Every AR vs. AK (or anything else) thread always turns into the uppity AR owners going on and on about how their gun is just a million times better than any other gun in the world.
Seriously don't get so jealous and defensive because somebody else's $400 AK, $200 Hi-Point, or $75 Mosin shoots every time they pull the trigger, hits where they are aiming, with surplus mags and ammo, and didn't cost 4 truck payments.
Just because you own an AR doesn't make you any better than anybody else in the world, so please stop acting like it.
I very much like AK's...
...and mine is a stamped Romanian, to boot. It's just that the "AR's are unreliable" meme is just as misinformed as the "AK's pattern like a shotgun" meme. Both AK's and AR's are reliable, and both AK's and AR's are plenty accurate for most purposes. One platform or the other may have an edge in certain narrowly defined situations (want to bury in gooey mud for 6 months and then empty a magazine without cleaning, advantage ---> AK; want to hit an 8" target at 400 yards, advantage ---> AR), but both are good, reliable rifles.
What is tiresome is when advocates of one platform level accusations at the other that are patently untrue. The idea that the AR system is inherently unreliable is no less false than the idea that the AK is useless at 200 yards.
think part of the reason why there is so much antagonism between
the AR camp versus the AK guys, is that there may be a social class difference between the two groups.
The AK is an everyman's(proletariat) gun its relatively cheap, effective it works
everytime you want it to and needs little maintenence. My guess is most guys who love the AK value reliability above all other charecteristics for their semi auto rifle and don't want to spend thousands to get the reliability they want and/or don't wan't to tinker with the gun to get it.
My impression is most AR owners value accuracy above other charecteristics of their rifle and are harcore about shooting small groups while AK owners are more of the casual plinker/blazer type. AR owners also tend to like to emulate the military as much as possible hence their proclivity to adding tons of gadgets and gizmos to their rifles and be tacticool they also tend to think they are more patriotic since they use "America's rifle". I am guessing they are also more likely to be upper middle class than their AK comrades since they seem to have plenty of cash to spend on their guns and hobbies.
...
Politically AR guys seem to be more of the neocon Republican type while AK guys tend more often to be part of the Tea Party.
I disagree. There isn't a class difference between Ford and GM aficionados, but you see the same type of arguments. And I know AK and AR owners on both sides of the political spectrum, and up and down the economic ladder, from professions ranging to hog farmer and boat builder to IT specialist. I myself am a centrist independent, not a conservative, and am a fan of both designs.
it works everytime you want it to and needs little maintenence
True of both the AK and AR, assuming both are properly assembled.
All probelms relating to the AR are not design related but "user error" that is the primary dogma of the AR fanatics. For some reason the magazine is not considered part of the gun design.
Try running an AK with a 20-year-old el cheapo USA brand magazine with spread-out feed lips and worn out springs, and see how it runs. Or try running an AK with a gas piston NOT pinned to the bolt carrier like it's supposed to be, or the shepherd's hook retainer missing, for thousands of rounds.
Using worn-out magazines will cause an AR to fail, just as it will an AK. Failing to assemble the rifle properly will cause an AR to fail, just as it will an AK. But if either rifle is assembled correctly with good parts and used with good magazines, they will
both run fine.
. Politically AR guys seem to be more of the neocon Republican type while AK guys tend more often to be part of the Tea Party.
