What exactly is the draw of the AR platform?

Cheap to shoot, customizable, cool looking if you are into that kind of thing and they annoy the tar out of the fascists - elected and home town.

Ergos and modularity, IMO. All other things are fairly equal, including price nowadays, at least as far as civilian owners are concerned. AKs may have an edge in reliability (or maybe more ease of maintenance), but 99% of people won't see the difference in their HD guns and range toys.

Probably a bit of white hat, black hat. When I was a kid we (the US) used the M16, now the M4. I like some others want what our military uses. And to me, right or wrong AR=Good Guys, AK=Bad Guys. Then when I got one and shot one it was very easy to put holes where you want them to go.

At 100 yards the differences can be swamped by other factors. A good AK with ammo it likes can do 2" groups, an AR with mediocre ammo can usually do 2" groups. Move it out to 300 yards and the accuracy superiority of the AR will be obvious, although its not necessary tactically important.

Run 2000 rounds without maintenance of any kind and the reliability advantage of the AK will be obvious.


I'll choose the AR for myself, but in TEOTWAWKI I'll arm my minions with AKs

There is a excellent article about using the AR for home defense in this months issue of The American Rifleman.

You do belong to the NRA don't you?

5.45x39 may be ballistically superior, but generally the weapons it is fired from are inferior. i have 'ak's' chambered in 5.45x39, and ar15s only slightly more expensive like the m&p15, chambered in 5.56x45, and i have at minimum 200 yards of additional accuracy out of the ar15 as i do out of similarly priced 'ak's' in the soviet competitor caliber. also the ar platform is heavily customizable, there isnt a part on the gun you cant swap out for a superior part should you decide to upgrade in the future, and its vast aftermarket means economies of scale and lost cost accessory upgrades.

Seems obvious to me - almost everyone who has served in the US military in the last 40 years has been exposed to some version of the M16/M4.

Video games and TV/Movies have played up the AR platform.

Also, relatively cheap ammo doesn't hurt either.

No law against owning one of each....yet.

My x39 experience is limited to shooting a few AKs and owning one Mini 30...after shooting them all, no desire to own an SK/AK.

I also own .223s in both AR and Mini 14. Like both, but the AR gets much more exercise.

To each, his own. Don't obsess.

Depends on how you like to shoot.

If you're the type that likes to shoot off the bench and measure tiny one hole groups, then the AR or AK probably isn't for you.

But if you like to stand up and shoot reactive targets off hand out to 200 yards, then both the AR and AK are loads of fun.

Which should you get? Get both. Get either. Life is short. Have fun.

Easy to build, low recoil, accurate, etc...

If you're concerned about "inferior ballistics" there are plenty of other calibers to choose from. If you go with .300BLK, for example, the only thing you need is a new barrel.

Oh, and they're freaking cheap, too.

It works. It's reliable with relatively little maintenance, despite rumors. The caliber is adequate for its intended use. Millions of us have intimate familiarity with it. They are versatile in configuration, and now, calibers. They are ergonomic. Parts are everywhere. Anyone literate can learn to service one adequately for repair or part replacement. Given some time, I'm sure I could elaborate on the list of positive attributes.

The AR platform is so easy to shoot well. My wife of 37 years wanted to learn to shoot one of the carbines, and now I can't pry "her" M4'gery out of her hands! She is very good with it, and has confidence in her ability to apply all it's attributes in the proper circumstance. Can't ask for more!

The Exile said:

but I was watching a video by IV8888 where they had a little shootout and found that at around 100 yards grouping was very similar which shook my notion that AR15's were more accurate

Click to expand...

And at 10 yards, the 9mm will group very similar to the 40 S&W.

100 yards is nothing for most rifles rounds. Try stretching those calibers out to 300 yards or longer for a better test of accuracy.

Some personal background: I have never fired an AR-15. I have fired an AK-47 twice, and much prefer the 7.62x39mm round out of my SKS - the recoil seems to be considerably more comfortable.

I have trouble understanding why the assumed comparison basis is the AR-15 and the AK-47. Why is the AR not compared to the newer AK-74 model? Is not the 5.45x39mm closer in ballistics and much nearer in size to the .223/5.56? As I understand development dates, the 7.62x39 is from the late 1940s, the 2.23/5.56 from the late 1950s, and the 5.45x39 from the early 1970s, and NATO and Warsaw Pact ammunition and weapons platforms were on opposite sides of active conflicts with the calibers available in the 1960s. On a contemporary military battlefield do troops with 7.62x39mm still do battle with 5.56 NATO more often than do those equipped with the 5.45x39mm?

It just seems strange to me that in the context of shooting holes in paper at civilian firing ranges today, the AK-47, and not the AK-74, is the one most often used for comparison with the AR-15.

Domestically-produced parts, ammo, and a long history of use.

It's a great platform, and makes a great fighting rifle.

Don't get bogged down in the AR vs. AK thing. Ammo and parts markets should drive that choice.

Pick one, take a class on how to use it, and be happy knowing that you've got a leg up on people who still bother arguing about it .

Iraqi Vet 8888, (Assuming that is who you're referencing by IV8888) is a former military guy. As others have mentioned millions have been exposed to the AR15/16/10/4 system. Some had never been exposed to any firearms before the military. They go with what they know.

As others have mentioned...the capacity to switch calibers simply by pulling a couple of pins and replacing the upper receiver with a different assembly. Doing that with a traditional screwed into the receiver barrel is not only expensive but relatively permanent.

And as mentioned...by others...surplus components...(at least for now with Pres. Obama and his new AG getting ready to dump a lot more restrictions on us within the next few months) We can buy all kinds of components from many parts of the world...right now anyway.

And finally...the platform can be made to be highly accurate. Scary accurate and with different loads capable of taking any game on the North American continent.

I still swoon at beautiful wood and bluing but I have an old man's appreciation for the art and science of old school craftsmanship. However, I am developing a fondness for the grunt utility of the AR platform.

Right now one of the big draws of the platform is the price. Right now they are so low there isn't a good reason not to build a few.

The Exile said:

What exactly is the draw of the AR platform?

Click to expand...

The fact that politicians who hate freedom don't want you to own one.

However I see many nations like the US using weapons similar to the AR and it has the reputation as being the choice of professionals, but with a smaller bullet or a ballasticilly inferior (According to IV8888 5.45 is ballisticaly superior) and with a higher cost; why do so many people choose AR pattern rifles?

Click to expand...

?
NATO nations standardized the 5.56 round. It's pretty much the round of choice in the free world.
Former combloc nations may or may not use the 5.45 round.
I like the 5.45 round just fine. You can get an AR upper receiver in 5.45 and it will outshoot an AK-74 if barreled correctly.
I wouldn't use one YouTube backyard shooter's opinion as gospel.

Why don't you try both and see which one you personally shoot better?
Or just buy both

An AK or AR, you can't go wrong. Just learn the pros and cons and how to operate it. They'll both do more than the individual user will likely ever need. Few people have the skill and experience to push either weapon to its inherent limits.

The AR is quite comfortable, light, easy shooting and accurate. It does require more fine tuning and extra cleaning because it relies on dirty gas to operate the bolt, so the chamber gets filthy. The AR is affordable, easy to learn and use, and overall pretty reliable. Shoots common and affordable ammo.
Pros: Modularity/gadgets, ergos/safety/bolt handle position/sights/mag changes, accuracy beyond 200 yards
Cons: .223 caliber may be every so slightly anemic, and dirty/jamming issues sometimes.

The AK is also very comfortable and while less inherently customizable, perhaps marginally less accurate at longer ranges, it is plenty accurate for home defense and short ranges. For me, I don't generally put much on my rifles in terms of gadgets.
Pros: Uber-reliable, super simple to maintain, heavier hitting .30 caliber, generally a little less expensive than an AR
Cons: Harder to upgrade parts, not as easy mount lights and foregrips and gadgets.

Both rifles are good, it's really just preference.

Lord Teapot said:

5.45x39 may be ballistically superior, but

Click to expand...

I see people claim this fairly often, but I don't see how it possibly could be.

There is only 0.1mm difference in diameter between the two.

The most widely available 5.45x39 cartridge is the 7n6
53 grain bullet listed at 2900 fps from a 16" barrel

5.56x55 55 grain bullets are going 3000+ fps from a 16" barrel.
62 grain bullets are doing 2900-3000 fps from a 16" barrel.

That's only comparing military style rounds and in all seriousness, those are not designed for external ballistics.

There are FAR FAR more bullets available for 5.56x55

Compare the Horandy VMAX

5.45 60 grain-2810 FPS
5.56 60 grain-3150 FPS

AR? The draw?

6.8SPCII and 10mmAR SBR.

The Exile said:

...but I was watching a video by IV8888 where they had a little shootout and found that at around 100 yards grouping was very similar which shook my notion that AR15's were more accurate...

Click to expand...

In an assembly form similar to what the US military receives, the AR-15 is probably marginally more accurate than an AK-47.

Where the AR-15 shines is the modifications that can be made to the rifle that greatly increase accuracy. Better barrels, floating hand guards, better triggers, improved assembly techniques, etc.

Then, the modularity of the AR-15 allows folks with reasonable proficiency with hand tools to do the work assembling a very accurate rifle. The delicate machine work has already been done before the assembler gets the parts.

As a point, you do not see many AK-47s competing in Service Rifle competition while virtually every competitor uses AR-15s in Service Rifle competition these days.

Thermactor said:

The fact that politicians who hate freedom don't want you to own one.

Click to expand...

That was the motivation that got me to part with my money for an AR.

The bonus is that an AR15 is easy to shoot and is easy on the shoulder. Which makes it a rifle that just about anyone of any age or physical ability can have a good shooting experience with.

One of the attractions I'm currently pursuing is that I can purchase one quality gun with several matching uppers and have an AR for a variety of different tasks.
If you have the skill set the only limitation is your imagination.