Please don't lynch me for starting another AK vs. AR thread, but...
- Thread starter Bernie Lomax
- Start date
- Status
MachIVshooter
Member
I didn't say the were unreliable; they were simply less reliable than the ARs have been.
WASR-was actually the best of the four, but would suffer a misfeed periodically, probably averaged about 500 MRBS
The Tantal-stovepiped an empty frequently enough that I could expect a stoppage, I'd guess ~300 MRBS
A Romy redhead built by Arma Rifle- Beautiful fit and finish for an AK, But had hammer follow and misfeed issues. Fewer than 200 MRBS.
Romak III- I still consider these AKs. It stovepiped pretty regularly.
The ARs? Well, they just run for me. Between 11 rifles, I can count the number of failures on one hand that were something other than Tula or handloads with way out of spec shoulders that simply wouldn't chamber.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
In my opinion, chasing that last MOA will require more aiming precision than standard irons can provide. His point is a good one---that either rifle is capable of providing good-enough accuracy, whether with irons or otherwise---but if you want to assess the full accuracy potential of both platforms, you'd probably need to put an identical, high-quality magnified optic on both.
I do believe that 5.45x39mm AKs are somewhat more accurate than 7.62x39mm AKs, and if you want near-AR accuracy at 200+ yards in an AK, 5.45 is the way to go.
I do believe that 5.45x39mm AKs are somewhat more accurate than 7.62x39mm AKs, and if you want near-AR accuracy at 200+ yards in an AK, 5.45 is the way to go.
MachIVshooter
Member
That I would have to see. I cannot even get consistent sub-MOA performance out of M855/SS109 in this rifle:
My carbines all run close to 2 MOA @ 100 with 855. At 50, I have been able to get under 1.5 out of some of them.
Ball ammo is well known for producing groups 50-100% larger than quality ammo, and SS109 tends toward the larger end in most guns.
Remember, accuracy claims need to be the average of your groups, and the generally accepted minimum for claims is 5 groups of 5 shots; 3 shot "groups" are for sighting in.
What's the point of the discussion? If you are talking self defense either will suffice.
If you are talking competition...there is absolutely no comparison. The AR design has the ability to be customized for much better accuracy with non-military configurations.
The accuracy debate for the base military style guns with military ammo is pointless. Neither is designed for supreme accuracy.
If you debate the absolute potential of the designs when customized for accuracy, the AR win hands down.
If you are talking competition...there is absolutely no comparison. The AR design has the ability to be customized for much better accuracy with non-military configurations.
The accuracy debate for the base military style guns with military ammo is pointless. Neither is designed for supreme accuracy.
If you debate the absolute potential of the designs when customized for accuracy, the AR win hands down.
I prefer an AR in 6.8 SPC first, but a fallback to your points on the VZ are spot on. Stick a receiver mounted rail and you have a first class rifle.
As far as accuracy goes I had a Bushmaster Varminter that would do .25" with factory winchester 40 round varmint packs from walmart. That is 10 round groups every single time, it was boring to shoot almost and not worth reloading for. I sold the gun, and with the .25" at 100 yards included my target, the buyer emailed me back upset and ready to have his money back !! It would not shoot for him, a little email talk, some phone talk and the rings were loose, he corrected the problem and called me telling me he didn't believe me to begin with, but he was shooting under .25" at 100 yards, however 10 shot groups over several groups averaged .25"
Back in the good old days on a green screen forum called gogovarmint go
Back in the good old days on a green screen forum called gogovarmint go
What I think is being missed here is that the AR is progressing into a much better rifle than it once was. It's lighter and more accurate and cheaper too. I remember when it was out of my league to think about getting a AR. They were expensive and my disposable income wasn't so great considering the money it takes to raise kids. If you haven't picked up a truly new design AR (like certain M4's etc.) you just don't realize how much better they are than the old Mattel rifles I remember the AR being way back when. "Poodle shooter" was not a compliment.
The AK has been a strong selling rifle for many decades because the commies promoted it and sold it around the world to every enemy of the US they could find. They sold them cheap to hoping they would be one day be used against the forces of the USA. And in many cases they knew good and well they would be used against us. Let's not forget we lost that war in Vietnam but it wasn't because of the quality of the AK. It was a political decision (and a bad one) to pull out. Millions died because we let a bunch of hippies run the country. It was a war that had to be fought and it will be our shame forever that we didn't fight to win. Our soliders certainly did but our gutless politicians didn't want to upset the dang Chinese like they did in Korea. At any rate the AK was an effective rifle because it put out lots of rounds mainly. It had none of the truly great qualities of the M1 for example. You couldn't shoot the enemy at 800 yards with a semi-auto.
The AR was brought about because of the jungle fighting in Vietnam. Spraying bullets was the only thing we could do when the vegetation was so thick the bad guys could hide right at your feet and not be seen. Of course we learned later that they were actually under our feet. I still rankle to think we didn't figure that out at the time. We should have used ground and pound tactics all the time instead of the search and destroy tactics we used. I'm talking carpet bombing. They hated that for good reason. "Death from above" would get you if you were buried 100 foot underground.
Anyway both rifles have their qualities. In 25 years the AK will be a relic that has gone the way of the Krag Jorgensen. The commies may build another rifle but it won't be as ubiquitous as the AK. The AR will be a much improved version of what we have now but it could be replaced as well.
Lost in the shuffle here is another common rifle that has served people well over the years. The SKS was used extensively in Vietnam too not to mention Korea. It's certainly no accuracy king and it's heavy compared to the new AR's but IMO the ergonomics are good for CQB. It's short but it's well balanced. I don't have a problem with the weight of mine and I have had issues with the weight of other rifles like the AK I owned. BTW that AK of mine was certainly not reliable - far from it. But my SKS has been incredibly reliable. I've been shooting that rifle since 1992 and I can say it has never truly been cleaned the way it should be. I had the thing 15 years before I was able to get the gas tube to come off. It was just stubborn as can be. When I did get it off it needed cleaning of course but it wasn't causing problems. And I had put many thousands of rounds through the rifle by then. The truth is I abused that rifle because I bought it so cheap I really didn't worry about messing it up. But it has stood up to everything I've thrown at it. Now I figure it is so tough it's going to keep working even if I continue to abuse it.
I've seen AR's that wouldn't run too BTW. I've seen a lot of them that were "shoot 4 rounds - work on clearing a jam and try to figure out why" and they stayed that way the entire time I saw then in action. At one time almost every AR I saw at the range had issues in fact. That was when people were buying cheap models that just weren't well built IMO. I've seen better models though. And I've seen some AK's that were dead reliable.
The bottom line is that you have to pick the right AR or the right AK. They aren't just one rifle. They're designs built by many different gun makers with some being much better than others. It's all about getting a good one after you decide which design you want (both is generally the right answer to these questions BTW).
The AK has been a strong selling rifle for many decades because the commies promoted it and sold it around the world to every enemy of the US they could find. They sold them cheap to hoping they would be one day be used against the forces of the USA. And in many cases they knew good and well they would be used against us. Let's not forget we lost that war in Vietnam but it wasn't because of the quality of the AK. It was a political decision (and a bad one) to pull out. Millions died because we let a bunch of hippies run the country. It was a war that had to be fought and it will be our shame forever that we didn't fight to win. Our soliders certainly did but our gutless politicians didn't want to upset the dang Chinese like they did in Korea. At any rate the AK was an effective rifle because it put out lots of rounds mainly. It had none of the truly great qualities of the M1 for example. You couldn't shoot the enemy at 800 yards with a semi-auto.
The AR was brought about because of the jungle fighting in Vietnam. Spraying bullets was the only thing we could do when the vegetation was so thick the bad guys could hide right at your feet and not be seen. Of course we learned later that they were actually under our feet. I still rankle to think we didn't figure that out at the time. We should have used ground and pound tactics all the time instead of the search and destroy tactics we used. I'm talking carpet bombing. They hated that for good reason. "Death from above" would get you if you were buried 100 foot underground.
Anyway both rifles have their qualities. In 25 years the AK will be a relic that has gone the way of the Krag Jorgensen. The commies may build another rifle but it won't be as ubiquitous as the AK. The AR will be a much improved version of what we have now but it could be replaced as well.
Lost in the shuffle here is another common rifle that has served people well over the years. The SKS was used extensively in Vietnam too not to mention Korea. It's certainly no accuracy king and it's heavy compared to the new AR's but IMO the ergonomics are good for CQB. It's short but it's well balanced. I don't have a problem with the weight of mine and I have had issues with the weight of other rifles like the AK I owned. BTW that AK of mine was certainly not reliable - far from it. But my SKS has been incredibly reliable. I've been shooting that rifle since 1992 and I can say it has never truly been cleaned the way it should be. I had the thing 15 years before I was able to get the gas tube to come off. It was just stubborn as can be. When I did get it off it needed cleaning of course but it wasn't causing problems. And I had put many thousands of rounds through the rifle by then. The truth is I abused that rifle because I bought it so cheap I really didn't worry about messing it up. But it has stood up to everything I've thrown at it. Now I figure it is so tough it's going to keep working even if I continue to abuse it.
I've seen AR's that wouldn't run too BTW. I've seen a lot of them that were "shoot 4 rounds - work on clearing a jam and try to figure out why" and they stayed that way the entire time I saw then in action. At one time almost every AR I saw at the range had issues in fact. That was when people were buying cheap models that just weren't well built IMO. I've seen better models though. And I've seen some AK's that were dead reliable.
The bottom line is that you have to pick the right AR or the right AK. They aren't just one rifle. They're designs built by many different gun makers with some being much better than others. It's all about getting a good one after you decide which design you want (both is generally the right answer to these questions BTW).
I agree CEE ZEE, it's the platform that forms that basis of what you want, and the AR spreads wide and far from the super accurate bushmaster I posted of to those wanting to ductape emergency AAA's onto. I now own a LE 6920 it fits my needs well.
This very same topic could be posted again next week and probably be the same people saying they like the same thing (unless they come to their senses and understand AR's really are the best hahaha). I have zero problem with anyone sitting down beside me with a AK or AR to enjoy some range time. It's also perfectly legal to own both, the tool does not define the shooter the shooter defines the tool.
This very same topic could be posted again next week and probably be the same people saying they like the same thing (unless they come to their senses and understand AR's really are the best hahaha). I have zero problem with anyone sitting down beside me with a AK or AR to enjoy some range time. It's also perfectly legal to own both, the tool does not define the shooter the shooter defines the tool.
When combat is this close, then MOA debate goes out the window.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c10_1431530936
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c10_1431530936
That I would have to see. I cannot even get consistent sub-MOA performance out of M855/SS109 in this rifle:
Well if I still lived in Lone Tree, in Douglass County we could meet, and I could show you. That is bench rested of course. Larry Johnson can vouch for me.
MachIVshooter
Member
If you mean Larry Johnson of On Target training, that's gonna be a tall order; he passed 3 years ago.
boricua9mm
Member
I've been involved in online discussion forums for a long time and I can safely say that when the topic of AR vs. AK is brought up, it is not the 5.45x39 caliber that is being considered to represent the Kalashnikov.
Just some food for thought...
Just some food for thought...
USAF_Vet
Member
If I could get an AK of decent quality for $500, preferably less, I'd consider getting one, because I do like both rifles. But, since AR prices have plummeted, and the build-your-own-at-home option is easy and affordable, my focus has been mainly on ARs.
As said, I like the AK, but not today's market prices.
As said, I like the AK, but not today's market prices.
Phaedrus/69
Member
I really don't like the AK. Back in the day maybe 25 years ago I had an AK and an SKS. Both were Norinco. They ran reasonably well but I just hated shooting them. First off, at the risk of sounding like a wussy, the recoil was unpleasant. This surprised me since I shot a lot of .30-06 and .308 at the time. It probably had to do with the crappy ergos and plain hard butt plate. The sights really sucked on both, and as much as anything that's probably why I could hit very well with it. I also loathed the mag release on it (something that also sucked about my Mini-14). Eventually I sold it to a buddy, and eventually ditched the Mini-14.
The only reason I even bought them was price. Back then an AR was a bit too expensive for my meager means. It's funny that a decent AR is actually quite a bit cheaper today than back then. And I don't mean adjusted for inflation, I mean the actual sticker price! If I could have afforded an HK93 I'd have went that route.
Fast forward to today. Now at age 45 I finally put my first AR on layaway! Funny, I've shot quite a few but by the time I was in a position to afford one I'd already got out of rifles completely. But now I feel the time is right to return to my rifleman roots. I decided to go with a Core 15 Scout M4 with the Keymod rail. Hopefully it will be a good starter gun for me.
I suppose there are a lot better AKs than my old Chinese one. But the core faults would still remain for me- lousy ergos, bad fit, poor sights, sucky mag release. A Galil or other gun that is essentially a modified AK would probably suit me better. I certainly won't knock the AK on the grounds of utility. Mine always went bang and fed cheap steel ammo pretty reliably. They're tanks! If you like the way it fits and shoots for you it's a good weapon. But I think the AR will suit me better. I'm past my prime iron sight shooting years, so I appreciate that modern sporting rifles are designed to easily accommodate optics.
The only reason I even bought them was price. Back then an AR was a bit too expensive for my meager means. It's funny that a decent AR is actually quite a bit cheaper today than back then. And I don't mean adjusted for inflation, I mean the actual sticker price! If I could have afforded an HK93 I'd have went that route.
Fast forward to today. Now at age 45 I finally put my first AR on layaway! Funny, I've shot quite a few but by the time I was in a position to afford one I'd already got out of rifles completely. But now I feel the time is right to return to my rifleman roots. I decided to go with a Core 15 Scout M4 with the Keymod rail. Hopefully it will be a good starter gun for me.
I suppose there are a lot better AKs than my old Chinese one. But the core faults would still remain for me- lousy ergos, bad fit, poor sights, sucky mag release. A Galil or other gun that is essentially a modified AK would probably suit me better. I certainly won't knock the AK on the grounds of utility. Mine always went bang and fed cheap steel ammo pretty reliably. They're tanks! If you like the way it fits and shoots for you it's a good weapon. But I think the AR will suit me better. I'm past my prime iron sight shooting years, so I appreciate that modern sporting rifles are designed to easily accommodate optics.
FROGO207
Member
Personally I have shot both platforms and still never bothered to own either one. I do own a few Mini 14's/30's and a couple SKS's though. Mine are as reliable and accurate, or more so than I am anyways so why bother spend more money for no reason with the same caliber platforms. Now if I wanted to shoot 600 YD competition then an AR possibly, but probably I would opt for a bolt rifle anyway.YMMV
Mine are as reliable and accurate, or more so than I am anyways so why bother spend more money for no reason with the same caliber platforms. Now if I wanted to shoot 600 YD competition then an AR possibly, but probably I would opt for a bolt rifle anyway.YMMVYes, that is who I mean. I trained with Larry in 2005 and 2006 near Parker in Elbert County. Didn't realize he passed. RIP.
Neo-Luddite
Member
I bought our girls Colt M4s (they are now 12 & 10 years old). They are learning them as their primary rifles. I never used one or owned one apart from the military. They will be schooled next in the ways of the clunky but carefree AK's 47 & 74 that are my favorite go to rifles as they stay dirty and run dirty. One day they will take possession of their M-1's...but that day is a ways off.
Debating the merits of the AK vs. AR is almost as bad as asking the Harley and Honda (or maybe BMW) riders to debate. Both will get the job done in most scenarios. And everyone who favors one to the exclusion of trying the other out is letting herself down.
Debating the merits of the AK vs. AR is almost as bad as asking the Harley and Honda (or maybe BMW) riders to debate. Both will get the job done in most scenarios. And everyone who favors one to the exclusion of trying the other out is letting herself down.
IndianaBoy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,551
Aks suck because of ergonomics, wonky mag changes, and if you want to mount anything other than a red dot, forget about it.
Commie trash for conscript fodder.
Anything an AK can do, an AR, or a SCAR, or an ACR can do better.
The DI AR-15 is a magnificent design.
Commie trash for conscript fodder.
Anything an AK can do, an AR, or a SCAR, or an ACR can do better.
The DI AR-15 is a magnificent design.
Ergos can be fixed with a new Nato length stock....mag changes are easy if you actually put a little effort into practicing them....and what do you really have to mount to a gun other than a scope or a red dot?Aks suck because of ergonomics, wonky mag changes, and if you want to mount anything other than a red dot, forget about it.
Commie trash for conscript fodder.
Anything an AK can do, an AR, or a SCAR, or an ACR can do better.
The DI AR-15 is a magnificent design.
Zerodefect
member
My $.02.
AK
+cheap powerful ammo
+easy to use
+fairly robust and reliable
+good iron sights
-a poorly built example of one cost as much as a decent AR15 now.
-I have very little idea how to weed out the bad AK's from the good.
-ergo's stink
-I can't shoot it nearly as accurately as an AR. I don't care about MOA, I care about ME hitting the target. No bench, no nonsense. Proof in the puddin and all that.
-terrible magazines
-slow as molasses mag changes
-giant safety has cost how many people their lives already???
-some are heavy(er)
AR
+cheap as an AK now, even for decent ones
+easy to use
+so accurate we use them to get novices into precision long range shooting.
+extremely reliable when you get a good one
+easy to pick out a good one
+legos
+can be very light
+pick a caliber, any caliber (except 7.62x39)
+finally good durable Pmags.
+.300blk and silencers
-can be a pricey hobby
-tons of misinformation
-lube it properly
-clean it
-not really any good with 7.62x39 ammo IME.
-lame charging handle
I thought about an AK pistol, but AR's just seem to do everything better, except cheap 7.62 ammo.
AK
+cheap powerful ammo
+easy to use
+fairly robust and reliable
+good iron sights
-a poorly built example of one cost as much as a decent AR15 now.
-I have very little idea how to weed out the bad AK's from the good.
-ergo's stink
-I can't shoot it nearly as accurately as an AR. I don't care about MOA, I care about ME hitting the target. No bench, no nonsense. Proof in the puddin and all that.
-terrible magazines
-slow as molasses mag changes
-giant safety has cost how many people their lives already???
-some are heavy(er)
AR
+cheap as an AK now, even for decent ones
+easy to use
+so accurate we use them to get novices into precision long range shooting.
+extremely reliable when you get a good one
+easy to pick out a good one
+legos
+can be very light
+pick a caliber, any caliber (except 7.62x39
)+finally good durable Pmags.
+.300blk and silencers
-can be a pricey hobby
-tons of misinformation
-lube it properly
-clean it
-not really any good with 7.62x39 ammo IME.
-lame charging handle
I thought about an AK pistol, but AR's just seem to do everything better, except cheap 7.62 ammo.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
