AR vs AK - Who'da Thunk?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Leadcouncil" did a nice job above outlining the realities of the debate:

"The AK is simply a better self-defense and infantry platform at CQB ranges. Better caliber, easiter to use, and more rugged/reliable, and cheaper to make.
The AR/M4 platform gets the nod when it comes to accuracy, sights, easy of safety/charging, bolt hold open feature, and tactical accessories...
But for your CQ, civilian uses for home defense, the AK wins. I have one bedside, with 3 full mags for bumps in the night..."

I'm a big fan of both platforms, and own both, but I have to agree with "meanmrmustard", while I'd truly be quite content with either, if I was forced to choose only one in some post-SHTF scenario, it would be the AK. ;)
 
Still plenty of AK-style rifles out there in the $500-600 range, ya just gotta know where to look (hint: SOG and Centerfire).

Of all the weapons I've shot over the years, both semi-auto and FA, I have never had a problem with any Kalashnikov-patterned rifles. The closest thing to an "issue" was a magazine on a Vz58, which was remedied by removing a paint glob on the side.

As for ammo "drying up," very unlikely considering the number of countries that still use the AK.

Personally, I prefer the reliability of the AK and the power of the 7.62x39 over the AR. The differences in accuracy are nominal despite what some claim, I can hit targets just as far away as my AR shooting buds. The only difference is that my rounds hit them harder!
 
MIL-DOT said:
"Leadcouncil" did a nice job above outlining the realities of the debate:

"The AK is simply a better self-defense and infantry platform at CQB ranges. Better caliber, easiter to use, and more rugged/reliable, and cheaper to make.
The AR/M4 platform gets the nod when it comes to accuracy, sights, easy of safety/charging, bolt hold open feature, and tactical accessories...
But for your CQ, civilian uses for home defense, the AK wins. I have one bedside, with 3 full mags for bumps in the night..."

I'm a big fan of both platforms, and own both, but I have to agree with "meanmrmustard", while I'd truly be quite content with either, if I was forced to choose only one in some post-SHTF scenario, it would be the AK. ;)
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think the AR is easier to use than the AK. We've kinda been over that already, so I'll leave it at that.

I also disagree at the x39 being a better caliber, especially when you take ammunition availability and choices into consideration. I have my HD AR currently loaded with 5.56x45, 55gr, Speer Gold Dot. I could also put Hornady TAP in there, or a nice 75gr OTM (hollow point). Are the ammunition choices in 7.62x39 that good? Even close?

And I don't really care which one costs more/less to make. All things considered, even if the cost translates to a few hundred dollars difference in purchase price, that's a non-factor in the decision of which platform to opt into.
 
Does any US agency or department use the AK much? Since it's so good they certainly must.
Click to expand...

Actually, US Special Force have been known to choose the AK over the AR because of the advantages it offers.

As for US agencies or departments, we all know their firearm decisions are based on politics and the lowest bidder moreso than the quality of the product.
 
Certaindeaf said:
Does any US agency or department use the AK much? Since it's so good they certainly must.
Click to expand...
Not so far that I know, but my favorite Vietnam vet (Uncle Mike, scout sniper) regaled stories of US soldiers slinging the M16 and picking up AKs and the occasional SKS. So long as the upper brass was ignorant about it, no one said boo. You don't hear of it a whole lot, but you can imagine why: a rifle chosen for Air Force security duty, bid and bought by beauracrats, and an immediate failure in the field.

Now, however, they are fantastic rifles. Research, development, testing, trials, and errors have made the AR15 legendary. But, the military is trying to replace it. Hmmm...

The AK, on the other hand, has changed nothing in over 60 years. Other than adding calibers, it is essentially the same damned gun that Mikhail showed us in the 40's. what's that adage, "if it ain't broke..."
 
meanmrmustard said:
Not so far that I know, but my favorite Vietnam vet (Uncle Mike, scout sniper) regaled stories of US soldiers slinging the M16 and picking up AKs and the occasional SKS. So long as the upper brass was ignorant about it, no one said boo. You don't hear of it a whole lot, but you can imagine why: a rifle chosen for Air Force security duty, bid and bought by beauracrats, and an immediate failure in the field.

Now, however, they are fantastic rifles. Research, development, testing, trials, and errors have made the AR15 legendary. But, the military is trying to replace it. Hmmm...

The AK, on the other hand, has changed nothing in over 60 years. Other than adding calibers, it is essentially the same damned gun that Mikhail showed us in the 40's. what's that adage, "if it ain't broke..."
Click to expand...

The real problem with the M16 in Vietnam wasn't the rifle, exactly. It was the United States military being stupid. No cleaning kits, belief that they don't need to be cleaned, improper powder/ammo...really just a massive cluster ____
 
Warp said:
The real problem with the M16 in Vietnam wasn't the rifle, exactly. It was the United States military being stupid. No cleaning kits, belief that they don't need to be cleaned, improper powder/ammo...really just a massive cluster ____
Click to expand...
I'll agree to that. But, do you not agree that if the M16 was what the AR/M4 is now, that wouldn't have been an issue?
 
meanmrmustard said:
I'll agree to that. But, do you not agree that if the M16 was what the AR/M4 is now, that wouldn't have been an issue?
Click to expand...

That ammo still would have been a problem. It (the powder mostly) simply wasn't the correct choice, and still wouldn't be
 
Warp said:
That ammo still would have been a problem. It (the powder mostly) simply wasn't the correct choice, and still wouldn't be
Click to expand...
True. Didn't think of that.

But, my guess is that there would have been less dead soldiers laying next to their disassembled M16s. Especially if they were then as they are now.
 
The Very first M16's did amazing in Vietnam, theyre issued to SF groups and the vietnamese and they were praised for their reliability ability to put enemies down. Funny how no one everentio s this though.

When the Army decided to adopt the M16 they changed the powder and did not issue cleaning kits, which is what caused allthe issues.

Fact is had Army not been a ****** the M16 never would have had issues. The fact that none of the SOF groups had issues says alot in thise days.

Alo to M2 the SF do not choose the AK over the M4A1 whenever they feel like it, generally ts if they need the ability to use the ammo.
 
Oglee said:
The Very first M16's did amazing in Vietnam.

Fact is had Army not been a ****** the M16 never would have had issues. The fact that none of the SOF groups had issues says alot in thise days.

Alo to M2 the SF do not choose the AK over the M4A1 whenever they feel like it, generally ts if they need the ability to use the ammo.
Click to expand...
This is a contrary statement, from those I've spoken to personally. Reviews of those who used the M16 are generally mixed to negative. Due, as has been said, to ammo, cleaning, and the gas function (which goes back to cleaning and lubrication).

None of the SOF groups? These days? The weapon we know today is superior to what was carried almost 50 years ago. Plus, how do you know of any SF units complaints?

Other than barrier penetration, what observed superiority would be exhibited by choosing 762 over 556? I'm assuming that's the comparison, since the AK is synonymous to the 762. Because, there are many similarities between the ammo used in the 74 and M4.
 
People I have known that served in Vietnam that used the AK instead of the M-16 used it because the report was markedly different than the M-16, not because it was more reliable, hit harder or due to logistics.
 
Meanmrmistard try quoting the whole thing.

The very first time the M16 saw combat was with the ARVN and us special forces, they were issued cleaning kits and ammo with the proper powder and theres no reported issues, though there was numerous praises for the rifles success in combat.

It was not until the Army adopted it did the rifle see issues and this was related to the 2 key differences between them and the SF/ARVN issued ones, powder/cleanin kits. The issue with the powder it burned incredibly dirty and fast, the powder gave the M16 a cyclic rate of around 1,000RPM, this was far to fast and led to FTE's and magazine issues.
 
Last edited:
Sam Cade said:
Citations and non-anecdotal examples?
Click to expand...
There won't be any. I'm aware of contractors (this is anecdotal too) who've globbed up an AK from somewhere while waiting for their weapons to transition the supply chain. Apparently, that's sometimes a charlie foxtrot. But the minute an M4 becomes available, the AK goes away.

I think that most people who feel that the AK is more ergonomic than the M16 pattern haven't been through the new MOUT. It's far faster, and far more dynamic than it was in the 80s. Speed and violence of action are ratcheted up to the nth degree by comparison. I've run both. Yes, I've done far more with the AR/M16, and thus my comfort level is higher. But even after a couple of long, solid, busy days with the AK, I found the safety a nightmare, and mag changes abysmal.

The AK is a fine platform. I don't have a problem with it. The AR/16 just makes more sense ergonomically. Mag changes are faster and the safety manipulation is a mere thought, if that. I *hate* doing up-drills with the AK. Hate them. Hate that damned safety. I *hate* mag changes. (all by comparison to the AR)

I do them though. I drill with them, because the AK is part of my inventory of crap. It's an important piece of my inventory of crap, really. I won't say why or how, but it is. And thus I drill with it. It's serving a purpose for me. But no one here on this forum or anywhere is going to convince me that its' a more ergonomic platform than the AR.
 
Last edited:
Oglee said:
Meanmrmistard try quoting the whole thing.

The very first time the M16 saw combat was with the ARVN and us special forces, they were issued cleaning kits and ammo with the proper powder and theres no reported issues, though there was numerous praises for the rifles success in combat.

It was not until the Army adopted it did the rifle see issues and this was related to the 2 key differences between them and the SF/ARVN issued ones, powder/cleanin kits. The issue with the powder it burned incredibly dirty and fast, the powder gave the M16 a cyclic rate of around 1,000RPM, this was far to fast and led to FTE's and magazine issues.
Click to expand...
I quoted what I commented on, nothing more. Don't attack the arguer, rebuttle the argument.

You also answered nothing I asked.

Certaindeaf: I'm sure accounts vary, based on who we talk to, but I've heard firsthand that VC hit and injured would stand, fetch their rifles, and resume fighting after being shot with the original 556 cartridge (M193 I believe), which is quite similar to accounts during Operation Gothic Serpent. In defense of the AR, it at least hit something to begin with, thus probably expending less ammo than that of the enemy.

Sig lite: mag changes are equally as fast with an AK. Hell, I can use another mag to expel the old one while loading a new one. Then, I can drop down and do a Spetznaz push-up. Try doing that with your inventory of "noncrap". Bet you don't fare well.
 
Sig lite: mag changes are equally as fast with an AK. Hell, I can use another mag to expel the old one while loading a new one. Then, I can drop down and do a Spetznaz push-up. Try doing that with your inventory of "noncrap". Bet you don't fare well.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're quite the ninja. I'm completely familiar with the mag change method you're describing. And regardless, mag changes are faster and smoother with ARs. And, my use of the term "crap" meant all my gun stuff.

The AK platform simply sucks ergonomically by comparison to the AR. That's my opinion. And unless your name is Mikhail Kalashnikov, you shouldn't be taking it personally. Especially since you're clearly a ninja. :)

If it enables your ... spetznaz pushups and makes you better spetznaz, by all means, keep using it! It works for you!
 
siglite said:
I'm sure you're quite the ninja. I'm completely familiar with the mag change method you're describing. And regardless, mag changes are faster and smoother with ARs. And, my use of the term "crap" meant all my gun stuff.

The AK platform simply sucks ergonomically by comparison to the AR. That's my opinion. And unless your name is Mikhail Kalashnikov, you shouldn't be taking it personally. Especially since you're clearly a ninja. :)

If it enables your ... spetznaz pushups and makes you better spetznaz, by all means, keep using it! It works for you!
Click to expand...
I'm not a ninja. I'm a samurai. Or, at least I play one in real life...

Your opinion is subjective, not proof of either platform being superior. It's statements like those in Post #94 that get threads closed. Sarcasm is one thing, name calling and blatant disregard for other adults and their attempt at honest discussion is not High Road.

Either platform has ups and downs, we can agree on that. To say "The AK platform simply sucks by comparison to the AR" might imply that you need more practice with the platform.
 
Samurai. Gotcha.

If the mods leave this open, I've got a pmag new in wrapper for the funniest photochop of a Samurai Spetznaz. :D
 
Glad I jumped in back when x39 Saigas could still be had for $247

That + $100 for conversion parts got me a great AK

Though I still like my kit built AR a lot better
 
Hi ho gentle members! Lets talk some truth before I close this, which is going to happen.

Regardless of which platform is your favorite, the reality doesn't quite match the hyperbole perpetuated by fans of either rifle. Both have pros and cons, and one can become proficient with both rifles. You don't have to exclusively love one or the other, though your pocketbook may dictate that you only own one or the other

Personally, i like both just fine, though I like AR's better



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
AK in 223 or Mini-14?
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
JustinJ
J
S
  • Locked
  • Poll
Cheap ammo shootout - AR vs AK
Replies
18
Views
1K
Shrinkmd
S
G
  • Locked
Why do good AKs cost as much as ARs?
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
4K
Ivy Mike
Ivy Mike
4
  • Locked
Would Saiga 7.62 be Best Low Priced AK GUN?
2 3
Replies
60
Views
4K
nalioth
N
K
  • Locked
AR-15 and AK-47 prices - what happened?
Replies
16
Views
3K
wacki
W
Back
Top