jpwilly
Member
Guess the design I like better...
Another take on the AR vs AK debate
- Thread starter Davionmaximus
- Start date
- Status
Guess the design I like better...
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
Who cares? Shoot what you like! Comparisons are fine and all, and it's ok to have them but in the end, it's a personal preference thing.
For me, I prefer the AR15 but the AK is a great design and works very well.
For me, I prefer the AR15 but the AK is a great design and works very well.
Sumsmartassguy
member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 7
Don't get either, get an M-14 INSTEAD!!
Biggest problem with the AR?
Those dang city boys forget to reach up with a finger and close the dust cover, before they get up & run around a bit & do a "Combat Roll" or otherwise dive into a shooting position...which leads to jam-o-matic. Then the bleepity-bleeps wonder why it won't SHOOT!
Other than that, the 5.56/.223 round was made to kill Coyotes...not humans. You CAN kill a human with it for certain, if you hit them in the head. Anywhere in the body...ya just never know if they're going to shoot back for awhile or not. This is why the Marines have been recalling every M-14 they gave to LE awhile back. They want KILLING POWER.
Biggest problem with the AK's?
Shoots like you are throwing a Hot Dog down a Hallway...on the upside, you can throw 30 hotdogs at practically the same time! For accuracy over 200 yds, FORGET IT...unless you want to spend time modifying it...and even then you're only good to about 300-400 at best.
The AK's fire selector/safety switch is also placed...poorly.
And THAT is why you should choose the M-14. 7.62 killing power, but with AR-15 precision.
Biggest problem with the AR?
Those dang city boys forget to reach up with a finger and close the dust cover, before they get up & run around a bit & do a "Combat Roll" or otherwise dive into a shooting position...which leads to jam-o-matic. Then the bleepity-bleeps wonder why it won't SHOOT!
Other than that, the 5.56/.223 round was made to kill Coyotes...not humans. You CAN kill a human with it for certain, if you hit them in the head. Anywhere in the body...ya just never know if they're going to shoot back for awhile or not. This is why the Marines have been recalling every M-14 they gave to LE awhile back. They want KILLING POWER.
Biggest problem with the AK's?
Shoots like you are throwing a Hot Dog down a Hallway...on the upside, you can throw 30 hotdogs at practically the same time! For accuracy over 200 yds, FORGET IT...unless you want to spend time modifying it...and even then you're only good to about 300-400 at best.
The AK's fire selector/safety switch is also placed...poorly.
And THAT is why you should choose the M-14. 7.62 killing power, but with AR-15 precision.
Last edited:
As far as my favorite, the AR is a better design, more ergonomic, the sights are easier and quick to put on target. The maintance is a bit more than the AK, but without enough comparable maintance it will jam also.
The recent situation with the former vet from Pittsburgh who shot the 3 policeman with an AK, it jammed, thats why he stopped, that is but one of many many situations with even highly trained operators with well maintained AKs that jammed.
An AR is higher mainatance, of course, but easier to pick up, be trained on, and be deadly accurate with.
As far as the AR vrs AK74, the 5.45x39 hits with a bit more force at distances closer than 150 meters, the 5.56x45 hits with more force beyond 150 meters and continues to be better as the distance gets bigger. The Russians have complained about the switch, but some have praised the switch to the smaller round. If you look at those who like the smaller round it is the more highly trained soldiers, example, the Spetznaz. Then again typical Russian military firearm training for most soldiers is limited to a few rounds in basic training (the 2 weeks that their unit beats them up and haizes them), then around 5 rounds a year if they are lucky.
Ive never met a real soldier that complained the 5.56x45 wasnt enough, or that it couldnt do the job.
To compare you must use accurate information, the M-16 never left me down nor did it ever fail to do what it was designed to do. In combat, in training, in the swamps, in the deserts, in the snow, in the dust, or after being wet it always worked, even if I didnt keep it as well oiled as I should have a few times, or as clean as I would have liked it to be a few times.
Regardless of your personal choice its yours to make.
I remember hearing the comment that more people in this world are dead intentionally from being shot by AR/M-16s weilded by soldiers worldwide than any other single rifle. This says alot for a world with an AK falling out of every kitchen sink, and around every corner. If there were only as many AKs made as AR/M-16s the world would have a different opinion of the AK, and its effectiveness.
The recent situation with the former vet from Pittsburgh who shot the 3 policeman with an AK, it jammed, thats why he stopped, that is but one of many many situations with even highly trained operators with well maintained AKs that jammed.
An AR is higher mainatance, of course, but easier to pick up, be trained on, and be deadly accurate with.
As far as the AR vrs AK74, the 5.45x39 hits with a bit more force at distances closer than 150 meters, the 5.56x45 hits with more force beyond 150 meters and continues to be better as the distance gets bigger. The Russians have complained about the switch, but some have praised the switch to the smaller round. If you look at those who like the smaller round it is the more highly trained soldiers, example, the Spetznaz. Then again typical Russian military firearm training for most soldiers is limited to a few rounds in basic training (the 2 weeks that their unit beats them up and haizes them), then around 5 rounds a year if they are lucky.
Ive never met a real soldier that complained the 5.56x45 wasnt enough, or that it couldnt do the job.
To compare you must use accurate information, the M-16 never left me down nor did it ever fail to do what it was designed to do. In combat, in training, in the swamps, in the deserts, in the snow, in the dust, or after being wet it always worked, even if I didnt keep it as well oiled as I should have a few times, or as clean as I would have liked it to be a few times.
Regardless of your personal choice its yours to make.
I remember hearing the comment that more people in this world are dead intentionally from being shot by AR/M-16s weilded by soldiers worldwide than any other single rifle. This says alot for a world with an AK falling out of every kitchen sink, and around every corner. If there were only as many AKs made as AR/M-16s the world would have a different opinion of the AK, and its effectiveness.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
This is the problem with the AK/AR debate. Too many gross exaggerations like this by both sides by people with little to no experience with either platform. All these kinds of statements do is take away from the credibility of those who repeat them and mislead those that are new to guns.
If you are someone without experience with the AR or the AK, ignore the posts made by people like these.
Sumsmartassguy
member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 7
Bub, I got more experience with the M-16A1 than you do...I'd bet by quite a few years.
The 5.56 was meant to WOUND, not kill the enemy. Because wounding supposedly causes more of the enemy to take care of their injured members...but as we've found out over the years, wounding isn't quite enough. It wasn't enough in Vietnam, it wasn't enough in Afghanistan, and it's NOT enough in Iraq.
Wonder why the Marines recalled their M-14's from law enforcement for use in the Current Unpleasantness in the Gulf?? It's because M-16's aren't powerful enough. It's that simple.
The 5.56 was meant to WOUND, not kill the enemy. Because wounding supposedly causes more of the enemy to take care of their injured members...but as we've found out over the years, wounding isn't quite enough. It wasn't enough in Vietnam, it wasn't enough in Afghanistan, and it's NOT enough in Iraq.
Wonder why the Marines recalled their M-14's from law enforcement for use in the Current Unpleasantness in the Gulf?? It's because M-16's aren't powerful enough. It's that simple.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
wrong. Try again.
W L Johnson
Member
Will this myth please die and go away. It's like the undead of the myth world, it just won't go away.
If the 5.56 is so ineffective why did the Soviets just about fall over themselves designing their own version, the 5.45x39, and largely replaced the 7.62x39 in service with it. Remember they stopped issuing the AK-47 a while back and went to the AK-74 and it's children.
Last edited:
harmon rabb
Member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 2,699
in a way, i think AK's are more 'fun' to shoot because they are so basic feeling. you really feel and hear the bolt cycle between rounds.
btw, armored man, i love the vz-58 as well. a colleague has one and i love shooting it. very smooth operation.
btw, armored man, i love the vz-58 as well. a colleague has one and i love shooting it. very smooth operation.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
You forgot one.
You can treat an AK like a "beater" and don't feel guilty. LOL
You can treat an AK like a "beater" and don't feel guilty. LOL
chuckusaret
member
Don't mean to offend anyone but IMHO all the AK's and AR's are nothing more than mall ninja toys. I have a cheap Remington 700 (M24) that is more accurate then all of the AK's/AR's and at greater ranges. My next toy is a Serbu BFG-50 for weekend target practice. To each his own, but I would rather have a very reliable and accurate weapon for when the SHTF.
To be accurate the AK-74 went into issue in 1974 (hence the name) to replace the aging AK-47, its been around a while. In fact the Russians have used it ever since without replacement.
Any true US soldier (infantry, Special Forces) has never complained about the performance of the M-16, in fact it has more effective range, more accuracy, higher rate of fire, and is easier to use than any other available comparable rifle.
Accuracy in information.
More people are dead worldwide round for round expended by soldiers from many armies weilding the M-16 and its relatives than any other rifle or its relatives, so what does this tell you about the effectiveness of the little 5.56x45mm round..
Think about this, aside from the US the M-16 platform is used by Canadians (an M-4 rifle manufactured by another company), many 3rd world countries (M-16, M-4), the Israelis used it for many years (M-4) instead of their own Galil, and finally the SAS choose to use it (M-4) over all other available rifles.
Many manufacturers choose to produce their own versions, why, the rifle is that good, and the market is not going to slow down any time soon.
The 5.56 round was designed for the US government as an antipersonel round, not a small game round, it was designed after the government had years of study and research into the best choice of rifle round after world war 2. It took many years before the round went into use in the military, in fact the first army to fall in love with the M-16 was the South Vietnamese army, we gave them to their soldiers before we gave them to our own soldiers, why did they have no problems with the AR-15 at the time?
Why do the Iraqi soldiers want the M-16 and M-4 over the AK-47?
You do realize that the only people in the Iraqi government side of the conflict that are still using the AK are the police (they also want M-16s)?
Why does the Chinese army use their own rifle design, not the AK-47 they have been making for many many many years for every one else? The Chinese rifle is also not a 7.62x39 round, its a smaller rifle round.
Like I said, accuracy in information.
Any true US soldier (infantry, Special Forces) has never complained about the performance of the M-16, in fact it has more effective range, more accuracy, higher rate of fire, and is easier to use than any other available comparable rifle.
Accuracy in information.
More people are dead worldwide round for round expended by soldiers from many armies weilding the M-16 and its relatives than any other rifle or its relatives, so what does this tell you about the effectiveness of the little 5.56x45mm round..
Think about this, aside from the US the M-16 platform is used by Canadians (an M-4 rifle manufactured by another company), many 3rd world countries (M-16, M-4), the Israelis used it for many years (M-4) instead of their own Galil, and finally the SAS choose to use it (M-4) over all other available rifles.
Many manufacturers choose to produce their own versions, why, the rifle is that good, and the market is not going to slow down any time soon.
The 5.56 round was designed for the US government as an antipersonel round, not a small game round, it was designed after the government had years of study and research into the best choice of rifle round after world war 2. It took many years before the round went into use in the military, in fact the first army to fall in love with the M-16 was the South Vietnamese army, we gave them to their soldiers before we gave them to our own soldiers, why did they have no problems with the AR-15 at the time?
Why do the Iraqi soldiers want the M-16 and M-4 over the AK-47?
You do realize that the only people in the Iraqi government side of the conflict that are still using the AK are the police (they also want M-16s)?
Why does the Chinese army use their own rifle design, not the AK-47 they have been making for many many many years for every one else? The Chinese rifle is also not a 7.62x39 round, its a smaller rifle round.
Like I said, accuracy in information.
P.B.Walsh
Member
With the AR hill and the AK hill there's a smaller hill in the middle that saying "Good points, but the M14 has both!!!", then there's that other hill screaming for American gas piston guns, there are are more "hills" than the AR and AK.
But a Remington 700 beats both, except for rate of fire, but it's the most accurate, and can perform without any lubing, AND can still take a beating.
But a Remington 700 beats both, except for rate of fire, but it's the most accurate, and can perform without any lubing, AND can still take a beating.
I've heard plenty of U.S. soldiers complain about the M-16, espically Vietnam Vets at all stages of the war. Also the Military channel says it is the AK that has killed more people in the world, not the M-16, many in Special Forces are now using a 6.8 update of the M-16, an loving it alot better than the 5.56....just the facts please......
It seems that comments like this come up all the time, and they always make me wonder - just how exactly does one modify an AK for better accuracy? It seems like people always say this as if you can go down to Cabelas and buy an Accuracy Package or something and just bolt it on. Having built a couple AKs myself, I'm wondering what these "modifications" are...
I've had both and I've experienced jams with both. I shot a lot of POS M16A1's back in the 80's too that really were bonafide jammomatics. I've shot a couple of sub-MOA AR's and I own a few Saigas now that will shoot 2 MOA. I've also shot a number of AR's that wouldn't shoot any better than 3 MOA with any of the ammo we had on hand at the range. I used to have a MAK90 as well that was about a 6 MOA rifle.
So here's where I stand on things.
For a precision rifle, it's really no contest. You want to go with an AR for a variety of reasons. 1 MOA accuracy is readily achievable, the optics mounting platform is rock solid and perfectly positioned for a good cheekweld. What's more there are better triggers available for AR's.
For a general SHTF rifle, a good AK and a good AR are about equal. A good AK is more accurate than they are given credit for being and a good AR is more reliable. Yeah, there are and were a lot of old clunker M16's in rear echelon armories around the states and these often are unreliable. There are also a lot of crappy home builds that jam as well, but a newer AR from a reputable maker will fire nearly as reliably as an AK. There are also a lot of spray and pray AK's out there that can't hit the side of a barn, but if you get a Saiga, Vepr, Yugo or other well built AK you can reasonably expect 3 MOA or better accuracy, which isn't that much worse than an off the shelf M4gery.
For a rifle that's going to be neglected, rarely fired and then pulled out of the closet years later and expected to work flawlessly, you want an AK.
Personally, I don't like peep sights. Something about my 40 year old eyes always makes the peep look out of round, like a doughnut that somebody stepped on once or twice, (I have the same problem with a lot of red dots too). I can shoot better than 2 MOA with good iron sights however so AK sights don't bother me.
AK's will jam. I've currently got 7 of them and have experienced jams with 2, (actually more than that, but the rest were due to a bad homemade feed ramp). AK's are just more resistant to jams. The design tolerates dirt and lack of lube better and AK mags are built like tanks and therefore are far less likely to be damaged.
The best part of the AR system IMO is the sight design. Not only does it have a first rate set of sights, it provides a perfect optics mounting platform. I can't think of any other military rifle that wasn't produced recently that has an even remotely equal sight setup.
So here's where I stand on things.
For a precision rifle, it's really no contest. You want to go with an AR for a variety of reasons. 1 MOA accuracy is readily achievable, the optics mounting platform is rock solid and perfectly positioned for a good cheekweld. What's more there are better triggers available for AR's.
For a general SHTF rifle, a good AK and a good AR are about equal. A good AK is more accurate than they are given credit for being and a good AR is more reliable. Yeah, there are and were a lot of old clunker M16's in rear echelon armories around the states and these often are unreliable. There are also a lot of crappy home builds that jam as well, but a newer AR from a reputable maker will fire nearly as reliably as an AK. There are also a lot of spray and pray AK's out there that can't hit the side of a barn, but if you get a Saiga, Vepr, Yugo or other well built AK you can reasonably expect 3 MOA or better accuracy, which isn't that much worse than an off the shelf M4gery.
For a rifle that's going to be neglected, rarely fired and then pulled out of the closet years later and expected to work flawlessly, you want an AK.
Personally, I don't like peep sights. Something about my 40 year old eyes always makes the peep look out of round, like a doughnut that somebody stepped on once or twice, (I have the same problem with a lot of red dots too). I can shoot better than 2 MOA with good iron sights however so AK sights don't bother me.
AK's will jam. I've currently got 7 of them and have experienced jams with 2, (actually more than that, but the rest were due to a bad homemade feed ramp). AK's are just more resistant to jams. The design tolerates dirt and lack of lube better and AK mags are built like tanks and therefore are far less likely to be damaged.
The best part of the AR system IMO is the sight design. Not only does it have a first rate set of sights, it provides a perfect optics mounting platform. I can't think of any other military rifle that wasn't produced recently that has an even remotely equal sight setup.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
More accurate, yes. Flatter shooting, yes, but only if you compare a .223/5.56x45mm AR to a 7.62x39mm AK and not a 5.45x39mm AK. Lighter weight, not in my experience. Better factory sights, yes, but an AK with an optic is superior to an AR without one, IMO. And the aftermarket goodies are interchangeable between platforms, if you fit the AK with rails.
I gather that you don't have much direct experience shooting AK's for accuracy?
Yes, it is an easy rifle to shoot badly, but expectations of bad accuracy are self-fulfilling. If you choose an AK with a decent trigger (even a WASR with a Tapco G2), and shoot decent ammunition through it, it is easily a 300-yard gun; in 5.45x39mm or .223 with optics, much more than that.
One thing that stands out to me about these two rifles is that they are both excellent designs with far different strengths and weaknesses.
The AK is really the ultimate beater combat rifle. It's very cheap, very simple and very reliable. It's the kind of thing a barefoot peasant can understand and repair with a hammer and a flat rock. That it works as well as it does for many modern armies is really just a testament to the strength of the design.
The AR on the other hand lends itself to precision shooting better than just about any combat rifle ever. Most of the things that have been criticized for making it less reliable than it could be, (direct impingement, the 7 lugged bolt, tight tolerances, etc...), also make it capable of accuracy nearly on a par with bolt guns.
The AK is really the ultimate beater combat rifle. It's very cheap, very simple and very reliable. It's the kind of thing a barefoot peasant can understand and repair with a hammer and a flat rock. That it works as well as it does for many modern armies is really just a testament to the strength of the design.
The AR on the other hand lends itself to precision shooting better than just about any combat rifle ever. Most of the things that have been criticized for making it less reliable than it could be, (direct impingement, the 7 lugged bolt, tight tolerances, etc...), also make it capable of accuracy nearly on a par with bolt guns.
PA Freedom
Member
IMHO, in this day and age, regardless of what someone thinks of either design, it's a good idea to know how to run, maintain, and repair BOTH.
nalioth
Member
If the 5.45x39 is so effective, why are all the former satellites a) reverting back to 7.62x39 or b) switching to 5.56 Nato from it? (answer to (b) is: they want to become NATO members)W L Johnson said:
SHvar said:
The answer to both of these is: We give these countries foreign aid.
When it costs you 100x to build a factory and make a rifle from scratch than it does to have Uncle Sugar give you a rifle - which choice looks better at the bottom line?
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
They wont need to get close enough to turn and run.
W L Johnson
Member
They had huge and I mean huge stockpiles of 7.62x39 ammo and guns. When the Soviets pull out and then collapsed it made sense to use what you all ready have laying around, they didn't have to buy it, they all ready had it.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Remember, I am not bashing the 7.62x39, it's a very effective round, I just think the way some people seem to think the 5.56 is only good for poodles is kind of odd considering the Real combat reports that are out.
Soldiers have complained about every weapon ever issued in all of history including that weapon of the Gods the M-14. (by the way, I want an M-14/M1A but can't afford one right now) Can anyone name one weapon that solders have not complained about?
Mostly in the 3rd world by thugs, I don't think I would be too proud of that record.
Last edited:
amd6547
Member
A pointless debate. Now, who wants to start the 45 vs 9 thread for the 10,000th time?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
