The AK is the #1 battle rifle in the world. It is pure and simple designed to be abused, run filthy and use a big enough bullet to stop your opponent. Not qualities that the AR is famous for. There are not a lot of aftermarket parts available for it because it doesn't need them it does exactly what its designed to do. If you want minute of angle it wont ever do that, but if you want minute of man thats your gun. Frank
advice on AK 47 or ar 15
- Thread starter thefamcnaj
- Start date
- Status
mortablunt
Member
^ Abrasive, loud, and confident. Great post!
ghostman1960
Member
The AK is the number 1 battle rifle in the world simply because of Geo-Politics. The Soviets gave them away in massive quantities to anyone that asked for them or expressed anti American views. Its not because the AK is in any way superior to the AR/M16 platform. Countries that can afford it do not buy AK47s. They either develop their own weapon systems in 5.56x45 or purchase the M16 platform from us. It is ignorant to say otherwise.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
The AK cannot be cycled if the safety is on, as the safety closes the slot that the charging handle rides in, to keep dirt and debris out. You can check the chamber but you can't pull the bolt back far enough to chamber or eject a round.
If the AK is empty and decocked, you'd insert a magazine and slap the charging handle, and be good to go, pretty much the same as an AR. +1 on the BCM Gunfighter.
In my experience, speed of reload isn't dramatically different for AK vs. AR if you reload and cycle the AK with the support hand. For AK reload with retention, you hit the release with the thumb of the removing hand; for emergency reload without retention, hit the release with the new mag, rock it in, and slap the charging handle with the same hand. It's not *quite* as fast as slapping the bolt release on an AR because your hand has to move further, but it's not slow.
If you switch hands during the reload (reload with left, cycle with right) then the AK would be slower, but that's totally not necessary.
jehicks87
Member
Very keen observation. This debate is often fought out in the pistol word with the classic "1911 vs Glock." The AR is the 1911, the AK is the Glock. Guess which one I prefer? lol
Not necessarily true. The abundance of 5.56 is due in large part to Geo-Politcal concerns as well. It is truly an inferior round in just about every way, except for pure accuracy at distance. And recoil. Can't forget the overarching need for an inherently more accurate round with less recoil for the Western powers (NATO), despite the lack of "man-stopping" capabilities. The reason, and this is speculation, most countries would simply contract M16's to be built by us for their armies is because it's more economical (gasp!) than to tool up their own production lines. Secondly, now that the laughably weak 5.56 round is the standard, it only makes sense for them to chamber whatever weapon they may actually come up with in said round due to it's compatibility with allied nations.
A VERY good point, and my main complaint with the AK design. I also find the controls on the AR to be more ergonomic.
But, for the overall package, I still prefer a rugged, reliable, cheap weapon that I know will stop a bad guy. And, I can still deer hunt with it. Yes, you can do the same with an AR... but for roughly $1000 more and at least 2x the time spent in maintenance.
I really don't like the AR, though. Not even a little bit. It's like having a nice sound system in a Fiat 500. Yes, it's flashy in it's own cute little way. And the sound system (ergo's) is a nice feature. But you're still driving a $20,000 compact when a honda Fit cost $14,000. For the record, I drive an F250. And No, you cannot have my man card for comparing Assault Rifles to compact import cars.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
The primary advantage, other than capability at long range, is probably weight. Round for round, 7.62x39mm is nearly twice as heavy as 5.56x45mm, and a pouch of four loaded 7.62x39mm AK magazines weighs more than the rifle does (they're nearly two pounds each). It is physically impossible to carry as many AK magazines as AR magazines.
I'd point out that Russia switched from 7.62x39mm to 5.45x39mm in the 1970's and hasn't looked back. 5.45x39mm gives most of the performance of 7.62x39mm but at half the weight.
For civilian HD, hunting, or range use, magazine weight isn't a problem at all. For a soldier who might be carrying 100-130 pounds of gear already, though, they can't just double their ammo weight. If the current basic combat load is 6 magazines on the vest and 1 in the gun plus 200 rounds linked for the squad auto, that number can only go down if you move to a weightier caliber, all else being equal.
I don't think one can seriously argue that 5.56x45mm with decent loads (even good military loads like Mk 262 or Mk 318/SOST, never mind civilian JHP and SP) is "laughably" weak. Weaker than a full-power rifle, sure; so is 7.62x39mm, which barely makes .30-30 ballistics, never mind .308. But I wouldn't laugh at either caliber; they're good enough, and both exceed .357 Magnum at close range, a round no one would laugh at.
Are some milspec 5.56mm rounds poor performers? Sure. By many accounts, 62gr M855/SS109 has been a bit of a disappointment out of short barrels compared to M193, which is why the military has looked at better rounds to replace it. But Soviet 7.62x39mm M43 wasn't a great performer either, and for many of the same reasons. In both calibers, good load choice makes a big difference.
The 7.62x39mm AK certainly does have its advantages, and the fact that it is legal for hunting deer in most states that allow rifle hunting is one of them. It is also amazingly rugged (I have a video of a 5.45mm AK being thrown off a building and run over by a bus, and still functional), and simple to maintain.
An AK is also a tremendous value for the money, though the cost difference isn't anywhere near $1K (WASR at $350-$400, basic S&W AR at $600-$650, and the spread between high-end AK's and high-end AR's is probably similar). I think I paid $379 for my SAR-1 in 2003, and consider it money well spent.
I think if someone is spending 2x the time maintaining an AR as maintaining an AK, they're either doing it wrong or are using the wrong kit. I clean my AR about as often as I clean the AK, e.g. after every few range trips or after shooting a bunch of dirty Wolf/Tula, and even that is more than is really necessary for functional reasons. And I do basically the same things to both rifles: clean the barrel, wipe out the receiver, clean the chamber, wipe the bolt/bolt carrier, inspect parts for wear, lube everything generously, and put it all back together. White-glove style cleaning isn't necessary and IMO does more harm than good.
The one concern I'd have with cleaning the AR under field conditions, though, would be how easily the firing pin retaining pin could be lost if you dropped it in the grass. Carry spares.
Comparing intermediate-caliber rifles to sport compacts is a pretty good comparison, I think.
Except that I'd compare the AR to a Civic Si/SiR, because of its popularity and the huge aftermarket, and the AK to a classic small-block Camaro. Similar performance, but different styles.
Zerodefect
member
The BCM large charging handle makes it easy to rack the AR with the palm of your support hand. Left or right handed. It may hurt a little if you reallly wack it hard under stress, it is nice and grippy.
A Stag ambi safety is nice. There are a lot of larger ambi safeties to choose from. If the rifle is in your hand. Your thumb should rest on the safety lever all the time. That way when you pull the rifle up you don't have to think about the safety, you'll automaticly click it to semi after a few classes.
I have a hard time reloading an AK with that silly mag catch. I prefere the AR's more pistol-like mag catch. And I have developed a good Ambi technique for are speed reloads.
The AK just seems crude, awkward, and slow to me. The AR works way better for me. I'd love to have an AK pistol, but not at AR prices. That cheap box of sheet metal and floppy barrel should only be $500 IMO. Some of the AK prices I've seen are rediculous.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Pat Rogers has a rifle that's gone over 50,000 rounds without cleaning and without a malfunction. I saw the gun myself at SHOT earlier this year.
I, personally, only tend to clean ARs every few thousand rounds, or before a really big match, whichever comes first, and the time spent cleaning them isn't the nightmarish experience some seem to think it is.
Look, I'm sorry you evidently had a bad experience with an M16, but the simple fact of the matter is that there are plenty of AR-pattern rifles that run well and do so under adverse conditions.
You've already admitted that you have a personal dislike of the AR, and that's fine. But the simple fact of the matter is there are people who don't have personal baggage attached to particular platforms, and who are allowed to pick whatever platform they like, and they still overwhelmingly pick the AR platform as their go-to rifle.
jehicks87
Member
Interesting question, but I don't have an answer to that. I have no personal experience with that platform or that round at all.
True, but Russia also implemented a SDM program around that same time. The dragunov is an excellent supplement in a squad-sized element. It can handle what the smaller round cannot.
Everyone has their opinions, and most people I know (as that is all I can go off of) who have actually had to kill someone with an M4 or M16 do in fact argue that very thing. Today our WLC Cadre got on the very subject of the AR/5.56 platform. He was in Fallujah as a Marine, and has done several tours in the Army to both Iraq and Afghanistan. I am also the only Aviation soldier in my platoon at the school; everyone else is overwhelmingly combat experienced infantry and they all feel the same way. When I say all, I mean every single one of them.
Fair enough... if that's what competitive models are going for then that's what they're going for. With the cleaning, I only know my own experience, and the doctrine we go by is "clean clean clean." I've never seen Haaji clean their AK's.
Cool. I would say Pat's would be an exception as opposed to rule, but either way is fine with me.
As far as the cleaning of the rifle itself, it's not a nightmarish or difficult thing to do. It's the regularity at which it must be done... or at least, at which we are required to do it. And I think I made my stance clear that AR's are great rifles for target shooting. For "if and when SHTF" as the OP wanted, I wouldn't count on it. I wouldn't. You may.
Yes, I do have a personal dislike of the weapon, as a weapon. I find it is very important to point out your bias if you are going to give an opinion or advice on something; to not do so would be wrong. However, my personal bias is based on my (multiple) "bad experience(s) with an M16." That's the only way I know what I know and was able to form my own thoughts on the platform, a Colt AR-15 M16 and M4.
No melodrama, just straight unfiltered honest-to-God-and-my-mother opinions, based in real-world observations.If the OP got an AR, I wouldn't hate on him. If he got an AK, I'd be happy for him. Really, as long as he's happy, I'm happy. But, I have noticed he hasn't posted in this thread in a while... so I'm kind of wondering what he decided?
mortablunt
Member
Please tell us OP, the suspense is killing us.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
IMO, I think that is a good solution, because it meets the niche need of the rare long-range engagement with an uncompromised long-range rifle, while at the same time allowing regular infantry rifles to be optimized for the vastly more common 0-500 meter engagements.
FWIW, the SVD was designed and issued to make up for the 7.62x39mm AK's shortcomings at range, not 5.45, entering service in 1963. The AK-74 is generally considered somewhat more capable at range than the -47 rather than less, since 7.62x39mm's low velocity and low sectional density makes for rapid energy loss and a trajectory like a rainbow.
U.S. services are implementing the DMR/SDM concept in various ways. Some units are getting accurized M16's with civilian-market match grade barrels (e.g. SAM-R/SDM-R) using the improved Mk 262 ammunition effective at 700 meters. Some Army and Marine units are fielding heavily modified M14's in 7.62x51mm (e.g. the 16.5-pound M39 EMR), but most of the latter are scheduled to be replaced with the AR-style M110 SASS also in 7.62x51mm.
M110, 7.62x51mm NATO
I'm assuming you're Army, and still stuck with M855? There is much better ammo in the works, and a lot of it is in the field; hopefully it will become universal at some point.
DMR's/SDM's of several services are now being issued Mk 262, which is not only more effective than M855 out to 700 meters, but it tends to yaw and fragment quickly at all ranges, improving close-range performance over M855.
The Marines are starting to get Mk 318, which is by most accounts also pretty decent, and IIRC doesn't require re-sighting compared to M855:
USMC adopts Mk 318
U.S. Navy Small Arms Ammunition Advancements (NSWC Crane)
And the Army is working on M855A1; hopefully that will be better as well, and not just a "green" substitute for M855.
Of course, civilians aren't stuck with FMJ to start with, so we can use rounds that are more effective than FMJ for both the AR and AK. For a 7.62x39mm AK, civilian 8M3 JHP or VMAX loads are far superior to military FMJ, for example, and I think it's safe to say that in 5.56mm, good civilian JHP/SP trumps everything but Mk 262 in 5.56mm.
Take a look at this gelatin test, and compare the performance of the 55gr to 64gr JHP's and SP's to the only FMJ in the test---and I suspect M855 would yaw even later than that one. If the yaw is late enough, a very slender individual could get hit and sustain only a .22 caliber icepick wound for most of the track, and that may account for some of the reported failures to stop. That shouldn't happen with better *.mil or civilian loads.
Obviously you have to do what you're required to do, but a mantra of "lubricate lubricate lubricate" might be more productive.
I think this document is a translation of the Soviet AK-47 service manual. It contains the following instructions regarding use of an AK in the desert (page 132); their mantra is indeed "lubricate lubricate lubricate."
The AK doctrine is not much different from the advice of those who have successfully run AR's for thousands and thousands of rounds without cleaning---lubricate it as you go. I'm not sure what US *.mil lubrication doctrine is now, but at least a few years ago traditional doctrine was to underlubricate the rifle in desert conditions. That view now seems to be changing:
That pretty much mirrors Russian doctrine regarding the AK. And I'd also point out that the Russian rifle lubricating oil was thicker than CLP and less prone to dry out; I think the use of a high-solvent lubricant like CLP in a desert is probably not the best choice in hot-and-dry conditions for that reason. I understand the convenience of rolling the cleaner and the lube into one compound, but it makes it less persistent as a lubricant. I personally run synthetic Mobil 1 oil in my AR (and AK) since it doesn't dry out, and keeps powder fouling suspended even after shooting hundreds of rounds of dirty steel-case Tula in both platforms. I do know there are some really good gun oils in the *.mil inventory already, and I wonder if the services shouldn't run some dust tests with some some of those oils vs. CLP and see what works best. But even CLP works fine as long as it's refreshed often enough to stay wet, I think.
I'm one of those who does. I started out with the AK and was initially skeptical of AR reliability, but it has won me over. I'd trust either one from a reliability standpoint.
Granted, I'm not shooting either one full auto, or in the desert, and mine isn't a military configuration (16" barrel, midlength gas system) so I'm not putting my experience out there as gospel. But I think the civilian AR's reputation as finicky is undeserved, and I do see a lot of incorrect assumptions out there (like the ubiquitous "it poops where it eats" line, or the idea that a civilian AR has to be cleaned every 500 rounds or it won't work) that give it a bad rap.
Good Post Ben.
It is amazing the amount of failures with a light coating of oil and moon dust. If someone would think about it I would think they would figure out that a lube that works in a high humid jungle might not be the best for a dry sandy environment. Just like a uniform.
You would not want a summer uniform to be worn in a Stalingrad type environment so why would anyone think one oil fits all occasions.
CLP works great as a rust inhibitor in south Texas and in many of the test I have seen. It may not be the best lube in a combat situation or on auto but for civilian purposes it works for most.
Auto transmission fluid and synthetic non paraffin based lubes seem to be working for many fire arms now and is cheap. Maybe the armed services should save a bunch of money and just use some form of a synthetic and be done with it.
It is amazing the amount of failures with a light coating of oil and moon dust. If someone would think about it I would think they would figure out that a lube that works in a high humid jungle might not be the best for a dry sandy environment. Just like a uniform.
You would not want a summer uniform to be worn in a Stalingrad type environment so why would anyone think one oil fits all occasions.
CLP works great as a rust inhibitor in south Texas and in many of the test I have seen. It may not be the best lube in a combat situation or on auto but for civilian purposes it works for most.
Auto transmission fluid and synthetic non paraffin based lubes seem to be working for many fire arms now and is cheap. Maybe the armed services should save a bunch of money and just use some form of a synthetic and be done with it.
jehicks87
Member
BenEzra, that is probably the best post I have seen on THR, ever.
And, I learned something new, that I thought I already knew.
And, I learned something new, that I thought I already knew.
I guess I wouldn't agree when you consider cost and range. Remember we are buying .223 from US companies, really bolt action long gun ammo, out of a 14.5" or 16" these JHP's have such lower KE than Xm193 or M885 that I really question their being superior especially outside 100 yards.
The only .223 commercial ammo that I would agree with you on are the 70+g. and these set you back almost $1 per round.
So I am not sold on the whole non-Nato restricted ammo availability being any real advatage to someone to chose an AR over an AK.
Look at it this way: take the best .223 commercial ammo under 75 cents per round and at 150 yards it really ain't no better than M855. These .223 rounds may be more accurate at 300 yards but at that point these rounds are performing just like a .22LR (maybe more KE but not enough for expansion and they don't tumble)
If you want to spend the money on 75g TAP or BH 77g HPBT's, well then you have an advantage over an AK if you also have an expensive SPR barrel, a very expensive 1-4 scope, and years of training to make those crazy 300+ yard shots.
Otherwise a 25 cent per round wolf hollow point classic 7.62x39 is just going to plain outperform any 75 cent or under non-Nato .223 round especially in the 100 to 200 yard range.
See this I really agree with this. The 7n6 (5.45) is like a mini Mk262. The mk262 has the advantage of yaw at distances well beyong fragmentation, that is what makes it so useful. The 7n6 was designed to yaw at distances where the M885 5.56 is hoping for fragmentation. Yet with 5.56 the fragmentation range is surpisingly short and inconvenient.
Thing is in 5.56 or .223 there is no bullet that relies on yaw for shorter/mid range. If the domestic bullet manufacturers would come up with a cheap accurate 62-65g bullet modelled after the 7n6 then the AR could really shine. There are a lot of unique features that make an AK-74 a great choice, but I think the ammo is one that is often overlooked.
I think it comes down to budget. For an AR to truly outperform an AK (yes it can) you have to spend a lot of money on the special ammo, the expensive magnification, and years of practice/training. If you have limited time and budget I think an AK will serve just as well as an AR.
If you can afford the ~$1 per round accurate 70+ grain ammo, a quality 1-4x scope (talking $2k scopes), and practice for months at 300+ yards, then by all means get a $1200 recce or spr.
Where the AR shines is ergonomics, buy a tax stamp and build a 12.5"-14.5" lightweight pencil AR with a micro RD, and stock up on XM193/XM885. A much bigger investment than a SLG AK, but ergonomics can be priceless in a life or death situation.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Since 55gr to 62gr FMJ loads turn into icepicks below about 2700 ft/sec per Fackler et al, it is at range that that civilian JHP/SP show the biggest benefit vs. 55-62gr FMJ, IMO, particularly vs. M855. Out of a 14.5" barrel, M855 drops below the 2700 ft/sec threshold after only 60 yards or so, since it's 2900 or slower at the muzzle; a civilian-length 16" barrel might stretch that beyond 100 yards, but probably not far beyond. Civilian JHP/SP hunting and LE loads, on the other hand, are not dependent on yaw-induced fragmentation as the sole means of upset, and will expand down to 2200-2300 ft/sec or less. Meaning civilian JHP/SP will be expanding at ranges far beyond those at which M855 is capable of of fragmenting.
Remember, .223 is not only one of the most commonly used 200-300 yard predator and varmint hunting cartridges in the civilian world, but it's also one of the primary rifle rounds used by law enforcement in the United States. There has been a *lot* of attention paid to .223 JHP/SP design and a lot of assessment in the LE wound ballistics literature, and the consensus by far is that JHP/SP is superior to FMJ for LE and other civilian use.
If you want civilian loads as hot as milspec, they are certainly out there; I linked to Federal's selection primarily because they are some of the most accessible charts online.
M855 isn't fragmenting at all at 150+ yards out of a 16" or shorter barrel, whereas civilian JHP/SP is will be expanding well beyond that distance. Remember, JHP/SP will expand at velocities way below the M855 fragmentation threshold.
M855 was designed specifically to poke clean .22 caliber holes in Warsaw pact steel helmets at 600 meters when fired out of a 20" barrel, which I'm sure it does very well. Fragmentation and terminal performance weren't design criteria for M855, though, unlike Mk 262, Mk 318, or civilian LE or hunting loads.
It doesn't take an SPR-grade barrel, $2000 4x scope, and $20/box ammo to make consistent 300-400 yard hits with a .223, any more than it takes a $100,000 sports car to exceed 90 mph. To consistently hit at 700 yards, yes, you need more than a rack-grade AR; to hit at 400 yards, no.
Plenty of military quals with the M16/M4 involve shooting at 300+ yards with iron sights and plain milspec FMJ. With a red dot or Eotech, it's easier than with irons; if you can see the target, you can hit it, given a stable shooting position, until the range increases to the point that range estimation becomes a major factor. And *anywhere* within that range envelope, from 5 yards to 500, good civilian loads will exceed the terminal performance of M855, as will Mk 262 and Mk 318. Where civilian loads fall down vs. M855 is in cover penetration at longer ranges, which is M855's forte. As the range increases, you'd probably want to go with a heavier round with a higher BC than the lighter 55gr bullets (the 69gr to 77gr loads really start to eclipse 55gr beyond 300 yards or so) but you can certainly do better than M855, whether you're looking at civilian or military loads.
And making 300-400 yard shots with an AR *is* easier than with a 7.62x39mm AK. Out of the box, pretty much any civilian AR should be able to hold 6" groups at 300 yards, or better, with decent ammunition and a stable shooting position. With my 7.62x39mm AK, 200 yards is about my limit for keeping 8M3 on an IPSC silhouette. I'd probably do better at range with a 5.45mm AK (less dispersion, less drop) but my experience is limited to 7.62x39mm.
Inside 200 yards, yes, I agree. Within that distance, civilian 7.62x39mm 8M3 JHP or Hornady VMAX performs every bit as well as any 5.56x45mm load. Push the range back to 300, 400, or 500 yards, though, and 69-77gr .223's better ballistic coefficient and flatter trajectory starts to trump the 7.62x39mm's greater frontal area. By 400 yards, 7.62x39mm 8M3 velocity has dropped below 1300 ft/sec and the trajectory has fallen off the table, and at 500 yards it would take pretty accurate range estimation to even hit the target with 7.62x39mm.
And of course if you're talking about Warsaw Pact spec M43 military FMJ or "cosmetic" JHP (e.g. Wolf black-box, Tula, etc.), rather than now-hard-to-find 8M3 or expensive VMAX, most civilian .223 would outperform it at any range in any role.
In my opinion, a super-short barrel shooting M855 is the worst-case scenario for the AR. Out of very short barrels M855 won't fragment at *any* range, and gas systems much shorter than carbine length start to get finicky due to pressure/timing/dwell issues. That's the case in which the AK/AR comparison comes out most in favor of the AK, IMO; the 7.62x39mm AK loses a lot less going to a short barrel/short gas system than the AR does.
And in my somewhat limited experience (having shot both an AK and an AR in USPSA) AK ergonomics aren't bad except for the safety/selector placement. An on-safe AK is slower to get running than an on-safe AR, and of course if you want to flick the safety off/on/off/on all the time like some schools teach with an AR, you will have a very hard time with an AK. But AK charging, reloads, malfunction clearance, etc. aren't bad, in my opinion, as long as you do them with the supporting hand rather than the firing hand.
RatherNotSay
Member
My buddy has an ak he hasn't cleaned in over 2000 rounds. If you want a SHTF rifle than an ak is the way to go. If you want a target rifle with sub moa groups than the ar is for you. I have an arsenal SGL-21 that is amazingly accurate. I tend to shoot slightly left with it but that's me as a shooter. With stock front Iron sight and a krebs custom ghost rear sight I can hit the little metal ducks at the range at 400m. The picture below was at 75m...as I said I shoot left. I still need to get used to the krebs sight. They can be just as practical (Not "tactical"...I hate that word) as the ar's as well. I still need to decide on which red dot and laser to get. I should be getting the streamlight soon.
75 meters with iron sights
Arsenal New Production Ak-47 7,62x39.
75 meters with iron sights
Arsenal New Production Ak-47 7,62x39.
two gun charlie
Member
hicks I can confirm that , mozambiqueans burry their AK's for months at a time in the ground , no wraps , no nothing , when they need them they just dig them up , in goes the magazine and ........rat tat tat , cause that is what kalashnikov designed it to do. take a hammering and still function.
benEzra,
I appreciate the informative post. What you are saying about the AR range being easily capable out to 400m but then saying M885 is no better than a .22LR less than 2700fps leaves us in a catch 22.
The FBI bonded Fed and Win loads are not available for stockpiling. If you are a LEO you may find a means but it really isn't on the up and up. The neutered down .223 commercial offerings just aren't worth the price. No one in their right mind is going to buy 10k rounds of this stuff (minimum Shtf stock.)
I hate to say it but Frackler's theories against XM193/M885 just plain rule out the AR as being a suitable upgrade over an AK simply due to there being no alternatives to the 193/885 available to the public at reasonable price. Its unfortunate I think, but it is the true situation we are in. For me the AK-74/47 is a sensible alterative to the AR, paradoxily because of ammo availability. Folks can't afford to stock mk262 and its lack of barrier penetration make it a questionable choice to stock anyway. And I don't ever see the FBI loads being available at a reasonable price.
I am interested in your thoughts on the SBR AK-47's vs AR's in the 12.5" to 14.5" range. There seems to be a sweet spot of a light weight AR 14" barrel with midlength gas that shoots smooth as an AK-74 and still has reasonable range with nato ammo. The counterpoint is the SBR AMD-65, with its stock 12.5" barrel there is still impressive ballistics with M67 or 8m3 (which is very much available.)
Maybe a 12-14" 6.8 AR is the ultimate choice, nosler tip ammo is about 50 cents per round. But I have no idea of reliability of AR in 5.56 vs 6.8 especially the 6.8 mags.
I appreciate the informative post. What you are saying about the AR range being easily capable out to 400m but then saying M885 is no better than a .22LR less than 2700fps leaves us in a catch 22.
The FBI bonded Fed and Win loads are not available for stockpiling. If you are a LEO you may find a means but it really isn't on the up and up. The neutered down .223 commercial offerings just aren't worth the price. No one in their right mind is going to buy 10k rounds of this stuff (minimum Shtf stock.)
I hate to say it but Frackler's theories against XM193/M885 just plain rule out the AR as being a suitable upgrade over an AK simply due to there being no alternatives to the 193/885 available to the public at reasonable price. Its unfortunate I think, but it is the true situation we are in. For me the AK-74/47 is a sensible alterative to the AR, paradoxily because of ammo availability. Folks can't afford to stock mk262 and its lack of barrier penetration make it a questionable choice to stock anyway. And I don't ever see the FBI loads being available at a reasonable price.
I am interested in your thoughts on the SBR AK-47's vs AR's in the 12.5" to 14.5" range. There seems to be a sweet spot of a light weight AR 14" barrel with midlength gas that shoots smooth as an AK-74 and still has reasonable range with nato ammo. The counterpoint is the SBR AMD-65, with its stock 12.5" barrel there is still impressive ballistics with M67 or 8m3 (which is very much available.)
Maybe a 12-14" 6.8 AR is the ultimate choice, nosler tip ammo is about 50 cents per round. But I have no idea of reliability of AR in 5.56 vs 6.8 especially the 6.8 mags.
RatherNotSay
Member
That's another thing...you can buy 1000 rounds of 7,62x39 for $220 shipped. If you buy the yugo army surplus ammo it comes in 1260round wooden case and the rounds are in army sealed tin cans for $199 shipped. Downside to the yugo army surplus is it's corrosive primers. But hell the iranian soldiers tie knots in the shoelaces, dip them in used motor oil and run it through the barrel to clean them.
two gun charlie
Member
huh ? lots of communist countries still around and using the AK as well as many dictators whose armies still use AK , tell the ones being opressed by them that you feel their opressors are losing ....you won't like what they tell you to go and do .... just because you have liberty in the US doesn't mean you have won , liberty is still a foreign concept to the majority of people in the world , and that majority is being opressed with AK and not being liberated by AR either
just felt I had to mention thatAverageman
Member
I think one of the best books I have read that give a balanced approach to this arguement is "The Gun" by C.J. Chivers.
You may find that when it comes to an Armies choice of weapons it is more driven by economics and politics than performance.
Which is better? To each his "informed" own.
I edited this to add,
As far as a bolt hold open for the last round; in military service this should be a nonissue. If you are waiting to be told to reload by the bolt in combat or civilian self defence; you are really in the wrong line of business
You may find that when it comes to an Armies choice of weapons it is more driven by economics and politics than performance.
Which is better? To each his "informed" own.
I edited this to add,
As far as a bolt hold open for the last round; in military service this should be a nonissue. If you are waiting to be told to reload by the bolt in combat or civilian self defence; you are really in the wrong line of business
Last edited:
- Status
