Let the AK go for an AR?


PDA






FNP45
February 6, 2012, 09:18 PM
Well I'm in a dilemma on my latest first world problem. In NOV I purchased my first assault rifle, Arsenal AK and was happy as hell about it. I went with an AK for a couple of reasons, the classic look, history of the weapon and the reliability.

Then in Dec. I found a new world called three gun, where has this been???? I picked up on what was what in the game and realized right away what rifle you don't see (AK), for apparent reasons (accuracy).

I then got to looking into AR platform rifles & I found another new world and I'm hooked. The idea of setting up the rifle how I want it & then having the ability to swap out different uppers with ease really appeals to me. Already have a second upper picked out, 458 socom (i reload).

Question is: Should i sell the AK to fund the AR build?

Side notes:
Plan on getting another AK down the road.
Have house project coming up so funds aren't as generous.
Accuracy differences cant be argued (not with in reason, i think?)
The reliability of an AR can't be that bad if every other person and there dog has one, just as long as you keep em' clean.

Thanks For the feedback

If you enjoyed reading about "Let the AK go for an AR?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
carbine85
February 6, 2012, 09:21 PM
If you can't afford both then get rid of the AK. The AR platform smokes the AK IMHO. An AK is an AK, the AR is what ever you want.
I think I'll sit back and see how this thread goes.:)

Robert
February 6, 2012, 09:24 PM
I'd sell the AK to fund the AR build and not look back. The AR wins in accuracy, ease of adding optics (assuming a flat top), better triggers, better ergos as well as some others I may be forgetting. The AK is not a bad rifle, far from it, but the AR is a better rifle.

In my experience the reliability issues of the AR are vastly over stated in the last 30 years. Were there problems at first? Yes. But those were a long time ago. A modern AR is a very reliable weapon. I only clean mine every 1000 rounds or so and I have had no major issues. And nothing that has caused me to have to walk off a stage. The AR is Legos for adults. Though I still like Legos too, a perk of having a young son.

d2wing
February 6, 2012, 09:28 PM
If you need permission to do the right thing, you have it. Both are fun but for business you need the AR. AR's guys been beating AK guys for near 50 years head to head.

dcarch
February 6, 2012, 09:30 PM
Don't ever sell a gun. You'll regret it down the road, BELIEVE me. The Arsenal is quite a gun. I would just wait, save your pennies, and get the AR as well. Besides, if you need to conserve funds for a house project, burning them in a three gun match doesn't strike me as a good option until you're done with the house. Again, the Arsenal is considered to be one of the best AKs on the market right now. If you said you've got another AK in mind down the road, why sell one of the top notch ones that you own already? I would just wait, save some $, and get an AR. Like I said, seller's remorse is nasty stuff. Don't start on that path. :)

xxxleafybugxxx
February 6, 2012, 09:31 PM
What gun would I rather have in a real life combat situation? AK
What gun would I rather have at a shooting range? AR
Have Both!

FNP45
February 6, 2012, 09:34 PM
Haha, thanks for permission. The replies pretty much answer what I was thinking. I know it's an easy answer just wanted a lil feed back from the firearms community

Don't ever really see a real life combat situation arising. I'll get another one before the apocalypse, lol

Robert
February 6, 2012, 09:37 PM
I would just wait, save some $,
Honestly I like this answer the best. Better than mine. I have no love for the myth of the AK and I will not hide it. But you have a good one and if you sell it you will regret it. I should have never sold my FAL...

Mr.Blue
February 6, 2012, 09:44 PM
I sold my Bulgarian Arsenal AK and have regretted it ever since.

I prefer ARs, but would like to have both. If I were you, I'd save up for the AR. Why take a loss on the AK, only to buy the same rifle down the road at a premium? The AR can wait until you can afford it.

needmorecowbell
February 6, 2012, 09:44 PM
I wouldn't sell the AK, especially if you know you'll get another down the road, unless you aren't happy with the one you have and want a different one already. Just save up for the AR. Usually when you sell you lose a little money and you regret it later on. Only time I sell now is if I genuinely don't like the gun, not to fund another one.

d2wing
February 6, 2012, 09:46 PM
I disagree pretty strongly with you xxx but not going to beat that dead horse. Nearly everyone knows how that works out.

allaroundhunter
February 6, 2012, 09:47 PM
If you are wanting to run 3-gun, it is a no-brainer, sell the AK and get yourself an AR. Especially if you are going to get one down the road. There will still be plenty of AKs, as long as you aren't too tied to this one (we are all tied to at least one of our guns right;))

FNP45
February 6, 2012, 09:48 PM
Hhhmmmm all good points.....
Save and be patient or move quickly and have instant gratification, a byproduct of our time.

Buck Kramer
February 6, 2012, 09:48 PM
Keep the AK, save for an AR.

velocette
February 6, 2012, 09:50 PM
If ffyou are going to take your rifle fill it with cheap ammo, drop it into the mud, then muck it around a bit, then drop it into the sandbox, filling it up with sand and still expect it to work flawlessly, then by all means keep your AK.
If you keep your rifle fairly clean, lubricate it occasionally and use decent quality ammo, then perhaps the AR will suit you well.
If hitting a man sized target at 100 yds is all you want, then ok with the AK
If you want to hit the man sized target in the eye, then perhaps the AR will suit you better.
You get the idea I'm sure.

Roger

xxxleafybugxxx
February 6, 2012, 09:56 PM
They both have their purposes. I like both guns. And there really is no comparison in a battle situation. But that's a whole different topic. Get both

black_powder_Rob
February 6, 2012, 09:58 PM
I think I would have to join the other in saying don't sell, you will only regret it down later. I still kick my self on letting my mini 14 go, (it was a decent shooter) now they want $800 for one new and the used ones are as much as I bought my other one when it was new.

Save the coin and have both.
Good luck with which ever way you go.

ThatGuyHank
February 6, 2012, 10:05 PM
*Sigh* I like the AK's far more than the AR platform. This is just my preference but I found it on my own logic. I tested the AR's and the AK's and shot all kinds in all flavors or brand and chambering. After looking at the accuracy, handling, easy of use and reliability I settled with a 5.45 Saiga. I converted it with a pistol grip (tapco saw, extremely comfortable and really drives your hand to the receiver) and a new stock (KAVAR fixed stock in NATO length although, I added a buttpad for some more LOP) and trigger group. With Tec-sights she settles nicely into the 1.5-2 inch groups at 100 yards. With a Nikon Prostaff, it will do 1 inch if I do my part (it is a challenge though, not easy by any means). It is a truly wonderful rifle.

An Arsenal AK is a Saiga rifle that's been converted and worked on for you. They are the top notch AK, and they aren't cheap. You'd get a starter AR for the money you spent on that Arsenal. However, I've seen AR's choke on seemingly nothing. I've seen them choke in indoor ranges where the weather isn't even a FACTOR. Sure, the reliability complaints are overblown. It's not like they stop working all the time but in my experience they stop more often than I'd be comfortable with. I've never had an AK choke.

Anyway, the Arsenal should be capable of tight groupings, rivaling that of a well made, more expensive AR. And the AK makes one solid three gun rifle when properly trained. Reloads are tricky-ish and going from empty might be a pain if you aren't left handed (it's great being born sinister :evil:). Otherwise, they are both suitable for competitions but I'd take the AK every day of the week.

my two cents and change

purpplehaze
February 6, 2012, 10:19 PM
Keep your AK and save for an AR.

Robert
February 6, 2012, 10:22 PM
Edit:
I will not contribute to thread veer or feed the trolls...
I will not contribute to thread veer or feed the trolls...
I will not contribute to thread veer or feed the trolls...

nastynatesfish
February 6, 2012, 10:24 PM
if it bothers you that bad and you have a closet full of ammo just get a 762 39 upper to slap on too when you get the spare cash.
ARs are like pringles, you cannt just have one.
make sure you get two females or get the male fixed cause theyll multiply in the safe. trust me lol

Fishbed77
February 6, 2012, 10:29 PM
Keep the AK, save for an AR.

This is the best advice.

Bojangles7
February 6, 2012, 10:34 PM
If it was a WASR I'd say sell it, but an Arsenal is worth holding on to IMO.

FlyinBryan
February 6, 2012, 10:46 PM
if i could only have one it would be an ar15 hands down.

when i could have more than one, it would be more than one ar15.

its far more accurate, far more versatile, far more reliable. yes, they are more reliable.

it wins every category easily.

Clark
February 7, 2012, 12:24 AM
I have one AK, and a couple ARs.

The ARs are way better, but consider a Ruger #1V with a scope.

The #1 is way better than the AR.

ARs are for squads blasting in battle. You are one guy. Hit something with one shot.

xxxleafybugxxx
February 7, 2012, 12:43 AM
Saying the AR is more reliable is like saying the giants are not the super bowl champions. Its just not true. When in history has the ar proven to be any more reliable then the ak? Im a fan of both, but its ridiculous what people will say sometimes..

JohnnyK
February 7, 2012, 12:43 AM
I use my Isreali Golani AK for 3-gun and it's a bad ass 3-gun rifle... during the long range portion, I hit 4 8" steel targets from 175 yards within 16 seconds... who says AKs aren't accurate or good for 3-gun? it's all about the Indian not the arrows... you don't really have to be THAT accurate at 3-gun anyways... you hit steel plates to knock them down, hit paper targets in the A-zone... clays with rifle, pistol or shotgun... moving targets and long range.... I also use Saiga 12 for my 3-gun shotgun... so, I use 2 AKS for 3-gun...

FlyinBryan
February 7, 2012, 12:51 AM
When in history has the ar proven to be any more reliable then the ak?

believe it or not it happens all the time in independent testing. it's not just me saying rediculous things. it's lots of folks.

JHenry
February 7, 2012, 01:14 AM
depends. If its a nice AK with some quality wood and reputable manufactering with good part kits then id say keep it as AK prices are going up(Mak 90s are like $700 now i think).

If its an Arsenal(theyre not going anywhere), WASR(get rid of it regardless), or its tacticollized(definitly trade up for the AR).

The AR does have advantages, wide market for stocks, handguards, and accesories, inherent accuarcy and other advantages. But if you have an older quality AK id hold on to it as their prices do nothing but go up

xxxleafybugxxx
February 7, 2012, 01:25 AM
If I had to shoot further than 200 yards, its an ar easy. But like most combat situations (within 50 yards) ak all day. Like I said, I like both, but they each have their perks. Do people ever wander why the ar has forward assist? Because its had a bad history. Yes, they have improved, but when my life is on the line, I want the system that's been working for 60the years. Can't say the same about the ar

henschman
February 7, 2012, 05:30 AM
I say keep the Arsenal, but start piecing together an AR. Surely you can come up with the scratch to get a stripped lower receiver... you can get one for $75 all day long. Then as you have extra dough, start buying other pieces for it. That way you can build it the way you want right from the get-go, and you get to learn a lot about the workings of your rifle when you put it all together yourself. I would probably just go with a complete upper though, since it's your first build, instead of putting it together yourself on a stripped upper. They are a lot more involved to assemble than the lower. But by all means put the lower together yourself. You can save some money doing it this way, too.

As usual there is a lot of misinformation about the two rifles in this thread. For one, the reason people don't use AKs in 3-gun has less to do with accuracy and more to do with the fact that the AR is quicker to reload, has less recoil, is more optics-friendly, and has better irons. Accuracy factors in, but for the usual target sizes and ranges involved, AK's are plenty effective. My cheap-ass WASR keeps it under man-sized out to 400 yards. AK's are more accurate than most here give them credit. The guy who said they can only hit man-sized targets out to 100m has obviously never shot one... either that or he is a very poor shot, in which case he wouldn't do any better with an AR.

And FlyinBryan, I would have to see this "independent testing" that "happens all the time" which shows that AKs are less reliable than ARs to believe it. And I might not even believe it then, since it contradicts everything I have seen from over a decade of experience with both types of rifles. But if you have a link or some other reference, by all means post it up.

BTW I'm only "coming to the defense" of the AK here because people posted inaccurate comments. No doubt the AR is the better choice for 3-gun, and probably for most other uses as well... but that doesn't mean you will see me getting rid of my AK any time soon either!

FNP45
February 7, 2012, 06:44 AM
Henchman, keeping it and piecing together the AR is what I was originally planning on. I se no problem though with building an upper as well, as long as I invest the time and do it right.
For the time being I will hold on to the thing and just see how it goes with the build. I do see the price of AK's going up steadily, maybe more so the older classics, but I'm sure the Arsenals will creep on up too.

JustinJ
February 7, 2012, 08:58 AM
Trade in the 47 for a 74. My russian arsenal 74 holds 2" groups with 7N6 which should be more than adequate for your purposes. There are plenty of scope mounting options available today for the ak platform.

Fiv3r
February 7, 2012, 09:47 AM
Sounds like you're keeping it, and I agree with that:) There is plenty of room in the stables for both. I never thought I would be an AR guy. I'm not all about doodads. I keep my guns clean but I don't break out various sizes of toothbrushes to do so. I like "rough" guns because I don't want to scratch up anything "too nice".

...but I'll be danged if my go-to rifle isn't a plain jane AR-15 of the 5.56 variety. The comfort, the recoil, the reliability (yes, it is reliable. Non-armed service people probably need to stop throwing their guns in the mud for no reason), and the ability to accessorize should I ever want to. On top of that, I just shoot the smaller .223 better.

ol' scratch
February 7, 2012, 10:37 AM
If you are going to purchase an AK later on down the road; why don't you just wait until you have the funds? The Arsenal is a great AK. I frankly like both platforms for different reasons. If you were going to sell the AK and never look back because you want an AR for three gun, I could understand. By your own admission, however; you are going to purchase another AK. You already own one.

oldguy870
February 7, 2012, 10:46 AM
I sold my AKs years ago and have not regretted it once. In my opinion, the AR beats it hands down.

I have sold bought and sold many guns over the years. It is part of the process of learning what you like.

gp911
February 7, 2012, 10:54 AM
870, no question.

Oh, wait, I meant .45ACP, no question.

Dang, wrong thread again! Keep the AK (since it's a nice one) and save for/build the AR. AR stuff is everywhere now and prices are low. Palmetto State Armory is a good place to start.

JustinJ
February 7, 2012, 11:09 AM
Quote:
When in history has the ar proven to be any more reliable then the ak?

believe it or not it happens all the time in independent testing. it's not just me saying rediculous things. it's lots of folks.

You are right. Its not just you saying this ridiculous thing. But it is still ridiculous.

Please cite one independent test in which the AK was found to be less reliable than the AR. Joe Blow's utube report of a Romanian AK slapped together in his cousin's basement from a surplus parts kit is NOT a citable source.

Fiv3r
February 7, 2012, 11:33 AM
On a side but related note: Can there actually be a blanket statement that quantifies that "AKs are more reliable than ARs"? How do you qualify the statement? It's fairly obvious that if you compare a quality AK to a budget AR that the AK is probably going to run circles around it. It might also be true that a quality AR will not choke on the things that a sub-par AK might.

I find the argument comparing the platforms to be a moot point as they are both purpose driven firearms for different armies. One is designed to be so dead-nuts simple that someone who has never fired a rifle in their life would be competent enough operate it within 5 minutes. The other was designed to be a modular professional soldier's tool.

I my opinion it's like comparing an old diesel tractor to a finely tuned sports car. I don't mean that as a dig to the tractor. That ol' warhorse could run on any combustible with worn belts and reliably plow the fields year and year out for a generation and a half. The sports car might require more maintenance, but it is not like it's going to seize up at the first sign of problems. You simply won't get the level of performance out of it that you would if it was running at tip-top.

In short, a $300-$2000 firearm makes a lousy $5 bucket. I try not to dump sand or water into either platform. As a firearm educated civilian with no professional military training, if crawling through the mud or being submerged in water is a factor when TSHTF, then I'm way more screwed in other areas firearm not withstanding. I like the fact that I can load, operate, and field strip either. I certainly feel better off than 90% of the population holding a frying pan.

I like having both platforms in my cabinet. The AR gets the nod most every day on personal preference, but having the odd AK around is a good thing. That way you can scavenge mags and ammo from Russian paratroopers.
WOLVERINES!!:neener:

sixgunner455
February 7, 2012, 11:54 AM
If you have a rifle you like, and want another, then save for the second rifle. If you have a rifle you don't like, and want something else you hope/think/expect to like better, go ahead and sell it off.

Easy.

Ashcons
February 7, 2012, 11:56 AM
Don't sell now for instant gratification! That'll typically end up costing most people more money in the long run. If you're a good haggler, maybe you'll come out ahead. If it were me, I'd end up losing money overall.

Red October
February 7, 2012, 11:59 AM
Setting aside the AK vs AR debate (which will never be settled), DON'T SELL A FIREARM THAT YOU LIKE!
I have done this a couple of times over the years when funds were tight. The cash you get is gone in the blink of an eye, usually NOT for what you intended it for, and the firearm is lost. Sure you can replace it, but it just won't feel the same. I have missed a particular one that I sold for over 25 years. I have owned three "similar" ones since; I sold them off because they just weren't as good (as my memory of) the original.
Keep the AK. Save for the AR. You'll regret it less.

FWIW, I have two AKs and two ARs. I like both platforms. (But I also own a Glock and a 1911. Call me crazy. ;))

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 7, 2012, 12:12 PM
believe it or not it happens all the time in independent testing. it's not just me saying rediculous things. it's lots of folks.

I'm an AR fan myself but where have you seen an AK choke and an AR keep breathing on the same thing? One video I've seen (one video so it isn't much) was actual head cam footage of combat in the sandbox and the guy's M16 jammed a few times in combat and I've seen plently of videos of 50-60 year old captured AK 47s not miss a beat. I've seen that AKs are more reliable than most rifles of it's class but that doesn't mean the AR 15 jams all the time, just that it is more likely to jam.

I'll say it once again just in case, I'm an AR 15 fan and don't like the AK's that much.

nathan
February 7, 2012, 12:17 PM
I have all variants of the SKSs and four AKs to date with one AK 74. I have no AR for now but will someday. I love them all.

Robert
February 7, 2012, 12:19 PM
But like most combat situations (within 50 yards) ak all day.
Ok that is the second time in this thread you cite combat, so please tell us, what exactly is your combat experience with the AR and the AK? I mean real world finger on the trigger while being shot at experience with either one. Not just stuff you read on the internet.

In my experience, and none of it is combat, I have seen far more AKs fail than ARs. The myth that the AR is a jam-o-matic is just as big and erronous as the myth that the AK will never fail. Everything breaks, everything fails at some point. But again, in my experience I have personaly seen more AK failures than AR failures. But as they say YMMV.

jrdolall
February 7, 2012, 12:26 PM
My AR is more accurate than my AK74 but not dramatically so. Recoil on both is similar. AR is more customizable and, therefore, more expensive in the long run.

jrdolall
February 7, 2012, 12:34 PM
BTW, I keep my ARs and AKs in a safe. I never crawl through mudpits or sand piles with them and probably will never need to swim across a crick with one of them. If the end nears and I have to fight it out with the bad guys then I hope all of you young whipper-snappers will come help me out cause I am just too damned old and fat to crawl through the jungle.

BullfrogKen
February 7, 2012, 12:49 PM
Staying out of the wut iz better debate.


You can have a lot of fun in three gun with your AK. Keep it, and save up for your AR. By the time you have the money saved to afford it, you'll have learned the game well enough to be able to use the advantages of the AR in competition.

snakeman
February 7, 2012, 01:09 PM
If you plan on getting another ak then whats the point in selling this one now? That is all.

d2wing
February 7, 2012, 02:22 PM
Xxx most combat? You have no idea. It might work like that in your video game but to assume you enemy will appear only in your range is really poor tactics.

kfgk14
February 7, 2012, 03:11 PM
"Clean" isn't even as big a deal as buying a good AR from the start and keeping it lubricated. Just take some Slip 2000 and shoot it into the BCG. A dab of grease on the FCG when you put it together, and you're set.

gotboostvr
February 7, 2012, 05:15 PM
I own and like both, but use them differently.
My AK was built on a polish underfolder kit and has a Aimpoint knock off on the Midwest quad rail, I love blasting cans and cardboard boxes with it in the woods. I may have even hoisted it up and yelled Wolverines once or twice (which is really hard to admit as a Buckeye)

My AR is a BCM SS410 A2 stock, A2 iron sights. I shoot steel plates to 400 yards with it. It's considerably more precise. When practicing reloads (which I do with the AK as well) or any other manipulation drill, going from the AK to the AR I feel like The Flash, everything is just faster and more intuitive. The AR platform is just fast.

I've never had a malf in either rifle so I consider that irrelevant. If you have a modern AR that malfs once in awhile, something is broken or mistuned. Figure it out and fix it.

For a interesting story about AR's running dirty do a quick Google search for "Filthy 14"
Short version: BCM carbine that's never been cleaned, or jammed. Past 30k rounds now I believe.

FlyinBryan
February 7, 2012, 05:35 PM
Please cite one independent test in which the AK was found to be less reliable than the AR. Joe Blow's utube report of a Romanian AK slapped together in his cousin's basement from a surplus parts kit is NOT a citable source.


lol, lets just consider it another rediculous claim.

proven
February 7, 2012, 05:49 PM
leafy bug, i'd like to hear what your actual combat experience is as well.

for me, i had an arsenal milled sam7 and sold it to fund my first ar. haven't looked back since. the ar is much more accurate, and even better than actual accuracy, is way easier to shoot well. i can shoot groups at 200yds with my colt the same size of groups shot at 50 yds with my arsenal. i'll likely get another ak someday, but i won't spend what i spent on the arsenal and the ar will always be the go to.

JustinJ
February 7, 2012, 06:07 PM
An american vet who has shot only an M4 in combat is a no better judge of which is better than a Russian soldier who has shot only an AK.

saturno_v
February 7, 2012, 06:09 PM
Keep the AK, save for the AR...I have both.

There are very good reasons why the AK is the undisputed king of assault rifles....

d2wing
February 7, 2012, 07:30 PM
Fuzzy liberal thinking. You don't think soldier is not aware or concerned about what he faced. We were trained in our opponents weapons and I have owned several and tested them. The tactics we faced reflect knowledge of the differences.

allaroundhunter
February 8, 2012, 12:23 AM
There are very good reasons why the AK is the undisputed king of assault rifles...

It actually is disputed....multiple times just here on THR.....but that is for another thread (actually it isn't, it already is another thread)

ugaarguy
February 8, 2012, 12:38 AM
There are very good reasons why the AK is the undisputed king of assault rifles....
Perhaps you'd like to read an expert's very strong dispute of your assertion - http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7742629&postcount=77
Open Source Credentials - http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/mos/special/18z.html

35 Whelen
February 8, 2012, 12:44 AM
What gun would I rather have in a real life combat situation? AK
What gun would I rather have at a shooting range? AR
Have Both!
^^^^
That's wisdom.

Blanket statements such as "AR's are better." need quantification. Better at what?

AR's are more accurate, but in my experience they're ideal for poking holes in a piece of paper,r making a piece of steel go "ding" or shooting small, 4-legged mammals. If that's what you want from a rifle, then get an AR. I shoot High Power and most people use AR's and shoot teeny little groups with them, but realistically, that's about the limit of their usefullness.

In semi autos, I own an AR, a Mini-14, two SKS's and a Garand. They all feed, fire and eject with practically 100% reliability. The rifles shooting the dinky bullets get the nod for playing around. The others are for business.

35W

lloydkristmas
February 8, 2012, 01:00 AM
I apologize in advance, I didnt read any replies past the first page. Consider an AK74 type variant. The 5.45mm is SUPER cheap right now, and has almost no recoil with a proper '74 type muzzle brake. Both of these factors lend themselves particularly well to 3gun type shooting. I've seen guys with low caliber AK's dominate in up-close type games/matches. The AK is certainly capable of reaching out on the long distance stages too

chris in va
February 8, 2012, 04:47 AM
Question is: Should i sell the AK to fund the AR build?

I did. Saiga conversion, sold it to fund my M&P Sport. Don't regret it one bit.

JustinJ
February 8, 2012, 09:35 AM
Fuzzy liberal thinking.

Liberal thinking? Thats a purely nonsensical statement which basically eqautes to: i don't like what you said + i don't like liberals = you think like a liberal.

You don't think soldier is not aware or concerned about what he faced. We were trained in our opponents weapons and I have owned several and tested them. The tactics we faced reflect knowledge of the differences.

So based on your earlier line of thinking, if a soldier carrying an AK shoots a soldier carrying an M4 we should all believe him when he says his rifle is better? I'd bet the soldiers whose M4s jammed at Wanat were wondering how useful their better accuracy is with a gun that won't fire. In regards to the better accuracy of an M4, it adds no advantage given the practical range is limited to 300 yards (although that may be a stretch) at which an AK can easily hit center mass and do far more damage. And when one compares the AK74 to the M4 the practical "accuracy advantage" all but dissapears.

Geno
February 8, 2012, 10:09 AM
Do any of you other fellas remember the Ralph Phillips cartoon from the late 60s early 70s? Or, how about reading The Secret Life of Walter Mitty in 10th grade English? I'm waiting to hear the OP's military experience.

Goodness know I haven't any experience either as an LEO, or in military. I don't even have any formal training with carbines. Although, I have stayed at many Holiday Inns. Might be that's why I like both AKs and ARs. I have owned the WASR-10s, Bustmaster A3s, and Colts both A2 and A3 models. The odd thing to me was that none of these carbines failed to fire when I pulled the trigger. They were fun to play with.

But, I'm still waiting to see the OP's experiences with trigger application in combat. I might learn something from him, then again, given my limited knowledge of the matter, I guess that doesn't set the bar very high. Maybe he does have combat experience; maybe not. Then again, maybe he's just bored, because he couldn't go out for recess.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Geno

BullfrogKen
February 8, 2012, 10:15 AM
Geno,

The OP - FNP45 - never claimed any combat experience. He just asked opinions on which would be better for 3-gun competition.


I think we've veered far enough off that topic that we can call this discussion a failure.


Apart from asserting which rifle you'd rather have when Russian paratroopers are falling from the sky, can we limit opinions to which platform you prefer in 3-gun competition.

If you have no experience in 3-gun competition, this is a clue that we might not care about your opinion.

SharkHat
February 8, 2012, 10:24 AM
Do people ever wander [sic] why the ar has forward assist?

Is it to provide a means for moving the bolt forward if it doesn't go into full battery? Kind of like pushing the back of the slide on a 1911 or the operating handle on an M1.

Since the BCG doesn't have any fixed parts outside of the receiver, what else would you push?

It's actually an elegant and effective design if you think about it. Unless you forget to latch your charging handle, there are no parts outside of the receiver cycling rapidly.

FNP45
February 8, 2012, 11:00 AM
I my self have no combat experience at all, although I do wonder what it would have been like had I had joined not as a I'm a bad ass sort of dream but as a life experience sort of thing.
I posted the question because I'm traveling for work right now and had this on my mind, so yeah recess wasn't an option.
I do agree that this subject has gotten a little off topic and was gonna lock it this morning but can't figure out how to threw tapatalk.
Looking for more of a three gun app, than an invasion survival type rifle, don't care it's not going to happen. If the size of the bullet matters I'll just hit em with a 1oz slug.
When I mentioned that I would get another on day I was thinking more along the lines of a rougher beater model with an underfold.
Thanks to all for the replies didn't mean to start an AK vs AR vs combat experience etc. but that naive of me.

The Sarge
February 8, 2012, 11:19 AM
AR will win a paper punching contest. AK will win a gun battle.

Only you can answer your original question. Nobody else can.

Seriously I would go into a competition with either one. It is mainly about practice and not about the platform. I shoot one of my many AK's quite a lot. 5.56mm. I am deadly with that thing and am comfortable after thousands of rounds with it. Hand it to a guy who has never shot it and he shoots poorly. Gun did not change. Shooter did.

d2wing
February 8, 2012, 12:04 PM
To me Justin, that is like saying a guy in the stands saying he can drive better than a guy actually racing on the track. You entitled to think that. Now we are way off topic. Sorry op and mods.

JustinJ
February 8, 2012, 12:45 PM
To me Justin, that is like saying a guy in the stands saying he can drive better than a guy actually racing on the track. You entitled to think that. Now we are way off topic. Sorry op and mods

Huh? How is the opinion of a solider who uses an AK analagous to a fan in the stands of a race? Um, okay. The fact is, the "appeal to authority" arguement tactic fails when there are knowledgeable users on each side of the arguement. Simply put people many of the "AR over AK" crowd who become indignant when their platform's faults are mentioned are simply biased bc they were told their weapon is better and want to believe it for obvious reasons. Being that we are in the US we hear more soldiers who think the AR is superior because that is what they used and were told is better. Visit Eastern Europe, Africa and much of Asia and the consensus will be reversed.

Truth be told the reliability advantage of a select fire AK over an M4 is much lower when we discuss semi autos although it still goes to an AK from a reputable factory.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 8, 2012, 01:35 PM
There are very good reasons why the AK is the undisputed king of assault rifles...

Reminds me of how the Russians are looking to replace it with the fugly AN-94 but money is the only thing stopping them.

JustinJ
February 8, 2012, 02:33 PM
Quote:
There are very good reasons why the AK is the undisputed king of assault rifles...

Reminds me of how the Russians are looking to replace it with the fugly AN-94 but money is the only thing stopping them.

Reminds me of why SOCOMs acquisition order of SCAR-16s to replace M4s was cancelled.. Low production costs is one of the reasons the AK is the dominant military rifle of the world.

-v-
February 8, 2012, 02:51 PM
FN45: I went through the same phase myself. I own a Arsenal SGL21, discovered 3gun, and fell in love with it. Still have the Arsenal (and did shoot a few matches with it too), I've since also built a AR on a Noveske upper as my 3-gun rifle, but I definitely kept the SGL21 as well. The SGL21 does work for 3-gun. The manual of arms is a little different, but with a 1-3x or a RDS scope on it, it keeps up just fine with the ARs. Indian not the arrow ;). The only stages that give me trouble is the shotgun stages.

So, keep it, save money, and build that AR piece by piece. Look for deals, and you can get yourself a lot of AR for relatively little price. My Noveske Rogue Hunter with a AimpointC3 in a AD mount cost me less then the cost of the said rifle prebuilt from Noveske.

FlyinBryan
February 8, 2012, 02:53 PM
i found the link in post 59 very interesting..

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7742629&postcount=77

thank you ugaarguy.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 8, 2012, 03:24 PM
Reminds me of why SOCOMs acquisition order of SCAR-16s to replace M4s was cancelled.. Low production costs is one of the reasons the AK is the dominant military rifle of the world.

The SCAR-L as I recall didn't have enough of an advantage over the M4 to warrant the extra cost. The AN-94 however is being used by the Spetsnaz. The reason why the AK 74 is still being used in the standard military is that the officials don't feel as it's nessecery since they aren't at war and most of the people in the military aren't in it as a career so why bother changing? The AN-94 offers enough advantages over the AK 74 that it replaced the "king of assault rifles" in one of the top special forces groups in the world.

Did I mention that it's fugly?

Note: The magazine is canted to the right a few degrees.
http://images.wikia.com/metalgear/images/9/91/Izhmash_Nikonov_AN-94_GP-34.jpg

d2wing
February 8, 2012, 03:49 PM
Thank you Fly'n for that informative not inflammatory link. Finally an informed opinion from someone with actual credentials.

FlyinBryan
February 8, 2012, 04:52 PM
Thank you Fly'n for that informative not inflammatory link. Finally an informed opinion from someone with actual credentials.

yes, you're welcome. we should thank ugaarguy. it was his find.

it is very good i must say again.

JustinJ
February 8, 2012, 05:18 PM
The SCAR-L as I recall didn't have enough of an advantage over the M4 to warrant the extra cost.

It did until SOCOM had to pay for it from their own budget. It too was going to be used by special forces. Russian special forces is actually organized quite differently from those of the US and i have no doubt the 47 and 74 are still used regularly. In fact, the AN94 is probably not in service at all:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Russians+already+have+it%3A+the+Army+has+wanted+a+variety+of+things...-a0264932762

Thank you Fly'n for that informative not inflammatory link. Finally an informed opinion from someone with actual credentials.

If you don't like inflammatory maybe don't accuse others of using "fuzzy liberal thinking". If you want informed opinions there are plenty in favor of the AK as well but i somehow doubt an objective examination would be given.

d2wing
February 8, 2012, 07:52 PM
Interesting read. I do not see how it relates to the op but I did enjoy the info.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 8, 2012, 09:29 PM
If the U.S. Army is going to field a modern design which offers a noticeable improvement in hit probability, terminal performance and body armor penetration over the current M4 carbine they will need to push manufacturers. The fielding and subsequent withdrawal of FNH's.v Mk 16 Mod 0 SCAR-L system clearly demonstrates this.

From your link Justin, it didn't offer enough advantages to field the more expensive rifle.

AN-94

SPECIFICATIONS

CALIBER: 5.45x39mm

OPERATION: Blowback shifted pulse

BARREL LENGTH: 15:9 inches

LENGTH: w/stockextended, 37.1 inches w/stock folded, 28.6 inches;

WEIGHT: w/out magazine, 8.5 pounds

FEED: 30, 45-round detachable box magazines

SIGHTS: Front--post adjustable for windage and elevationRear-diopter, 200, 400-700m

CYCLIC RATE: 1800 and 600 variable

FINNISH: Black. Phosphate,

MANUFACTURER: Izhmash JSC

STATUS: Limited issue with select Russian Special Forces units

SOURCES

IZHMASH JSC

www.izhmash.ru

INSTITUTE OF MILITARY TECHNOLOGY

www.instmiltech.com

Also from your link. You just proved what I said.

ugaarguy
February 8, 2012, 11:35 PM
Interesting read. I do not see how it relates to the op but I did enjoy the info.
I primarily posted the link to dispute those with no credentials asserting that the AK is the undisputed king of assault rifles. However, I think it relates to the OP in at least three ways:

First, the OP is asking about 3 gun, which is basically a combat simulation shooting sport, and someone (Chindo18Z) whom we can assume by his MOS has a boatload of combat experience, and has used both rifles extensively, has related why he's found the AR-15/M16/M4 superior to the AK family

Second, the OP stated:
The reliability of an AR can't be that bad if every other person and there dog has one, just as long as you keep em' clean.
Again, we have an MOS 18Z who has could have carried an AK if he was concerned with AR-15/M16/M4 reliability, but didn't. He states he only trained heavily with AK type weapons for a very specific mission where resupply, not reliability, was the deciding factor.

The OP also stated:
Have house project coming up so funds aren't as generous.
I think part of Chindo18Z's post I linked, quoted below, applies here. Substitute "baby-needs-new-shoes" for "momma-says-we're-fixing-up-this-part-of-the-house", and the comparison becomes pretty valid.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7742629&postcount=77
7. Despite its shortcomings, the AK is effective, reliable, and easier/cheaper to manufacture than the AR. It's also cheaper for the US civilian shooter to buy. In the "baby-needs-new-shoes vs. daddy-needs-new-toys" equation, a $400 WASR delivers more bang for the buck than a new Bushmaster. Is the AR the better rifle...yes. Snob appeal aside, will the WASR get the job done (SHTF, plinking, range fun, home defense)...yes. Would I equip a modern army with the AK (even the modern Russian versions)...no.

Anyway, all that aside, I'm glad you enjoyed the info. And thanks to Chindo18Z for sharing his experience with us.

Chris Rhines
February 9, 2012, 12:31 AM
I wish I had seen this thread earlier.

To the OP - I've been shooting 3-gun at the national level for six years. The vast majority of the winning shooters in every division use an AR-pattern rifle. I've never seen an AK-pattern shooter place well (inside the top 20) in a major 3-gun match.

Nothing says you can't use a Klatch in a 3-gun match, if you're really in love with the platform. But the AR is a better tool for that particular job. Better accuracy in general, better control layout, better scope mounting options, better handling when shooting from awkward or unconventional positions.

-C

FlyinBryan
February 9, 2012, 12:41 AM
ugaarguy, i do not believe he was talking about your link.

if im not mistaken he was referring to the link in post #78, directly above his post that you quoted in #81

ugaarguy
February 9, 2012, 01:49 AM
FB, I'm not gonna claim it as mine. Just a link from someone who has a very well credentialed opinion. Whichever link he was talking about I think my additional statements stand on their own

Hocka Louis
February 9, 2012, 03:04 AM
Sell a gun? Oh the horror.You will be better off, net net, keeping the AK and eventually buying the AR. You'll lose 1/3rd the AK value you paid. The AR is a much better gun in most regards but you can be patient...

WardenWolf
February 9, 2012, 06:37 AM
An AK can be made into virtually anything you want it to be, save for changing calibers. Stocks, grips, foregrips, and other accessories interchange. There's a wealth of aftermarket accessories available for them. They can be as basic or tactical as you like. If you have one with a side rail, you have a good optics solution that rivals the AR. Just add a BP-02 mount and any Weaver / Picatinny accessory.

To people who complain about the magazine release, you probably have not seen the speed mag changes some people do, where they use the new magazine to rake the release lever and old mag out of the slot then rock it home. It's honestly just as fast as, if not faster than, an AR mag change.

Personally, I'm an AK guy. I find they handle well when set up correctly, are easily accessorized, and are rugged and versatile. I've seen my converted Saiga .223 outshoot an AR that cost twice as much, and have far fewer problems. I know my gun inside and out, and trust it with my life. A lot of people limit themselves to viewing the AK as a rough, wooden-stocked, inaccurate relic. They don't see the potential these guns really have when you take the time and effort to set them up so they're right for you. Give the AK a chance. You won't regret it.

RangerHAAF
February 9, 2012, 11:56 AM
The AK is never going to be an AR and vice versa. They are each uniquely different based upon the expectation and use of their respective operators. I have an AR-10 that I hunt with and an AK. I hunt with the AK also out to about 100+ yards. I've been fortunate that I've never had to choose between them.

My advice is to hold onto the AK and save your money to buy and embellish your AR when you get it.

JustinJ
February 9, 2012, 01:16 PM
I primarily posted the link to dispute those with no credentials asserting that the AK is the undisputed king of assault rifles. However, I think it relates to the OP in at least three ways:

I have a few points of contention with the linked post.

First, what studies found the 5.56 to be statistically more lethal and at what ranges? Were they looking at all hits, center mass hits, against armor, etc?

Second, how practical is accuracy past 300 rounds for either rifle? Also, the accuracy at range advantage of the 5.56 is minimal, if at all, compared to the 5.45 in standard issue rifles. In regards to the irons, many feel the AK offers an advantage at close range in getting on target faster although aren't irons just backup in modern armies anyways?

Third, the post claims that "with the safety applied (requiring 2-3 seconds to react to a threat, disengage safety, and readopt a secure firing grip.." What is the supposed time with the AR platform? I did a little test last night and i can move my selector, reposition my hand and bring the rifle up in about one second. Either i should be in the Spetnaz or the selector isn't as a big a hindrance as claimed.

Next, the post acknowledges the benefits of having a folding stock but says the gun is completely innacurate if fired this way. Agreed. The folding stock is not there so the gun can be fired that way but to allow for easier egress of tanks and other vehicles and i would venture to make parachuting easier and safer since the folders were initially carried to paratroopers.

Last, the one huge advantage the AK has, which is hardly mentioned is the "to hell and back" reliability. All the ergonomics and accuracy in the world count for nothing if the weapon fails. I'm not saying M4s or M16s are too unreliable or fail too often but they are not as reliable as the AK, ecspecially in adverse conditions. In an interview i read with a former Spetnaz in Afghanistan he speaks of AKs running for weeks without being cleaned. One of the common caveats we hear with M4s is they are reliable if you keep them wet and and don't use them like a machine gun. Its said that an AK can be run at high rates of fire up until the point the barrel melts. The RPK really is nothing but an AK with a heavier and longer barrel and thicker receiver metal. If the gas tube of an M4 doesn't melt first the extreme temperatures on the bolt and carrier, in conjuction with carbon residue, from high rates of fire will be problematic to say the least.

I am actually a big fan of both weapons and they both have pros and cons. If aliens invaded tomorrow and i had to choose between a select fire 74 and a M4 the 74 wins out every time, IMO. Between the M4 and 47 i'd go with the M4 primarily due to weight of ammo.

FlyinBryan
February 9, 2012, 03:44 PM
the o.p. specifically asked about 3 gun competition, and should he let the ak go and replace it with an ar15. what endorsement could possibly be more persuasive than this.
To the OP - I've been shooting 3-gun at the national level for six years. The vast majority of the winning shooters in every division use an AR-pattern rifle. I've never seen an AK-pattern shooter place well (inside the top 20) in a major 3-gun match.
6 years? national level? never a single ak even in the top 20?

thats about as dominant as dominant can get tbh.

JustinJ
February 9, 2012, 04:58 PM
I think the less accuracy of a 47 would be a hindrance but i have to wonder how many strong competitors have ever run a 74. I would venture that many of the more skilled participants are current and former LE and military and prefer what they know. Not to mention there is a bias towards the AR in general that stems from it being the american military weapon. I If i ever get into 3 gun i'll use what ever is the most fun and that may be more than one type of gun.

Certaindeaf
February 9, 2012, 05:05 PM
.the AR build?.
I think they sell those down at the store. Come on, man!

proven
February 9, 2012, 05:24 PM
justinj, i have points of contentionwith about have of what you wrote, but i don't have the time or energy to to go through them. you obviously like the ak, that's great.

do you think that all top 3 gun guys only run the ar because they are familiar with it? you don't think any of those guys are competitive enough to think, "hmmm that 74 is much better than my ar, i think i'll try one". you think they all just shun the "commie weapon" even though it's the better choice? your argument is "this is better than that because of xyz, and those top guys in the sport just don't know what i know, because they stick to what they're used to".

really, man, if the ak were so clearly better and the issues with sights, accuracy, ergos, range, were a non issue, i think someone who shoots as much as those guys do would've figured it out by now.

then again, who knows, maybe you're just smarter than all of them.

benEzra
February 9, 2012, 05:44 PM
If you have one with a side rail, you have a good optics solution that rivals the AR. Just add a BP-02 mount and any Weaver / Picatinny accessory.
The downside of the traditional AK siderail is that it sets the optic well above the iron sights, so cowitness is impossible and cheek weld is more of a chin weld. I shoot a 7.62x39mm AK with a gen-2 Kobra and an AR with a cowitnessed Eotech, and definitely prefer the lower, cowitnessed optic (I want to get an Ultimak/Aimpoint combo at some point for exactly that reason).

Having said that, an optic---even a high-mounted one---does wonders for an AK's shootability.

Here's my current AK setup:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-WTVLxwmfHng/Txgwf8tr05I/AAAAAAAAAEM/_7kq3IrOd6Q/s912/gallery_260_23_20379.jpg

I shot USPSA-style carbine matches with that rifle for a while and had a lot of fun with it, and surprised a few AR owners. I think if I had it to do over again, I'd go 5.45x39mm and go straight for the Ultimak, though. The downside of 7.62x39mm is weight; loaded steel magazines are nearly two pounds each, and 1 round of 7.62x39mm weighs about as much as 2 rounds of 5.45x39mm or 5.56x45mm. I also want to get a Vickers-style sling for it, finances permitting, but that's down the priority scale.

To people who complain about the magazine release, you probably have not seen the speed mag changes some people do, where they use the new magazine to rake the release lever and old mag out of the slot then rock it home. It's honestly just as fast as, if not faster than, an AR mag change.
I would say that it is *almost* as fast as an AR change. Someone well practiced with AK reloads will be faster than the average person running an AR, but IMO given equivalent practice I think the AR is slightly faster to reload, partly because mag ejection is a tad quicker, but mostly because rock-in-and-lock into a square-cut hole is a bit harder to do very quickly than slamming a magazine into a flared magwell.

It is certainly possible to screw up reloads on both platforms, either by catching the AK's mag tab on the lip of the magwell instead of where it goes, or failing to fully seat an AR mag, and I've seen both done in matches (and done both myself).

A lot of people limit themselves to viewing the AK as a rough, wooden-stocked, inaccurate relic. They don't see the potential these guns really have when you take the time and effort to set them up so they're right for you.
AK's are definitely good guns, and I really like mine. I'm still looking for a good light setup, though. I tried a Tapco Galil-style forend with a rail at 9:00, and found that I shoot better with the original handguard than the Galil-style, but that's just me. I think an Ultimak will eventually solve that problem, but for the time being I may mount a rail segment on a secondhand upper handguard and see how that works.

JustinJ
February 9, 2012, 06:07 PM
really, man, if the ak were so clearly better and the issues with sights, accuracy, ergos, range, were a non issue, i think someone who shoots as much as those guys do would've figured it out by now.

Well, unless you also believe the AR has superior ergonomics, sights, range and accuracy to the SCAR i think it must play a pretty big factor. But did i say the AK was better? I think shooter's experience, bias and less customability means fewer are willing to relearn with it. Personally, i think up to point, it ultimately will come down to the shooter's ability. Of course, the fact that so many of the top are sponsored by AR and AR accessory manufacturers could also have just a little something to do with it.

proven
February 9, 2012, 06:27 PM
how is the scar any better in any of those categories? are you forgetting the gazillion guys that win 3 gun matches that do it on they're own dime, and only dream of being sponsored? the stats simply prove you wrong, and the ar is overwhelmingly the gun of choice for 3 gun. argue all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

JustinJ
February 9, 2012, 06:43 PM
how is the scar any better in any of those categories?

I actually didn't say it was better. What i sad what that AR is no better in those categories. Therefor if the AR was chosen solely on those categories we should see a lot more SCARs. But since you asked the charging handle comes to mind. Adjustable comb and being ambidexterous doesnt hurt either.

the stats simply prove you wrong, and the ar is overwhelmingly the gun of choice for 3 gun. argue all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

I've put out numerous explanations as to why that is. Rather than adress them all you do is repeat it.

are you forgetting the gazillion guys that win 3 gun matches that do it on they're own dime,

Not the guys at the top.



Benezra, have you looked into the Midwest industries side mount with 30 mm tube? As i understand it will give a lower 1/3 irons witness with an aimpoint. Its at the top of my to get list.

Justin
February 9, 2012, 06:45 PM
I think the less accuracy of a 47 would be a hindrance but i have to wonder how many strong competitors have ever run a 74.

In my experience in speaking with some of the top 3 gun shooters, not only do they like the sport, they like guns in general, and usually have an above-average understanding of the most commonly available platforms as well as some that are not nearly so common.


I would venture that many of the more skilled participants are current and former LE and military and prefer what they know.

There's a surprising mix of background among the top competitors. Sure, the US AMU shooters all place pretty high, and in the sport itself, there are probably more people with LE and MIL backgrounds than in the general population, but some of the very best shooters are also just regular ol' citizens. Heck, at most matches, they include specific divisions for LE and MIL competitors.

Not to mention there is a bias towards the AR in general that stems from it being the american military weapon.

I hear this a lot from people who've never actually competed. That serious 3 gun competitors opt for the AR out of patriotism, or because it's an American-made rifle, or whatever. Frankly, that's always been a claim that I find hard to swallow. At the very top end of the game, the athletes who are trying to take first will do anything within the rules that will give them even a slight competitive edge. If there were other rifles out there in other configurations that had a perception among the best shooters that they conferred some sort of advantage, I can guarantee you they'd adopt it in a heartbeat, regardless of what country it was from.

I If i ever get into 3 gun i'll use what ever is the most fun and that may be more than one type of gun.

Nothing wrong with that. Plenty of people, myself included, will occasionally pull something out of the back of the safe just to see how it does at a local match. Heck, a few years ago, we had a guy show up and run a Tanker-style Garand at our local Tactical Rifle Match. He was a good shooter, with a background in High Power, and he even managed to place pretty well*, considering he was shooting a heavy, iron-sighted rifle that had to be reloaded every eight rounds.


*Middle of the pack, iirc.

Justin
February 9, 2012, 06:47 PM
Not the guys at the top.

You'd be surprised. 3 Gun is still a sport that is heavily dominated by amateur shooters. It's sour grapes to claim that the only people who actually win are the ones who shoot professionally. In reality, there are very few shooters who have all of their costs covered, especially for things like practice ammo.

WardenWolf
February 9, 2012, 06:53 PM
BenEzra, I've found I actually can view my iron sights through the rail of my BP-02, and through my UTG leverlock mount (which I've seen to be about as durable as the BP-02, having dropped a 10 pound rifle on the scope and the mount didn't flinch).

Also, what mount is that?

Get yourself a PSL-style stock (they're available as WASR takeoffs for cheap) and pretty it up. I think you'll be very pleased with what it does for the rifle's feel. They have a built-in cheek rest that makes shooting with optics much easier.

P-32
February 9, 2012, 07:01 PM
In the end the results will be up to the OP. If it was me and I had no other means to obtain an AR, then the AK would go away. I’m sorry but the AR is a more tunable platform to needs at the time. I understand the AK shoots the cheap ammo available in the market nicely.

Like I said if there were no other options then the AK would go away. I also agree with those who say don’t sell a firearm. I sold a .22 I bought when I was a kid and have regretted it ever since. The bottom line is you need a AR to compete and be competitive. And yes you COULD use your AK. But why handicap your self from the get go? The AK is in danger of becoming an AR IMHO.

Justin, If you go up and down a high power match line 95% of the rifles are AR's or rifles based an the AR. There is a reason for this. The AR is easy to shoot, the bullet goes where it's pointed without beating the shooter up.

JustinJ
February 9, 2012, 07:09 PM
You'd be surprised. 3 Gun is still a sport that is heavily dominated by amateur shooters. It's sour grapes to claim that the only people who actually win are the ones who shoot professionally. In reality, there are very few shooters who have all of their costs covered, especially for things like practice ammo.

How are my comments sour grapes? What i'm saying is that available sponsorship will influence how serious competitors select gear and sponsorship certainly can help a competitor improve by allowing for more training and gear as in any sport. Obviously they must prove themselves for a sponsor to even consider them. I also never said all costs were covered but i'm sure free guns are not unheard of. If you don't think the top are heavily sponsored please tell me which of the top 32 lack sponsorship because i couldn't find one:

http://3gunnation.com/shooters/

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 9, 2012, 07:18 PM
AK 47 speed reload

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqYxhanNimA

M4 Speed Reload

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx0JzYcwUiY&feature=related

Less effort to reload the AR 15 and it's faster.

proven
February 9, 2012, 07:19 PM
justinj, you're missing the whole point. the ar is the choice across the board, among novices and on up. there's a reason for that, and it isn't any of the ones that you've tried to make up in your head to justify your argument for the ak. justin (mod) answered your last post pretty well. i can't help it if you can't comprehend it. cheers.

JustinJ
February 9, 2012, 07:38 PM
I hear this a lot from people who've never actually competed. That serious 3 gun competitors opt for the AR out of patriotism, or because it's an American-made rifle, or whatever. Frankly, that's always been a claim that I find hard to swallow.

I'm not implying that competitors shoot ARs out of patriotism but rather that the US gun culture as a whole is biased to the AR for reasons beyond its merits and this influences shooters, ecspecially as it is often the first sprorting rifle they learn, in and out of the military.

There's a surprising mix of background among the top competitors. Sure, the US AMU shooters all place pretty high, and in the sport itself, there are probably more people with LE and MIL backgrounds than in the general population, but some of the very best shooters are also just regular ol' citizens.

I have no doubt that is the case but the LE and military presence certainly must influence the sport as a whole?

proven:
justinj, you're missing the whole point. the ar is the choice across the board, among novices and on up. there's a reason for that, and it isn't any of the ones that you've tried to make up in your head to justify your argument for the ak. justin (mod) answered your last post pretty well. i can't help it if you can't comprehend it. cheers.

Yet again, repeats the same thing yet offers no real response. Your indignation is exactly why i believe so many of the rabid AR defenders do so out of some sort of misguided sense of nationalism. It reminds me of people rooting for the home team regardless of how good they are or aren't.

giggitygiggity
February 9, 2012, 07:44 PM
Keep the AK. You said you're planning on getting another one down the road. Arsenal AK's are probably the best there are anyways. Save the money and buy and AR and have two rifles.

If you're asking which platform is better, I prefer the AR. The AK is reliable and fun to shoot, but the AR is more accurate, ergonomic, and customizable. Also, the modern-day AR is almost on par with AK reliability. The AR is more prone to failure, but unless you're doing something wild like engaging in firefights in a dusty or muddy area and drop your AR, you probably won't notice the difference in reliability.

proven
February 9, 2012, 07:53 PM
i have no response for someone who comes up with senseless and unfounded arguments to support a platform that has no benefit over the chosen choice of so many. you can create all the grand scheming philosophical reasoning you want. but you haven't pointed out a single thing that the ak holds over the ar for the purposes of 3 gun. you try and argue about how the ak is almost as fast at mag changes, worse, but not horrible ergonomically, the sights can be almost as good as an ar, and the accuracy is pretty close to an ar.....all of this coming up short and yet you still want to argue that people choose the ar over the ak for 3 gun for reasons other that it's simply a better platform for the sport. if by "misguided sense of nationalism" you mean they choose the rifle that better suits the game, then sure, whatever floats your boat.:rolleyes:

d2wing
February 9, 2012, 08:07 PM
According to this kid having experience makes you biased, competition makes you biased, research and battle reports are all wrong. AK is a close range volley gun, AR is more general purpose light rifle that fills more roles.

Bobson
February 9, 2012, 08:13 PM
AR's guys been beating AK guys for near 50 years head to head.
Exactly.

"AR guys" have been beating "AK guys." No gun has ever "beaten" another gun. The person utilizing the tool is what makes the difference. I don't believe one weapon is superior to the other, when it comes to the AR vs AK debate. Both weapons have their pros, and both have their cons.

Having said that, if you're looking to get involved in 3-gun, I agree that an AR will serve you more effectively. Its a shame you'll have to get rid of a quality AK47 just to buy another one in the future, but if your priority is competition, switch to the AR platform, and enjoy the versatility.

Justin
February 9, 2012, 08:47 PM
What i'm saying is that available sponsorship will influence how serious competitors select gear and sponsorship certainly can help a competitor improve by allowing for more training and gear as in any sport.

Indeed, sponsorships can help, but they're not nearly as important as you claim they are. Furthermore, the people who get to the point where they have major sponsors invariably got that way after putting an inordinate amount of their own time, money, and resources into becoming top-rate athletes.

Obviously they must prove themselves for a sponsor to even consider them.

I also never said all costs were covered but i'm sure free guns are not unheard of.

In a sport where one can easily spend twice as much on ammunition in a year compared to the cost of a gun, a free gun, no matter how swoopy, is hardly a game changer.

If you don't think the top are heavily sponsored please tell me which of the top 32 lack sponsorship because i couldn't find one:

First off: 3 Gun Nation isn't an actual match. It's an amalgamation of results from the various national-level matches. Pointing to the competitors of one tv show based around a shoot-off and claiming that all 3 gun matches are therefore won by sponsored shooters shows that you're not nearly as educated on the issue as you think, especially when there are three decades worth of match results from various matches to go by.

Furthermore, I've shot with at least one of those people in the days before he was sponsored, and he still won RM3G that year.

Justin
February 9, 2012, 08:58 PM
I'm not implying that competitors shoot ARs out of patriotism but rather that the US gun culture as a whole is biased to the AR for reasons beyond its merits and this influences shooters, ecspecially as it is often the first sprorting rifle they learn, in and out of the military.


If a top-flight competitor's only choice for going with a particular gun is because it is the best rifle for the application at hand, why on earth would they choose to opt for a gun for reasons that have nothing to do with winning?

If there are indeed better rifles, perhaps you should make them and us aware of those choices.

I have no doubt that is the case but the LE and military presence certainly must influence the sport as a whole?

The sport, by and large, is run by civilians. Most of the shooters are civilians, and many of the best shooters are civilians. The sport is somewhat military-influenced, but not nearly so much as you appear to think.

Yet again, repeats the same thing yet offers no real response. Your indignation is exactly why i believe so many of the rabid AR defenders do so out of some sort of misguided sense of nationalism. It reminds me of people rooting for the home team regardless of how good they are or aren't.

You've had at least two other people who are experienced with 3 Gun tell you why the AR is the currently dominant platform, for reasons that are wholly logical and reasonable, but have inexplicably chosen to argue against those people for reasons I don't particularly understand.

Claiming that a "misguided sense of nationalism" is the reason for why the AR is the dominant platform for shooting 3 gun is, quite possibly, the most ignorant thing I've ever seen. Especially given that there have been numerous posts made here explaining exactly why so many people choose the AR.

If you truly believe that there are other guns that would serve equally well, or better, for 3 Gun, that should be fairly easy assertion to prove. After all, the sport has objective rules and goals, so a rational comparison between platforms should be quite easy. Hell, locally we do this once a year at our annual AK vs. AR rifle match.

benEzra
February 9, 2012, 10:23 PM
BenEzra, I've found I actually can view my iron sights through the rail of my BP-02, and through my UTG leverlock mount
What I like about cowitnessing through the lens is that you can instantly verify the optic's zero by lowering your eye a tad to see the dot on the front sight post, and that you have instant, unobstructed backup sighting if the optic were to go down. I've used irons beneath a POSP 4x I used to have on that rifle, and while they worked for bullseye shooting, it was like looking through a keyhole; very hard to pick up new targets.

Also, what mount is that?
It's part of the optic itself. I bought it from Tantal's site (http://tantal.kalashnikov.guns.ru/bstkobra.html), and there are a few pics on that page (mine is the EKP-8-02).

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=158720&stc=1&d=1328842968

It's very fast and has a 1.8 MOA dot, chevron, dot-chevron, and t-bar reticles (selectable), very clear and holds zero fairly well. But you do have to remove it to clean the gun effectively (I'm not even sure you can get the top cover off with the optic mounted, though it may be possible) and if it quits you have to remove it to use the iron sights.

I posted some thoughts on the Kobra a few years ago here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4591236#post4591236), and another user posted a really good pic through the optic downthread there. Unfortunately, the gen-2 is a little delicate (unusual for Russian optics) and I've had to fix mine (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=530849) a couple of times.

Get yourself a PSL-style stock (they're available as WASR takeoffs for cheap) and pretty it up. I think you'll be very pleased with what it does for the rifle's feel. They have a built-in cheek rest that makes shooting with optics much easier.
That's an interesting idea. Are they longer than the standard stock? I do like the length of the standard stock (a lot of the American made replacement stocks are too long for my taste).

I really do like the balance of an AK without too much on top, which is another reason I think I'd like an Ultimak/Aimpoint better than my current setup. The Ultimak setup sits light, low, and forward, whereas my Kobra is a bit top-heavy and adds bulk.

A civilian -74 is on my "someday list". I am kicking myself a little for not picking up a SAR-2 back when they were under $350. 7.62x39mm is versatile, but heavy as bricks.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 9, 2012, 11:43 PM
Could you try to get a picture of the T reticule? I'm curious of what it looks like.

benEzra
February 10, 2012, 06:02 AM
Here:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-GMBhM9Agf6c/TxgwaynB7GI/AAAAAAAAACM/7jVCu_3bAX8/s168/gallery_260_23_7964.jpg

I liked the T-bar for close range shooting (most of the match stages in our local "CQB" matches here are 25 yards or less) because it compensates nicely for the sight height offset; you shoot the bottom of the "T" up close and shift toward the top as the range opens up.

There are more pics in this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4591236#post4591236

The reticles are actually red, but the color doesn't show up well in my pic.

One caveat---it does appear that the gen-2 (button cell) Kobras like mine are more delicate than the "gen-3" AA models. The reticles are the same.

JustinJ
February 10, 2012, 09:14 AM
Quote:
What i'm saying is that available sponsorship will influence how serious competitors select gear and sponsorship certainly can help a competitor improve by allowing for more training and gear as in any sport.

Indeed, sponsorships can help, but they're not nearly as important as you claim they are. Furthermore, the people who get to the point where they have major sponsors invariably got that way after putting an inordinate amount of their own time, money, and resources into becoming top-rate athletes.

Obviously they must prove themselves for a sponsor to even consider them.

I never claimed how important they are, just said they are influence and part of an overall bias. How much they help a competitor in any sport will vary by how much of costs are covered. I also stated in my post that they must prove themselves before sponsors will support them but for some odd reason that post seems to have magically disapeared.

If a top-flight competitor's only choice for going with a particular gun is because it is the best rifle for the application at hand, why on earth would they choose to opt for a gun for reasons that have nothing to do with winning?

Training level with a platform is probably gona play an awfully big part in weapons selection. If a guy has grown up shooting one gun but another becomes available with some mechanical advantages are those guaranteed to offset years of experience? If so i'd say the SCAR should be very common at the top as well.

Claiming that a "misguided sense of nationalism" is the reason for why the AR is the dominant platform for shooting 3 gun is, quite possibly, the most ignorant thing I've ever seen. Especially given that there have been numerous posts made here explaining exactly why so many people choose the AR.

Given my posts are missing i guess i shouldnt be too surprised my words are being twisted as well. Ultimately i haven't said a single time the AK is better for three gun, only that the AR is more common for reasons beyond its actual mechanical merits. In regards to comparing the guns point by point that was specifically in regard to a post related to their use in combat as was apparent. A "misguided sense of nationalism" is what drives so many to take it so personally when anything not positive about the platform is mentioned or for others say they prefer the AK. I'd like to thank those who have demonstrated this for me.

Justin
February 10, 2012, 12:46 PM
Given my posts are missing

None of your posts are missing, nor have they been edited by anyone on staff.

Posts don't get deleted or edited unless they break the rules, and your accusation that your posts have been modified is baseless and wrong.

proven
February 10, 2012, 07:05 PM
only that the AR is more common for reasons beyond its actual mechanical merits.

again, plenty of info here as to why the ar is the rifle of choice. you inability to accept those posts from people who have far more experience with the sport than you, is just as ridiculous as your notion of "misguided sense of nationalism".

funny how you talk about people taking criticism of they're chosen platform personally. throughout this thread people with actual competitive experience have stated why the ak can't stack up to the ar in three gun and that the ar is typically the rifle of choice. when you can't retort with first hand experience, facts, or statistics, you turn to what basically is conspiracy theory and act as though someone pushed you down on the playground and skinned your knee.

choose another argument. perhaps one that actually makes sense.

maybe you should consider changing the "ar" in your sig line for "ak". isn't irony great? :)

rbernie
February 10, 2012, 09:37 PM
None of your posts are missing, nor have they been edited by anyone on staff.

Posts don't get deleted or edited unless they break the rules, and your accusation that your posts have been modified is baseless and wrong.This is a 100% factual statement, and IMO it does not speak well that the accusation was made.

P-32
February 10, 2012, 11:09 PM
Justin J this is pointed more towards your direction. I am involved with running and calling some of the local High Power matches. My co hearts and I have guys come up to us and say if only I could shoot my SKS, AK or whatever and I would shoot a match. The club decided we were going to have a non-sanctioned match once in a while so these guys could come out. The match is called a C&R match. (Club rules) It is ran just like a High Power National match course would be ran.

The guys who were belly aching about not being able to shoot their SKS or AK's gets thumped pretty hard by the AR guys. Our C&R match is held at 100 yards on reduced targets so the light 7.62 x 39 round is not affected by wind. Also the sighting system on a US weapon historically is very much superior to what the old Soviet Bloc uses. Granted the A1 was hard to adjust but it was solved when the A2 came out. Oh and before your panties get wrapped up, the AK guys can practice just like anyone else. The match schedule is already out for the year.

Justin can you show me a AK which will print a sub MOA or even a MOA group at 100 yards using iron sights day after day? Our OP already found out he was handy capped using what his was using. Most people like to win matches when they can. Generally when I shoot a match I bring the best I have to try to win the match. This includes ammo, weapon, support equipment, diet and being well rested. I do everything I can do to make sure the rifle, pistol or whatever is going to perform 100 % during a match. My AR’s have performed very well over all for the many 88 shot matches I’ve shot. I’ve never had a Fail to fire, eject, feed. I’ve never had a jam of any sort. I did lose a 2 stage trigger during a match one time. But I had a spare for some reason and was able to finish the match.

The other thing match shooters tend to do is watch what gear the guy always in the winners circle uses. We then pick one of those up. I don’t know how many White Oak uppers I’ve sold.

Oh and what is up with your idea of sponsorship? I personally know some big names in the High Power World. Mid Tompkins and family might be supported with bullets but David Tubbs isn’t waving anyone’s banner but his own. I've shot against the boys who shoot for Springfield. Granted they do shoot pretty well but having a job like thiers is not very easy to find.

Robert
February 10, 2012, 11:15 PM
We host an AR vs AK match every year. Guys bring and run their AKs. It is a fun match with a great deal of good natured ribbing. But at the end of the day the top shooters, not me, are all using ARs. And yes we bring the targets in.

proven
February 11, 2012, 01:32 PM
If you get a 5.45 fixed stock AK, then the accuracy is up to AR levels and you can keep the same platform.

haha, have you read any of this thread?

d2wing
February 11, 2012, 02:07 PM
I'm not sure which of the AK lovers are more misguided. It is clear that only the inexperienced and uninformed think the AK can match the performance of an AR.

proven
February 11, 2012, 02:14 PM
mortablunt, if you aren't a fanboy then you can clearly recognize that a well built ar with optic will easily beat a well built ak with optic any day of the week with regards to accuracy. and while we're talking about fanboys. i have owned and run aks, arsenal, krebs custom etc. and none of them came close to an ar. that's just my experience, as i noted earlier. i love 1911s. but carry my g19 more, because it's pros outweigh it's cons and it does what i want better than my 1911. i understand what a fanboy is and assure you i am not one, no matter what the topic. however, when you make claims of an ak being on par with an ar in terms of accuracy, i'm not so sure you can eliminate yourself from the ak fanboy club.

eta. just realized you stated that you've never even fired an ar. so what exactly are you basing this accuracy statement on?

Justin
February 11, 2012, 08:06 PM
The AR is worshiped as more than it is and is so heavily biased and ingrained into the American gun culture that any sort of rifle which might be suggested as an alternative is automatically dismissed.

Again, if it were only a matter of opinion or style, you'd see a wider variety of shooters adopting various rifle platforms.

Fanboys, no matter what their camp, are distinguished as being unable to realize the bonos of anything outside of their limited range of acceptable firearms.

Meh. Then I must not be a fanboy, as there are plenty of posts in the archives where I talk about the benefits of many different rifle platforms.

We've got at least one member here, BrianSmithWins, who makes a fairly strong case for the AK in a number of threads, and much of this is due to his experience running AKs under timed situations.

It is no different with Garand, Glock, M1911, Mosin-Nagant, or LC-p fanboys. I know that I am AK fan, but I realize that the AR has its own advantages. Kalashnikov is what I know and like, but I will not claim that everything Kalshnikov is good or the best.

It's a matter of picking the rifle that is best adopted to the task at hand. For action shooting sports like 3 gun, most people pick ARs. For precision sports like High Power, most people pick ARs. The police and military seem to like them, too, and in any of these cases, while the reasons may be varied, I doubt it has to do with the rifle choices simply being made by people who are fanboys.


If I knew more about AR, or had actually fired one, then I could give a more expansive opinion.

You've never even fired an AR? Have you at least managed to run your AK at a training class or 3 Gun match?

Chris Rhines
February 11, 2012, 09:11 PM
You know, I hear about these 1MOA AKs quite often. I've never actually seen one at the range, though.

So let's theorize that we can get an AK-platform rifle that will consistently hold inside 2MOA out to 400 yards. While it would be better than a sharp stick, it would still be inferior to the AR as a 3gun platform.
- The AR is much more user-friendly when shooting from awkward positions and around props - the AK, with it's fixed reciprocating charging handle, short and poorly insulated forend, exposed gas tube, and numerous sharp edges, really suffers in this regard.
- The AK safety is a total horror show, and none of the aftermarket improvements help much. I'd conservatively estimate that the AR will be twice as fast to the first aimed offhand shot as the AK, given similar shooters.
- Reloads with the AK are not even close to as fast or consistent as with the AR.
- Training and practice can ameliorate some of these problems, but honestly, why bother, when you can get a rifle that works with you? That's the real reason that 3gunners and practical rifle competitors overwhelmingly choose the AR. The AR, more than anything else, is easy to handle. With the AR, you can spend your time learning to shoot well, instead of spending your time fighting with your rifle's controls.

-C

taliv
February 11, 2012, 10:00 PM
Just one thing: if the AK were no good at all, then why so many militaries use it and its kin? Russia standard issues an AK variant for almost everything. The Czech Republic is a NATO member and still uses the VZ-58, an AK clone firing 7.62x39. Other modern armies still use Kalashnikovs. Venezuela uses the AK-103, and many ComBloc nations still use the AK, even those, such as the Czech Republic, which are well within their means to overhaul their infantry weapons.

because they are cheap. the US military outspends most of them combined.


oh, and the fanboy accusations need to stop. this site exists to promote RKBA and useful firearms information, not to divide the firearms community into factions.

amadeus76
February 11, 2012, 10:53 PM
I'm not gonna add much here other than to say as far as versatility goes the AK has come leaps and bounds in the last couple years. There are good after market accessories as well as bad, but like anything else quality costs.

This is my AK...

http://www.warriortalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15703&d=1307832374

Oh... And to stir the pot on this... believe it or not it happens all the time in independent testing. it's not just me saying rediculous things. it's lots of folks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KXiySQpSMM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20kSnuFLQok

Justin
February 11, 2012, 11:13 PM
Closed per request of the thread originator.

If you enjoyed reading about "Let the AK go for an AR?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!