The_Pretender
Member
I grow tired of the constant bickering in this forum about AR vs AK. I grow even more tired of the misconceptions people have of either side. I'm not saying I have it all figured out. But I do know some things about it.
I REALLY don't like the way people spread these lies as truth and vehemently put down one side over the other using their misinformed/mostly opinionated ideas.
Well, just so you know: Here are some facts. (I'm hitting large topics that irk me, not every last topic. Those may feel free to post below with FACTUAL ideas and concepts)
AR-15:
These rifles are very reliable, more so than they are given credit for. The horror stories of Vietnam were the result of no cleaning kits, no lubrication, and the biggest change was that the powder used in the rounds was a ball powder. It fouled a lot more than the powder that was used in all the extensive testing.
These rifles are generally more accurate, as a faster projectile is more accurate, and they typically have a longer barrel than an AK. Also, on automatic fire, the rifle does not throw itself around as much as it has less recoil.
Many people are inspired and enjoy this rifle because they like to use what our military uses. Sometimes they get a little upset when they are being told the weapon of the "enemy" is better than what we use. It's patriotic in a sense.
This rifle is made from lighter materials, and the ammunition weighs less than than the 7.62 x 39 cartridge, therefore your soldiers can carry more ammunition. More bullets in the air, generally means better odds for your team.
The ability to customize these rifles is insane. There are so many options out there, you can dial it in to exactly what works best for you in SEVERAL situations. Not to mention that you can have several guns in one with different uppers.
The ergonomics are nice on this rifle. Yes, they are little things. But sometimes, NOT ALWAYS, sometimes these little things can provide a slight advantage. Not only that though, it is good to have something you are comfortable with and know inside and out. Muscle memory and such.
AK-47:
My biggest irk with this rifle- They are a third world rifle. Let's take a step back and look at when this was designed. 63 years ago, in the Soviet Union. Allow me to quote wikipedia here: "From 1945 until dissolution in 1991—a period known as the Cold War—the Soviet Union and the United States of America were the two world superpowers that dominated the global agenda of economic policy, foreign affairs, military operations, cultural exchange, scientific advancements including the pioneering of space exploration, and sports" This wasn't some country full of terrorists. It wasn't some drug cartel. It was a world super power that had us on the edge of our seats for almost 50 years. This rifle was revolutionary in its design, its production and its performance.
No, this rifle will not drive nails. It is not as accurate as an M16. But it was made to simply kill men. And it does this very well. The first time we ran into it, we were amazed. We couldn't believe it. It is a marvel in simplicity.
I see a lot of documentaries and articles that state "loose tolerances". But I don't buy it. It has a lot of clearance for moving parts, but not because it was designed improperly. Kalashnikov himself said he wanted the parts to have the freedom to move. This was also held in mind that soviet soldiers would be wearing thick gloves, and this would be easier to maintain.
The reliability is both blown out of proportion, and true. No, you cannot shovel sand into it and blow a whole mag (No need for your video links). What you can do is run it hard and often, with little cleaning and it will still work. You can get it wet and dirty, muddy, sandy and it will still go. I've yet to see a rifle that works with a shovel-ful of sand in the action. And don't show the damn AR video with the door closed on the action. Shovel some INTO it and then post that video.
Ergonomics- it was 1947. It was lighter than the older rifles they used, it was very effective. They had what they wanted. They weren't thinking about putting scopes and flashlights on it. Or bipods or red dots. They practiced mobile warfare, and it worked fantastic for this purpose.
Yes, the round is more powerful. Grab an AR-10 and suddenly it has become more powerful. Change the cartridge, change the power. Given.
Is it used by third world nations? Yes. Is it cheap? Yes. Because it is simple to make. It is steel and wood. Very traditional, very easy to make. Would better materials make it better? No. It does what it was designed to do SIXTY YEARS ago. That was what they wanted, it worked for them. It revolutionized the battlefield, it revolutionized rifle designs. And yes, it caught us completely off guard in Vietnam.
/end rant
One is not better than the other. They are two tools that both do their jobs extremely well. If you can't accept that, you need to get a life.
Two marvels on the time line of history. Seriously- Think there was this much argument over trebuchets and catapults?
Thanks for letting me vent. Flame on.
I REALLY don't like the way people spread these lies as truth and vehemently put down one side over the other using their misinformed/mostly opinionated ideas.
Well, just so you know: Here are some facts. (I'm hitting large topics that irk me, not every last topic. Those may feel free to post below with FACTUAL ideas and concepts)
AR-15:
These rifles are very reliable, more so than they are given credit for. The horror stories of Vietnam were the result of no cleaning kits, no lubrication, and the biggest change was that the powder used in the rounds was a ball powder. It fouled a lot more than the powder that was used in all the extensive testing.
These rifles are generally more accurate, as a faster projectile is more accurate, and they typically have a longer barrel than an AK. Also, on automatic fire, the rifle does not throw itself around as much as it has less recoil.
Many people are inspired and enjoy this rifle because they like to use what our military uses. Sometimes they get a little upset when they are being told the weapon of the "enemy" is better than what we use. It's patriotic in a sense.
This rifle is made from lighter materials, and the ammunition weighs less than than the 7.62 x 39 cartridge, therefore your soldiers can carry more ammunition. More bullets in the air, generally means better odds for your team.
The ability to customize these rifles is insane. There are so many options out there, you can dial it in to exactly what works best for you in SEVERAL situations. Not to mention that you can have several guns in one with different uppers.
The ergonomics are nice on this rifle. Yes, they are little things. But sometimes, NOT ALWAYS, sometimes these little things can provide a slight advantage. Not only that though, it is good to have something you are comfortable with and know inside and out. Muscle memory and such.
AK-47:
My biggest irk with this rifle- They are a third world rifle. Let's take a step back and look at when this was designed. 63 years ago, in the Soviet Union. Allow me to quote wikipedia here: "From 1945 until dissolution in 1991—a period known as the Cold War—the Soviet Union and the United States of America were the two world superpowers that dominated the global agenda of economic policy, foreign affairs, military operations, cultural exchange, scientific advancements including the pioneering of space exploration, and sports" This wasn't some country full of terrorists. It wasn't some drug cartel. It was a world super power that had us on the edge of our seats for almost 50 years. This rifle was revolutionary in its design, its production and its performance.
No, this rifle will not drive nails. It is not as accurate as an M16. But it was made to simply kill men. And it does this very well. The first time we ran into it, we were amazed. We couldn't believe it. It is a marvel in simplicity.
I see a lot of documentaries and articles that state "loose tolerances". But I don't buy it. It has a lot of clearance for moving parts, but not because it was designed improperly. Kalashnikov himself said he wanted the parts to have the freedom to move. This was also held in mind that soviet soldiers would be wearing thick gloves, and this would be easier to maintain.
The reliability is both blown out of proportion, and true. No, you cannot shovel sand into it and blow a whole mag (No need for your video links). What you can do is run it hard and often, with little cleaning and it will still work. You can get it wet and dirty, muddy, sandy and it will still go. I've yet to see a rifle that works with a shovel-ful of sand in the action. And don't show the damn AR video with the door closed on the action. Shovel some INTO it and then post that video.
Ergonomics- it was 1947. It was lighter than the older rifles they used, it was very effective. They had what they wanted. They weren't thinking about putting scopes and flashlights on it. Or bipods or red dots. They practiced mobile warfare, and it worked fantastic for this purpose.
Yes, the round is more powerful. Grab an AR-10 and suddenly it has become more powerful. Change the cartridge, change the power. Given.
Is it used by third world nations? Yes. Is it cheap? Yes. Because it is simple to make. It is steel and wood. Very traditional, very easy to make. Would better materials make it better? No. It does what it was designed to do SIXTY YEARS ago. That was what they wanted, it worked for them. It revolutionized the battlefield, it revolutionized rifle designs. And yes, it caught us completely off guard in Vietnam.
/end rant
One is not better than the other. They are two tools that both do their jobs extremely well. If you can't accept that, you need to get a life.
Two marvels on the time line of history. Seriously- Think there was this much argument over trebuchets and catapults?
Thanks for letting me vent. Flame on.
