Thinking about buying either an AK-47 or AR-15 semi-auto but am not that familiar with either to the point that I could decide which one. For a decent weapon that is not worn out or in need of repair, and assuming the ammo cost for practice is much less for the AR-15, is there an obvious benefit of the AK other than inital price is probably much less? What would be the expected price to obtain one...and no, there are no restrictions for semi at my location? Or am I barking up the wrong tree and should be looking at something else?
AK-47 or AR-15 merits of each for HD etc.
- Thread starter HerrWolfe
- Start date
- Status
wingnutx
Member
I love both of my rifles, but the AK is definitely cheaper right off the bat.
I keep the AK loaded in case of zombies, largely because it is a lot shorter than the AR at this point in time. That is subject to change
I keep the AK loaded in case of zombies, largely because it is a lot shorter than the AR at this point in time. That is subject to change
I have an ak 74 (5.45x39) very similar to the .223 AR round. I like the AK better for the price, bUT the AR is more accurate at longer distances atleast the few AR's that I have shot were. The ak-47 except variants shoot the 7.62x39 more knock down than the .223 for home defense compared to long range shooting. I choose the AK 47 in 7.62x39. just my opinion and I am sure there are many others here that can help you at THR
Until recently 7.62x39 was much cheaper then 5.56x45. Looking at ammoman it still is for american made ammo. And not every AR-15 will shoot Wolf or other cheap ammo without problems.
And you can get an AK in 223, mags cost twice as much however.
-Bill
beerslurpy
member
I wish someone made a 5.56mm AK that took AR mags. Of course there is always the FNC, the new SCAR-L, the new Sig556, the AR180 and the kel-tec SU16.
IMO the only real shortcoming of the AR is reliability. It has serious design flaws in this department. Extractor, gas system, etc etc. Ergonomics are wonderful IMO.
The only real shortcoming of the AK is trigger pull (mediocre by design, pretty much) and accuracy. General ergonomics arent terrific, but it isnt a deal breaker.
The best of both worlds would be a gun that has the ergonomics and trigger pull of the AR with the reliability of the AK and decent terminal ballistics.
IMO the only real shortcoming of the AR is reliability. It has serious design flaws in this department. Extractor, gas system, etc etc. Ergonomics are wonderful IMO.
The only real shortcoming of the AK is trigger pull (mediocre by design, pretty much) and accuracy. General ergonomics arent terrific, but it isnt a deal breaker.
The best of both worlds would be a gun that has the ergonomics and trigger pull of the AR with the reliability of the AK and decent terminal ballistics.
The-Fly
Member
i have both, ak in 7.62 and ar in 5.56.
AR thoughts
incredibly customizable - anything from a SHTF gun to varminting.
accuracy can range from very good to incredible depending on how your gun is set up and the ammo you use. My varmint ar can do 1/2 inch groups at 100 yards with black hills 52gr match ammo. Ammo choices are huge, from 40gr up to 77gr, and all styles of bullets.
very low recoil.
great ergonomics and fairly low weight. Ammo doesnt weigh a ton either.
AR's tend to be a bit pricey.
good quality mags can be had for $10 and are lightweight.
AR's do get tempermental in the following circumstances.
If they get excessively dirty (like not cleaning them after firing a 1000 rounds or after shooting dirty ammo like wolf) or over lubed. It's been my experience most AR owners (including myself at one point) over lube the guns and dont clean them properly. Clean them the right way, dont over lube, and they do fine. I had a rifle class where i shot 500 rounds of laquer coated barnaul without issues. AR's DONT need much lube to run.
If you need to count on an AR for SHTF, use GOOD quality mags and ammo (wolf is fine for the range, but not for bad guys) like Q3131 or blackhills. Stick to USGI type mags like D&H, Cproducts, etc. They're cheap and reliable.
AK thoughts
Probably the most reliable semi automatic rifle known to man. You can abuse the hell out of em, rarely clean em, shoot the crappiest ammo, etc, and it will still shoot.
AK's are fairly cheap, $300ish for a cheap one, better quality ones are $500-700
Recoil isnt bad, but it will get your attention.
Tend to be a bit heavy compared to AR's, and the mags and ammo arent light either.
Not much in the way of ammo choices. Fortunately the mags arent expensive, a little hunting will turn up piles of $10 commie mags that are indestructible.
Ergonomics are so so, not great but not horrible.
Accuracy is fine for minute of bad guy, but you wont be varminting with an AK. Effective range (due to accuracy) isnt as good as an AR.
one nice thing about AK, for self defensive uses, pretty much any kind of ammo it chucks will work great (even wolf), as opposed to an AR where you want to use the right kind of ammo for the job at hand.
Not quite as customizable as AR's (AK's arent suitable for a lot of things that AR's are good for)
AK ammo tends to be cheaper then AR ammo.
Cleaning an AK is a snap. And its a lot more tolerant of cleaning styles: if you over lube, or dont do a very good job, the rifle will still fire reliably.
Summary thoughts
AK's are fun guns for plinking, and a good choice for defensive /shtf situations. If thats all you need from a rifle, then definitely consider an AK.
If you want better accuracy, more flexibility, less weight,and are willing to learn how an AR works and how to take care of it (its not hard, just takes a little learning), then the AR will work for you.
Of course, you can do what I did and buy both
AR thoughts
incredibly customizable - anything from a SHTF gun to varminting.
accuracy can range from very good to incredible depending on how your gun is set up and the ammo you use. My varmint ar can do 1/2 inch groups at 100 yards with black hills 52gr match ammo. Ammo choices are huge, from 40gr up to 77gr, and all styles of bullets.
very low recoil.
great ergonomics and fairly low weight. Ammo doesnt weigh a ton either.
AR's tend to be a bit pricey.
good quality mags can be had for $10 and are lightweight.
AR's do get tempermental in the following circumstances.
If they get excessively dirty (like not cleaning them after firing a 1000 rounds or after shooting dirty ammo like wolf) or over lubed. It's been my experience most AR owners (including myself at one point) over lube the guns and dont clean them properly. Clean them the right way, dont over lube, and they do fine. I had a rifle class where i shot 500 rounds of laquer coated barnaul without issues. AR's DONT need much lube to run.
If you need to count on an AR for SHTF, use GOOD quality mags and ammo (wolf is fine for the range, but not for bad guys) like Q3131 or blackhills. Stick to USGI type mags like D&H, Cproducts, etc. They're cheap and reliable.
AK thoughts
Probably the most reliable semi automatic rifle known to man. You can abuse the hell out of em, rarely clean em, shoot the crappiest ammo, etc, and it will still shoot.
AK's are fairly cheap, $300ish for a cheap one, better quality ones are $500-700
Recoil isnt bad, but it will get your attention.
Tend to be a bit heavy compared to AR's, and the mags and ammo arent light either.
Not much in the way of ammo choices. Fortunately the mags arent expensive, a little hunting will turn up piles of $10 commie mags that are indestructible.
Ergonomics are so so, not great but not horrible.
Accuracy is fine for minute of bad guy, but you wont be varminting with an AK. Effective range (due to accuracy) isnt as good as an AR.
one nice thing about AK, for self defensive uses, pretty much any kind of ammo it chucks will work great (even wolf), as opposed to an AR where you want to use the right kind of ammo for the job at hand.
Not quite as customizable as AR's (AK's arent suitable for a lot of things that AR's are good for)
AK ammo tends to be cheaper then AR ammo.
Cleaning an AK is a snap. And its a lot more tolerant of cleaning styles: if you over lube, or dont do a very good job, the rifle will still fire reliably.
Summary thoughts
AK's are fun guns for plinking, and a good choice for defensive /shtf situations. If thats all you need from a rifle, then definitely consider an AK.
If you want better accuracy, more flexibility, less weight,and are willing to learn how an AR works and how to take care of it (its not hard, just takes a little learning), then the AR will work for you.
Of course, you can do what I did and buy both
MTMilitiaman
Member
The Fly pretty much covered it.
I am not sure how much the AK really lacks in effective range to the AR. Even my Romanian WASR can keep most of them COM at 200 yards and with a little practice, probably do pretty good out to 300. It isn't as accurate as an AR, but its cartridge is more potent, even at range, because its .311 caliber bullet packs twice the mass so it isn't as dependent on velocity. At 300 yards it still has more energy, and similar mass, as the .357 Magnum at the muzzle. The AR is accurate enough to put rounds COM much farther--the Marines qualify to 500 with theirs--but the fight stopping power of the cartridge is very much in doubt at half that range. All of this is moot for home defense, but for a general collapse of society, could be a consideration. I really don't think the practical effective ranges of the Kalashnikov and Stoner are as far apart as some say they are.
I keep an AK with a red dot sight for home defense and end of the world situations. I think it will do just fine, at least until I can get a FAL or other MBR to take over.
I am not sure how much the AK really lacks in effective range to the AR. Even my Romanian WASR can keep most of them COM at 200 yards and with a little practice, probably do pretty good out to 300. It isn't as accurate as an AR, but its cartridge is more potent, even at range, because its .311 caliber bullet packs twice the mass so it isn't as dependent on velocity. At 300 yards it still has more energy, and similar mass, as the .357 Magnum at the muzzle. The AR is accurate enough to put rounds COM much farther--the Marines qualify to 500 with theirs--but the fight stopping power of the cartridge is very much in doubt at half that range. All of this is moot for home defense, but for a general collapse of society, could be a consideration. I really don't think the practical effective ranges of the Kalashnikov and Stoner are as far apart as some say they are.
I keep an AK with a red dot sight for home defense and end of the world situations. I think it will do just fine, at least until I can get a FAL or other MBR to take over.
CK
Member
For home defense, I would think that AK is quite sufficiently accurate enough given the short distance engagement.
Hehe, imagine a burglar breaking into your home. Now you have two cho choices what do you want the burglar to see you in,
1. Looking like a swat team, wearing a cool bdu with tactical gear, with the AR in your hand.
or
2. Looking like a wildman terrorist mujaheedin henchman. Wearing dirty white T shirt/rag pants/sandals(no shoes), and those bandana that tied around neck that somehow prefered in middle eastern terrorist attire. grew long beard, and speak in incomprehensible language. Aiming with AK in your hand.
Which one is more menacing?
Hehe, imagine a burglar breaking into your home. Now you have two cho choices what do you want the burglar to see you in,
1. Looking like a swat team, wearing a cool bdu with tactical gear, with the AR in your hand.
or
2. Looking like a wildman terrorist mujaheedin henchman. Wearing dirty white T shirt/rag pants/sandals(no shoes), and those bandana that tied around neck that somehow prefered in middle eastern terrorist attire. grew long beard, and speak in incomprehensible language. Aiming with AK in your hand.
Which one is more menacing?
I have owned both, and with the AK in several variations.
I have found that for some reason I can't seem to hit a damn thing with an AK.
I can pop coffee-cup size rocks at 100 yards almost every time with my AR.
Ammo for the AR is more expensive but it is a US cartridge. You can at least get it, which is more than I can often say for 7.62x39. It is also better quality because you are talking $4.69 locally for 20 rounds of American Eagle (Federal) .223 versus $3.79 for 20 rounds of Wolf 7.62x39. I'll pay the extra money and shoot the better, brass cased, more accurate, reloadable ammunition.
From what I have seen with my civilian versions of both, the AR works better for me. I will stick with a proven AR over a proven AK any day. (Proven meaning one that I own and know will work).
If I were you I would shoot a couple of both, figure out what you like and what you need it to do, and then make the decision.
I have found that for some reason I can't seem to hit a damn thing with an AK.
I can pop coffee-cup size rocks at 100 yards almost every time with my AR.
Ammo for the AR is more expensive but it is a US cartridge. You can at least get it, which is more than I can often say for 7.62x39. It is also better quality because you are talking $4.69 locally for 20 rounds of American Eagle (Federal) .223 versus $3.79 for 20 rounds of Wolf 7.62x39. I'll pay the extra money and shoot the better, brass cased, more accurate, reloadable ammunition.
From what I have seen with my civilian versions of both, the AR works better for me. I will stick with a proven AR over a proven AK any day. (Proven meaning one that I own and know will work).
If I were you I would shoot a couple of both, figure out what you like and what you need it to do, and then make the decision.
lurkersince03
Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2006
- Messages
- 176
Most affordable of each I've seen thus far (and what I own):
~Century International Arms imported Romanian GP WASR-10 7.62(x39)mm (AK variant, "RomAK"): $349 at my local gunstore.
~DPMS A-15 M4-type with 5.56(x45)mm 16" barrel (AR15 variant): $789 at my local gunstore.
Those prices are both without tax.
Start with an AK. It's obviously more affordable. For home defense, it'll be more than adequate. Practice with it. A lot. And not just to aim, but with cornering techniques that you feel would be relevant to the inside of your home, or even as basic as how to hold it properly. Just be mindful that 7.62 will over-penetrate more likely than 5.56 will, particularly in a close range situation as home defense.
Don't disclude the AK because of its range, either. Some people would like to think that even in a collapse of society, they'd be counter sniping at long ranges upon enemy snipers hidden in every open ventilation grille of the local Wal-Mart (get a true long range, scoped rifle in .308 or better if you want to engage in long range interdiction). As well, there are plenty of accessories available for the AK, though I wouldn't count on things like scopes unless they're reflex red dots or whatever. Check out www.krebscustom.com for a taste of the things you could do.
And finally, once you get to know how simple an AK is to use, start saving up for an AR and a good gun safe because as soon as you own both you'll be craving for a real battle rifle in 7.62(x51)mm/.308.
~Century International Arms imported Romanian GP WASR-10 7.62(x39)mm (AK variant, "RomAK"): $349 at my local gunstore.
~DPMS A-15 M4-type with 5.56(x45)mm 16" barrel (AR15 variant): $789 at my local gunstore.
Those prices are both without tax.
Start with an AK. It's obviously more affordable. For home defense, it'll be more than adequate. Practice with it. A lot. And not just to aim, but with cornering techniques that you feel would be relevant to the inside of your home, or even as basic as how to hold it properly. Just be mindful that 7.62 will over-penetrate more likely than 5.56 will, particularly in a close range situation as home defense.
Don't disclude the AK because of its range, either. Some people would like to think that even in a collapse of society, they'd be counter sniping at long ranges upon enemy snipers hidden in every open ventilation grille of the local Wal-Mart (get a true long range, scoped rifle in .308 or better if you want to engage in long range interdiction). As well, there are plenty of accessories available for the AK, though I wouldn't count on things like scopes unless they're reflex red dots or whatever. Check out www.krebscustom.com for a taste of the things you could do.
And finally, once you get to know how simple an AK is to use, start saving up for an AR and a good gun safe because as soon as you own both you'll be craving for a real battle rifle in 7.62(x51)mm/.308.
Last edited:
Hokkmike
Member
The AK is more reliable. That should be enough said. I have owned and shot both. Currently I shoot the AR and the word is "fickle".
MrAcheson
Member
The AKs are cheaper than the ARs and are likely to stay that way. But I wouldn't count on 7.62x39 maintaining a huge edge in price on 5.56x45. It certainly isn't as cheap as it used to be. 7.62x39 sold in the US is almost completely foreign produced which means you are at the whims of the world arms market.
But yes for HD at short ranges, AKs are probably as good as ARs unless you feel the need to mount red-dots and lots of toys on the gun. The AK just isn't as customizeable as the AR if you plan to do that.
But yes for HD at short ranges, AKs are probably as good as ARs unless you feel the need to mount red-dots and lots of toys on the gun. The AK just isn't as customizeable as the AR if you plan to do that.
Hoploholic
member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2003
- Messages
- 219
Rather than mull over the different platforms, I would rather discuss the rounds they employ. For a strictly HD setup, I would go with 223/5.56 over the 7.62 for one and only one reason. 223 will not over penetrate nearly as much as 7.62. In the home, you may not want to take the chance of a round penetrating a BG and or a wall and hurting someone you love...or anyone that was not threatening you for that matter. A shotgun with #4 buck would be my first choice, and then a shorty AR would be a close second.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
For HD in a typical suburban situation, an AR-15 would win out, not because of the rifle but because of the cartridge, as Hoploholic points out. 40-grain and 55-grain .223 JHP's or VMAX varmint rounds penetrate less in building materials than even pistol rounds, whereas even a VMAX round in 7.62x39 is weighs twice as much and is much more robust, so it would probably penetrate more.
MTMilitiaman
Member
First off, a Wolf hollow point in a 7.62x39 is an awesome thing to witness when it hits a liquid medium. I've shot ground squirrels with both a Mini-14 loaded with Vmaxs and an AK loaded with Wolf HPs, and the effect on target there was more dramatic with the AK, believe it or not. The round basically turns inside out when you shoot it into water. I've never shot anything living larger than a ground squirrel with it, but even recovering it from sand and such, it typically displays a good mushroom, as compared to the FMJs, which flatten, send a little core material out the base, then yaw. Speaking of which, I saw a deer shot with an SKS loaded with Wolf FMJs and can tell you that isn't a friendly thing either. It will penetrate barriers much better than pretty much anything in 5.56mm, but I've seen what it does in water and in tissue. The deer shot broadside at about 50 yards collapsed within 30. The exit wound through the offside scalpula was oblong, indicating the bullet was sideways, and there was lots of bone fragments in the muscle tissue. So the Wolf FMJs are pretty deadly in their own right, and certainly not patterned after the original M43 but rather the far faster yawing Yugo M67 pattern. If I get a chance sometime in the future, I may just pop a deer with my SKS loaded with Wolf HPs to see how they do on something living and about the size and weight of a human. My experience indicates that even if it does perform like the FMJ, I am still looking at backstrap for dinner.
Bottom line is that bullet choices may be more scarce, but properly loaded, the 7.62x39 can do anything for home defense the 5.56 can do, but better.
Bottom line is that bullet choices may be more scarce, but properly loaded, the 7.62x39 can do anything for home defense the 5.56 can do, but better.
There are lots of threads here and at TFL on this topic. Be ready for the mud to sling in all directions.
I will condense the opposing positions for you:
1. The AR is a tempermental, finnicky tool that will only cycle through a full magazine when blessed personally by the pope, plus it shoots a round that won't even stop a well-fed hamster. The AK can be filled with concrete and it will still fire 10,000 rounds without a stoppage. Plus, it shoots a man's round.
2. The AK is so inaccurate that you couldn't hit a barn from the inside with a full magazine. It was made by communist slaves who used rocks to assemble the receivers, in the dark. The round has such a curved trajectory that you have to aim at a target's hat to hit his feet at 150 yards. On the other hand, the AR is a precision weapon that can hit a matchhead at 600 yards consistently, and should have night vision, IR, a red-dot scope, a tactical sling, and a tactical flashlight, making you a single-man ninja army.
I will condense the opposing positions for you:
1. The AR is a tempermental, finnicky tool that will only cycle through a full magazine when blessed personally by the pope, plus it shoots a round that won't even stop a well-fed hamster. The AK can be filled with concrete and it will still fire 10,000 rounds without a stoppage. Plus, it shoots a man's round.
2. The AK is so inaccurate that you couldn't hit a barn from the inside with a full magazine. It was made by communist slaves who used rocks to assemble the receivers, in the dark. The round has such a curved trajectory that you have to aim at a target's hat to hit his feet at 150 yards. On the other hand, the AR is a precision weapon that can hit a matchhead at 600 yards consistently, and should have night vision, IR, a red-dot scope, a tactical sling, and a tactical flashlight, making you a single-man ninja army.
Still 2 Many Choices!?
Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2006
- Messages
- 455
Simple answer follows:
Whichever one you can ,"point and shoot", with better when awakened at 3 O'clock in the morning, by the odd," Bump in the night", since both will generally penetrate home construction(like a bad guy hiding behind your couch)
... I would say that neither would be much of a danger after penetrating a B/G, so the plan should be not to shoot unless you can hit what you are aiming at under 15-25 yards
! Optics, lights, or lazers are only the icing on the cake IF you know how to use them... I say get one of each and use the one that handles better for you .
Whichever one you can ,"point and shoot", with better when awakened at 3 O'clock in the morning, by the odd," Bump in the night", since both will generally penetrate home construction(like a bad guy hiding behind your couch)
... I would say that neither would be much of a danger after penetrating a B/G, so the plan should be not to shoot unless you can hit what you are aiming at under 15-25 yards ! Optics, lights, or lazers are only the icing on the cake IF you know how to use them... I say get one of each and use the one that handles better for you .beerslurpy
member
Youre not wrong about that. I personally dont buy into the 5.56 and 5.45 caliber projectile school of thought.
You know when a round is referred to as a "poison bullet" that there is something wrong with it. In the old days, being shot with a 45 pistol or a 30 caliber rifle just killed you on the spot by making big holes. You didnt celebrate your victory, go home for dinner and then die the next day during the victory luncheon. You knew you were fatally shot the moment it happened and you wanted to lie down right away.
I think the effectiveness of the 223 is exaggerated due to:
-vietnamese soldiers being about the size of cats, ideal for a varmint round
-engagement range was typically about 10 feet
-the 5.56 originally used a super high velocity loading from a very long barrel
Don't Tread On Me
Member
Uhh...
Home defense is different from SHTF.
If I were to need a rifle (carbine) for a SHTF that would be used locally, ie, suburban/neighborhood use - the AR is pretty good choice. More accurate and can hit what you need out to 200-250 easily. Cartridge is not an issue here. 75gr TAP will do the job just fine and there aren't any effectivness issues.
For true home defense, like defending just your property and actual home structure against home invaders such as criminals or whatever...the AK is a great choice as you have little time and speed is an issue and you're left with no choice but 1 firearm at most due to the circumstances. More robust, more simple. Cartridge has NO advantage over the 5.56 except for penetrating through walls and other medium density barriers. That could be handy in a HD situation where you might have to shoot through furniture or walls to reach your target. 5.56 is no joke either. It can actually penetrate thin yet hard barriers better than 7.62x39, like thin plate steel. However, most barriers and materials found in a home are not as hard as steel, but are thicker than just a plate - so the 5.56's tendency to shatter or break apart is a negative.
YEAH I KNOW~ 'target id' and all that nonsense. Remember that thread about the article in the news about the guy who invaded a home and the homeowner shot him through one of the interior doors? (the one where he first shot him with a .410, then got the .30-06)...invader had a .30-30 levergun. That's all I have to say about that!
If there's a SHTF, or you need to defend yourself when being out and about in a locality - AR is better due to lightness, ergonomics and better sighting options and ballistics/accuracy for further ranges (250yards). It is also faster from target to target. Allowing better engagement against multiple threats. Assuming a situation like this -- you know its a shtf, so you *should* be packing a sidearm for back up to the AR. That totally negates any "reliability" issues people claim of the AR. AR works best as part of a system - carbine, ammo, sighting, sidearm etc...
For grabbing something in the middle of the night - AK is better choice.
Home defense is different from SHTF.
If I were to need a rifle (carbine) for a SHTF that would be used locally, ie, suburban/neighborhood use - the AR is pretty good choice. More accurate and can hit what you need out to 200-250 easily. Cartridge is not an issue here. 75gr TAP will do the job just fine and there aren't any effectivness issues.
For true home defense, like defending just your property and actual home structure against home invaders such as criminals or whatever...the AK is a great choice as you have little time and speed is an issue and you're left with no choice but 1 firearm at most due to the circumstances. More robust, more simple. Cartridge has NO advantage over the 5.56 except for penetrating through walls and other medium density barriers. That could be handy in a HD situation where you might have to shoot through furniture or walls to reach your target. 5.56 is no joke either. It can actually penetrate thin yet hard barriers better than 7.62x39, like thin plate steel. However, most barriers and materials found in a home are not as hard as steel, but are thicker than just a plate - so the 5.56's tendency to shatter or break apart is a negative.
YEAH I KNOW~ 'target id' and all that nonsense. Remember that thread about the article in the news about the guy who invaded a home and the homeowner shot him through one of the interior doors? (the one where he first shot him with a .410, then got the .30-06)...invader had a .30-30 levergun. That's all I have to say about that!
If there's a SHTF, or you need to defend yourself when being out and about in a locality - AR is better due to lightness, ergonomics and better sighting options and ballistics/accuracy for further ranges (250yards). It is also faster from target to target. Allowing better engagement against multiple threats. Assuming a situation like this -- you know its a shtf, so you *should* be packing a sidearm for back up to the AR. That totally negates any "reliability" issues people claim of the AR. AR works best as part of a system - carbine, ammo, sighting, sidearm etc...
For grabbing something in the middle of the night - AK is better choice.
Bergeron
Member
Well, it would be worthwhile to consider how you intend to use it as a home defense rifle.
In both cases, ammo selection is crucial, as it would not do to ventilate bad guys and neighbors. Do some homework, find out ammo that works and has good terminal ballistics. I would feel very well armed with either a 5.56 AR or a 7.62 AK.
If you are looking for a relatively inexpensive rifle you can load up, lean against the bedside dresser drawer and not ever worry about, the AK would seem to be a better choice. The controls can be awkward, but they are very simple and very positive.
If, however, you would like to "doll up" your rifle with vertical foregrips, flashlights and optics, the AR platform supports more accessories. It will be easier to find the exact features you would like, and ARs have excellent ergonomics. The AR is a more fragile design than the AK, but if all the rifle will do is sit inside and wait to be used, this is not much of a concern, and besides, it's 40 year old combat rifle design, not a glass chandelier.
I would encourage you to try them both out, shoot 'em, strip 'em, and clean 'em, just to see what you would be getting yourself into with a particular rifle. If one or the other really pulls at your chain, there are solutions and work-arounds to each peculiarity or shortcoming that either possesses. You can get quad rail systems, thumb safties, and collapsible AR stocks that fold on an AK. You can get gas piston uppers on an AR. Decide what you must have, what you would like to have, and how much money you would care to spend. One design will probably stand out as more suitable for you once these questions have been answered.
As for myself, I use an 18.5"-barrelled Saiga AK in 12 gauge as my home defense long gun, but would like to eventually build up a larger caliber AR-15 to complement it.
In both cases, ammo selection is crucial, as it would not do to ventilate bad guys and neighbors. Do some homework, find out ammo that works and has good terminal ballistics. I would feel very well armed with either a 5.56 AR or a 7.62 AK.
If you are looking for a relatively inexpensive rifle you can load up, lean against the bedside dresser drawer and not ever worry about, the AK would seem to be a better choice. The controls can be awkward, but they are very simple and very positive.
If, however, you would like to "doll up" your rifle with vertical foregrips, flashlights and optics, the AR platform supports more accessories. It will be easier to find the exact features you would like, and ARs have excellent ergonomics. The AR is a more fragile design than the AK, but if all the rifle will do is sit inside and wait to be used, this is not much of a concern, and besides, it's 40 year old combat rifle design, not a glass chandelier.
I would encourage you to try them both out, shoot 'em, strip 'em, and clean 'em, just to see what you would be getting yourself into with a particular rifle. If one or the other really pulls at your chain, there are solutions and work-arounds to each peculiarity or shortcoming that either possesses. You can get quad rail systems, thumb safties, and collapsible AR stocks that fold on an AK. You can get gas piston uppers on an AR. Decide what you must have, what you would like to have, and how much money you would care to spend. One design will probably stand out as more suitable for you once these questions have been answered.
As for myself, I use an 18.5"-barrelled Saiga AK in 12 gauge as my home defense long gun, but would like to eventually build up a larger caliber AR-15 to complement it.
AR.
For many reasons.....better round in HD scenarios, ergonomic, faster mag changes, adaptable, modular, more accurate, lighter, potentially shorter (better in CQB), less recoil, better sights, easier to mount optics/lights/whatever, etc.
The only advantage the AK has in my view is reliability, but a good AR that's clean shooting decent ammo is a combat-proven and effective tool, whose many advantages overshadow its inability to operate with mud in the action. I don't have mud in my house.
For many reasons.....better round in HD scenarios, ergonomic, faster mag changes, adaptable, modular, more accurate, lighter, potentially shorter (better in CQB), less recoil, better sights, easier to mount optics/lights/whatever, etc.
The only advantage the AK has in my view is reliability, but a good AR that's clean shooting decent ammo is a combat-proven and effective tool, whose many advantages overshadow its inability to operate with mud in the action. I don't have mud in my house.
possum
Member
The ak cost less, mags are cheap. And i love mine, but
The ar15 is more expensive but there are many, many mods that you could put on there for any situation. I know that you want it as a HD rifle so accuracy at longer ranges won't really be a factor right now. So you might want the ar right now for home defense,all kinds of flashlights and lazers could be had for night time home defense, but later down the road, you might want it to be an DMR, with acog, and bi-pod, or you might want to have fun and put a 37mm launcher on there. I personally think you will be much happier with the ar. Just owning one is an amazing feeling. If you already had an ar then i would say ak then you would have both, but i would say pick up the ar, and get the ak later.
The ar15 is more expensive but there are many, many mods that you could put on there for any situation. I know that you want it as a HD rifle so accuracy at longer ranges won't really be a factor right now. So you might want the ar right now for home defense,all kinds of flashlights and lazers could be had for night time home defense, but later down the road, you might want it to be an DMR, with acog, and bi-pod, or you might want to have fun and put a 37mm launcher on there. I personally think you will be much happier with the ar. Just owning one is an amazing feeling. If you already had an ar then i would say ak then you would have both, but i would say pick up the ar, and get the ak later.
Trying out a pistol is rather straight forward by visiting an indoor range, but a rifle is another story. Perhaps getting involved again at the range in a nearby town might open some opportunities to observe and even participate. I am particularly interested in the quickness of use and handling between the two. Already have the Garand, so don't want another that cumbersome and unwieldy, and if not for the ammo already available, would perhaps replace it with an AK or AR. It does provide some awesome firepower though, but you guys might say I haven't seen anything until trying an AR or AK! From all the posts, and thanks so much for the information and your efforts in providing it, seems the AR would be the better choice except maybe for the reliability question. In my instance the home is not only the dwelling, but also a vehicle and/or RV as conditions may dictate.
MrAcheson
Member
No it didn't. People only think it did because the grass is always greener and grandpa tells good stories. There were hundreds of thousands of survivors from WWI and WWII who were shot with these calibers. Sometimes they were shot multiple times. Yet they came home and died of old age or car accidents or whatever.
There ain't no magic bullet.
MrAcheson said:
I was reading this thread, Laughing Histerically... then I came to this post and I've got a side ache from laughing so dang hard; GreatGrandpa, Grandpa's and my fathers storys... some day my kids will hear about Fallujah and the M16 that everyone lied about.
I'd go with the AR-15, but I'm partial too it. As long as it's 1/2 clean, a little lubed, only 28 rounds in those 30 rounders and loaded with Civilian Ammo and at ranges under 200 yards, you'll knock em dead. Just don't put on too many Ninja Accessorys.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
