fatcat4620
Member
Then I guess we will be stuck with hornady steel match, zombie max, and WWB.
AR vs AK - Who'da Thunk?
- Thread starter WinThePennant
- Start date
- Status
breakingcontact
Member
^this^ pretty expensive compared to surplus. I'd like a 223 high quality AK but not for the prices they're going for.
meanmrmustard
Member
This is a foolish statement. The round isn't going anywhere.
It's chambered in several semis and a few bolt guns, not to mention that its still used by some foreign military and police units that have yet to adopt the 545.
As for the AK vs AR thing, here's my take: if I want to be able to group in or under a minute, I'll grab the AR. If I'm ok with the bigger group and heavier round, I'll take the AK.
My AR is more accurate.
My AK is plenty accurate, has Tech sights.
My AR will kill. So will my AK.
I'll spend $1000 on a good AR. I'll spend that on a really good AK.
Ammo is cheap for the AR. 762 is cheaper. Both are readily available and Walmart friendly.
My AK weighs a bit more than my AR. It wears more stuff I don't need.
Both are maneuverable.
I've had no failures of the rifles. I buy good mags.
Finally, if I have to defend hearth and home and those that I love, that count on me, either rifle would be a good choice for different adversities. But, I'd take only one.
I'd lug my AK.
Southside830
Member
I have several Ar's and I have an arsenal slr 106fr which is a Bulgarian ak chambered is 5.56. I chose the 106 for the fact that I didn't have to start stockpiling another caliber. I paid 875$ for the Arsenal and have never regretted that decision. I actually prefer the Arsenal to my Ar's. The muzzle break is very effective and it kicks less than my Ar's. accuracy is also very good 2"@ 100 yards. For the quality of the Arsenal I don't feel like I overpaid at all. That being said I like both platforms equally and love having both.
firesky101
Member
Due to those silly import laws that several people have mentioned. You want an ak with a pistol grip? Then you need American parts, our labor costs more and fewer companies are making AK parts than AR parts.
meanmrmustard
Member
Don't forget the Bear variants. That stuff isn't surplus.
Unka-Boo
Member
That's like asking how are people going to shoot their 1911s or M1 carbines after the surplus ammo dries up...errr...wait, that was 40 years ago...
Most of the x39 that is imported is new production, not surplus....and as was pointed out, darn near all of the US manufacturers already make x39.
Rob G
Member
Most of the time the US made parts on AKs consist of the furniture, the fcg, magazines, and sometimes muzzle brakes or gas pistons. None of these are difficult to manufacture parts and Tapco is very good about keeping the market full of cheap US made versions.
Besides, how often do you expect to replace parts on an AK? I'm not saying they can't break. And no I won't claim you can run a tank over one as I'm sure that would destroy it. But overall they're not known for wearing out.
firesky101
Member
I am not bashing on AK's here. The fact is they have gone up in price, and it must be for some reason. What turns a legal to import SAIGA into an AK? Parts and labor. Obviously those doing the conversions feel that the price AK's are now is what that parts and labor is worth.
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
Arsenal is one company and Saigas last I knew where being imported by one company. How many companies are making AR15s?
Hornady imports the primed casings and loads them with their V-Max bullet and low flash powder, that's all.
To touch upon the accuracy issue, AK47 style rifles are capable of 4-3 inch groups at 100 yards and the AK74 is capable of 2 inch groups at 100 yards. While the 47 is slightly less accurate, it'll still do the trick out to 500 to maybe 600 yards, same with the 74. If you're someone who puts a scope on nearly everything and just does bench rest than the AK won't interest you.
I never have understood why some people view AKs as something that only is worth $200-$300. What guns on the same level as an AK can be bought for that much? AR-15s used to be sold for around $400 MSRP according to old Colt ads. Are you people thinking that they are only worth that much too or did you forget the value of the dollar losing face?
The_Armed_Therapist
Member
I would much rather pay $350 for an AK than $950 for an AR... I like AKs a little more, but think ARs are better. However, if both are $650, I go AR every time.
I paid $450 for a WASR underfolder last week at Fleet Farm. I really wanted to pick up my first AK so I was thrilled to get it. I would also love to get another AR sometime, but even with there prices dropping I've not been able to find one for as low as I just bought my AK.
meanmrmustard
Member
I'm actually liking that this is probably one of the first "vs" threads that haven't broken out into fanboy fighting by page 1. Folks are giving pros and cons of each platform respectively.
I've got warm fuzzies.
I've got warm fuzzies.
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
I just got my first AK last week. I was really considering going with the m4/AR type of rifle on account of the fact I could get one with a good rep whereas my budget couldn't get me the Arsenal AK's I would've wanted. I didn't want to make a crap shoot with Century. I found a good deal on a quality built gun though. I also started to be swayed by the AK for several reasons:
1) Statements like yours from guys who own both rifles about what you'd take if you could only have one. I even saw many ex-servicemen that also seemed to prefer the AK over their issued weapon though it was not across the board, just that those statements carried quite a bit of weight with me.
2) Preference for gas piston rifles
3) My disdain for cleaning weapons
4) Cheap steel cased ammo so I don't have another caliber to reload
5) The legendary reliability
I do think it's fantastic that AR's are going for such reasonable money. I enjoy seeing people, many of whom are on tight budgets, be able to get armed with such quality equipment at such fair prices. AK's on the other hand really have gone nuts price-wise since the days of my youth. I remember the last election when shelves were bare of just about any and every product, now shops have racks and racks of nice AR's just waiting to be laid away or bought outright!
Even ex Green Beret larry Vickers have high respects on the AK platform. On the right hands, it can make easy hits at 100 -150 yds even with the open sights. Of course , the AR has evolved to a much better shooting platform aided by new red dots and many sighting adjuncts.
http://vickerstactical.com/
http://vickerstactical.com/training-by-larry-vickers/training-courses-ak-platform/
http://vickerstactical.com/
http://vickerstactical.com/training-by-larry-vickers/training-courses-ak-platform/
Last edited:
Unka-Boo
Member
I've had 17 ARs and 9 AKs over the years, I like both on their own merits. Being left handed, I found the AK darn near perfect for "out of the box" controls. Recently, I moved to consolidate to having only 5.56 for my "game guns" which left me with a conundrum...how do I get the AK controls/manual of arms but with a standard and available magazine ( which 5.56 AKs don't have )...thought about an SLR106, but settled on a Sig 556 Classic....it shows up Monday at my dealer. I'll let you know how it goes after the next rifle match.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Russia's entry into the WTO make for a strong possibility of a loosening (if not all out removal) of import restrictions on Russian surplus?
As I understand it, they still have warehouses of the stuff and they don't want any of it.
As I understand it, they still have warehouses of the stuff and they don't want any of it.
The Chinese had the best deal on surplus, and they banned imports of it and classified it armor piercing handgun ammo because it has iron in it.
There is tons of very inexpensive surplus in the world, the US government just won't let you have it.
That said the 7.62x39 round really shows its effectiveness with expanding ammunition (which surplus is not), and outshines 5.56x45 AR-15 ammo.
In military use with FMJ the thinner round designed to yaw and fragment actually can perform better and weighs less, while the heavier hitting round can punch straight holes and stays too well stabilized in many forms to do a lot of damage. But that gets flipped upside down when you compare expanding ammo at the type of ranges most shoot thier ARs or plan to use them for defensive use anyways. It also makes a better close range hunting round. Making the old AK round actually the better civilian round for most uses besides punching groups in paper at the range.
Now the AR is more controllable on full auto fire than the AK, oh wait that doesn't matter for civilians either.
The AR receiver is nice, the rifle more refined, and a major plus is how well it adapts to optics that hold zero. The side mounting optics on the AK that are the only ones that really seem to hold zero are a limiting feature, a limitation imposed by the location of the dustcover on the AK. Flat top AR-15s that have become the norm make mounting optics convenient.
In a time when so many people seem to think an optic is needed even at 50 feet, that is a big drawback, colored or even glowing sights just isn't enough, you need a red dot for what is right in front of you, and so the AR-15 gets a big plus.
Many companies make all sorts of addons and a variety of uppers in many calibers for the AR. This clearly makes the AR more versatile, if you want to spend almost the cost of the gun itself per upper to increase the variety of what can be done. Don't get me wrong, the variety is great for building a rifle, but multiple uppers don't make much more sense than just getting another AR since it costs almost as much anyways, and yet has the downside of being reliant on a single lower remaining functional and taking all the wear.
So the real benefit is the ability to pick your round when you build a gun. A moot point if you already have a complete rifle and don't plan to make a whole new one, in my humble opinion.
There is tons of very inexpensive surplus in the world, the US government just won't let you have it.
That said the 7.62x39 round really shows its effectiveness with expanding ammunition (which surplus is not), and outshines 5.56x45 AR-15 ammo.
In military use with FMJ the thinner round designed to yaw and fragment actually can perform better and weighs less, while the heavier hitting round can punch straight holes and stays too well stabilized in many forms to do a lot of damage. But that gets flipped upside down when you compare expanding ammo at the type of ranges most shoot thier ARs or plan to use them for defensive use anyways. It also makes a better close range hunting round. Making the old AK round actually the better civilian round for most uses besides punching groups in paper at the range.
Now the AR is more controllable on full auto fire than the AK, oh wait that doesn't matter for civilians either.
The AR receiver is nice, the rifle more refined, and a major plus is how well it adapts to optics that hold zero. The side mounting optics on the AK that are the only ones that really seem to hold zero are a limiting feature, a limitation imposed by the location of the dustcover on the AK. Flat top AR-15s that have become the norm make mounting optics convenient.
In a time when so many people seem to think an optic is needed even at 50 feet, that is a big drawback, colored or even glowing sights just isn't enough, you need a red dot for what is right in front of you, and so the AR-15 gets a big plus.
Many companies make all sorts of addons and a variety of uppers in many calibers for the AR. This clearly makes the AR more versatile, if you want to spend almost the cost of the gun itself per upper to increase the variety of what can be done. Don't get me wrong, the variety is great for building a rifle, but multiple uppers don't make much more sense than just getting another AR since it costs almost as much anyways, and yet has the downside of being reliant on a single lower remaining functional and taking all the wear.
So the real benefit is the ability to pick your round when you build a gun. A moot point if you already have a complete rifle and don't plan to make a whole new one, in my humble opinion.
Last edited:
siglite
Member
I bought an AK a while back because I needed a rifle that would get the crap beat out of it, and treated like a hammer. I mean, banged around, maintained horribly, kept in terrible conditions, etc.. etc..
I didn't pay too much for it, as it's a WASR10. But, as much of a crap shoot as the WASRs are, I lucked out. Got a decent shooter.
Price on it's gone up about 20% in the past few weeks. That makes me happy from an "investment" perspective, but I won't sell it before prices fall again, so my happiness is moot.
Anyway, I needed a gun that I could treat like crap. My 556 is my go-to rifle. It really is. It has all the electro-gadgetry on it, and it *would* take a beating and would handle the mistreatment. But I just can't bring myself to do that to my 556. Ironically, I have no problem scraping it over walls or through the gravel in training. But I do make an effort to take care of it. On this AK, I'm not even going to try.
My ARs have been safe queens of late. They're as basic as ARs get. Carbine length. Irons. No rails. No float tubes. Just light, and, well, ARs. The problem is both kind of have sentimental value for me, so I can't bring myself to do to them what I'm doing to this AK or the terrible things I do to my 556.
I guess I kind of have the mentality that the AK is damn near disposable. I guess right now, that's just not the case. Why anyone would pay $1000 for me is nuts. That is pure psychological. That rifle is not worth anywhere near that.
I didn't pay too much for it, as it's a WASR10. But, as much of a crap shoot as the WASRs are, I lucked out. Got a decent shooter.
Price on it's gone up about 20% in the past few weeks. That makes me happy from an "investment" perspective, but I won't sell it before prices fall again, so my happiness is moot.
Anyway, I needed a gun that I could treat like crap. My 556 is my go-to rifle. It really is. It has all the electro-gadgetry on it, and it *would* take a beating and would handle the mistreatment. But I just can't bring myself to do that to my 556. Ironically, I have no problem scraping it over walls or through the gravel in training. But I do make an effort to take care of it. On this AK, I'm not even going to try.
My ARs have been safe queens of late. They're as basic as ARs get. Carbine length. Irons. No rails. No float tubes. Just light, and, well, ARs. The problem is both kind of have sentimental value for me, so I can't bring myself to do to them what I'm doing to this AK or the terrible things I do to my 556.
I guess I kind of have the mentality that the AK is damn near disposable. I guess right now, that's just not the case. Why anyone would pay $1000 for me is nuts. That is pure psychological. That rifle is not worth anywhere near that.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010...-in-arming-the-afghans-and-its-repercussions/
Have to Google around to see exactly how much the US government paid for those other AKs, but it was obviously less than $300. Granted the individual consumer wouldn't be buying in bulk like that, but distributors would be. The point is that Eastern Bloc AKs would be $200 - 300 rifles if not for various US laws that artificially raise the price on them.
In 2005...if you were spending nearly $14 million.
Not applicable to today, or to individual rifle purchases, and certainly not applicable to an individual rifle purchase today.
I'm confused, are you saying that importers and distributors don't buy in bulk? Or are you saying the price that importers and distributors pay doesn't affect the price the end user pays per item?
The article also mentions that $300 per Hungarian AMD-65 is significantly more than the US paid for other AK variants.
Obviously due to various laws importers don't buy real Eastern Bloc AKs and sell them as is to distributors to then sell to end users in the US, but without those laws artificially raising the price that's why many people say the AK is a $200 - 300 rifle.
Personally I paid $400 for a AK-74, including shipping and 3 mags. Due to various laws much of it was US made, if it could have just been imported as is from Bulgaria and I could have legally bought it as is I'd imagine it would have cost me much closer to $300.
Now if we're talking about a completely US made AK or one that's mostly US made with an excellent warranty and customer support that's a different ball game. I'm talking about imported AKs sold as is.
- Status
