Best in All-Around Combat Role: AR vs AK vs Battle Rifle?

Best in All-Around Combat Role: AR vs AK vs Battle Rifle???

  • Total voters
    191
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eustachius234

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
134
Location
Singapore, Occupied Texas & Elsewhere
I saw the thread AR vs AK, and thought we should do it right.

So, which platform is the best as an All-Around combat firearm?

I'll kick-off with a vote for the AR, for the following reasons:
* most logistical support in these United States
* relatively cheaper to become proficient with
* better in the CQB role
* best accuracy
* effective out to 250+yrds
* reliable enough
 
For ordinary citizens, a battle rifle is best. Soldiers are backed up by artillery, guided missiles, and air strikes when their small-caliber carbines are not enough. Militiamen are not. Our rifles need to shoot farther and hit harder in order to be effective.
 
But isn't that the problem, if the fight requires a battle rifle, then you'd probably be fighting vastly superior forces - the Guv'mint, and the odds would be really unfavorable.
Click to expand...

Guerrillas choose their battles carefully and only engage the enemy when the odds are favorable to them. The object is not a decisive victory, but rather to wear down the enemy and destroy his morale and resolve.
 
Well, I don't know. It's really just the same old thread,.. no offense. Just for fun though Eustachius, I'll refute your AR vs. AK statements where possible.

* most logistical support in these United States
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't think I agree with that. On the surface it makes sense, but it's quite possible there are a lot more AKs and 7.62x39 ammo out there in the hands of average americans than there are ARs and .223, simply based on price. Especially now, in this political climate, people are rushing out to buy everything out there, but most can't afford ARs.

* relatively cheaper to become proficient with
Click to expand...
I don't get where you're coming from at all on that one. You can get a cheaper practice AK AND a slightly higher quality one for the price of most single ARs. And 7.62x39 is significantly cheaper ammo than .233... so how is it cheaper ?

* better in the CQB role
Click to expand...
Tough call, depends on your training. But you're probably right.

* best accuracy
Click to expand...
we agree, a trade off for a little bit of power though.

* effective out to 250+yrds
Click to expand...
Probably equivalent enough not to make too much diffrence

* reliable enough
Click to expand...
Eh.. I'm not convinced. I've seen a lot of jamming ARs on the range, and I can't say Ive ever seen an Ak jam personally. And that includes full auto.


So, anyway .. heck I don't know.. I'm just sort of playing devils advocate. :)
 
I don't own an AK, but I do know that 5.56 rounds are cheaper than 7.62
Click to expand...

No, absolutely not. You're probably thinking of 7.62x51 Nato. The type of ammo used in the FAL or G3. I quite assure you AK ammo is always and has for a very long time been cheaper than AR :)
 
Travis Bickle:

That's a pretty tall task to ask people to do today - they couldn't even apply sufficient pressure to get Ron Paul a speaking slot at the Republican convention. I can see them uniting against a Mexican invasion - whenever that is, but I think they in general, are so completely attached to the current spoils system that the oligarchs will be able to continue their divide & conquer strategy until the masses wake up in a de facto state of serfdom. Just my opinion.

PS: I think we better stop here before they shut this one down.
 
Oh I see. Sorry, I misunderstood you there. Well Midwayusa is a good example. The price isn't the hugest difference, but it does add up after awhile.
Basic cheapest stuff around, the Wolf steel cased JHP.
.223 = $279.99 per 1000rnds
7.62x39 = $235.99 per 1000rnds

To me ( and maybe a lot of of people), right now in this economy, $44 can be sort of a big deal. The more ammo I can get for my money the better.

( Personally I own a FAL type rifle and AK/SKS type rifles but no AR. I'd probably go for the AK if things got real. I love the FAL and the .308 round.. but the thing is just too heavy for real fighting in my opinion )
 
Last edited:
I will say AR on the grounds that the modern armed forces of this country are all packing one. And the rounds to go with them. My personal experince with MY issue M-16 is that it was as reliable as I was about keeping it in working order. I caried the same rifle during both my combat tours and learned fast that the CLP that the marine corps hands out is pretty much a liquid dust magnet. I used rem dri lube for over a year in Iraq and MY m-16 never faild to fire, feed, or eject. Lube one up real nice with CLP and drive a few miles out there and see how much crap is stuck in the bcg and just try shooting one totaly dry it will be a club in a few rounds. Speaking from my personal experince. But if it hits the fan I want to be standing behind a bunch of varmint hunters, a 22-250 round may not destroy some one at 600+ yds but I think it would take the fight out of them and well past the practicle range of the avrage AR/AK.
 
Without artillerie and air support, you are on your own in a "combat" situation. From point blank range out to 600 meters or so, the 7.62Nato has the edge over any of the other *cartridges* mentioned. There are many reliable rifles available in that chambering as well.

As far as the accuracy edge going to the AR15 series, I don't dispute that. However, using standard IRON sights issued on a CenturyYugo AK, myself and a friend were hitting a 1 gallon yellow laundry detergent bottle from kneeling unsupported positions at 300 meters with great ease. --Granted it isn't combat, but that's a headshot guys. At 300. Perhaps I wouldn't be able to get a grouping out of shots like with an AR, but I wouldn't feel underarmed with the AK either.

In last place IMO is the AR series. It's not that its a bad rifle... it isn't. I have great respect for the cartridge, which I use on prairie dogs and coyotes. I wouldn't feel necessarily under armed with one either. But I'd prefer the others first.

Now. A realistic scenario, home invasion or similar, in that instance I choose the 223 round with Hornady TAP ammo due to my suburban AO, but I prefer a different platform to the AR series.

Why do I keep replying to these threads? Must be a Walter Mittyesque trait or something... TaPockita TaPockita TaPockita....
 
The infantrymen and Marines that I knew that handled both M14 and M16 really hated giving up the larger round and its capabilities. That's good enough for me.
 
When you paint with such a broad stroke to say "all around", you must then look at varied applications. Although the 7.62x39 round may have cover penetration advantages at close distances, it starts to give ground fast to the 5.56x45 once you go out past 200M. All you need to be effective against a man at 400M is a 4MOA capable rifle and Rifleman. Although it is possible to do so with an AK, this is normally only under ideal conditions. For the average AR, this is a considerably easier task. A Rifleman can easily carry more magazines of 5.56 and they will weigh considerably less per magazine.
Reliability with a 20" AR is not the issue many people make it to be. Most people are not going to be sleeping in a river with their rifle.
Do not count on the availability of Russian imported cheap ammo. Once you step outside of this class, .223 and 5.56 is MUCH more readily available and cheaper. You can readily get brass cased domestic production FMJ .223 ammo for about .40 a round and sometimes cheaper. 7.62x39 is closer to .60 a round or so.
Regarding the "battle" rifles, there really is no real world advantage. In any realistic scenerio, if you are counting on being held up in a secured position, plan on that position becoming your place of final rest in short order. The finest battle rifle can not prevent your fortress from being burned up around you. Good old fashioned fire will be the great equalizer. Realistically, if you were ever to find yourself in a SHTF situation, you have better be prepared to move and keep moving. When you take into account water, clothing and the rest of your gear that you had better have if you intend on surviving, the added weight of a Battle Rifle along with the ammo which you must carry becomes nothing but a hinderance.
If you believe that you may possibly find yourself in a situation where you really "need" a 7.62 round, then get yourself a .30 Remington upper for your AR to throw in your pack along with some ammo. This round is superior to the 7.62x39 and will do everything that you would need a 7.62x51 round to do for you.
 
I can't speak from combat experience about throwing lead, but I can say that I have more fear of 8 rounds of .30-06, than I have of 30 incoming rounds of 5.56mm. The .30-06 reaches farther, hits harder and deeper, and bucks the wind better.
 
I can't speak from combat experience about throwing lead, but I can say that I have more fear of 8 rounds of .30-06, than I have of 30 incoming rounds of 5.56mm. The .30-06 reaches farther, hits harder and deeper, and bucks the wind better.
Click to expand...
Dead is dead....;)
 
* most logistical support in these United States
* relatively cheaper to become proficient with
* better in the CQB role
* best accuracy
* effective out to 250+yrds
* reliable enough
Click to expand...

Well, the question was "Best in all-around combat role", so I'm not sure some of your reasons for AR are sound...

most logistical support in these United States
Click to expand...

Are we assuming combat usage within these United States? I kind of read "all-around" as meaning "anywhere". I would rather have a Battle Rifle or AK if I knew that it had to work anywhere, anytime for reliability reasons. Also, if you needed a rifle for all-around combat within these United States, I'm pretty sure the logistical support would dry up quickly... heck, Wal-Mart can't even keep ammo stocked now.

* relatively cheaper to become proficient with
Click to expand...

I disagree again... you can get 7.62x54 or .30-06 relatively cheap in surplus. Plus, you can become proficient to a certain degree with .22LR in marksmanship before hitting the higher calibers. Plus, I would argue that proficiency is gained fastest through quality training combined with shooting... but the training is going to cost the same regardless of caliber.

* better in the CQB role
Click to expand...

This is debatable. The battle of Stalingrad is arguably one of the most intense and prolonged examples of CQB ever... nary an AR to be found. If the Germans had had AR's, would the outcome have been much different? I'm doubtful. In my mind, effectiveness in CQB is more dependent on tactics and motivation than rifle. Still, as far as the rifle goes, I think in CQB, I would prefer a round that could penetrate more than 5.56.

* best accuracy
Click to expand...

ARs have better accuracy than AK's, but they have nothing on many battle rifles. And what good is accuracy if you don't have range? Furthermore, many people are dependent on optics on their AR's for accuracy. How long, in all-around combat, do these optics last without breaking, wearing down, etc. The US Army has the logistics to repair / replace optics. Does the average citizen?
* effective out to 250+yrds
Click to expand...

Probably all you need... but the other choices have the same.
* reliable enough
Click to expand...

In all-around combat, I don't want to be carrying something that is "reliable enough". That is my biggest argument against AR's. I want something that is absolutely reliable in all conditions with minimal cleaning for long periods of time. That is what I would expect in all-around combat situations.

I picked "Battle Rifles"...
 
IMO 308 MBR with 16-18" bbl and light enough weight would fill the "all purpose role" quite nicely.

Wheter that is an M14, AR-10 or a new and improved design doesn't really matter.

I also belive that the 308 could easily be a much better CQB round if some time was spent developing a bullet that would fragment (as well as a VMAX or similar) but still contains a smaller penetrating core capable of as good or better armour penetration of the 5.56mm round.

The compromises between 308 and 223 have already been developed. 6.8SPC for example offers more than 223 but still less than 308.
 
Unlike any of the others on the list, the AK with a folding stock and 20 round magazine can be concealed on-body (legally, here and in at least several other states) under an overcoat. That means it may be deployed just about anywhere and, in this and in some other states, without fear of legal consequences. That's an advantage which trumps almost everything else.
 
if we are talking about which rifle is better in terms of logistics, comfort, and all-round use-ability, it's an AR

if you're looking for something that will work anywhere and never mess up, it's an AK

if you're going off of what is legally available (i.e. semi-auto only) and best for dropping a marine in level-4 armor when the next revolution comes, it's definitely a battle rifle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
AR vs. AK, when they cost the same
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
priler
P
T
  • Locked
Cheapest AR (Oly) vs. mid-range AK? (Vector)
Replies
15
Views
1K
The_Shootist
The_Shootist
3
  • Locked
Getting precision hits out of an AK and my personal theories
2 3
Replies
70
Views
2K
hps1
hps1
whatnickname
  • Locked
The quest for an accurate 7.62X39 (Ruger Mini 30 VS the AR 15 platform)
Replies
20
Views
3K
brnmuenchow
B
1stmarine
  • Locked
AR-15 .223REM vs 6.8SPC vs 300AAC Blackout vs 6x45 vs 6.5Grendel vs 7.62x39...
2 3 4 5
Replies
117
Views
12K
jason41987
J
Back
Top