The AK and AR seem to have been designed with different missions. I have no specific data to reference for this, but it looks to me like the AR was designed with an overly-thought out mission to remove opponents from the battlefield, an objective that does not necessarily require fatal wounding with lightweight, accurate ammo a large part of the design imperative. The AK looks to have been designed to run reliably while hot and filthy, full of sand & mud, to be easily disassembled & re-assembled by banged up soldiers wasted on Smirnoff, and to propel a round sufficient to KILL an opponent; screw tactical wounding. In modern warfare, maybe the AR is a good choice. In a down & dirty gorilla insurgency like we have seen time & again, The AK serves seems to serve well. I am searching for video I saw recently of some of our boys in the sandbox clearing a house. They were carrying AK's. Across the room accuracy apparently takes a backseat to man-stopping rounds. Personally, if I want to hunt prairie dogs, the AR is my choice. I am unlikely to ever see battle; but if I did, I would want the AK.