugo-made barrels aren't chrome lined.

Avenger29
December 27, 2009, 12:30 AM
Is the fact that the AR is a precision instrument the reason that it jams if it doesn't have "m4" feed ramps? Is the fact that it is a precision rifle the reason it fails to extract because it has a blue extractor spring assembly instead of a black one"?

The lack of M4 feed ramps and an updated extractor spring assembly do not condemn an AR to failure. They are reliablity enhancements, particuarly when it comes to the more tempramental carbine systems that are subject to full auto fire, etc.

Honestly, you're the one doing the most posting in this thread and it seems to be mainly thinly veiled criticism against the AR-15. I think you've already made up your mind and firmly believe in the AK's infallibility.

At least with an AK the damn thing will go bang and there's a reason for that although I am not sure how many folks are open minded enough to see it.

No, I don't think YOU are open minded enough to realize that AKs will malf, too. Any gun will.

The AR is more reliable and the AK is more accurate than popular wisdom says. There, does that make you happy?

RockyMtnTactical
December 27, 2009, 12:35 AM
A bad brand is a bad brand, doesn't matter if it is made in the US or in China.

You can get good and bad examples of both platforms.

If I had to get the worst of either platform, I would rather go with the AK since it was made to work on loose tolerances. If I were gonna buy the most expensive/high quality of either platform, the AR15 wins with ease.

W.E.G.
December 27, 2009, 12:41 AM
AK-47... the very best there is... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z2ucmARq-k)

545days
December 27, 2009, 12:44 AM
The variances in AKs are well documented. They are not typically discussed, because the typical AK owner does not have the tools to disassemble a rivited rifle in order to interchange parts. Go read the "Build it Yourself" forum for the AK-47 at AR15.com, and you will discover that there are in fact many variations of "milspec" in the AK family, not just one as you propose in your original post.

I fail to see the logic that the availability of crap magazines makes the AR15 platform somehow flawed. Low grade, low quality aftermarket parts will always be available in any free market to meet the demands of cost (but not quality) conscious consumers. The free market did not exist in the Soviet block, therefore no crap aftermarket magazines.

There is a relationship between tightness of fit and reliability. Very tight = very accurate, yet more prone to jams.

As to your argument that American made equals crap, I find that to be in opposition to your signature block.

Avenger29
December 27, 2009, 12:48 AM
Oh, and by the way, if an American made company wanted to build an AK that worked as well as a combloc AK, out of entirely US parts, and using US magazines, they could.

It would probably be pretty expensive, though, and there is virtually no market so long as we have parts kits and rifles being shipped in.

The only reason US parts are in production for the AK is to fill the artificial needs that are set by the government's regulations on importable rifles and components. These components and rifles are often made to lower standards to simply meet a price point.

outerlimit
December 27, 2009, 12:51 AM
One big exception: Yugos. Original Yugoslavian AKs (M70 and M72) made in Yugoslavia for the Yugoslavian military generally had non-chrome-lined barrels. The reason I've read, which I'll admit sounds fishy, was that Yugoslavia didn't have domestic resources of chromium and didn't feel like importing it. Who knows, but it is easy to confirm that Yugo-made barrels aren't chrome lined.

I don't know if the reasoning it correct, it may very well be, but it sounds plausible, as the Yugo SKS rifles are not chrome lined either. It could simply have been a penny pinching decision as well since most of the Yugo 7.62x39mm ammunition I've seen was not corrosive. But I guess some has been. That might be a penny pinching decision as well. The Yugo SKS rifles I'm referring to are the surplus imports manufactured from roughly the late 1960's, to around 1992.

W.E.G.
December 27, 2009, 12:59 AM
Oh, and by the way, if an American made company wanted to build an AK that worked as well as a combloc AK, out of entirely US parts, and using US magazines, they could.

It would probably be pretty expensive, though, and there is virtually no market...

http://www.centuryarms.biz/proddetail.asp?prod=RI1622-N

http://www.centuryarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/US-CenturionBanner1-400x1024.jpg

Avenger29
December 27, 2009, 01:02 AM
So, W.E.G., is that actually 100% made in the US components or the other AKs out there that has enough compliance parts to count as US made?

W.E.G.
December 27, 2009, 01:05 AM
Its vapor ware so far.

So, if you're breathing it, and you're in America, then its 100% American.

elmerfudd
December 27, 2009, 01:33 AM
I wish we had just copied the AK back in the 50's. I've no doubt that we would have turned it into a much better rifle. One with good sights, better ergonomics and higher manufacturing quality.

It's not that Russians build crap. They don't. They just seem to be so obsessed with ruggedness and simplification that they forget that people actually have to use their products. Just put a good Russian optic up against a good American one. Both are rugged, both have good clear glass, but generally the Russian one is mounted where a cheek weld isn't even possible, has turrets that can't be easily adjusted and it has a third rate reticle. The American optic on the other hand excels in all these areas.

It seems to me that all Russian military products share this design philosophy. The quality is good enough, but you're expected to adapt to the product rather than the other way around.

jackdanson
December 27, 2009, 03:15 AM
Given that there are so many non milspec variations in the AR platform and none in the AK platform (that aren't American) why do we assume the AR is higher quality?

Because I've shot them.

The_Pretender
December 27, 2009, 04:01 AM
I saw this and it has some good points. I never saw the AK as the weapon of the enemy, I always approached it from a gun aficionado's stand point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvrG4T2K4sE&feature=related

Way too many people caught up in AK vs AR. I realize I open myself up to attack here, but I get so tired of hearing about it.

Until you experience war first hand you are not going to respect or appreciate either weapon as much from a battle standpoint.

Most of you are never even going to fire an AK on full auto, which is it's primary fire mode. It's no different than saying a corvette sucks and you've never driven one over 30 mph.

As far as accuracy goes, these two rifles are made to kill men. Nothing more, nothing less. Most of us that own these rifles will never use them for their intended purpose. 2 MOA or 5 MOA doesn't mean a thing if you can't hit a man that is shooting back at you.

Put your finger in the middle of your chest, and make a 5 inch circle. Are you really going to notice if a round hits where your finger is, or a little off to one side, or a little high or low? You will be going down regardless.

If you want to stick lights and lasers on your gun and pretend you're G.I. Joe, get an AR. You can be all suited up for the battle that is never going to happen.

Or you can own an AK and think you are super hardcore tough and no matter what you are going to win the fight and you never have to clean your gun.

Aren't these stereotypes ludicrous? But it's what we see on a daily basis.

A solution: Try owning both. Love them for what they are. Respect them for what they do.

Rather than argue over apples and oranges, why not post topics on how much fun you had, or something cool you did?

stubbicatt
December 27, 2009, 09:31 AM
Why.... Must not read this.... can't help it....

The dreaded AK/AR thread is back!

rust collector
December 27, 2009, 10:16 AM
Heh. Here we go again.

I agree with the pretender. Different design philosophies and development paths turned out different rifles with disparate strengths and weaknesses.

Maybe if the discussion was limited to those who have used them in combat, we'd get more fire than smoke. Otherwise, it's all just another armchair opinion.

I use an AR because it's more suitable for my purposes. Those do not include suppressive fire and celebratory air bursts. For post-apocalyptic use, I'll just pick up one of the millions of AKs strewn about the planet.

mljdeckard
December 27, 2009, 10:26 AM
If Tapco is poor quality, someone forgot to tell my SKS.

The reason American designs are fussier, is they were designed to run tighter. You won't get near the accuracy out of an AK that you will from an AR. I don't really care if you can dump a nandful of sand into the action of an AR or an AK, because I don't plan on doing it to EITHER.

In this country you have a choice. There isn't a thread running on a Russian gun forum complaining about how these crappy Russian-assembled ARs won't run with Russian-made magazines.

Justin
December 27, 2009, 10:53 AM
AK vs. AR (some language NSFW) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZAHAr-GmJg&sns=em)
:evil:

rizbunk77
December 27, 2009, 11:10 AM
If I have a foreign car and it runs well with every kind of gas I put in it, and I have An American made car that not only needs a certain kind of gas, but also won't work with many domestic gas nozzles, is it because the car is too high quality? Wouldn't that lead you to question what the hell is going on? Wouldn't you respect to the foreign car that runs well on about anything?

Justin
December 27, 2009, 11:18 AM
You mean like a Trabant?

rizbunk77
December 27, 2009, 01:57 PM
good points fellas.

rizbunk77
December 27, 2009, 01:59 PM
I want you fellas to know if history keeps repeating itself, I am going to be back in a year and a half or so with this **** again so be thinking.

Tirod
December 27, 2009, 11:21 PM
If there is a major point in the differences between AR and AK it is the magazine itself. Kalashnikov designed the magazine to function reliably without fail. He did it with machined feed lips and a heavy body made to withstand extreme abuse. He made the mag well big enough to accomodate it, and then, the issuing government gave each soldier a few magazines - and he has to reload them, that's all he gets. Third world economies can't afford to make millions of magazines and toss them like kleenx.

Conversely, the AR was developed at a time when American logistics foresaw the actual shipment of loaded mags direct to the field. Magazines were moving to one use disposability, and the supply train of American industry could crank out more than a soldier could carry even empty.

Do cheap stamped AK mags function well? No, they were never meant to be made that way. Are there AR magazines with machined feed lips and heavy fiberglass bodies that can literally be driven over without damage? No, much as Magpul has been working to that end.

The whole question of comparing the AK and AR by their magazines is both dead on and a complete farce - because nobody can reverse the circumstances and prove any further point other than the magazines are exactly the opposite in durability. Arguing they are representative of the quality of their respective firearm is like saying the gas tank alone decides the quality of an automobile.

What goes into those magazines has a lot more to do with down range performance than what color the mag follower is. I'm not real interested in filling up with imported 4 MOA low cost plinker ammo with mediocre ballistics directly comparable to the .30-30. I have better things to spend my money on.

BornAgainBullseye
December 27, 2009, 11:59 PM
Owned 3 AK's Two Romanian CAI builds, and 1 GP parts kit build that was way nicer than the CAI builds. Over the years I have came across several commie mags that were new in wrapper and were worthless. I have had USA mags that were worthless... I have a few USA mags that have never missed a lick. An AR does not miss a beat due to being made in the USA or Neither does an AK... The AR usually misses a beat due to it farting where it feeds from.... Out of spec ammo, or being a nerd and not clacking the full mag before inserting it into the rifle.... It has nothing to do with the MADE IN THE USA logo. It is a function of design. The M16 was designed to be a Rifleman's rifle.. The AK was made to fire every time. If i had to make a shot count, there is no mistake which one I would bet my life on to deliver. Now... If i had to crawl around in some God forsaken mud jungle or sandbox for weeks at a time... Far away from a safe place.....and not having to take a shot over 200 yards.. Id take an AK anyday. If I had to kick in doors and shoot through walls, cars bad guys to kill other bad guys. Id take the AK. Why not have it both ways....? Thats why we live in the USA. Why do we need 3 AK's and an AR15??? we don't, but we can, so therefore I will.

OHtard
December 28, 2009, 12:12 AM
u.s. Palm high quality us made ak mags.. just shot the camp perry pop up match with a cheap wasr 10. i hit 32 out of 40 targets out to 300 meters. works fine for me. i have ar's and ak's, they are all good rifles just different.

RedLion
December 28, 2009, 12:43 AM
Well, honestly, American industry shouldn't be based on the quality of a handful of magazine manufacturers, same thing with communist manufacturers (whatever that means).

The reason, i believe, that there is such a variance here in products is because someone is looking to make a dollar and either did a sloppy job of manufacturing or a sloppy job of testing or both. The stuff we get from most communist countries for the AK was, and probably still is, made on original machines used to make the real military hardware.

There is such a pronounced difference in AR-15s because of marketing. Look how many manufacturers there are in the AR market, then consider that most of them DO NOT manufacture some or most of their own parts. How can you compete with another company making the same product with the same parts? simple, marketing. If I tell customers my barrels are "special" because I added a tiny bit more carbon to them, people will buy them. Whether its useful or not, I don't care, because I just made money. Same goes for bolts, carriers, etc. Some parts have been upgraded like the ejectors and mag followers, but most of the industry has taken to that and its well known and well understood.

And really, if you take a mil-spec AR part, it will fit in any mil-spec AR, whether its made by Colt, Armalite, DPMS, or any other manufacturer, which is very similar to a Chinese AK receiver fitting a Russian barrel or something like that. None of those manufacturers communicated their dimensions to each other, but the end products still work together fine.

The magazine issue in the AR-15 is more of a flaw in the design. the original AR-10 used straight magazines, so when it was scaled down, the magazines were still kept as straight 20 round mags, which work fine. The government during Vietnam wanted 30 round mags, but Colt had already sold many receivers to the gov. that wouldn't easily accept properly curved 30 round mags. A straight 30 round mag wasn't really an option, so colt had to manufacture a partially straight, partially curved mag. Along with the fact that the mag was aluminum and had a strange geometry makes it quite fragile, and quite susceptible to failure.

happygeek
December 28, 2009, 12:59 AM
rizbunk77 wrote:

Not one good response to my first post. Missing the point. Given that there are so many non milspec variations in the AR platform and none in the AK platform (that aren't American) why do we assume the AR is higher quality?


Personally, I don't think you can even compare a $700 Bushmaster/DPMS/Stag/whatever AR15 to a real deal Colt M4. Calling the AR15/M4/M16 a POS because some cheap knockoff jammed on you while using cheap ammo doesn't make sense to me.

Personally, I bought a Sig 556 SWAT model. Best of both worlds :p ... or at least that's what the magazine review said. As soon as someone wants to issue me 3,000 rounds to test it (and buy me a replacement barrel), I'll let you know how it compares to the Colt M4.

fireman 9731
December 28, 2009, 01:04 AM
The cheapest AK will outperform the cheapest AR without a doubt.

The AK was designed with reliability and firepower in mind. I'm not sure what Ed Stoner wanted when he designed the AR. But the AK is supreme when it comes to reliability and fire power.

As soon as someone wants to issue me 3,000 rounds to test it (and buy me a replacement barrel), I'll let you know how it compares to the Colt M4.

Do the same thing with an AK and you wont need a replacement barrel!

AR-15 Rep
December 28, 2009, 01:33 AM
Both have the good points and the bad. The reason you see variations in AR's is that we have had the freedom and resources to look at a design and try to improve it. Whether it works or not, is up to the manufacturer of that part, you have good ones and bad.

elmerfudd
December 28, 2009, 04:46 AM
I think the AR will always be preferred over the AK by serious civilian shooters, but not because it's a better combat rifle. It's just more accurate and better suited to optics mounting and when your primary use for the rifle is at the range or maybe doing some hunting it's bound to come out on top.

Now if our range time consisted of rolling around in the mud and shooting silhouettes at 100m then we might have a different opinion.

At this point they're both dated designs. If the military were to choose a new rifle starting from scratch, I'd be very surprised if they chose either one.

scoutsabout
December 28, 2009, 04:58 AM
What about how the difference in calibers relates to reliability? I bet an AR-10, you know... chambered in .308 Winchester... would be a more reliable AR... and might even start standing up to the AK.

???

.

[Pb]
December 28, 2009, 06:21 AM
What about how the difference in calibers relates to reliability? I bet an AR-10, you know... chambered in .308 Winchester... would be a more reliable AR... and might even start standing up to the AK.


<ERROR>


<DOES NOT COMPUTE>


Try again.

briansmithwins
December 28, 2009, 11:09 AM
What about how the difference in calibers relates to reliability? I bet an AR-10, you know... chambered in .308 Winchester... would be a more reliable AR... and might even start standing up to the AK.

So by that line of reasoning the Chauchat in .30-06 ought to be more reliable than the M14?

BSW

Justin
December 28, 2009, 06:25 PM
The cheapest AK will outperform the cheapest AR without a doubt.

What proof do you have to back this statement up? How do you define "cheapest?" Are we talking home-built parts guns that Bubba put together in his spare time, or ones from actual manufacturers?

How do you define "outperform"? Reliability? Accuracy? Durability under heavy use? Modularity?

wally
December 28, 2009, 08:05 PM
It's not that Russians build crap. They don't. They just seem to be so obsessed with ruggedness and simplification that they forget that people actually have to use their products. Just put a good Russian optic up against a good American one. Both are rugged, both have good clear glass, but generally the Russian one is mounted where a cheek weld isn't even possible, has turrets that can't be easily adjusted and it has a third rate reticle.

Maybe, but before I had Lasik the Russian PSOP scope was the only reticle and target image I could see in focus.

After the Lasik it usually is only about a turn of the diopter to make the reticle clear, but its still clear on the Russian scope. Sometimes good enough is better.

I appreciate the simplification from good design to put the apparent image at a virtual distance to where old eyes can still use it, and not having the diopter adjustment certainly makes the scope easier to seal and more rugged.

the mounting issue is a limitation of the gun not the scope and not really any worse than scoping an AR with a non-removable carry handle.

--wally.

goon
December 28, 2009, 10:55 PM
I like a spirited discussion as much as the next guy, but this isn't really another slant on this argument. It's the same argument.

Justin
December 28, 2009, 11:54 PM
How can you say that? I even backed my argument up with video! :D

rizbunk77
December 29, 2009, 12:25 AM
" the cheapest AK will definitely outperform the cheapest AR".. That sums up some of what I was trying to say. Good post and good point.
The AR platform is suffering from the design of the rifle as well as the execution of that design due to varying materials and build quality. They need to figure some **** out. If M4 feedramps are better, use them on ALL the rifles. If polymer mags are better than aluminum use the damn polymer, etc. BTW you damn sure need a chromed chamber and bore on an AR, period. There are thousands of them out there without. I feel the foreign made AK on the other hand has much less variation on the materials and execution of its basic design. I feel that is why it is more apt to run out of ammo rather than excuses.
I have always felt that any rifle needs a goddamn bolt handle you can persuade with you heel or something (when) it jams. If it needs a forward assist I aint goin with it man.

Justin
December 29, 2009, 01:15 AM
I've used a forward assist on AR-pattern rifles all of maybe three times. My 3Gun rifle doesn't even have one.

elmerfudd
December 29, 2009, 03:54 AM
the mounting issue is a limitation of the gun not the scope and not really any worse than scoping an AR with a non-removable carry handle.

Not really. Russian scopes are generally made to mount on a side rail and give you zero choice on their placement, (which is awful BTW). Almost all other scopes from the cheapest NC Star to the top of the line Schmidt & Bender are made to be mounted with the rings of your choice and your mounting location is only limited by clearances and eye relief.

rust collector
December 29, 2009, 08:56 AM
I will concede that the AK responds better to bootheel therapy. If you will be beating your gun with a 2x4, please make it an AK.

And for all those terribly frustrated AR owners out there, I have a limited time offer. Send my FFL your sad, tired, ugly marginally functional AR (with worthless mags and ineffective ammo) and I will send you $100 to spend on Novosibirsk Low Voltage Equipment Company's finest ammo for the object of your affection.

Act now. Operators are standing by.

tju1973
December 29, 2009, 09:33 AM
I've used a forward assist on AR-pattern rifles all of maybe three times. My 3Gun rifle doesn't even have one.
True-- I cannot remember ever using the forward assist on my A2 for a reason that it was needed. I always tapped it on the range in our rapid fire strings, but not becasue it was needed, but theoretically if you had a jam or a ftf and a range observer didn't see you do it, you got no alibi for a refire-- any issue I ever had was from some crap worn out mag or ammo issues...never from the bolt not being seated all the way. I kept my rifle clean, and even during qual weeks I still gave the rifle a decent wipe down and ran a patch down the bore aafter firing days..
I love the AK, but I love the AR too-- reliability? I never had an issue with mine. Even in Iraq, Somalia, jungles, desert, snow, or whatever, I never had an issue with my A2 though. I think the only thing ever done to my rifle in the 4 years I carried it was I broke a firing pin once, and my ejection port cover spring broke-- I coached and taught hundreds of recruits on Edson Range, and by far-- probably 99% of all recruit rifle worked without issues. The AR is a great platform. Piston version s may be better, but the DI works great if maintained..which growing up with firearms, I had no issue performing. AKs are great, but the reliablity issue is lost on me due to the fact that I clean my AK the same way I would my AR...

Robert
December 29, 2009, 10:47 AM
Does someone have that gif of the guy beating the dead horse? I mean really, yet another AR vs AK thread. Nothing, nothing said in these threads, at least in recent memory, is of any use and more often than not it is the same things repeated over and over again. Both camps are firmly entrenched with no signs of yielding ground. The AR fanboys are convinced that the AR is God's gift to man. Unless you ask an AK fanboy. In which case some Russian tank driver is god. Get over it fellas. We all know the FAL is king.

Jorg Nysgerrig
December 29, 2009, 11:21 AM
One thing I find more bizarre than the sheer number of people who measure their self-worth by the objects they own or covet is the fervent devotion they show in not only defending their chosen object as though the foibles of their fetish somehow are held against them personally, but to vehemently proselytize to and denigrate those who merely opted to possess a different object or not to possess such an object at all. It is even more strange when the person in question did no more than merely exchange a few dollars for said object, contributing nothing to it's conception, design, or manufacture, but somehow feeling a sense of achievement through a simple act of consumerism. I can understand the sense of pride associated with, as well as the corresponding impassioned response to criticism of, something one has had a personal stake in creating but to throw down one's gauntlet over mass-produced consumer goods as though one's honor was somehow tied to not only the purchase of a particularly good, but the failure to purchase the same good by other people, seems a bit odd.

happygeek
December 29, 2009, 11:33 AM
http://apothegms.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/beating-a-dead-horse.jpg

Tirod
December 29, 2009, 12:22 PM
" the cheapest AK will definitely outperform the cheapest AR".. That sums up some of what I was trying to say. Good post and good point.
The AR platform is suffering from the design of the rifle as well as the execution of that design due to varying materials and build quality. They need to figure some **** out. If M4 feedramps are better, use them on ALL the rifles. If polymer mags are better than aluminum use the damn polymer, etc. BTW you damn sure need a chromed chamber and bore on an AR, period. There are thousands of them out there without. I feel the foreign made AK on the other hand has much less variation on the materials and execution of its basic design. I feel that is why it is more apt to run out of ammo rather than excuses.
I have always felt that any rifle needs a goddamn bolt handle you can persuade with you heel or something (when) it jams. If it needs a forward assist I aint goin with it man.

That's opinion. It's arguable at every point, and wrong on most of them.

The M4 feed ramps were designed for the M4. They were never necessary on the M16 series simply because the longer barrels lowered the cyclic rate and the rounds didn't have a problem feeding. With the shorter barrel and harsher cyclic rate of the M4, it became a problem, and the ramps cured it.

If anything, this one point alone reveals a lot about understanding the dynamics of the platform.

The US government decides what magazine it wants to use, not you. Aluminum mags in good shape don't jam. Bad magazines sold as surplus, or sold because the owner knows they are, confuse the entire issue. Shooters on just about every firearms forums talk about selling their bad magazines - and shooters complain about them. What comes around goes around.

You DON'T NEED a chrome barrel on a AR15, it's milspec only to reduce corrosion for FULL AUTOMATIC FIRE. Lots of competitive shooters and hunters buy high quality barrels that aren't chrome, and their trophies are evidence it works quite well. If anything, the subject matter experts on forums are unanimous that the average shooter won't ever see the need for chrome lining, and in fact, it creates an issue with making a precision barrel - which is why most long distance AR shooters refuse chrome.

Arguing that every rifle needs control over the bolt and then faulting the AR for the forward assist is just clueless. Which way is it going to be?

This IS a classic AK vs. AR thread. As a rule I find AK owners seem to fit the demographic profile Kalashnikov had in mind designing the rifle, and the pro - AK posting here fits to a T.

The_Pretender
December 29, 2009, 12:23 PM
One thing I find more bizarre than the sheer number of people who measure their self-worth by the objects they own or covet is the fervent devotion they show in not only defending their chosen object as though the foibles of their fetish somehow are held against them personally, but to vehemently proselytize to and denigrate those who merely opted to possess a different object or not to possess such an object at all. It is even more strange when the person in question did no more than merely exchange a few dollars for said object, contributing nothing to it's conception, design, or manufacture, but somehow feeling a sense of achievement through a simple act of consumerism. I can understand the sense of pride associated with, as well as the corresponding impassioned response to criticism of, something one has had a personal stake in creating but to throw down one's gauntlet over mass-produced consumer goods as though one's honor was somehow tied to not only the purchase of a particularly good, but the failure to purchase the same good by other people, seems a bit odd.
This.

Art Eatman
December 29, 2009, 01:24 PM
More than enough emotion for one thread...

If you enjoyed reading about "Another slant on the AK/AR argument." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!