AR and AK questions!

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Armed men are coming to kill you, they will be here in 30 seconds and you can choose between an AR or an AK to defend yourself, which do you pick?". I'd pick the AK in 7.62x39 every time. I believe most people would too if they were really honest with themselves.

I'm not sure that they would or that they should. I would take the rifle I was confident in and could run the best. Many people have a lot more training time in with the AR platform. Many people also have ARs that they have the utmost of confidence in. I know many knowledgeable people who are fairly well versed on both platforms who keep an AR as their go to gun.

I think the ergonomics issue is overblown

To me the best test of this is to get a timer and go out and shoot. Which gun can you run faster. Given equal levels of training most people will be probable be able to run an AR somewhat faster.

Zak Smith has an AR vs AK match. He posted the following about it.

We have an annual "AK vs. AR" 3gun-style Rifle match, in which each shooter shoots the entire match with his AR, and then reshoots the same stages with an AK.

On the CQB stage, scores were real close.

On the medium and long range stages (150-400 yards), the AR had a definite advantage due mainly to: vastly better sights (A2), accuracy, and ergonomics. Mag changes were faster with the AR.

I think the results of that match illustrate much of what you were saying.

Some one who is trained and proficient on an AK will be better of than someone who has an AR but a lower level of proficiency. If money were tight I'd take a WASR 10, a training course, and a bunch of practice ammo over a $1500 AR.
 
Sorry practical advantages stated earlier are not practical because you decided they are not practical. Maybe I can google words and use a thesaurus to make myself seem intelligent too then I'll put the definitions of the words in the post to make myself feel important.

A fact is a fact. I don't care what consider practical.
 
A fixed bolt handle on the right forces the trigger hand to be used, the safety has to be off to charge the weapon, and there's no bolt hold open, which forces the user to not only load the magazine against the bolt, but then charge it against the pressure of the fully loaded magazine spring.

The AR has an ambidextrous charging handle, but that still requires the users trigger hand. The safety can be placed on next, securing the trigger from accidental discharge, the magazine loaded without the bolt in the way, the bolt dropped to charge the chamber without struggling to pull it back over a fully loaded magazine.
Neither the AK nor the AR require you to use the shooting hand to charge the weapon. Both may have originally been designed with trigger-hand charging in mind, but the preferred method of running both these days is to use the support hand, i.e. the left hand for a right-handed shooter. I've shot both in carbine matches and have always run the bolt with the support hand; it is faster and the rifle stays in the shoulder pocket.

If you use in-spec mags for the AK or PMAG's for the AR, there is no problem whatsoever in loading a magazine under a closed bolt, nor is there any difficulty in cycling the bolt. Some of the old metal AR mags were hard to insert with a closed bolt if loaded to 30 rounds, but much better mags are available now.

As to the milled-AK-vs-stamped-AK debate, I think a lot of the perceived difference comes from the fact that milled receivers only come on expensive guns fitted with high-end barrels and nice finishes, whereas stamped guns run the gamut from industrial-looking (but functional and reliable) SAR's and WASR's to high-end guns comparable in quality to the milled guns.

I'm in the camp that sees little practical difference IF you compare guns with equivalent quality barrels. The AK's receiver is not a highly stressed part; the trunnions bear the stress, and the trunnions of a stamped AK are milled. I have never heard of a stamped AK receiver wearing out, and I believe their design life is several times the life of the barrel. If a milled can outlast (say) five barrels and a stamped receiver can outlast threee 3 barrels, I don't see much difference if the life of either one is limited by the barrel, not the receiver. As far as accuracy, unless you're shooting Lapua with a scope, I don't think you'll see a difference. Bolt lockup is to the front trunnion, not the receiver walls.

The one big downside of a milled receiver, as I see it, is weight. My stamped AK with an optic and loaded 30-round steel magazine weighs nearly ten pounds, which is already in M1 Garand territory; adding extra weight on top of that makes a rifle that may kick a little less but is also harder to carry and a bit slower to swing. So look at your own needs and preferences, and decide accordingly. Neither one is a bad gun.
 
(Anecdote: After reading on here and other sites about how ARs are reliable, the reliability thing is overblown, etc. I went ahead and bought one from a reputable company. Got good magazines, lubed it up, went to the range, and the thing jams on the very first round, with the extractor tearing the rim off the case and leaving it jammed in the chamber, requiring a cleaning rod to get it out. Had the same problem with different ammo, etc. I feel like I was burned by buying into the AR apologists rhetoric... I'll stick with my AK (which has never had a single jam after thousands of rounds) and probably sell the AR after I get it back from the company).

It sounds like you got the one lemon that came off the assembly line that year, either that or that company isn't so reputable. They should give you your money back. I wouldn't let that one lemon rifle taint my view of the entire M16/M4/AR15 family. I've shot a decent number of different M16A2s, M4A1s, and AR15s and have yet to see that kind of lemon performance. What you got is a new car that broke an axle as soon as you drove it off the lot.
 
Has the OP considered a SIG556 rifle? It offers good accuracy <1.5 MOA, with some of the ergonomics of an AR mated to the reliable long-stroke piston system of the AK. Thus, you get excellent accuracy with excellent reliability. The swiss even copied the AK bolt head almost verbatim for the SIG556 rifle! Its downside, like an AK, is that it is very front-heavy.

Regarding AK ergonomics, the AK has a totally different manual of arms to the AR. I find that all operations on the gun must be done with the right hand. Are mag changes slower in the AK? Yes, by about 1-2 seconds over an AR. Will that 1-2 second faster mag change translate into a practical benefit? I am very skeptical. I would wager that the act of removing a new magazine from a carry pouch is going to take the vast majority of the time vs the actual act of inserting the magazine and charging the rifle.

As far as having competitors run a course with an AK then an AR and comparing times, I think that again leaves a lot of X factor out of it. Are the shooters more familiar with the operation of an AK or an AR? The ballistics of the .223 round are vastly different from that of a 7.62x39, that alone can easily skew the 150-450 meter results. Now, to brass tacks, the 7.62x39 is optimized to stay within the 250-275 meter envelope, the 5.56x45 can reach out to 600 yards easily.

Also were optics involved? My experience is that with a 4x PSOP scope, with a ballistic drop reticle built in, its stupifyingly easy to get fast and accurate hits to 300 meters because I don't have to do any guess work on hold over. The chevrons in the scope do all that math for me already. Place, pull, boom, next.

As far as accessories: using the side-rail on an AK, its fairly easy to mount optics on the rifle, with the added bonus of them being quick-detach with excellent return to zero. My SGL21 right now sports a red-dot sight on a BP-02 side-mount. I can swap it to a PSOP scope in all of 10 seconds, with the scope already being zeroed to its calibrated ranges.

As benEzra said, the downside of it all, is that a stamped AK, with a 30 round mag, and an optic is in the 10lb+ category. Most of that weight is up front as well. That makes your supporting hand the majority load-bearing hand. It doesn't take too long before fatigue makes it difficult to hold the rifle steady (since your basically holding 10lb in your weak hand, and trying to keep it rock steady).

Likewise, I am also unsure what practical advantage a milled offers over a stamped. For bench shooting the milled may be the better choice since it will soak up more recoil. For any field use, a stamped is the clear winner because of weight savings. Service life and accuracy from both seems to be near identical.

As for BigDeesul's advantages:

More durability: Most barrels and guns will outlast the user, and his grandchildren. Is being able to outlast great-great grand children a practical advantage?
More accuracy: is .1 MOA more mechanical accuracy a practical advantage, with ammunition and user are going to be responsible for 99% of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the platform?
More rigid receiver: Barrel lockup is to the machined front trunnion. The receiver houses the moving parts that have little or no part in the accuracy of the platform.

I'm in Giordin's camp though, while the milled receiver offers some technical advantages over the stamped, it seems to offer no PRACTICAL advantages over the stamped, and even a slight disadvantage of greater weight.

On AR reliability. My experience is limited to the AR-10 platfrom. Mine is just barely past the recommended break-in stage of 200 rounds. So far it has been 100% with anything I feed it. This included Brown Bear Laquered .308, DAG surplus .308 and mildly corroded surplus USMC Machine gun ammo circa 1970's. The advantage of the AK is that with a 2-lug locking system, the chamber area is significantly easier to clean than the more complex locking area of the AR platform.
 
I'm not a big AR fan but they are pretty decent. I'd save up some more and spend $1,100 on a Colt.

I plan on buying an AR eventually, but I want an LWRC.

If you want an AK I'd buy an Arsenal SGL, they are be best.
 
I find that all operations on the gun must be done with the right hand.
Reloading and charging should be done with the left hand. Theres no need to remove the right hand from the grip for anything either.

No matter when you reload an AK, if you do a mag swap, you ALWAYS stroke the charging handle. That way, the gun is ALWAYS loaded when youre done. I dont know how many times I've been told that the lack of a hold open device is a bad thing (which its really not), and slows you down (which it doesnt), but at the same time, on a number of occasions, I've had M16's and AR's that were empty after a mag change, because the bolt went home on an empty mag, and it simply appeared the gun was still loaded when the mag was swapped.


One of the few problems with the AK's, that is actually usually generated by using your right hand to do the reload, is a specific mag malfunction that is not at all a good thing. If you've had one, you know exactly what I'm talking about, if you havent, be glad you havent.

What happens is, when rocking the mag into the well, the front of the mag, while somewhat in place, really isnt, and when the mag is rocked to the rear, it will lock up. Problem is, the mag is not positioned properly, and is now sitting to low for the bolt to strip a round off the mag. When you go to remove the mag, you'll find its now jammed in place, and will not come out, no matter how you pull on it. The easiest, simplest, and fastest way to deal with it, is to place the butt on the ground, mag away from you, while holding the rifle by the barrel, and kicking the mag out.

The above rarely happens, but does tend to happen more often, if you hold the rifle with your left hand, and reload using your right, the way the Russians used to instruct their troops to reload. I had this pointed out by someone who was in our military and learned about it back in the 60's in a weapons familiarization course, using Russian guns and manuals. I had never had the problem, as I never used my right hand to do the reload. After I was told about it, I had to actually force it, and I wish I hadnt. Nothing like forcing yourself to learn a bad habit. On the plus side, I do know what to do with it now, now that I know.

As far as accessories: using the side-rail on an AK, its fairly easy to mount optics on the rifle, with the added bonus of them being quick-detach with excellent return to zero.
While the side rails do work, and work well, they are not the best when it comes to mounting the optics in a position that makes for natural shouldering and shooting. Most everything sits WAY to high, and to far back, forcing you to fight the gun to shoot it.

The best thing I've found so far in that respect, has been the Ultimak/Aimpoint combo. The Ultimak replaces the upper handguard with a railed gas tube, which so far, is the only one I've seen or found, that sits low enough to allow a red dot to cowitness with the stock iron sights. With an Aimpoint on a low ring, this is easily done.

Using the above, the rifle shoulders and shoots, just like it does with the iron sights alone, and is very natural to shoot with. You get the same cheek weld you do with your iron sights, with your head down on the stock and forward. You can easily snap shoot targets out beyond 100 yards, and shooting close up, is very fast and natural as well.

As benEzra said, the downside of it all, is that a stamped AK, with a 30 round mag, and an optic is in the 10lb+ category. Most of that weight is up front as well. That makes your supporting hand the majority load-bearing hand. It doesn't take too long before fatigue makes it difficult to hold the rifle steady (since your basically holding 10lb in your weak hand, and trying to keep it rock steady).
Yup, your right on weight wise, but I disagree with the weight being a bad thing. If your reasonably fit and shoot on a regular basis, its all pretty much a non issue. The added weight forward actually "steadies" your aim, just ask anyone who shoots competition. Also, if youve shot competition, you know you "cant" hold anything, "rock steady", and shouldnt try.

If your AK's sling is set up properly, and being used as it should be used, it supports the rifle while being carried, even in a ready position, and helps relieve most of the weight.

Carried this way, you also get two options at employing the selector. The first, is from a more relaxed cradle type carry, using your right thumb,with your fingers wrapped around the front of the mag. The other, is using the middle finger of your right hand while its on the grip, as you would normally do from a ready position. Using the first method, the selector can also be taken off with no sound, so that complaint is also removed.



I have a couple of AK's and AR's. The one thing I've found, especially using guns equipped with red dots is, when shot in the same fashion, realistically, at realistic distances, they both shoot very similarly, and the hits on target look very much the same.

The AR's are for sure, the better target rifle, especially when using the iron sights. While the AK's generally are not all that great at bullseye type "target" shooting, they are still more than capable using only their stock iron sights, if your are capable as well. Its generally not the guns fault if you cant shoot it.

I think a lot of the problems when people compare accuracy is, they are not realistic in their comparisons, nor are they realistic in their own abilities.
 
I would suggest the AK. I've owned an AR (RRA entry tactical), and I liked it. But I didn't love it. It was an accurate and reliable rifle and had great ergonomics. But I didn't like all the small parts and it was very time consuming to clean.

Then I met the AK! Super reliable, accurate enough for it's intended use, and very simplistic and easy to clean. And the best part was that there were no little parts to lose. Anyone can take apart an AK and clean it because it's just that simple. And you can't argue with the prices they're sold for. I'm also a fan of the 7.62 round. (I like big bullets)

Like I said, I reccomend the AK-47. BUT... if you want AR accuracy out of an AK platform then I recomment the AK-74. I'm actually in the market for a Polish Tantal. The 5.45x39 round IMO is just as good as the 5.56x45. Might wanna take a look at those!
 
In regards to mag changes, I think we may have to agree to disagree. After practicing doign right hand changes, I find it very natural. You take the spare mag, use the front of the mag to engage the mag release and kick out the spent mag, cant the mag 45 degrees, and rock it home. Then move your hand immediately up, hand strait and flat, pull the bolt back, at rearmost travel you move your hand back down to the grip and the bolt slams home. Very quick and efficent movement, I find.

I am aware of the malfunction you are talking of, and I have experienced it. How I've trained to keep that from happening is to keep the mag thats going in at a very high angle, so that there is minimal/no chance of it happening. Likewise, I have seen people induce that same mag malfunction doing weak-hand mag changes at the range. So I think the hand you end up using is not as big a factor as training.

Yup, your right on weight wise, but I disagree with the weight being a bad thing. If your reasonably fit and shoot on a regular basis, its all pretty much a non issue. The added weight forward actually "steadies" your aim, just ask anyone who shoots competition. Also, if youve shot competition, you know you "cant" hold anything, "rock steady", and shouldnt try.

Guilty as charged. I think my complaint is more from my last match, where the last stage was rifle only, clear a house engaging 5 targets, then exit it and engage 8 more targets on the other side. Fatigue from prior stages was weighing in, and steadying the rifle sufficiently to get reliable hits on mini-poper targets became a bit more of a chore than I thought it needed to be.
 
Sorry practical advantages stated earlier are not practical because you decided they are not practical.

I think there is some serious confusion on your part as to what is meant by practical.

Maybe I can google words and use a thesaurus to make myself seem intelligent too then I'll put the definitions of the words in the post to make myself feel important.

If that will make you happy. I suggest you start with the word practical. That might help you digest the point that I and others have made.

I'm inclined to say that for a difference/advantage to be practical it needs to result in some perceivable difference to the end user. None of the "advantages" you have listed do. If there is no perceivable difference to the user then where is the advantage? Perhaps you should add advantage to the list of words you are going to google.

As far as having competitors run a course with an AK then an AR and comparing times, I think that again leaves a lot of X factor out of it. Are the shooters more familiar with the operation of an AK or an AR? The ballistics of the .223 round are vastly different from that of a 7.62x39, that alone can easily skew the 150-450 meter results. Now, to brass tacks, the 7.62x39 is optimized to stay within the 250-275 meter envelope, the 5.56x45 can reach out to 600 yards easily.

There are definitely some valid points there. I would also submit that if you take people using the platform they are best with the AR will often come out on top anyhow. One rarely sees an AK winning 3 gun courses. Of course three gun is not a perfect analog of fighting either.

As to the caliber I do not know that all the AKs were 7.62x39s. My 5.56 AK is still harder to shoot at longer distances than my AR for the very reasons Zak related, namely sights. Of course AK sights can easily be improved upon.
 
Disclaimer**** - What follows is my INTERNET Approved, Humble Opinion - My answer is that they both are a solid platform, but with different mindset in their devolopment. (Due to the countries they originate from)

(IN Large SWEEPING GENERALITIES)
The AK - Made to be in-expensive and therefore plentiful. Less accurate, but very reliable. Made from the lessons learned in the Soviet experience of WW2. (Large numbers of men/women combatants, very high casualties & the need for large numbers of in-expensive but more effective weapons, a heavier round needed for urban fighting (Battles of Berlin, Stalingrad, etc.))

The AR - Made to minimize weight & maximize the number of rounds an infantry man could carry. More accurate but can be picky with ammunition and conditions due to being a more precise platform. A lighter bullet, decreased range (Compared to .30-06) A rifle developed due to the accounting and statistics wing of the army / our experiences in WW2. (# of rounds per enemy killed, Average Range of Combat, COST OF SHIPPING MUNITIONS, etc, etc.)

So in general, AR=more accurate and (Although much improved) somewhat more sensitive to conditions and ammunition. AK=Less accurate but much more reliable in poor conditions with poor ammunition (However Not impervious)

The rest is in the proficiency of the operator.
 
^^^^ I like what he said about the heavier round being more suited for urban fighting. This can be a big desicive factor for when choosing a SHTF weapon. If you live in an urban area you might want to go with the AK, but if you live in a rural area then the AR (in 5.56) might be a more suitable platform. Of course, you have a lot of caliber options when it comes to AR's.

Just something to think about.
 
BenEzra said: "Neither the AK nor the AR require you to use the shooting hand to charge the weapon. Both may have originally been designed with trigger-hand charging in mind, but the preferred method of running both these days is to use the support hand, i.e. the left hand for a right-handed shooter. I've shot both in carbine matches and have always run the bolt with the support hand; it is faster and the rifle stays in the shoulder pocket."

Precisely why the next part I purchase in my AR build in an ASA left hand charger upper.

It's not that there aren't better ways to do things - I felt a functional comparison of common and uncommon features limited to the AK and AR was more what the OP wanted to know.

It's an interesting observation that the stamped vs. machined receiver argument is based on obsolescent technology, at least for firearms. Cast polymer and extrusion are a large part of the production technology of new weapons, and an argument over lesser, more expensive and costly production techniques isn't realistic or progressive.

The engineers who made the Mauser a cost effective weapon and kept it in ever increasing production until the last days of the wars discovered milled, machined receivers were nothing but a waste of resources. They eliminated most of the high precison operations, left the finish rough in any non contact area, and concentrated exclusively on only the parts that needed good fit to retain accuracy. There are very few, the bolt lockup, and barrel attachment.

Whether stamped, like the G3 and various other European weapons, or simply bent up out of sheet metal, as long as their is sufficient stiffness between the barrel mounting, bolt lugs, and receiver lock up, it makes no difference.

That is one thing the AR does par excellance, the barrel extension engages the locking lugs, leaving the receivers to handle recoil and the human user as it's highest stress factors, not gas pressure from the cartridge. It's part of the reason the M16 weighs less than the AK - it's simply more efficient, mechanically. It doesn't hurt that when the bolt carrier group is pressurized with gas it actually counteracts the cartridge pressure on the bolt and locking lugs, allowing it to rotate with less friction and wear. AS LONG AS THE GAS PORT HAS NOT BEEN OPENED TOO MUCH to use cheap lower powered ammo, the system works quite well.

It's one of the unintended consequences of the AR, it got too popular, and too many shooters want to fire ammo in it that it was never designed to shoot. No such luck for the AK, even it's military loads aren't known for high precision or power.

Avoid white box ammo, cheap GI surplus magazines, and mass marketed barrels, as they are the common factors in getting a problematic AR.
 
There's been some good advice given so far. My thoughts:

1) I would stay away from the lower end ARs. If you go with an AR, I'd go with a basic BCM carbine or the Daniel Defense XV. Both are a great value for a quality basic starter carbine. Learn to shoot with iron sights to start out with, and maybe add an optic later on.

2) If you go with an AK, I'd recommend the Arsenal SGL.

I don't think you can go wrong going with either an AR or an AK. I have both, and I really like shooting both (FWIW I have a Daniel Defense M4, and an Arsenal SGL20 ... both have been flawless in terms of reliability). I don't really consider one better than the other, they are different guns with different pros/cons. Personally, if the SHTF I'd reach first for the AR, mainly because I have it set up more as a HD gun with a quality red dot and a white light, as well as a couple mags of quality ammo next to it while my SGL is more of a range toy. But if I needed to grab something quick and the AK was there, I'd have no qualms using it for self defense.



Bottom line: Your desire for a longer sight radius favors the AR, while your budget favors the AK. IMO, if you are set with that $700 budget, I'd get the Arsenal SGL over a lower tier AR. Ammo is a bit cheaper, too. Given your budget, I think the best choice for you may be the SGL31 in 5.45x39, it's a bit more expensive than the SGL21 (7.62x39) out of the box, but the 5.45x39 ammo is cheap if you buy military surplus, about $.11/rd, so ultimately it's probably the best "budget" option.
 
CMMG bargain bin $599. Never have I or my friends had problems with the Del-Tons or CMMGs. Both manufactures test fire and check head space before they ship.

It always makes me go Hummmmm when I hear of someone paying big bucks and then having to rework or fix their "best in the history of the world gun" because of poor quality control.

You can buy 2 ARs or maybe 3 Aks, Cks, Sks for the price some of this stuff goes for. One doesn't work use it for spare parts or a club!

Doctor friend has the AR 10 that is deadly with the Optics he has. He is a good shot and his rig fits him. He spent more money on the scope than most spend for their gun and he is very well versed with it's usage. Works for him but most people do not want to get $4000 or $5000 tied up in a gun.

Unless someone has been off world everyone knows the AK is a good gun and has good stopping power. For me, I always liked the looks of the Sks and the way it felt; seemed better workmanship and quality. Both are good guns and in capable hands are deadly to all kinds of critters.

Think you should figure out what kind of range/distance most likely you will want to shoot. Go look and feel some rifles in your own hands; pictures are worth a 1000 words but one in you hand, priceless!.

See if there is a range that rents guns or will let you try them out. You pick the one that fits your eye and budget. If you do not like the feel or looks you prolly never gonna be happy. But if you go and get the chance to shoot...One Will Call Your Name!!!!!

Have over 500 rounds through all my Ars and have had them not go boom twice because I did not chamber a round!! Not easy getting old?

They had a little match last month in Harlingen,Tx. A new guy showed up with a bolt action less than $100 "buy it today" rifle that was made around 1915? He shot against guys with several thousand dollar rigs and out shot them all. I was not there... was told the story from guys who worked the range and were still amazed and talking about it.
 
With regard to my prior post which was quoted earlier in this thread-- the effectiveness can be measured by the accuracy and speed the two rifles can be employed by shooters of various skill levels. That is what the "AR vs. AK" match is about. Theoretical discussions are somewhat limited in application because this is ultimately about how well two different rifle systems facilitate a person to solve problems with a rifle.

This wasn't taken at that match, but relates to an anecdote about AK "reliability."

D101_1722_img.jpg
 
As far as having competitors run a course with an AK then an AR and comparing times, I think that again leaves a lot of X factor out of it. Are the shooters more familiar with the operation of an AK or an AR? The ballistics of the .223 round are vastly different from that of a 7.62x39, that alone can easily skew the 150-450 meter results. Now, to brass tacks, the 7.62x39 is optimized to stay within the 250-275 meter envelope, the 5.56x45 can reach out to 600 yards easily.
The match is usually limited somewhat in range compared to normal rifle matches at that range as a "concession" to the 7.62. There are certainly some shooters who have trained with an AK and some that have not; however, the point of the match is that you can shoot the stages with your AR and then shoot the same stages with the AK and compare your times with the two systems. And in the results everyone can see the relative rankings of all shooters and the different rifle systems. The conclusions I wrote that were quoted earlier sum both types of relative results. Take a half dozen talented rifle shooters with experience with both systems and that's the result we saw.

By the way, the match is not "mine." It is a match that my friends from Pueblo run.
 
Thanks for your comments Zak. I was the one who quoted your earlier post and I would like to apologize for anything that I may have unintentionally mischaracterized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top