AR or AK: What's you're preferred EBR?

[wasrjoe]

Since you were never in any military, how do you know this?

My AK has never jammed. I know that it is built with much loser tolerances than an AR and that helps the reliability. I know that these weapons are used in third-world dustbowls and they seem to shoot at our troops just fine. Please point me to a source that DOES NOT claim the AKs reliability to be one of its strongest points.

That is how I know.

 

[fix]

My AK has never jammed. I know that it is built with much loser tolerances than an AR and that helps the reliability. I know that these weapons are used in third-world dustbowls and they seem to shoot at our troops just fine.

My AR has never jammed. I know that it is built with much tighter tolerances than an AK and that helps the accuracy. I know that these weapons are used in third-world dustbowls and they seem to shoot at our enemies just fine.

Sorry. Had to.

 

[wasrjoe]

I never said that the AR wasn't great and fine, but since I do not have first hand experience with one like I have my AK, and since all reports for the AK tout its reliability I will choose the AK. That's all I'm saying. The AR could be a splendid weapon for all I know, but out of the two I feel much better putting my money on the AK for reliability and that's what matters to me.

 

[fix]

I know...I was just messing around. Like I said earlier, the AK only has one weakness as far as I'm concerned. Ergonomics.

 

[Feanaro]

If I were stuck with mouse guns... errr, assault weapons/rifles I would choose the AK. It works, it's fairly accurate(If I had to shoot beyond two hundred yards, I wouldn't have such wimpy cartridges ) and if the Commies invade, ammo will be plentiful. *puts on tin foil hat* And if all else fails, it would be a much better club than the AR.

I'd much rather have a G3 or FAL by my side though.

 

[entropy]

Psst....Wasrjoe....I wish they had a website, but the OPFOR unit at NTC uses various AK's (as well as RPK's, RPD's, SVD's, and DSkH's) made around the world, in an environment similar to yours in AZ, and they have occaisional reliability problems. I am very glad YOUR AK doesn't jam, but to presume ALL AK's don't jam by extention, or assume yours will NEVER jam in the future, is either arrogant or naieve.(I'm not sure which you were coming from. )
I myself have had AK's double, FTF's, cook-off's, and drop mags in the middle of a burst! Granted, these were "captured" weapons that were used for enemy weapons familiaization training, but there you are, AK FAILURES!
To the poster whose buddy's Colt AR jams:

Look for:
Bad Mags
Overlubrication/and or improper cleaning
Bad ammo(Dump the Wolf!)
As my unit's armorer, I constantly inspected our mags, made people reclean their weapons until done correctly, even those who outranked me were not exempt. Fortunately, we didn't have to worry about the ammo. We had the best in the world!!

 

[RikWriter]

The AR, without a doubt. In my experience, it is reliable, very accurate and versatile and 55 grain 223 can make devastating, lethal wounds.

 

[wasrjoe]

*sigh* I assumed everyone realized I was talking within the realms of reality. I am neither naive nor arrogant about my AK never ever ever going to jam. I realize that all rifles jam. I realize Murphy's laws apply to everything. The Titanic had no reason to sink except an unfortunate series of human errors. AKs will jam because of being used as a garden hoe. I realize that nothing is perfect.

That being said, I know my AK is very very reliable and has a very small chance of jamming because of the inherent reliability of the design. Is that correct enough? Or, how about this: given all the information I have been given about rifles and their function, I would bet my life (as choosing this rifle as a battle rifle is doing) that my AK will fire when I need it to.

I was just trying to respond which I would choose and my basic reasoning as to why, that is all.

 

[Feanaro]

but to presume ALL AK's don't jam by extention, or assume yours will NEVER jam in the future, is either arrogant or naieve.

To presume the other person meant that when they never stated such a thing is either arrogant, inconsiderant or reading what you want into their posts.(I'm not sure which you were coming from. )

 

[Preacherman]

The three most important qualities I would look for in a SD/HD/SHTF rifle are reliability, reliability and reliability. From this perspective, the AK design is the hands-down winner over the AR.

Back in the late 1970's, the South African armed forces tried out virtually every MBR available anywhere in the world before selecting a replacement for their R1/R3 rifles (locally manufactured versions of the FN/FAL). The M16 failed miserably. The dust and grime of Africa, coupled with a rifle that exhausts its own gases into the chamber/bolt area, just plain clogged them up every time. The eventual winner of the competition? The Israeli Galil - based on the AK-47 action! (South Africa manufactured these as the R4 and R5.) I had some contact with these trials, and found the results highly interesting.

Yes, the AK is less ergonomic than the AR, is less accurate (although both are combat-accurate - I can and will hit a picnic plate at 250 yards every time with either weapon), and is less smooth and "finished" as a product. However, based on actual combat experience, dust, dirt and mud that would stop an AR, FN/FAL, G3, or any other Western rifle, will not stop an AK-47 from working - and that's what gives it the edge, in my book.

 

[TCD]

Again, with limited AR experience I would choose the AK for these various reasons. Reliability with little to no cleaning(I can clean it when I have time, versus having to make time to clean it)

It will take just about any AK mag and feed like a charm(dont have to worry about damaging the feed lips etc.) I remember I dropped my loaded AK mag in the snow, brushed it off and slapped her in and she fed like a champ.

It isnt ammo sensitive. She'll eat just about anything.

And for me, better ergonomics. It just fits me better than any AR I have held or shot. (I have an extended length stock on it)

So that's what I'm happy and more importantly confident with.

 

[goalie]

Well, I used an M16 in the desert and jungle, and I am going to vote for the AK. Here are my reasons why:

1. It is accurate enough for anything I would need it for. If I am shooting farther than 200 yards, I will have neither an AK or an AR, and if my bolt-gun is not handy, I will be running, hiding or some combination of both. Inside of 200, I can shoot MOBG (minute of bad guy) offhand all day long with either.

2. Reliability. While I never had any serious issues with my issued weapon in the Corps, I would not feel comfortable starting an ambush with an AR or M16 that had not been cleaned in the last month of combat (or 1,000 rounds, whichever comes first). Up at my cabin I had a few friends try to melt my AK by shooting a case of Wolf through it. They failed, the AK never did. While I firmly believe that the AR platform performs just as well as anything with proper and timely cleaning, I prefer a weapon that doesn't require any cleaning to go bang every time I pull the trigger.

3. Cost. I have bought two SAR-1's and dozens of 30-round Bulgarian waffle magazines for less than the cost of one AR and ten 30-round USGI mags. Also, 7.62x39 is cheaper to shoot.

4. Terminal balistics. I saw too many people take multiple hits with the M16 before buying the farm. Bigger is better, just ask you girlfriend or wife.

5. Because the thought of me, Mr Average Joe, clean-cut, law-abiding citizen owning an AK makes the Brady Group and the MMM ladies just about pee themselves.

 

[artherd]

You've never heard of the AKs that jammed, because those guys got shot with ARs!

Sorry, I had to.


Whichever one you are most proficient in and with, will be your best choice.

7.62x39mm in my opinion is inferior to 5.56mm in incapacitation efficency. However, I have been fortunate enough to not have to observe their effects firsthand except on gel.

Neither one (and 7.62x51mm and 40mm HE grandades for that matter) are silver
bullets that will put anything down with one shot.


Be prepared to shoot first, and shoot untill the threat is stoped, with any gun.

 

[stv]

I voted, though I can't get either one in this country.

 

[Kamicosmos]

AR for me. I like the looks of the AK, till I pick one up. Kinda like that hot chic at the bar....Whoa Ugly once you get close to it!

Plus, since all I get to shoot at is paper, the AR wins on that anyways.

And reliablity for me doesn't really matter, since again, I shoot at paper, and keep the gun clean. I won't speculate on any further issues, cause I don't want to get bbq'ed....

 

[igor]

AK (preferably the domestic Finnish or Bulgarian variants) is fine for me. Plenty of ammunition available, both peace time and in case. The 7.62 works better in our environment than either 5.56 or 5.45 - lots of twigs and branches to deflect the .22's here.

But, until my budget says otherwise, I'm good to go with my original Saiga .

 

[G1FAL]

Neither of them is my first choice, but I wouldnt feel under-armed with either.

If you keep your weapon clean, the AR is a fine rifle. Heck, in some ways, its ergonomics are preferable to my beloved FAL (safety, mag release). The sights are also marginally easier to adjust. I'm not talking "Oh, the wind is blowing....better play with my sights." I mean getting them BZO'ed, and LEAVING them there.

If I had to use a rifle for serious social use, and for whatever reason couldnt use one of my FALs, either an AK or AR would be just fine.