Poll: Ak vs AR
- Thread starter Ruger44mag
- Start date
- Status
both guns have set the standards for many years and many designs have tried to replace them, but they still stand strong. I love them both but I would have to say the AR because it is a lot more versatile: caliber, optics, sights, rails, etc.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
Assuming your talking about a 223 AR and 7.62x39 AK
Accuracy = AR
Reliability = AK
Availability of ammo and parts = no significant difference
Knock down power = AK
Accuracy = AR
Reliability = AK
Availability of ammo and parts = no significant difference
Knock down power = AK
stuckinsocal
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2009
- Messages
- 116
Voted AR...but only if it's in .308. I work on a cattle ranch and I'd want the power of the .308 to take down a bull if I have to since it would mainly be for ranch work.
Otherwise I'd take the AK in 7.62x39.
Otherwise I'd take the AK in 7.62x39.
Availability of parts might be equal, I'd like to see an AK barrel installed on the kitchen table.
Far too much of the AK construction is gunsmith level, the AR can be assembled to good working order in less than an hour with a pair of vicegrips and a strap wrench. Just like the scene where "Blondie" assembles a cap lock conversion from parts off a countertop, an AR can be built and serviced with a few common hand tools.
Since the parts are so easy to swap out, that's why AK's wear furniture and accessories that were first marketed for the AR.
Secondly, the AR has set the standard for the location of controls, making it more user friendly to new users, and helping them in high stress to keep the gun loaded and shooting more often. The magazine release, safety, and bolt hold open on last shot are all copied on the new designs released the last ten years.
The AK does have great magazines, but they and the parts inside are NOT interchangeable across the board, in fact, it's exceptional when they do. The AR is expected to no matter what, the blueprint standards are that strict on the open market. You can even buy a barrel and bolt separately, assemble, and it's expected the headspace will work OK, something never recommended for ANY other gun. It may not be the best decision, but it's happening.
AR's take drop in target or tactical triggers, have all the options in furniture, and can be built literally out of a catalog, assembled at home, and shoot decently. AK? Not so much.
There are reasons AR sell despite being twice the price, and when apples to apples are compared, they wind up costing the same. The AR still has the edge because of the modularity and control layout.
Far too much of the AK construction is gunsmith level, the AR can be assembled to good working order in less than an hour with a pair of vicegrips and a strap wrench. Just like the scene where "Blondie" assembles a cap lock conversion from parts off a countertop, an AR can be built and serviced with a few common hand tools.
Since the parts are so easy to swap out, that's why AK's wear furniture and accessories that were first marketed for the AR.
Secondly, the AR has set the standard for the location of controls, making it more user friendly to new users, and helping them in high stress to keep the gun loaded and shooting more often. The magazine release, safety, and bolt hold open on last shot are all copied on the new designs released the last ten years.
The AK does have great magazines, but they and the parts inside are NOT interchangeable across the board, in fact, it's exceptional when they do. The AR is expected to no matter what, the blueprint standards are that strict on the open market. You can even buy a barrel and bolt separately, assemble, and it's expected the headspace will work OK, something never recommended for ANY other gun. It may not be the best decision, but it's happening.
AR's take drop in target or tactical triggers, have all the options in furniture, and can be built literally out of a catalog, assembled at home, and shoot decently. AK? Not so much.
There are reasons AR sell despite being twice the price, and when apples to apples are compared, they wind up costing the same. The AR still has the edge because of the modularity and control layout.
BushyGuy
Member
i own both, i prefer the AK, why? reliability, i have an AR15 its ok, accurate yes, but it needs to be cleaned after each range trip, u wont be able to do that in a SHTF situation.
lobo9er
Member
What are you going to use it for? other wise we are all just voting what WE like better.
I voted AK if your out in the country and may want to use it hunting or protection against something toothy. In which case you may want a 12 ga. anyhow.
I voted AK if your out in the country and may want to use it hunting or protection against something toothy. In which case you may want a 12 ga. anyhow.
Quentin
Member
Didn't we have one of these last week too?
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
For what purpose? They're both good rifles. The AR is better for 300-yard target shooting, and the 7.62x39mm AK is better for hunting whitetail deer in eastern woods than the 5.56x45mm AR. The AK is a bit heavier, but the mags are more robust.
Other than that, it boils down to which rifle you like to shoot best. Properly assembled and lubricated, with good magazines and decent ammo, they'll be comparably reliable.
Other than that, it boils down to which rifle you like to shoot best. Properly assembled and lubricated, with good magazines and decent ammo, they'll be comparably reliable.
jad0110
Member
That answers it right there. Pick both up, handle them, shoot them if you can. Go with what feels most natural to you. I prefer the ergos of the AR platform myself, but the AK gets just as much respect from me.
Ruger44mag
Member
Basically I want it for self defence in a disaster, and a "bug out gun".
Welding Rod
Member
As Jeff Cooper said, the purpose of shooting is hitting.
More likely with an AR.
More likely with an AR.
Zach S
Member
I own four ARs, and one AK.
the count
Member
I have 2 of each = very happy camper!
Tomcat47
Member
AR!
On This Basis....
While I agree with jpwilly..
I voted AR as well....I must add MO that due to the AR's accuracy it overshadows AK's slight knock down advantage.
but Versatility is also an overshadowing view that makes the AR Top Notch.
On This Basis....
While I agree with jpwilly..
I voted AR as well....I must add MO that due to the AR's accuracy it overshadows AK's slight knock down advantage.
but Versatility is also an overshadowing view that makes the AR Top Notch.
I voted AK. My vote was based on an AR 5.56 vs AK-74 5.45x39mm comparison. Honestly it wouldn't be fair to compair the 5.56 and the 7.62 together because thats what everyone automaticaly thinks when these AR vs AK discussions come up. There two totally different types of assault cartridges.
Ruger44mag
Member
Do you use the duck bill mags? If so what do you do for mag pouches?
HorseSoldier
Member
Most of them also don't know a damn thing about gunfighting or how to really use an AK at speed. It's not like driving on the left hand side of the road versus the right hand side of the road -- control placement on the AK makes it physically impossible to match the speed of manipulation you can get at any given skill level as you can with an AR. Armchairs aren't all that reliable, but clocks simply don't lie and I've yet to see anyone prove my theory wrong when you make it non-theoretical and test it out with actual data resulting.
Who uses 1-12 twist barrels on ARs for anything anymore?
Last edited:
It seems to me that an ideal gunfighting rifle for a civilian will be considerably different than that of a soldier.
I think it's a safe assumption that civilian gunfighting will be at close range. When soldiers shoot people at long range it's called combat. When civilians do it, it's called murder.
Soldiers can use automatic weapons. For all practical purposes those are off limits for American civilians. Recoil also limits the cartridge size for controllable, shoulder fired, automatic weapons. This is much less a concern for civilians than soldiers.
Soldiers have to be very concerned about the weight of cartridges. They have to carry them after all. Civilians are much more likely to be defending their homes and families.
Soldiers are expected to be carrying serious weaponry. Civilians doing the same thing will likely attract the wrong kind of attention. Ask a returning vet sometime what happens to non-uniformed Iraqis or Afghans packing AK's or RPG's.
A civilian rifle is much more likely to be neglected. A soldier in a combat zone expects to use his weapon. A civilian doesn't.
Civilians are also extremely likely to be fighting idiots. Look at your average street gang, group of meth heads, drug smugglers or petty criminals and ask yourself how they stack up against a squad of marines. These are the folks that think a great combat tactic is to drive by a house and spray it with fire from a Tec9. If you've got a decent fighting rifle, (any decent fighting rifle), and you know how to use it, chances are they won't even come close to matching you.
From my perspective, an ideal civilian fighting rifle first needs to be utterly reliable. You should be able to pull it out of a closet or from behind the seat of a truck after months of ignoring it and expect it to fire every time. It should hold at least 30 shots. Civilian gunfights don't usually involve that many shots, but civilians are also often rusty with their reloading technique, so more is better. Also, when you're half asleep and in your skivvies, are you always going to grab the extra magazine when you hear your door being kicked in? It should have good night sights, a red dot or something similar, as criminals like to attack at night.
The other thing to think about in a civilian rifle is utility. A lot of us would use it for hunting, pest control and target practice. There might not be any call for a civilian to shoot another human from 400m, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't want to whack a prairie dog from a long way away.
I think it's a safe assumption that civilian gunfighting will be at close range. When soldiers shoot people at long range it's called combat. When civilians do it, it's called murder.
Soldiers can use automatic weapons. For all practical purposes those are off limits for American civilians. Recoil also limits the cartridge size for controllable, shoulder fired, automatic weapons. This is much less a concern for civilians than soldiers.
Soldiers have to be very concerned about the weight of cartridges. They have to carry them after all. Civilians are much more likely to be defending their homes and families.
Soldiers are expected to be carrying serious weaponry. Civilians doing the same thing will likely attract the wrong kind of attention. Ask a returning vet sometime what happens to non-uniformed Iraqis or Afghans packing AK's or RPG's.
A civilian rifle is much more likely to be neglected. A soldier in a combat zone expects to use his weapon. A civilian doesn't.
Civilians are also extremely likely to be fighting idiots. Look at your average street gang, group of meth heads, drug smugglers or petty criminals and ask yourself how they stack up against a squad of marines. These are the folks that think a great combat tactic is to drive by a house and spray it with fire from a Tec9. If you've got a decent fighting rifle, (any decent fighting rifle), and you know how to use it, chances are they won't even come close to matching you.
From my perspective, an ideal civilian fighting rifle first needs to be utterly reliable. You should be able to pull it out of a closet or from behind the seat of a truck after months of ignoring it and expect it to fire every time. It should hold at least 30 shots. Civilian gunfights don't usually involve that many shots, but civilians are also often rusty with their reloading technique, so more is better. Also, when you're half asleep and in your skivvies, are you always going to grab the extra magazine when you hear your door being kicked in? It should have good night sights, a red dot or something similar, as criminals like to attack at night.
The other thing to think about in a civilian rifle is utility. A lot of us would use it for hunting, pest control and target practice. There might not be any call for a civilian to shoot another human from 400m, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't want to whack a prairie dog from a long way away.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll