AR15 and AK47, or M1A?

Buy the AR15 and AK47, or just the M1A?

  • Get the Colt 6920 and Arsenal SGL21-61. Simple tools for the utilatarian.

    Votes: 102 76.1%

  • Get the M1A SOCOM. It's as simple as it is elegant.

    Votes: 32 23.9%
  • Total voters
    134
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Get the AR and AK

I would also suggest getting a Rock River over the Colt, but that is my personal opinion. The Colts are over priced. Don't waste time with moding the AR to a gas piston. They are reliable the way they are. AK's are neat, but not as accurate as the AR. I picked up an underfolder and it fits the bill. Really "cool" looking rifle if that matters. The benifit with the Arsenal AK is that it is an honest to God Russian AK.

The SOCOM is a pain with that short barrel. The M1A was never designed for the short barrel and you are limited in bullet selection due to the rifle not caring for heavier bullets (bent op rod). Besides, .308 is becoming more expensive all the time even when reloading. I picked up an FAL, but only after I had the other two.
 
ol' scratch said:
I would also suggest getting a Rock River over the Colt, but that is my personal opinion. The Colts are over priced. Don't waste time with moding the AR to a gas piston. They are reliable the way they are. AK's are neat, but not as accurate as the AR. I picked up an underfolder and it fits the bill. Really "cool" looking rifle if that matters. The benifit with the Arsenal AK is that it is an honest to God Russian AK.

The SOCOM is a pain with that short barrel. The M1A was never designed for the short barrel and you are limited in bullet selection due to the rifle not caring for heavier bullets (bent op rod). Besides, .308 is becoming more expensive all the time even when reloading. I picked up an FAL, but only after I had the other two.
Click to expand...
Only if you care to clean said AR often enough. Most of us do indeed clean regularly, or at least I do. But for ease of use, less fouling in the receiver, more reliable (jams, FTEs, etc) operation, I'm gas piston all the way. It's even easier to clean the AK. Wonder why Nam vets swiped em off fallen Charlie?

I've no experience with the M1A, but the other two I'm schooled in. Want an accurate gun? AR. Want a gun that will go bang in nearly every climate or environment on the planet, CAN be somewhat accurate (2 MOA), and spend less on doodads and gizmos? AK.

I do agree that the 6920 is overpriced, and I think Colt is resting on laurels. Give RRA, BCM, or CMMG a gander if the AR is what you want. You got my vote: SGL all the way. Hell, I'd take a modded Saiga to war over most ARs.
 
meanmrmustard, have you ever heard of the filthy 14? give it a quick google and put your myths about the ar to rest.

the last time my 6920 was cleaned was probably just shy of 1k rounds ago, and i haven't had a single failure. you call it overpriced, i call it piece of mind. to each his own.
 
proven said:
meanmrmustard, have you ever heard of the filthy 14? give it a quick google and put your myths about the ar to rest.

the last time my 6920 was cleaned was probably just shy of 1k rounds ago, and i haven't had a single failure. you call it overpriced, i call it piece of mind. to each his own.
Click to expand...
Sure haven't, and not interested.
 
I admit to being especially drawn to the "combat rifle" niche.
Click to expand...

To each his own. I'll keep my Remchesters. :D For me, if I got another (I own mil surps that are just as much "battle rifles" as any AR) such rifle, I'd get the M1A for the traditional stock. If they weren't so much, I'd probably get one to play with, but I have SKSs and a Hakim if I wanna shoot autos. I don't need anything else along those lines and don't even WANT one.

Tell ya the truth, with prices on mil surps the way they are now days, the only thing I might get is a Mosin, about the only bargain left out there, and when I was buying those SKSs, the Mosins were under 40 bucks. I bought a 88 commission rifle for 27.50, a SKS for 75 bucks, a SKS paratrooper for 115, the Hakim for 80, a Spanish 7x57 Mauser for 60. I can't see spending more on a mil surp than I would on a Weatherby Vangaurd or Savage 110 or equally good hunting rifle that I would actually USE for something. :rolleyes: Hell, even SKSs are 400 bucks now days! Friggin' ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
meanmrmustard.......typical. spout a bunch of nonsense about the ar not being reliable and needing to be cleaned constantly, then when someone offers eveidence to the contrary you bury your head in the sand.

how exaclty are you "schooled" with the ar platform? what are your experiences? what do you know about nam vets pciking up aks? there have been very reliable sources that have even posted here on this forum to dispute this.

please elaborate.
 
My money would say M1A, though I'd go for a Scout Squad or Standard over the SOCOM due to better iron sights and balance.

I like my AR, but I have little use for AKs and don't care for shooting them. I'd rather just go up for the bigger 7.62x51 if I want bigger than a 5.45x39.

Just my $0.02
 
Here is my SOCOM. I think t is a great gun. Never a malf. However it isn't too accurate at about 4 MOA. I intend to try bedding it and seeing if that helps.

ry%3D400.jpg
 
I think you will get more mileage and more trigger time out of the AR and the AK. As others have pointed out the 5.45 AK round is even cheaper then the 7.62x39, even for new manufacture.

A good AR-15 will also reach out to 500 yards without a sweat provided your software is up to the task.

For me, the biggest down side to a .308 is the cost of feeding it, that and the SOCOM seems to usually come in after both the AR and the AK in the accuracy department. Sure they can be bedded and tweaked to shoot well, and if its worth it to you then its only a slight hassle. An out of the box '74 will shoot 2-2.5MOA versus the 4 MOA of a socom.
 
proven said:
meanmrmustard, have you ever heard of the filthy 14? give it a quick google and put your myths about the ar to rest.

the last time my 6920 was cleaned was probably just shy of 1k rounds ago, and i haven't had a single failure. you call it overpriced, i call it piece of mind. to each his own.
Click to expand...
Ive used em, and they just get plum dirty quick. Not saying that that's any reason the OP shouldnt get one, but for me personally, when my AR has been shot around the 1000 mark, bolt tends to be gritty. That is no myth, my friend. Nor is Stoners design.

I'm not an ostrich, I just don't like getting involved in the AR vs AK thing, we will never come to an agreement. My uncle Michael, who I find reputable where you may not as you don't know him, regaled me of fellow soldiers picking up enemy rifles in Vietnam. The Government, he says, didnt like it and many carrying them were reprimanded for it (he says he never grabbed an AK or SKS) even though the M16 was a flawed design (more so then than now) and used a cartridge underpowered compared to the 7.62x39. According to him, and feel free to bash my firsthand talk with a vet I happen to love quite alot being my uncle, you will not hear alot about this subject or hear adverse info as the M16/AR platform, to many he fought with over there it was a failure.

I'll admit, I've only owned three, still have but one. It is very accurate. I do not, however, let it go the same amount of rounds as I do my AK. Am I timid? Maybe. But, if 1000 rounds of Federal brass make that AR dirtier and visibly hindered by fouling and the same round count of steel cased Tulammo in the AK is no where near as fouled, that to me says something to the extent of superiority of the gas piston.

Your mileage, as well as sources may vary. I know my source personally, I've shot my guns quite alot, and have argued for no reason on here before, coming to the same conclusions. Talk ill of the AR and fur flies!

I don't think I've ever heard the words "my AK just jammed". Oh, and mags and ammo are cheaper.
 
Last edited:
just because it's dirty doesn't mean it won't run. that's why i mentioned "filthy 14". and what is "visibly hindered"?

your the one who started ar vs. ak in this thread with your first post, claiming that ars need to be "babied" and cleaned more often. so much for not wanting to get into that.

comparing the quality built ars of today to vietnam era ars is silly.

like i said, to each his own. but ignoring what a properly built ar is capable of in terms of reliability, and then claiming that the platform on a whole need to be "babied" is just plain foolish.
 
[Mod Talk: I think the capabilities of the AR are more than established for MOST people at this point. Let's cease the AR-vs.-AK argument here as we've got 1,274 threads on that already and that's not the question Bobson asked AT ALL. Thx.]
 
When I was younger,I was a competitive highpower rifle shooter,I shot a sub MOA M1a. Great rifle but there were certain maintenance procedures that I had a gunsmith perform because they were past the scope of my abilities.

Ammo was more available and in some circumstances almost free when shooting in military leg matches.

Today I'm a bit older ( ok,a lot older)and due to a motor vehicle accident where I was busted up I don't have the same strength and motor control I once had. I now shoot a AR-15 in a carbine configuration. Do I miss my M1a? yes! Is it practical for me? no! My Ar does 90% of what my M1a did. The practical part of my AR-15 is I can service my rifle 100% and all the parts are available at reasonable prices.
Being able to swap out lowers and uppers for different uses makes the AR a practical rifle platform for todays questionable times.

BTW, I'm only giving my own opinion and what works for me.
 
I would go with ONE rifle if it is your first combat rifle and either a good AR or AK will fill the role and I am more than happy to explain this view. I am a little bit AK biased but I will try to stay impartial here. Also I am a very foresight orientated gun buyer and by that I mean, before I think about a purchase I ask, “how will this gun fill a role for me in the next few years and is that role worth what I’ll spend on it?” So with that said, I’ll go through how I’d run down those options in my mind if I were in your scenario. (mag weights not calculated, just what I’m using for sake of comparison, no need to rip me a new one over it loaded 30 ar mag~ loaded 30 ak mag ~ loaded 20 M1A mag)

The M1A SOCOM: Since this is my first “battle rifle,” It is most likely what I will have to take with me if I have to bug out due to zombies/government collapse/red dawn style invasion. With a dry weight of about 10.5 pounds, and loaded mags weighing maybe a pound a piece, carrying a 180 round load out will mean 20 pounds of my carried weigh devoted to my primary weapon. Not to mention this load out is likely to cost me $2000 or more. This combined with the idea that I may pay $.50-$1.00 a round to practice with this rifle, I may spend another $1000 training to get proficient with this rifle. Yet another point is a large fast bullet like that is used rather inefficiently if I can only get 4 MOA out of the box with this rifle. With all that weight and work, plus the possibility that ball ammo is going to drill thirty cal holes in soft targets up close, I don’t think this will fill my need effectively.

The AR-15: With the same scenario in mind, this weapon has some distinct advantages over my other two choices. Over the M1A SOCOM, it has the advantage of being more accurate (on average), a more comfortable mag capacity, and a swift yaw-happy round that is much cheaper to train with. Over the AK, it has accuracy. It’s potential performance allows me to engage targets at ranges like 500 meters. Over both of them, it stands out in weight with it’s puny average of 6 pounds. That means a 180 round load out will only cost me 14 pounds meaning I could carry six extra pint’s of water over the M1A! It’s adaptability and track record also add to the allure. It’s only drawbacks maybe it’s tendency to not eat dirt as well as it’s soviet counterpart but hey, I’ll clean it religiously! Or maybe when I get time…

The AK-47: With all the same factors in mind, I think it’s time to disqualify the AK-47 completely… and replace it with the AK-74! Hey, the Russians updated it, why should I buy the old model? With it’s distinct improvement in recoil over its older brother and that wicked nasty bullet that likes to turn, twist, rip, fragment, tear, rupture and downright obliterate flesh all in just a few centimeters, I like it. And at $319 for 2000+ rounds, how can I say no? Okay, It may not be a tack driver at 500 meters but I could probably hit an approaching zombie/marauder/commie paratrooper at that range with a few shots… probably… that being said, I can afford to take those extra shots because the ammo is so cheap. Also, I can fill the action full of zombie guts, sand, or mud and a few thousand youtube videos says it will shoot! Sounds like a plan! I just hope minute of torso accuracy is good enough…

And there you have it, my rant! And the reason I say get one rifle is, you are better off to spend that extra money on mags and ammo to get proficient with the weapon. Besides, you only need to carry one at a time!

I hope this gives you a different perspective to look through because this is all strictly my opinion, not necessarily scientific fact. Just some thoughts...
 
ChisumTK said:
I would go with ONE rifle if it is your first combat rifle and either a good AR or AK will fill the role and I am more than happy to explain this view. I am a little bit AK biased but I will try to stay impartial here. Also I am a very foresight orientated gun buyer and by that I mean, before I think about a purchase I ask, “how will this gun fill a role for me in the next few years and is that role worth what I’ll spend on it?” So with that said, I’ll go through how I’d run down those options in my mind if I were in your scenario. (mag weights not calculated, just what I’m using for sake of comparison, no need to rip me a new one over it loaded 30 ar mag~ loaded 30 ak mag ~ loaded 20 M1A mag)

The M1A SOCOM: Since this is my first “battle rifle,” It is most likely what I will have to take with me if I have to bug out due to zombies/government collapse/red dawn style invasion. With a dry weight of about 10.5 pounds, and loaded mags weighing maybe a pound a piece, carrying a 180 round load out will mean 20 pounds of my carried weigh devoted to my primary weapon. Not to mention this load out is likely to cost me $2000 or more. This combined with the idea that I may pay $.50-$1.00 a round to practice with this rifle, I may spend another $1000 training to get proficient with this rifle. Yet another point is a large fast bullet like that is used rather inefficiently if I can only get 4 MOA out of the box with this rifle. With all that weight and work, plus the possibility that ball ammo is going to drill thirty cal holes in soft targets up close, I don’t think this will fill my need effectively.

The AR-15: With the same scenario in mind, this weapon has some distinct advantages over my other two choices. Over the M1A SOCOM, it has the advantage of being more accurate (on average), a more comfortable mag capacity, and a swift yaw-happy round that is much cheaper to train with. Over the AK, it has accuracy. It’s potential performance allows me to engage targets at ranges like 500 meters. Over both of them, it stands out in weight with it’s puny average of 6 pounds. That means a 180 round load out will only cost me 14 pounds meaning I could carry six extra pint’s of water over the M1A! It’s adaptability and track record also add to the allure. It’s only drawbacks maybe it’s tendency to not eat dirt as well as it’s soviet counterpart but hey, I’ll clean it religiously! Or maybe when I get time…

The AK-47: With all the same factors in mind, I think it’s time to disqualify the AK-47 completely… and replace it with the AK-74! Hey, the Russians updated it, why should I buy the old model? With it’s distinct improvement in recoil over its older brother and that wicked nasty bullet that likes to turn, twist, rip, fragment, tear, rupture and downright obliterate flesh all in just a few centimeters, I like it. And at $319 for 2000+ rounds, how can I say no? Okay, It may not be a tack driver at 500 meters but I could probably hit an approaching zombie/marauder/commie paratrooper at that range with a few shots… probably… that being said, I can afford to take those extra shots because the ammo is so cheap. Also, I can fill the action full of zombie guts, sand, or mud and a few thousand youtube videos says it will shoot! Sounds like a plan! I just hope minute of torso accuracy is good enough…

And there you have it, my rant! And the reason I say get one rifle is, you are better off to spend that extra money on mags and ammo to get proficient with the weapon. Besides, you only need to carry one at a time!

I hope this gives you a different perspective to look through because this is all strictly my opinion, not necessarily scientific fact. Just some thoughts...
Click to expand...
Not that it is too important, but one thing on the 5.45x39 in the 74: tumbles and yaws more and better than its self stabilizing older brother. It's just as cheap if not cheaper the the 7.62, however...

Pray that most of us have stocked up before SHTF, but in the event we had that last minute opportunity, my LGS would most likely be locked up and bugging out themselves, or have already. This leaves retail stores. Not sure about Dicks, and there is no Academy in my state. Local hardware stores don't have jack but .223, 30/06, 30/30, and .22s of various size. This leaves the dreaded Walmart!!! My Walmart does not carry 5.45. It's does however carry the crap outta some 7.62x39, just a lil something to consider if that matters. I know it does for me.

The other note, while the range, flight characteristics, and soft tissue destruction of the AKM round is more impressive, for those of us in say an urban environment those points are moot. The 7.62 being heavier, it has an advantage over its lil bro in knockdown power, especially with lead core. This, and factor in street to street fighting, vehicle to vehicle, or any situation involving close quarters, and the AK-47 round is going to penetrate barriers better, such as car windows, as it will deflect less methinks due to a more stabilized flight than it's lil bro, or it's American nemesis, the 5.56.
 
Get an AR, AK and a CMP M1 Garand. By the time your proficent with all three you should have saved up enough to decide if you want to buy the M1A or just keep feeding its grandpa the garand. I've never met a man that regreted buying one.
 
If you are less interested in marksmanship and more interested in spraying the area with suppressive fire or more quickly hitting close-range targets, then go with the AK or AR. They are perfect tools for the undisciplined or if The Walking Dead ever comes true.

If you're a rifleman who values disciplined abilities, training, and superior tools, then go with the M1A. I'd go with the M1A.
 
If you're a rifleman who values disciplined abilities, training, and superior tools, then go with the M1A.
Click to expand...

It is amazing how difficult it is to pick up humorous sarcasm over the 'net. Try using the "smilies" (like this: :) :D ;)) so everyone can tell that you're joking.








(Or, alternately, ask the AMU and Marine Rifle Team why they can't be disciplined enough to go back to using the M14.)
 
The other note, while the range, flight characteristics, and soft tissue destruction of the AKM round is more impressive, for those of us in say an urban environment those points are moot. The 7.62 being heavier, it has an advantage over its lil bro in knockdown power, especially with lead core. This, and factor in street to street fighting, vehicle to vehicle, or any situation involving close quarters, and the AK-47 round is going to penetrate barriers better, such as car windows, as it will deflect less methinks due to a more stabilized flight than it's lil bro, or it's American nemesis, the 5.56.
Click to expand...

I'll give you that, in a situation where you were engaging targets on the street where you may be poking holes in car doors or cutting through sheet rock and studs, the 7.62x39 is going to shine. But as far as room clearing, depending on shooter discipline, one could argue the "knockdown power" doesn't mean much. I think of it like this, in a room that is say 20'x20' or smaller, your maximum engagement range is less than seven yards so that 7.62 bullet is still screaming fast meaning it's more likely to just cut through soft targets' leaving a neat little hole and not transferring much of it's energy. The 5.45 with it's hollow cavity in the nose is likely to still yaw and tumble meaning it will transfer the majority of it's energy and not OVER PENETRATING which is something people overlook all too often. Another factor to consider is that in that situation, I wouldn't trust one round to do the job so I'm going give him a hammer pair or maybe even do a triple tap for insurance. So which weapon is going to allow me to get back on target the fastest? Probably that 5.45x39... that is how I justify using it in my mind anyway.
 
Last edited:
Here is my SOCOM. I think t is a great gun. Never a malf. However it isn't too accurate at about 4 MOA. I intend to try bedding it and seeing if that helps.
Click to expand...

See, if I got an M1A, it'd have to be accurized. I couldn't live with 4 MOA. Even my SKS rifle shoots 2.5 MOA with 154 Wolf SP. Nah, too much money, I'll pass on all of the above. :D JMHO, though. If you WANT one, pick the one that speaks to you.
 
BTW, I also have a M1A Super Match, Loaded, and Standard. All will print 10 shot groups around 2 MOA or better.
 
I really appreciate all the advice I've been given in this thread. I've decided to put aside my interest in the M1A for now. May pick one up at some currently unforeseen point in the future, and I may not.

Now the decision to make is whether I buy the AK47, or AR15 first. It'll likely be the AK, but that's yet to be decided. Bottom line is both will do what I want of them. As far as the AK74 - I think it's a neat concept, and it obviously works for a number of people. I'm no ballistician, but I like 7.62x39. From what I've seen, it does what it was designed to do, and it does it extremely well inside a perfectly suitable range (for my needs). That's what I'm looking for. At this point, I'll take the classic.

Frankly, I find a lot of wisdom in the advice from those who suggested I select just one rifle, and I may very well select just the AK47. It's gonna depend on how my wife feels after shooting it. What I should really do is find a range that rents both the AK and AR, and have her pick the one she likes best... but that subject has been covered time and again in other threads. ;)

Again, thanks a lot for all the advice. It really helped me make up my mind.
 
I'm surprised no one mentioned the Saiga .308 as another option that fits well between the AK and the M1A. Do a search on it, it may be worth a look.

For the poll, AR for me. Lots of interchangeable parts, lots of available ammo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
ak47 or Springfield M1A for SHTF
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
17K
Combatops1911
C
J
  • Locked
AR15 vs AK47 vs Mosin Nagant
Replies
2
Views
1K
nalioth
N
A
  • Locked
  • Poll
Springfield M1A versus Armalite AR10
Replies
17
Views
4K
trinydex
T
Mr.Revolverguy
  • Locked
M1A VS AR10 HISTORIC VS PRESENT
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
d2wing
d2wing
A
  • Locked
Should I get another M1A?
Replies
16
Views
875
Andrewsky
A
Back
Top