ak or ar

i am an ar fan. my ex father in law had an ak and said it was far superior.

we went to the range and at 100 yrds, the results disagreed with his statement by a good 5 inches.

is this the norm or did he just have a bad apple. he was grouping about 6-7 inches through a 3x9 scope, while my bushy was grouping about 1-2 inches.

he was not happy and blamed it on ammo even though i was shooting cheap gunshow reloads.


are ar15 rifles just more accurate out of the box or is there more to it than that?

 

ARs tend to be more accurate than AKs, but 6"-7" is bad even for an AK. Have you considered that the bad grouping might not have been the AK's fault?

 

AR15 by a large margin.
Just as reliable and far more accurate.

 

I also hear that AR's are more accurate in general. However, there are AK's and there are AK's....there are made in so many countries with a huge varieties of quality and craftsmanship that it's hard to lump the in one category as "AK", which can also be said about an "AR".

Whether there is an inherent difference in accuracy between 223 and 7.62x39, I'm not sure, but ammos of course make a huge difference and I believe that those steel-cased loads from Russia probably don't come with the highest quality bullets either.

 

i can tear out the center of a military tye shilloute with my ak at 200yds all day long from any postion, i think your x father in law is just not that good of a shot if he was shooting like that unless of course he just had a real jacked up ak.

ar's are typically more accurate, my ar out performs my ak in the accuracy department but they are both 100% reliable. he ak is effective out to 200yds at least as that is the fartherest that ihave been able to try it at, and i have plenty of faith to take a shot at a target at 250 to even 300 if i needed too .

 

AR's are somewhat more accurate than AK's. AK's are somewhat more reliable than AR's. AR's are much easier to learn to use well, but if you put in the effort you can become very proficient with the AK too.

In my experience, a good AR will shoot about 1-2 MOA. A good AK will shoot about 3-4 MOA. That's shooting off sandbags and using decent ammo, but no handloads or waiting excessively for the barrel to cool between shots. I've got a couple of AK's that will shoot under 2 MOA if I pull out all the stops, but for practical shooting when I let the barrel warm up and don't bother with the handloads, they open up to a little over 3 MOA. I've seen a lot of AR's that don't shoot any better, but then again, I've also seen some AR's deliver accuracy almost on par with bolt actions and I've yet to see an AK do that.

As far as AR's being just as reliable, the M16A1's I used to shoot thoroughly convinced me otherwise. I have shot enough newer AR's and M16's since then to realize that they can be acceptably reliable, but they're not the equal of the AK in that regard.

 

ARs are meant to be more accurate out of the box.

AKs are meant to be indestructible.

Sure, there's more to it than that, and some folks are doing great things with both designs.

There's a fun old thread that characterizes the way that people see the differences between the AR and the AK, along with the old, reliable Mosin-Nagant as a base line.

Here's the link-->Click Here!
.

 

Dis-assemble,clean,and re-assemble both rifles a few times, and you'll see just one reason i love my AKs more than i love my AR's. As the old saying goes : "simplicity is the hallmark of genius."

 

The AR is 'a better shot', while the AK is 'Ivan proof' (third-world child proof come to think of it).

 

Just get both, and you'll understand.

 

Although I would love to own an AR, I can get a couple AKs for the price.

 

I have a 5.45 AK and a 5.56 AK. Either of these rifles will shoot right alongside any AR I've ever owned. The sights on the AR tend to lend themselves to a more accurate shot placement, IMO. Once you get used to the AK's sights, and there are different qualities of AK sights, you can hit anything you can see. If you add in a red dot type of optic, I think all bets are off.

With a fixed stock CAI Yugo M70, I had no problem hitting 1 gallon milk jugs at 300 meters using the stock iron sights. That was with Wolf ammo. The sights on my Yugo M95 is exquisite, and enables amazing shot placement for that sort of platform.

I guess one can get groups from sandbag rests and feel confident in his rifle. I prefer shooting from position, either kneeling, prone, or supported standing, and see how the rifle performs in my hands. In position, the factor of ergonomics enters into the equation, and what fits me might not fit you.

The AR15 is an excellent rifle. It is probably a "finer" rifle. But assuming training, practice, a quality build, and quality ammunition, the AK will perform right alongside.

 

Not all AK's are equal just as not all AR's are equal. AR's tend to be more accurate out of the box and AK's tend to be more reliable. Having handled and fired quite a few Ak's of various makes and more Ar's/m-16's than I can count I would say the average groups at 100 yards with the iron sights are not as different as you might think. Most Ak's will put it in 4 inches at that range which is plenty sufficient to shoot minute of perpetrator. I have personally seen an AK continue firing after it was run over by a car. A friend that's an Ak nut has a standing challenge to any Ar fan to do a torture test side by side putting the same amount of dirt in each weapon till failure. Loser buys the winner a new rifle. He has never been taken up on this. Not saying Ar's are UNRELIABLE but, with minimal or no maintenance the Ak WILL keep going longer. Btw, the car was a 1973 Chevrolet Impala. Big sucker.

 

Missouri Dave nailed it...Two different beasts that come in many forms. The now burnt crispy "AR vs AK debate is dead in my book. I have an Arsenal SA-M7s which will run rings around a WASR for example and many AR's. If the OP's ex father in law had an Arsenal with a Steyr barrel and a POP 5x21P on deck, doing his part, the results would have been far different.....An AR-15 is not an AR-15 any more than an AK is an AK...

 

I liked AK's much better when you could buy a decent one for $300-$400.
Right now you can buy a CMMG bargain bin rifle or build a Del-Ton kit rifle for less than $600 that will out perform an AR in that price range all day long.

 

I've been going crazy with this debate for weeks now and I've read just about every AK\AR and 7.62x39\.223 thread on THR and other forums and I'm still confused about my next rifle.

I have a Saiga in7.62x39. I also have a Stag AR lower and a few options for builds. I have been mulling this over like I said, for weeks.

What I want is better accuracy but the Saiga\AK is so easy to take care of and has been absolutely reliable.

I'm also wondering if I should just pickup a Saiga in .223. AK reliability with the more accurate, flatter shooting .223. Maybe that's a good compromise but I think the general opinion would be that with the same caliber the AR build would be more accurate.

I can see pros and cons for both!

 

meh, I have an AK (and it's one of the oft maligned wasr-10's to boot) and 3 AR's at the moment. As one above poster mentioned, the difference often isn't as much as you'd think by internet debates. If you're just using iron sights then as mentioned, off a rest from 100 yds the AR may be slightly more accurate, partially as a result I think of finer sights. From closer offhand combat type ranges--25-50 yds say--there won't be a huge difference. My AK will bang them right in there on the money all day long, and for some reason I almost find it easier in that scenario to hit with. I personally haven't owned what I would consider a super accurate AR. By that I mean that my CZ 527 in 223 will easily shoot 1/2" groups with cheapo ammo, and it's the lightweight model, not the varmint one. The varmint model AR I used to have seldom did much better than 1 1/4 to 1 1/2" groups. Most of my regular ol 16" models would do almost that good. Similarly the "unreliable" knack against the AR is also overblown--never had a problem with any of my AR's, all have run like a top. But then, so have all my 1911's and even my Kahr PM9, and everyone knows they're all jam-0-matics...

 

Must have been spontaneous arm movements from the dead guy holding the rifle after the car ran over him



I face the same choice. I have an AR and an AK, I'm leaning towards another
AR because my lady can shoot it easier than the AK, but I do like the AK...

 

I like lego's, I mean AR's more...For me, they are just as reliable, since I don't dig my car out of the mud with my AR or AK and they are much more accurate...And the bells and whistles can be fun.

For me, nothing beats an M4(gery) with an ACOG mounted on top.

Ringing gongs with my AK is fun too though.

 

The posts below mine reflect the quandary I'm in.

I was considering posting my dilemma but I know I'll end up with a thread full of "I like my AR's and my AK's" type of answers which isn't an answer.

I can see two scenarios in my head.

First trip to the range with new AR build. Love accuracy, ergonomics and modern sights. At home cleaning with parts and pipe cleaners spread out on the kitchen table. Wishing it was as simple as an AK to clean.

First trip to range with Saiga .223 conversion. Thinking the whole time that the AR would've been more accurate. Hating the iron sights. Trying to figure out what rail or new add-on thing I should have added. Wishing it had wood! At home, decide not to clean it and lock it away.

 

well it depends. most people get stuck on the aftermarket rifle's in the AR platform. its not a battle field rifle that can handle heavy fire in short time. while the AK will. if there are companies that build a AK rifle with the tighter tollerances like a percision aftermarket AR then they would be identical. i would even venture to say the AK would be more accurate at a longer distance.

but thats just my opinion. and the fact that military M16's don't shoot as well as a Stag, DPMS, Olympic, etc.

 

I'm not so quick to say that he couldn't shoot.

I'm a pretty decent shot. I've been shooting practically all my life.

Now, I've had 3 AKs-- a Century SAR-1, A Vector Polish underfolder, and a Saiga 308.

My Vector was a great and accurate shooter out of the box with iron sights. My Saiga had optics and was an accurate rifle for what it was.

My Century SAR-1 was all over the place. It did not have canted sights, or canted gas block. The bore was fine. And it still wouldn't shoot a group if your life depended on it.


Even so, none of the AKs that I've ever shot were as accurate as the AR platform rifles that I have shot. Its just a matter of the mechanics. The Direct Impingement gas system coupled with a very low mass bolt and bolt carrier makes for a more accurate rifle according to what I've read.

That in no way is a slight on the AK platform. For what it was designed to do, it does it famously. I now sport an AR-15 and LR-308 due to my needs, but I am still an AK fan as well.


-- John

 

I'll throw a wrench in the works here.

Not all 5.56x45 AK derivatives are as reliable as their 7.62x39 counterparts. Many have feeding problems.

 

I own both a Bushmaster AR and a WASR AK. I would rather shoot the AK.

At 75 yards with the AK, sitting at a bench but without sandbags or anything, I can shoot a full 30 round mag quickly (1 shot every 1-2 seconds) into an 18" diameter circle.

In terms of real-world accuracy, I don't think 6-7" groups at 100 yards with an AK is that bad (although now I see the guy was using a scope...). With a red-dot or the garbage irons that come with AK's I would not be disappointed to get those groups in real-life (not internet-converted accuracy).

 

Of course not.

For that application, the Mosin-Nagant is the weapon of choice.

Man, if ever a post cried out for the traditional refrain of, "Get Both," yours is it.