meathammer
Member
Either one will work. AR for me personally, because that's what I have. I like AKs though and do plan on getting one.
--meathammer
--meathammer
AK-47 vs AR-15 in a Hurricane Situation
- Thread starter iiibdsiil
- Start date
- Status
Redlg155
Member
I personally would pick my AR, that's my "go to" rifle at the present. I try to take reasonable care of my rifle..the same as my body, and I'm not gonna get either wet of muddy if I can help it!
Now if I had to issue a weapon to conscripts that would require little or no maintanence..then the AK wins hands down. When I was in Iraq (Desert Storm, 24th ID) I still remember picking up discarded AKs that looked as though the sand had sanblasted all of the finish off of the weapon as well as having little or no lubricant present. Yet they still worked just fine.
I couldn't say that for my issued M16A2. A contrary opinion? No. I no longer have to do the same crap as I did in the Army, so I can afford to take better care of my weapon.
Good SHooting
Red
Now if I had to issue a weapon to conscripts that would require little or no maintanence..then the AK wins hands down. When I was in Iraq (Desert Storm, 24th ID) I still remember picking up discarded AKs that looked as though the sand had sanblasted all of the finish off of the weapon as well as having little or no lubricant present. Yet they still worked just fine.
I couldn't say that for my issued M16A2. A contrary opinion? No. I no longer have to do the same crap as I did in the Army, so I can afford to take better care of my weapon.
Good SHooting
Red
Crosshair
Member
SKS for me, as long as you have ammo, you can shoot it. No mags to loose. Though an AK would be nice. 
mustanger98
Member
I haven't read the whole thread, but here's my opinion on the original question.
AK-47 vs AR-15 in a Hurricane Situation
I go back to what I understand about Vietnam. The AK47 and M-14 are two that'll come up out of the swamp ready to shoot. From accounts by some Vietnam vets I know, a .30cal barrel won't hold water the way a .223/5.56mm will. An AK will work fine for close range, but I'd rather have the M-14. That's just me.
The times I've had a Glock in my hands they didn't seem so sloppy. However, I know an AR-15 ain't sloppy and that's what Mikial Kalashikov said was wrong with it. He said you could throw a handfull of sand in his rifle and it'd run. But the original question don't pertain to desert ops. Just drain the water and all out of it, swab the barrel when you get a chance assuming you have one with a barrel worth swabbing, and go on.
I'm not going to say an AK is ineffective, although as I've said, it's not my first pick. It does serve its intended purpose- being a close range bullet hose, assuming you get a class 3 weapon. Otherwise, it's minute-of-enemy or maybe better in semi-auto and that's good enough for what you're talking about. If I were going for the 7.62x39 round, I'd get a SKS and buy the ammo on stripper clips.
AK-47 vs AR-15 in a Hurricane Situation
I go back to what I understand about Vietnam. The AK47 and M-14 are two that'll come up out of the swamp ready to shoot. From accounts by some Vietnam vets I know, a .30cal barrel won't hold water the way a .223/5.56mm will. An AK will work fine for close range, but I'd rather have the M-14. That's just me.
The times I've had a Glock in my hands they didn't seem so sloppy. However, I know an AR-15 ain't sloppy and that's what Mikial Kalashikov said was wrong with it. He said you could throw a handfull of sand in his rifle and it'd run. But the original question don't pertain to desert ops. Just drain the water and all out of it, swab the barrel when you get a chance assuming you have one with a barrel worth swabbing, and go on.
I'm not going to say an AK is ineffective, although as I've said, it's not my first pick. It does serve its intended purpose- being a close range bullet hose, assuming you get a class 3 weapon. Otherwise, it's minute-of-enemy or maybe better in semi-auto and that's good enough for what you're talking about. If I were going for the 7.62x39 round, I'd get a SKS and buy the ammo on stripper clips.
Cosmoline
Member
If I'm wallowing in mud and feces, I sure hope I have an AK!!
Andrew Wyatt
Member
I'm relatively certain that if you had a longarm at the beginning of the crisis as soon as the first "rescuer" saw you, you'd be immiediately disarmed.
whatever you carry, you need to have a way to keep it out of sight.
whatever you carry, you need to have a way to keep it out of sight.
Cosmoline
Member
How are they going to do that? They have no legal authority to do it, and if you make it a matter of having to get into a shootout they will back down because it's just not worth the trouble for them. The first hand accounts on Preacherman's thread confirm this and reiterate the sad fact that you may need to use your arms to ward off overzealous first responders as much as looters. I've also seensome of the filmed holdouts in NOLA with firearms. I wouldn't disarm myself at government request in normal circumstances--why would I do it when the SHTF?
Think about it for a second. In those circumstances the cops are going to be maxed out just trying to get from A to B and maintain very basic law and order. It's the most difficult possible time for them to be grabbing guns, esp. since they have no legal authority to do so. The military in NOLA has specifically refused to engage in such conduct or to enforce any laws for the NOPD. Certainly, if you head to the evac points with the sheep you'll have to leave everything including your firearms before they let you on a bus. But it's your choice to go to such a center. After seeing what happened at the government approved shelter during this disaster, I'll never set foot near one.
When it hits the fan, use your handgun as a boat anchor. That is the time for long guns to come out. You WANT overzealous responders and looters to see you with something big and scary.
Think about it for a second. In those circumstances the cops are going to be maxed out just trying to get from A to B and maintain very basic law and order. It's the most difficult possible time for them to be grabbing guns, esp. since they have no legal authority to do so. The military in NOLA has specifically refused to engage in such conduct or to enforce any laws for the NOPD. Certainly, if you head to the evac points with the sheep you'll have to leave everything including your firearms before they let you on a bus. But it's your choice to go to such a center. After seeing what happened at the government approved shelter during this disaster, I'll never set foot near one.
When it hits the fan, use your handgun as a boat anchor. That is the time for long guns to come out. You WANT overzealous responders and looters to see you with something big and scary.
Very good points, Cos. I guess we should all add a good megaphone to our SHTF pack. So we can tell the 'rescuers' who would mean to disarm us, in no uncertain terms, from inside our homes: "Please go away. I am fine. I do not need rescuing. I have necessities to sustain myself indefinitely. Please use your time and resources to rescue those who don't. I have firearms and will not be giving them up to anyone, and will use deadly force if necessary to keep them. Thank you. Have a nice day." Somethign along those lines. I'd bet the rescuers and/or LEO would move on.
Sleeping Dog
Member
Yes, and it blows the foam off the beer at the schutzenfest. And makes it hard to pour the little MRE bottles of Tabasco sause.
I think AK or AR are both fine, til the "authorities" steal, er, commandeer the thing. Then I hope I have my .357 revolver tucked out of sight.
This was an easy decision. I wouldn't willfully choose go through any tough situation with an AR type carbine, or it's .22 caliber cartridge. Register my no-confidence vote for that combo anywhere, except maybe for some expensive plinking.
Make mine an AK.
W
Make mine an AK.
W
CDignition
Member
Think M1A...
Cpl Punishment
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 118
Between the two you asked about. . .I'd pick an AK.
Honestly, it shouldn't matter if you sat out a hurricane or went to the range on a clear, sunny day, your rifle should be well taken care of. You shouldn't be pulling it out of mud and feces. If you're riding one out, the rifle should be with you from the beginning, not something you SCUBA dive into your basement for.
However, I'll take the more reliable weapon over the more accurate one.
Let's be honest here, and throw away the internet BS. The average guy can't hit a man sized target past 300 meters. I don't want to hear any argument from soldiers, ex soldiers or guys that hit the range (and actually shoot past 300 meters) because you aren't the average guy. And no, I don't buy that 99% of the people on gun boards are above average.
That being said, any AK can put rounds on a human torso to 300 meters. In a DEFENSIVE sense, the AR's increased accuracy won't matter much. Besides, even with a 20" barrel, even the 55-grain .223 won't reliably fragment, thus losing most of its effectiveness. The fragmenting range for the SS109 projectiles is even shorter. So, for this reason, the AR's better accuracy isn't that much of an advantage.
The other advantage of the AK is cost. You can get a run-of-the-mill AK, some sort of optical sight (the Russian Kobra sights are excellent, close to an EOTech and half the price), a compliment of magazines (10) and 1,000 rounds of ammo for the cost of just a low-end AR. The NEW WASRs (i.e. not the older kit guns built on Century receivers) I've seen will run 3.5-4 MOA. Even the best AKs (milled Arsenals) generally won't shoot much better than 2.5 MOA, and are almost as heavy as an M1A, and almost as expensive as an AR.
At this time, judging by local prices, and online sources I usually buy from, 7.62x39mm is more available and cheaper than .223.
In short, a run-of=the-mill AK will shoot well enough, cost little enough, and be very maintainance tolerant of the average shooter.
If you're willing to put in the extra up-front money, the training and increased maintainance, you can move up to the better rifles and actually put them to use.
Other options besides the two you mentioned :
SKS: cheaper, more accurate than the AK. Stay with the 10 round fixed magazine and load up on stripper clips and ammo.
FN-FAL/L1A1: more expensive than the AK and baseline ARs. About twice as accurate and almost as reliable as an AK. Cheap magazines, lot's of power.
M1A: The Cadillac of battle rifles. expensive, accurate, reliable, powerful. There's nothing about these not to like except the price.
M1 Garand. Less expensive than the M1A, can be just as accurate, very reliable, powerful. The disadvantages of its weight and en bloc clips are overblown.
Honestly, it shouldn't matter if you sat out a hurricane or went to the range on a clear, sunny day, your rifle should be well taken care of. You shouldn't be pulling it out of mud and feces. If you're riding one out, the rifle should be with you from the beginning, not something you SCUBA dive into your basement for.
However, I'll take the more reliable weapon over the more accurate one.
Let's be honest here, and throw away the internet BS. The average guy can't hit a man sized target past 300 meters. I don't want to hear any argument from soldiers, ex soldiers or guys that hit the range (and actually shoot past 300 meters) because you aren't the average guy. And no, I don't buy that 99% of the people on gun boards are above average.
That being said, any AK can put rounds on a human torso to 300 meters. In a DEFENSIVE sense, the AR's increased accuracy won't matter much. Besides, even with a 20" barrel, even the 55-grain .223 won't reliably fragment, thus losing most of its effectiveness. The fragmenting range for the SS109 projectiles is even shorter. So, for this reason, the AR's better accuracy isn't that much of an advantage.
The other advantage of the AK is cost. You can get a run-of-the-mill AK, some sort of optical sight (the Russian Kobra sights are excellent, close to an EOTech and half the price), a compliment of magazines (10) and 1,000 rounds of ammo for the cost of just a low-end AR. The NEW WASRs (i.e. not the older kit guns built on Century receivers) I've seen will run 3.5-4 MOA. Even the best AKs (milled Arsenals) generally won't shoot much better than 2.5 MOA, and are almost as heavy as an M1A, and almost as expensive as an AR.
At this time, judging by local prices, and online sources I usually buy from, 7.62x39mm is more available and cheaper than .223.
In short, a run-of=the-mill AK will shoot well enough, cost little enough, and be very maintainance tolerant of the average shooter.
If you're willing to put in the extra up-front money, the training and increased maintainance, you can move up to the better rifles and actually put them to use.
Other options besides the two you mentioned :
SKS: cheaper, more accurate than the AK. Stay with the 10 round fixed magazine and load up on stripper clips and ammo.
FN-FAL/L1A1: more expensive than the AK and baseline ARs. About twice as accurate and almost as reliable as an AK. Cheap magazines, lot's of power.
M1A: The Cadillac of battle rifles. expensive, accurate, reliable, powerful. There's nothing about these not to like except the price.
M1 Garand. Less expensive than the M1A, can be just as accurate, very reliable, powerful. The disadvantages of its weight and en bloc clips are overblown.
chopinbloc
Member
done. my m16 works flawlessly. i have never had a malfunction with live ammo in either of the two ars i own or the multitude of m16s i've been issued. one of them had practically no finish whatsoever and still ran fine. i've run old, dirty, beat up ammo through the one i have now with no issues. the m16 type weapon system may be more sensitive to dirt than the ak but i wouldn't know because i maintain my weapon religiously. don't use dented mags or badly dented ammo. aquaint yourself with clp, toothbrush and boresnake. this applies to all weapons, some more than others. personally, if i were in that spot, i'd pick my ar and let one of my buddies use the ak.
people inevitably start mentioning other weapon systems when given a choice between two. many of these folks have never had to walk many miles over uneven terrain. if you have to bug out, you'll be carrying essentially what a soldier carries on a road march: forty pound ruck, two canteens, load bearing equipment, rifle. do you really want to lug an m1a with a basic load of ammo, water, food and clothing 50 miles over who knows what?
the ak has price going for it and possibly reliability. the weapon is heavier, the ammo is heavier, the weapon and ammo are less accurate.
i take issue with the supposed reliability of the ak rifles made in the u.s. many use poor quality steel parts. my romanian sar-1 started slam firing after about 3000-4000 rounds. you get what you pay for - in time and money.
if you want to rely on an ak for defense, put a u.s. made parts kit in it and replace the rear sight with a peep sight.
after everything is said and done, buy a rifle of good repute (ak, mini-14, ar-15, su-16, etc.) preferrably light in case you have to walk a long way, buy lots of ammo and mags and shoot, shoot, shoot.
as for the average shooter not being able to hit a 300yd target, well, that's probably true, but why limit yourself to average. anyone COULD hit a 300yd target with training. trust me, it doesn't take thousands of rounds to get to that point. do the dime drill until the sucker never falls off, then learn to shoot a 4 m.o.a. group. it's not hard. you CAN.
oh, and it's not so much the water staying in the .223 caliber bore, it's the .17 caliber or so gas tube. if your dumb ass takes a dip with an ar through circumstances beyond your control, then pull back slightly on the charging handle when you exit the water.
one word: posse commitatas (sp?)
and nobody is taking a rifle from me as long as i have blood in my veins and ammo in my magazine.
forgot to mention that my romanian sar-1 rusts VERY easily.
Last edited:
Cpl Punishment
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 118
Not necessarily. The standard stamped AK (1mm receiver) runs under 7 pounds. The AKs using RPK receivers (stamped 1.5mm) are heavier, and the milled receivers are almost as heavy as an M1A (which is why, IMO, other than the price, if you're going to carry that heavy a weapon, it might as well be a full size battle rifle).
Yep the Century import FCG sucks. Spend $45 for the Tapco G2 FCG kit -- properly machined parts and includes the Red Star Arms shepherd hook replacement. There are also the very nice Kobra sights that use the side mount plate and mount a holographic sight low over the receiver.
Yep, but like I said the average guy can't. For some, it's because they are unwilling to shoot often (shooting often is better than shooting a lot of rounds infrequently). Some, it's due to no fault of their own. There's a lot of places where you simply don't have any ranges over 100 meters to practice on. So, for most guys, where, for whatever reason, training is a problem, the AK does just fine in the accuracy department.
General comment:
That about covers NEED.
Now if someone just WANTS a better rifle, then by all means they should buy what they want. This isn't the military, guys are spending their own money, and should spend it on what they want. But that's an entirely different thing than buying what they NEED.
chopinbloc
Member
as far as need goes, i concur that an ak will get the job done. i doubt anyone would disagree. but i take issue with the notion that aks are somehow better than ars. each weapon system has its quirks.
my ak has the krebs fire control group and rear sight. it has the k-var sight rail with a cheap $30 red dot that has never failed me. it is also covered in a very thick coating of oil because anything less and it rusts in the same room as a glass of water. oh, and the gas piston keeps walking loose from the bolt carrier so i think i might get a new carrier and piston. and the barrel is nearly shot out after about 5000 rounds.
in contrast my colt ar has an acog and a light coat of clp on it. that's it.
if money is an issue (and when isn't it?) get an ak, but you'll probably HAVE to replace the fire control group and may want to replace other things. better yet, buy a good quality ak to begin with, still cheaper than an ar. if you can afford it, get an ar as well. or instead. hell do what ever you want but don't tell me my ar is gonna crap out at the sight of mud or dust.
edit: meant to say rifles imported to the u.s. not made here. i heard good things about the only ak made in the u.s. that i know of.
my ak has the krebs fire control group and rear sight. it has the k-var sight rail with a cheap $30 red dot that has never failed me. it is also covered in a very thick coating of oil because anything less and it rusts in the same room as a glass of water. oh, and the gas piston keeps walking loose from the bolt carrier so i think i might get a new carrier and piston. and the barrel is nearly shot out after about 5000 rounds.
in contrast my colt ar has an acog and a light coat of clp on it. that's it.
if money is an issue (and when isn't it?) get an ak, but you'll probably HAVE to replace the fire control group and may want to replace other things. better yet, buy a good quality ak to begin with, still cheaper than an ar. if you can afford it, get an ar as well. or instead. hell do what ever you want but don't tell me my ar is gonna crap out at the sight of mud or dust.
edit: meant to say rifles imported to the u.s. not made here. i heard good things about the only ak made in the u.s. that i know of.
Too Many Choices!?
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 763
If you have to take an informal dip with your AR-15 or AK ,
then I think the plan is seriously FUBAR, by this point; and firing any firearm(even an AK:banghead: ) with a barrel full of water, will quickly win you a Darwin Award. But I agree that, yes the AK gas system will expel water faster than the AR, but I also believe that the AR's tight tolerances and little gas tube, won't allow water in as fast either. So if you are taking a prolonged ,"Unavoidable Dip",in whatever body of water, take the AK. But remember, just 'cause the AK has looser tolerances, doesn't make it amphibious, it ain't got gills 
....
then I think the plan is seriously FUBAR, by this point; and firing any firearm(even an AK:banghead: ) with a barrel full of water, will quickly win you a Darwin Award. But I agree that, yes the AK gas system will expel water faster than the AR, but I also believe that the AR's tight tolerances and little gas tube, won't allow water in as fast either. So if you are taking a prolonged ,"Unavoidable Dip",in whatever body of water, take the AK. But remember, just 'cause the AK has looser tolerances, doesn't make it amphibious, it ain't got gills
....Mustanger98 had it right first I think. M-14 is the way to go. It will take alot of ???? and run. Yah its expensive but its your life. I have 2 AR's and a M1A. I've shot AK's. Im not happy with the AK but I'd use it as last ditch. I'd take the M1A primary, Back up primary M-4 look-a-like AR-15 w/telestock, Secondary Springfield 45. Now you got 800m out covered for sure, 450m in covered plus CQB all in one weapon, and 25m in covered...
Willyboi
Better to be Judged by 12 than Carried by 6
Willyboi
Better to be Judged by 12 than Carried by 6
Master Blaster
Member
Salt water environment. AR-15 all the way.
That AK receiver is made of old sheet steel from volgas that were recycled. It will rust up tight from the salt water in no time.
An Ar- 15 has a forged aluminum reciever and will not rust, chamber and lugs and bore are all hardcromed as are the bolt on mine. So no rust. Remember the enemy here is salt water, not SAND or DUST.
My Ar- 15 is the choice for me, just like our armed forces.
Besides every Ak I have ever shot does 15" 5 shot groups at 100 yards. I want to be able to make an accurate hit out to 300 yards, and the AK sure is not going to do that.
That AK receiver is made of old sheet steel from volgas that were recycled. It will rust up tight from the salt water in no time.
An Ar- 15 has a forged aluminum reciever and will not rust, chamber and lugs and bore are all hardcromed as are the bolt on mine. So no rust. Remember the enemy here is salt water, not SAND or DUST.
My Ar- 15 is the choice for me, just like our armed forces.
Besides every Ak I have ever shot does 15" 5 shot groups at 100 yards. I want to be able to make an accurate hit out to 300 yards, and the AK sure is not going to do that.
Father Knows Best
Member
What is the "dime drill"?
Domino
Member
Perhaps some PROOF would enforce your point-of-veiw better than nonsense. Just keep telling yourself that so you can justify all the money you paid for your AR-15. Seriously though, I can get 1-2" groups easily with my WASR-10 from a bench at 80 yards. It does just as well as any of my SKS's if not better. I'm willing to wager my WASR-10 with its DuraCoat finish would outlast your AR-15 in harsh conditions. 
Master Blaster
Member
I own 3 AKs and 3 Ar's all of the ARs shoot great excellent accuracy. ARs have excellent built in carry handle sights.
For me AKs shoot like crap, maybe if they had a good sighting system or a reliable mount for optics that would not be the case but it is. And yes I have 2 siderail mounts one with that famous Russian scope everyone here recommended, and one made by Izmash in Russia specifically for the saiga rail.
They all work loose with 50 rounds or so.
No it wont.
AKs are made of cheap sheet metal carbon steel (milled aside, and they rust too) I wasnt aware that Century was putting a duracoat finish on the WASR-10 I have an SAR-1, and two saigas, I suppose I could have them hardcromed, and have a good mount put on them by a gunsmith, or buy a milled AK and have a good sight welded on it but then I would have spent as much or more than on my m-4 and it still wont shoot as well.
After putting thousands of rounds through both platforms, I choose the AR-15 in m-4 configuration on which I would risk MY life. AK??? risk my life or that or that of my family on that piece of third world crap NOT A FREEKIN CHANCE.
You are free to carry what ever you like.
For me AKs shoot like crap, maybe if they had a good sighting system or a reliable mount for optics that would not be the case but it is. And yes I have 2 siderail mounts one with that famous Russian scope everyone here recommended, and one made by Izmash in Russia specifically for the saiga rail.
They all work loose with 50 rounds or so.
No it wont.
AKs are made of cheap sheet metal carbon steel (milled aside, and they rust too) I wasnt aware that Century was putting a duracoat finish on the WASR-10 I have an SAR-1, and two saigas, I suppose I could have them hardcromed, and have a good mount put on them by a gunsmith, or buy a milled AK and have a good sight welded on it but then I would have spent as much or more than on my m-4 and it still wont shoot as well.
After putting thousands of rounds through both platforms, I choose the AR-15 in m-4 configuration on which I would risk MY life. AK??? risk my life or that or that of my family on that piece of third world crap NOT A FREEKIN CHANCE.
You are free to carry what ever you like.
Maybe adjusting them to fit tighter would work? You know you can do that right? I've had mine hold zero after hundreds of rounds, and return to zero when i put them back on the gun. If you didnt even know they were adjustable then maybe you shouldnt be badmouthing the system just yet?
And they're just falling apart all over the world right?
Yeah, risk my life to one of the most reliable autos ever made? Not a chance.
Domino
Member
Century does not but, the guy I bought it from does. He DuraCoats AR-15's, 1911's, Mini-14's, WASR-10's, and he even had some Star BM 9's finished in black and OD Green for $200. All of his work looked excellent, and I paid $350 for my WASR-10.
Hey, I wouldn't ever tell someone how to defend themselves. I do disagree about the AKM bieng a piece of third world crap. The AK-47 does what it was designed to do and quite well. I know there are many people out there who know first hand that the AK-47 is a formidable weapon in the right hands. It is obviously not your preffered gun if you are getting 15" groups with yours.
- Status
