Poll: Ak vs AR


PDA






Ruger44mag
February 3, 2011, 11:49 PM
Hey everyone this is a poll for the Ak vs the AR.
I don’t want to start a discussion on which one is better but just want everyone’s opinion using these guild lines:

Accuracy, reliability “in semi country type area”, availability of ammo and parts, knock down power.

If you enjoyed reading about "Poll: Ak vs AR" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Birdmang
February 3, 2011, 11:51 PM
You know its going to turn into a discussion of which one is better.

mshootnit
February 3, 2011, 11:55 PM
I would be better to me if guys would just vote. No talk, just vote. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

Ruger44mag
February 4, 2011, 12:20 AM
Lol yeah I know but I was just hoping. :)

jpwilly
February 4, 2011, 12:20 AM
Accuracy - Hands down the AR!

Reliability - I have both an neither are unreliable. I've had stoppages with both over the years they were bad ammo or mag issue neither rifle has failed. Tie

availability of ammo and parts, Toss Up...Tie

knock down power - AK

I voted AR

AR27
February 4, 2011, 12:22 AM
AR's come in a lot of different configurations. You're talking .308's and .22's. There are a lot of rifles that can be called AR's these days. You really should be more specific because a person can build an "AR" in 100 different combinations.
Im assuming he or she means the standard 5.56

Kalashnikovs come in a variety of calibers too. Im assuming 7.62x39


jpwilly a reliability tie is not even in the question. The AK has the advantage there hands down.

Ruger44mag
February 4, 2011, 12:22 AM
Your right I should... I meant the 7.62x39 and the 223/5.56.

chicharrones
February 4, 2011, 12:23 AM
Didn't I just see this on TV last night and this afternoon?
http://military.discovery.com/technology/weapons/rifles-intro.html

(Not to let a poll go to waste, I did vote.http://bestsmileys.com/freak/5.gif)

Ruger44mag
February 4, 2011, 12:30 AM
I saw that 2 years age lol it was a good show though.

elmerfudd
February 4, 2011, 12:35 AM
It really depends on what you want it for.

For an all around hunting/target/plinking/defense rifle, I'd take the AR. The optics mounting options and superior accuracy would give it an edge IMO. I'd rather try a headshot on a coyote at 200 yards with an AR.

For an end of the world, long term survival scenario, I'd take an AK. I just trust the action more.

FWIW though, I like them both.

Girodin
February 4, 2011, 02:04 AM
What AR and what AK. There are ARs that are no more accurate than my saiga .223. There are ARs that shoot .5" groups at 100 yards. There are ARs that can't get through a mag without a jam and then there are ARs that are highly reliable (see eg filthy 14).

I have to smile when people talk about ARs or even AKs as if they were all the same and all of one class or the other shared a common set of attributes.

I really like ARs and AKs. If I could have only one either an AR of my chosing or an AK I might well chose to own a Noveske AR. They are very accurate and very reliable guns. That said, I am certainly glad I do not have to choose just one because I really like AKs as well.

HorseSoldier
February 4, 2011, 02:38 AM
As a fighting rifle, the AR is superior.

For a general purpose rifle specifically in Big Lake . . . 5.56 might be a bit light for some non 2 legged issues.

Ruddie
February 4, 2011, 03:00 AM
I own both and I have to say if I want to make a 300 yard shot I would use my AR, if I'm bugging or "in a world of ****" I would have my AK.
If I were to have to choose between the two, I would say my AK. Most situations, being hostile, hunting, or general blinking, I would have to say my AK. Don't get me wrong, the AR platform is a very impressive setup, but I like being able to clean my gun in a mud puddle...... I'm just saying.
Bushmaster AR-15 16in M-4 style
Century Arms WASR-10 underfolder

Youngster
February 4, 2011, 03:12 AM
AK, a true infantryman's rifle vs a "space age" M1 Carbine replacement designed by some Stoner. :)

Ruger44mag
February 4, 2011, 04:01 AM
I agree, since I may run up against some bigger more furry creatures the 7.62x39 would be a bit better.

Cash4Gold
February 4, 2011, 11:22 AM
You need to get one of each, you won't be disappointed with either. They're really different rifles that serve similar purposes. Just fun at the range either is fine. Hunting something like deer I wouldn't use the .223, but many people do. AK for hunting things bigger than coyotes, but my AR is more accurate. I wouldn't say one is good and one isn't. They're both good rifles.

zeos
February 4, 2011, 11:49 AM
I think both are good, but the modularity of the ar tipped the scales of my opinion.

longdayjake
February 4, 2011, 12:39 PM
I have shot a few AK's and I really can't find much use for them beyond spitting bullets at targets. AR's are just more fun for me because they can spit bullets just as well, but I can also punch really small holes in paper at longer distances with one. I can also shoot them in alternate calibers that have more energy than the 7.62x39. Sure the AR has reliability issues with crappy magazines but the AK is just as worthless if you can't get a good magazine for it. I do like the 2 stage trigger of the AK though.

Carter
February 4, 2011, 01:04 PM
Well...thats a tough call.

I love both rifles. Both rifles have their intended purpose. Both have their strength and weaknesses.

That said. I'd take the AR. I'm a lot better with the AR than with the Ak. Parts are everywhere, ammo is everywhere, and it can be changed to fit just about any role it needs to fill (within reason).
Soft point rounds would be very effective for stopping power.

I'd like to have the AK as well, but you made me choose.

RockyMtnTactical
February 4, 2011, 01:10 PM
I prefer my AR15's, but am looking to get an AK again... I miss having one. They are both great guns. You need to own and shoot both before you can make a truly educated decision though.

OldmanFCSA
February 4, 2011, 01:38 PM
I have an AR with a 7.62X39 upper. It works great, especially after reoplacing hammer spring with a Wolff spring. Now it fires the Wolf ammo easily.

If your comparison was restricted to 7.62x39 only rifles, I would still pick my AR.

Ruger44mag
February 4, 2011, 02:12 PM
I have a question It might sound silly buy can you put any ar-15 upper on any ar-15 lower?

Justin
February 4, 2011, 04:19 PM
I would be better to me if guys would just vote. No talk, just vote. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

It seems to me that you're limiting the utility of the information if you're only interested in looking at how people vote while dismissing their experience out of hand.


I have a question It might sound silly buy can you put any ar-15 upper on any ar-15 lower?

Very broadly speaking, yes, but there are exceptions.

mcdonl
February 4, 2011, 04:30 PM
I am a child of the cold war. Collecting Russian guns is my own personal victory to the cold war. The AR is just for fun!!

Friendly, Don't Fire!
February 4, 2011, 04:32 PM
Well subtract one from AK and add it to AR.
I voted on AK by accident. :(

snakeman
February 4, 2011, 04:48 PM
I voted for the ar because of everything but knock down. You could also go for the ar in 6.8 spc then all the requirements are met.

trigga
February 4, 2011, 11:30 PM
both guns have set the standards for many years and many designs have tried to replace them, but they still stand strong. I love them both but I would have to say the AR because it is a lot more versatile: caliber, optics, sights, rails, etc.

DeepSouth
February 4, 2011, 11:40 PM
Assuming your talking about a 223 AR and 7.62x39 AK



Accuracy = AR

Reliability = AK

Availability of ammo and parts = no significant difference

Knock down power = AK

stuckinsocal
February 4, 2011, 11:48 PM
Voted AR...but only if it's in .308. I work on a cattle ranch and I'd want the power of the .308 to take down a bull if I have to since it would mainly be for ranch work.
Otherwise I'd take the AK in 7.62x39.

Tirod
February 5, 2011, 07:41 AM
Availability of parts might be equal, I'd like to see an AK barrel installed on the kitchen table.

Far too much of the AK construction is gunsmith level, the AR can be assembled to good working order in less than an hour with a pair of vicegrips and a strap wrench. Just like the scene where "Blondie" assembles a cap lock conversion from parts off a countertop, an AR can be built and serviced with a few common hand tools.

Since the parts are so easy to swap out, that's why AK's wear furniture and accessories that were first marketed for the AR.

Secondly, the AR has set the standard for the location of controls, making it more user friendly to new users, and helping them in high stress to keep the gun loaded and shooting more often. The magazine release, safety, and bolt hold open on last shot are all copied on the new designs released the last ten years.

The AK does have great magazines, but they and the parts inside are NOT interchangeable across the board, in fact, it's exceptional when they do. The AR is expected to no matter what, the blueprint standards are that strict on the open market. You can even buy a barrel and bolt separately, assemble, and it's expected the headspace will work OK, something never recommended for ANY other gun. It may not be the best decision, but it's happening.

AR's take drop in target or tactical triggers, have all the options in furniture, and can be built literally out of a catalog, assembled at home, and shoot decently. AK? Not so much.

There are reasons AR sell despite being twice the price, and when apples to apples are compared, they wind up costing the same. The AR still has the edge because of the modularity and control layout.

BushyGuy
February 5, 2011, 08:26 AM
i own both, i prefer the AK, why? reliability, i have an AR15 its ok, accurate yes, but it needs to be cleaned after each range trip, u wont be able to do that in a SHTF situation.

lobo9er
February 5, 2011, 08:38 AM
What are you going to use it for? other wise we are all just voting what WE like better.
I voted AK if your out in the country and may want to use it hunting or protection against something toothy. In which case you may want a 12 ga. anyhow.

Quentin
February 5, 2011, 10:22 AM
Didn't we have one of these last week too?

LKB3rd
February 5, 2011, 10:29 AM
Option c: They are both better

depending on what you want/like

benEzra
February 5, 2011, 10:46 AM
For what purpose? They're both good rifles. The AR is better for 300-yard target shooting, and the 7.62x39mm AK is better for hunting whitetail deer in eastern woods than the 5.56x45mm AR. The AK is a bit heavier, but the mags are more robust.

Other than that, it boils down to which rifle you like to shoot best. Properly assembled and lubricated, with good magazines and decent ammo, they'll be comparably reliable.

jad0110
February 5, 2011, 12:26 PM
Other than that, it boils down to which rifle you like to shoot best. Properly assembled and lubricated, with good magazines and decent ammo, they'll be comparably reliable.

That answers it right there. Pick both up, handle them, shoot them if you can. Go with what feels most natural to you. I prefer the ergos of the AR platform myself, but the AK gets just as much respect from me.

Ruger44mag
February 5, 2011, 02:04 PM
Basically I want it for self defence in a disaster, and a "bug out gun".

Welding Rod
February 5, 2011, 03:50 PM
As Jeff Cooper said, the purpose of shooting is hitting.

More likely with an AR.

Zach S
February 5, 2011, 09:35 PM
I own four ARs, and one AK.

the count
February 5, 2011, 09:54 PM
I have 2 of each = very happy camper!

Tomcat47
February 5, 2011, 10:46 PM
On This Basis....

Accuracy, reliability “in semi country type area”, availability of ammo and parts, knock down power.

While I agree with jpwilly..

Accuracy - Hands down the AR!
Reliability - I have both an neither are unreliable. I've had stoppages with both over the years they were bad ammo or mag issue neither rifle has failed. Tie
availability of ammo and parts, Toss Up...Tie
knock down power - AK

I voted AR as well....I must add MO that due to the AR's accuracy it overshadows AK's slight knock down advantage.

but Versatility is also an overshadowing view that makes the AR Top Notch.

True Grit
February 5, 2011, 10:51 PM
I voted AK. My vote was based on an AR 5.56 vs AK-74 5.45x39mm comparison. Honestly it wouldn't be fair to compair the 5.56 and the 7.62 together because thats what everyone automaticaly thinks when these AR vs AK discussions come up. There two totally different types of assault cartridges.

stanger04
February 5, 2011, 10:56 PM
Okay if we look at the real guns, no variants at all. They are really even, one has advantages over the other in some ways but lacks in others. The only thing I can say is I would feel safe owning either if they are both of equal quality.

Ruger44mag
February 5, 2011, 11:44 PM
In most of the world that's the exact opposite situation. Most of the world knows the AK and how to maintain one for basic use (cleaning etc.). They teach their kids how to operate one when they are very young. And most of those people have likely never seen an AR.

Plus I've shot quite a few AR's at 400 yards. They are pretty accurate but they aren't target or varmint rifles. You're good for minute of man at that distance but don't expect to win any competitions unless everyone is shooting an AR. And most of the ones I've shot at that distance were .308's too. My AK would shoot minute of man at about 300 yards and that was with me shooting off hand. That's something I would have a hard time doing with an AR-10. They get pretty dang heavy.

Again it gets back to what you want the gun to do. The AR's are accurate farther out for sure. But I have a varmint rifle that is far more accurate than any AR I've ever shot. AK's aren't as accurate but they are much easier to carry around than an AR-10. An AR-15 or an M4 is usually lighter and more accurate at greater distances but they lack the punch to kill game at longer distances unless you're using heavier bullets. And with the twist rates used on most of those guns they can't really handle the heavy bullets. For a dedicated varmint rifle (or sniper rifle for those EOTWAWKI situations) I'd want a rifle like the one I have which is a Savage 12 LRPV in .223. I'd rather have a .308 for the EOTWAWKI stuff but a .223 will do out to about 600 yards if you're using the right ammo. And that LRPV is way more accurate than any AR I've shot when it comes to long distance shooting.

So IMO between 300 and 400 yards the AR would be a better rifle. But closer than that an AK is likely better if you're using .223 ammo vs. 7.62 X 39. And beyond 400 yards you'll really need a different rifle than an AR IMO. Maybe I just haven't shot the right rifles but I've just never shot an AR that is close to being as accurate as my Savage 12 varmint rifle. And I have shot some high quality AR-10's at that distance some with varmint barrels installed.

So because of the superior knockdown power and workable accuracy out to 300 yards I would want to change my vote to an AK. I originally voted for the AR because of the versatility of the platform but we're limited to only the .223 / 5.56 rifles which really don't work that well in the 1:12 twist rate rifles out to 400 plus yards in my experience.

Just for the record I actually prefer an SKS to an AK unless we're talking full auto AK's. But I don't see many of those and I don't plan on going through the steps to get a full auto. The reason I like the SKS is because it is considerably cheaper than the AK and they are basically equal other than that. Yes there is the detachable mag thing but everyone knows how easy it is to convert certain SKS's to detachable mags. You can either wait until you really need the mod or you can buy the needed parts to comply with 922r. If you use the right SKS and the right mags they will function flawlessly. I know mine has for many years.
Do you use the duck bill mags? If so what do you do for mag pouches?

HorseSoldier
February 6, 2011, 12:21 AM
In most of the world that's the exact opposite situation. Most of the world knows the AK and how to maintain one for basic use (cleaning etc.). They teach their kids how to operate one when they are very young. And most of those people have likely never seen an AR.

Most of them also don't know a damn thing about gunfighting or how to really use an AK at speed. It's not like driving on the left hand side of the road versus the right hand side of the road -- control placement on the AK makes it physically impossible to match the speed of manipulation you can get at any given skill level as you can with an AR. Armchairs aren't all that reliable, but clocks simply don't lie and I've yet to see anyone prove my theory wrong when you make it non-theoretical and test it out with actual data resulting.


So because of the superior knockdown power and workable accuracy out to 300 yards I would want to change my vote to an AK. I originally voted for the AR because of the versatility of the platform but we're limited to only the .223 / 5.56 rifles which really don't work that well in the 1:12 twist rate rifles out to 400 plus yards in my experience.

Who uses 1-12 twist barrels on ARs for anything anymore?

elmerfudd
February 6, 2011, 01:34 AM
It seems to me that an ideal gunfighting rifle for a civilian will be considerably different than that of a soldier.

I think it's a safe assumption that civilian gunfighting will be at close range. When soldiers shoot people at long range it's called combat. When civilians do it, it's called murder.

Soldiers can use automatic weapons. For all practical purposes those are off limits for American civilians. Recoil also limits the cartridge size for controllable, shoulder fired, automatic weapons. This is much less a concern for civilians than soldiers.

Soldiers have to be very concerned about the weight of cartridges. They have to carry them after all. Civilians are much more likely to be defending their homes and families.

Soldiers are expected to be carrying serious weaponry. Civilians doing the same thing will likely attract the wrong kind of attention. Ask a returning vet sometime what happens to non-uniformed Iraqis or Afghans packing AK's or RPG's.

A civilian rifle is much more likely to be neglected. A soldier in a combat zone expects to use his weapon. A civilian doesn't.

Civilians are also extremely likely to be fighting idiots. Look at your average street gang, group of meth heads, drug smugglers or petty criminals and ask yourself how they stack up against a squad of marines. These are the folks that think a great combat tactic is to drive by a house and spray it with fire from a Tec9. If you've got a decent fighting rifle, (any decent fighting rifle), and you know how to use it, chances are they won't even come close to matching you.



From my perspective, an ideal civilian fighting rifle first needs to be utterly reliable. You should be able to pull it out of a closet or from behind the seat of a truck after months of ignoring it and expect it to fire every time. It should hold at least 30 shots. Civilian gunfights don't usually involve that many shots, but civilians are also often rusty with their reloading technique, so more is better. Also, when you're half asleep and in your skivvies, are you always going to grab the extra magazine when you hear your door being kicked in? It should have good night sights, a red dot or something similar, as criminals like to attack at night.

The other thing to think about in a civilian rifle is utility. A lot of us would use it for hunting, pest control and target practice. There might not be any call for a civilian to shoot another human from 400m, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't want to whack a prairie dog from a long way away.

If you enjoyed reading about "Poll: Ak vs AR" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!