• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Clearences of the AR vs the AK?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gvnwst

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
2,614
Location
Somewhere.........
Okay, so we all know that the AK series is (generally) more reliable than the AR series. Mostly, this is credited to the loose clearences of the AK when compared to the AR. So, what are the clearences actually? How much of a difference is there really? I am pretty sure it is measured in thousandths of a inch, but what is it exactly? Anyone know?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
A big part of the difference isn't just the clearances between the moving parts, it's the fact that the AK has a lot of OPEN space between the bolt carrier and receiver (it rides on rails that stick out from the receiver sides), whereas the AR's bolt carrier is surrounded very closely by the receiver. So you can get a lot of dirt in an AK receiver and the bolt carrier will still move freely, whereas the same amount of dirt in an AR receiver will bind the bolt against the receiver sides.
 
I don't think the reliability has to do with clearances or tolerances so much as it has to do with the physical space around the moving parts. Take the top cover off an AK and this becomes obvious; you could throw a handful of buckshot in there, and the thing would likely just keep on shooting.
 
The accuracy is much more related to the ballistic differences between 7.62x39 and 5.56. However, a 5.56 AK is still not as accurate as a 5.56 AR (usually).

no, we don't all know that
Click to expand...

Then it sounds like some of us need to do some research
 
Last edited:
So far this thread is just confusing to me. Cleanance and tollerance are two different things.

You can take a new out of the box WW-2 issue colt .45 ACP if you could find one, and a modern clone Les Bear which is pretty much the same gun.

You would find the Les Bear a might tighter gun and in a general way a more accurate gun for it.

Will they do the same job? No.. The les won't function in war as well as the older made for war version, given the same kind of crap war and car for a gun in war is.

So you don't get to set about fiddling with oils and cleaning tools in the contest.

The Les has better tollerances for lighter duty where cleaning is concerned, and so can be a very good gun for say a LEO who isn't likey to fire as often as a man in war.

This is in general speaking, trying to create a picture in the mind.

In another general way the smaller you make some thing the more crud messes it up. The .223 is a good bit smaller than .308, which basicly speaking is 7.62mm.

Still I don't understand the thread well and don't know what the OP is after.

Trying to compare ballistics of the .223 and ,308 is like trying to compare apples to oranges.

We all know the .223 rnd is damn accurate.

We all know for cheap crap wolf ammo is not.. But that isn't because the slug is .308 or the guns for it aren't accurate, but that wolf ammo isn't the best and IS inconsistant of it self.

Then there is the factor and maybe this is what the OP wants to know, that the 7.62 x 39 rnd is a close to medium range loading alot like Winchester 30-30... These in the charts are nearly the same. Pretty big bullet and not much ommph.. The same bullet in a 51mm case make a lot of difference in ommph, and US Marines use it as NATO 7.62x51mm to put little bullet holes in bad guys at 1,000 meters anytime a bad guy pops up at 1,000 meters...

Once they used the 7.62x63- 7.62x61?? Not looking in a book.. can't recall...

Which is the 30-06 rnd, and could shoot more than 1,000 meters just like .308 Nato, and for reasons i really don't know the Military says the .308 Nato does all what the 30-06 did with less recoil...

So the AK in it's place with proper ammo will run longer in dirt and be as accurate with in reason, but probably at shorter range than the AR -15....

The Ar 15 is more prone to crud because the parts are more detailed, less crude, and smaller.

There are distinct reasons where one will be better than the other one, and which to choose depends on reasons.

I do not own and will not own a Ar-15 because my reasons don't add up to one. I don't have a need for a .223 no matter what in the first place. In NH the deer are really big deer and the rnd as I see it is too small for a clean kill.

The next problem is I can't see much over 50 feet in the woods... So I have no need for long range, and or a fast bullet.

In these woods I can't go out for a walk with out having twiggs in my ears, hair pockets and guns. Not good for an AR -15.

If I lived on the flats if Texas where the deer tend to be smaller, much smaller and really far off i might reconsider the Ar-15 with it's light recoil, flat trajectory, and over all lighter weight.

Both guns waste gasses into the actions, but the Ak is a little cleaner where it matters more..

The AR will run thousands of non stop rounds no problem. The problems more starts when you stop firing and the humidy is up and the crud sets up like concrete. Then if you don't clean it the bolt won't run right, and the bolt lock won't lock right, due to cleanances. The clearnaces are filled with crud..

It will take a lot longer for the crud to lock up the AK...


But you really can not compare these 2 guns.. They don't work the same way and they don't do the same job..
 
Okay, i am asking about the distance (in thousandths of ") between the bolt carrier and whatever carreis that on both guns. I am not asking to decide which gun is better for combat or which round is better (i have no clue why that came up actully...)

I am meaning clearance, rather than tolerance, i understand the difference. I geuss i said tolerance once in the OP, i will fix that....
 
To add to my earlier Post ,
I took a look at my AR w/ New Carrier and Bolt in Older Receiver (3000 rds). the Clearance was .0035 using Feeler gauges. Using a .005 FG was starting to drag on the Carrier pretty good. so My original Guess is Correct on the AR part. I would like to Check the AK but don't have it Paid for yet.
 
I have never measured parts but the ak seems pretty crudely made in camparision to the ar. Another difference is that the ak has a piston/rod that
pushes back the bolt. To save weight the ar has no piston, the gases act directly on the bolt and empty into the action causing carbon build up. I don't know if the piston affects accuracy or not. The AR is simpler but needs more cleaning.
 
The AR is simpler...
Click to expand...
OK, now I've heard that the AR is simpler and that it is more complex in the same thread. I'd like to hear anyone make a case for why the AR or the AK is a simpler design, since as far as I can tell, owning both and understanding both systems, neither is incredibly complex in comparison to the next. The complexity of the moving parts seems to have little to do with the reliability or accuracy over the other, since they both have similarly complex/simple operating systems.

I would say that the clearances and tolerances of the parts are much more likely to create a difference in accuracy, since I see no significant difference between the complexity of the two systems that would cause this difference in performance. I would say that the major differences would be the gas vs. piston system, the caliber, and the clearances and tollerances.

Can someone please speak to this so called difference in complexity between the two systems?
 
To add to my earlier Post ,
I took a look at my AR w/ New Carrier and Bolt in Older Receiver (3000 rds). the Clearance was .0035 using Feeler gauges. Using a .005 FG was starting to drag on the Carrier pretty good. so My original Guess is Correct on the AR part. I would like to Check the AK but don't have it Paid for yet.
Click to expand...

Thanks! This is what i was wanting.

As to the rest of you (most the rest) you may continue on, untill the thread gets locked because of "off topic"...:D:D:D I give permisson.
 
The AR is in some ways more simplethan the AK, and in many ways more complex. It's simpler in the fact that your AR's gas system is a tube. Period. The AK's is a tube with a piston. And, while that's not terribly high-tech it does add complexity to the design (the tube must be straight and properly dimensioned, the piston must be sized to not allow excessive blow-by, etc). The AR is more complex in the way it locks up (lots of little lugs, versus the few big lugs of the AK), and in many of the ancillary parts of the design (captive pins, which are mechanically more complex than the AK's takedown, but in function are quite simple to use). They work in very different ways.

As to which is more reliable? I'm going to go with the AK. The reliability qualities of each are both really overstated, though. ARs are not jam monkeys, and AKs do not run forever.

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Ak vs. FAL
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
BRASSM
B
D
  • Locked
Another take on the AR vs AK debate
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
4K
nathan
N
C
  • Locked
Progression from AR to AK
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
4K
jad0110
J
B
  • Locked
Please don't lynch me for starting another AK vs. AR thread, but...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
Robert
Robert
C
  • Locked
AK vs AR -- an often overlooked aspect
Replies
17
Views
1K
Z-Michigan
Z
Back
Top