Steve Smith
Moderator Emeritus
Well, Tam, you just blew that.
Why is an AR15 better than an AK?
- Thread starter synapse
- Start date
- Status
Well for what it's worth, being referenced to as "insane" sucks! LOL
Sure, folks with thousands of posts are bored my these discussions, AK vs. AR - 9mm vs. .45, and so on. But what about newcomers? I would hope that a little rehash of things from time to time wouldn't evoke any hostilities.
Sure, folks with thousands of posts are bored my these discussions, AK vs. AR - 9mm vs. .45, and so on. But what about newcomers? I would hope that a little rehash of things from time to time wouldn't evoke any hostilities.
Steve Smith
Moderator Emeritus
Search function. This is a topic that has been on internet forums since they all began. I'm not being hostile, but there are folks who live for this discussion. They exist only to argue for their favorite rifle. Those people have no life.
Ok, so I have no life. What does that say for someone that reads all this stuff just to keep the rest of us in line, and don't want to participate in the converstation ?
By the way, I said that the trajectory of the 7.62x39 round basically sucks, way back in the thread.
By the way, I said that the trajectory of the 7.62x39 round basically sucks, way back in the thread.
Steve Smith
Moderator Emeritus
Ok, fine guys, you obviously love dragging this out of the trash. Go ahead and play. Sorry to be such a killjoy.
Question: If I started a website called www.AKvsAR.com would you all just post this over there? We wouldn't need different forums, or even different topics!
Question: If I started a website called www.AKvsAR.com would you all just post this over there? We wouldn't need different forums, or even different topics!
Joe Demko
Member
You know, military-style autoloaders in general all, like, suck n' stuff. The Savage 99 lever action rulez! S-money (Stoner) and K-spank (Kalashnikov) wuz both nothin' but posers. Dude.
Steve, I know your right, but I can't help myself! 
I think it comes down to personal preference. Find what suits you better and practice with your gun until it becomes an extension of your body.
I'm addicted to a sport absolutely dominated by AR type rifles, but I shoot a Vepr or a FAL. Why? Because of what suits me personally.
And if you are totally familiar and in harmony with your weapon, you will hold your own no matter what. All of the ergonomic arguments go right out the window if you personally are 100% comfortable and familiar with your personal weapon. I can do an AK mag change faster than 98% of the shooting public can do an AR mag change, even though it is supposed to be much more difficult. (that last 2% whoops me good though. )
Now most ARs are more accurate than most AKs. And in sports that accuracy is the single most important thing (like High Power) then you should go with the accurate rifle. But everybody is different, and accuracy isn't everything in every sport/use.
And many of the criticisms of the AK go right out the window when you look at some of the high quality AKs out there vs. some of the cobbled together weapons most of us are familiar with us. I have an AK with high quality rear mounted peep sights, a safety I can operate with out taking my hand off the grip, and I have shot some pretty dang good groups with it, about as good as I could shoot with any iron sighted rifle in fact. Plus it has a longer stock that fits me, a burly 6'5" guy really well.
7.62x39 has a lousy trajectory. That is a fact. Can't be helped really. But I use it as my 3 gun rifle because I can get 7.62x39 for $75 a case, and I hardly ever need to engage anything past 200 yards. (I really like .308, but ammo costs twice as much, so I get less trigger time).
Also there are quality AKs available in .223 and 5.45. Also the cheapest steel cased practice .223 will work through an AK just fine, but may or may not work through your AR.
I think both are good guns, for me PERSONALLY I get more use out of my AKs that I ever have with my ARs. I have sold every AR I have ever owned. (I buy one every couple of years, shoot it for awhile, don't fall in love with it, and sell it).
I think it comes down to personal preference. Find what suits you better and practice with your gun until it becomes an extension of your body.
I'm addicted to a sport absolutely dominated by AR type rifles, but I shoot a Vepr or a FAL. Why? Because of what suits me personally.
And if you are totally familiar and in harmony with your weapon, you will hold your own no matter what. All of the ergonomic arguments go right out the window if you personally are 100% comfortable and familiar with your personal weapon. I can do an AK mag change faster than 98% of the shooting public can do an AR mag change, even though it is supposed to be much more difficult. (that last 2% whoops me good though.
) Now most ARs are more accurate than most AKs. And in sports that accuracy is the single most important thing (like High Power) then you should go with the accurate rifle. But everybody is different, and accuracy isn't everything in every sport/use.
And many of the criticisms of the AK go right out the window when you look at some of the high quality AKs out there vs. some of the cobbled together weapons most of us are familiar with us. I have an AK with high quality rear mounted peep sights, a safety I can operate with out taking my hand off the grip, and I have shot some pretty dang good groups with it, about as good as I could shoot with any iron sighted rifle in fact. Plus it has a longer stock that fits me, a burly 6'5" guy really well.
7.62x39 has a lousy trajectory. That is a fact. Can't be helped really. But I use it as my 3 gun rifle because I can get 7.62x39 for $75 a case, and I hardly ever need to engage anything past 200 yards. (I really like .308, but ammo costs twice as much, so I get less trigger time).
Also there are quality AKs available in .223 and 5.45. Also the cheapest steel cased practice .223 will work through an AK just fine, but may or may not work through your AR.
I think both are good guns, for me PERSONALLY I get more use out of my AKs that I ever have with my ARs. I have sold every AR I have ever owned. (I buy one every couple of years, shoot it for awhile, don't fall in love with it, and sell it).
JJohnston015
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2003
- Messages
- 466
Well, some of us need these threads - those of us in the occupied territories who can only dream of conducting our own personal evaluations of ARs, AKs, and so forth. As it stands, we have to live vicariously through the rest of you. 
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Ah, but there's just something about the attractiveness of a well-proportioned, long-barrelled bolt-action that soothes the soul! There's satisfaction in the knowledge that anything inside of 500 yards belongs to you.
Art
Art
SodaPop
member
Atleast we don't hammer the Mini 14 vs AR threads anymore.
Except the 5.45x39 round.
I wouldn't mind see more threads get locked down in this forum. Once a month is about as much as I want to see the same questions asked.
Except the 5.45x39 round.
I wouldn't mind see more threads get locked down in this forum. Once a month is about as much as I want to see the same questions asked.
rock jock
Member
I have owned what are arguably the best AK's on the market - a VEPR II in 7.62x39 and now, a Kreb's AK-103K. Both are VERY nice AKs. But I still like my Bushmaster M4gery better. AR has the edge on ergonomics, accessories, recoil, accuracy, sophisticated appearance. AK has the edge on power, reliability (only slightly), evil appearance.
Well Blain, as was so rightly pointed out to me earlier, I was wrong. The AK did evolve, so appearently someone thought it was broke and needed fixing.
But, on another level, you are right; the M16 had to evolve. The U.S. is a first world nation. Our military is using state of the art technology in all aspects of warfare including the basic infantry rifle. Our military uses things like night vision equipment, lasers, and sighting systems that markedly increase the first hit potential of the average soldier. We wanted the ability to attach things like grenade launchers to increase the firepower available to the infantry sqad. And the standard infantry rifle had to adapt to use all this technology. However, the basic weapon is basically unchanged since the Vietnam war. This adaptability is a credit to Eugene Stoner.
But, on another level, you are right; the M16 had to evolve. The U.S. is a first world nation. Our military is using state of the art technology in all aspects of warfare including the basic infantry rifle. Our military uses things like night vision equipment, lasers, and sighting systems that markedly increase the first hit potential of the average soldier. We wanted the ability to attach things like grenade launchers to increase the firepower available to the infantry sqad. And the standard infantry rifle had to adapt to use all this technology. However, the basic weapon is basically unchanged since the Vietnam war. This adaptability is a credit to Eugene Stoner.
ACP
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 1,334
I will second all of what 444 originally said. And adding to that...
Don't understimate the flexibility of AR platform or the value of a lightweight rifle, even if its receiver is made of aluminum.
Certainly, don't underestimate accuracy. That's really what it's all about.
Caliber -- both will kill a human in under 100 yards. And, if you're not looking through glass and you're a civilian, what right do you have to take that shot anyway? Self-defense? That's a far-fetched scenario, IMHO.
Reliability -- the only full-auto AK I ever fired locked up on me. Not the M16 or the Bushmaster XM15 I have. The AR series will blow a lot of junk out all by itself. But, do you not plan on maintaining your weapon? Don't fall into that trap of "I went 5,000 rounds without a cleaning." Clean your rifle! Use ONLY USGI mags, and shoot quality ammo (I shoot GI surplus M193) and you'll notice those AR "reliability" problems go out the window...
But vastly superior? To each their own... I think it is "superior."
Don't understimate the flexibility of AR platform or the value of a lightweight rifle, even if its receiver is made of aluminum.
Certainly, don't underestimate accuracy. That's really what it's all about.
Caliber -- both will kill a human in under 100 yards. And, if you're not looking through glass and you're a civilian, what right do you have to take that shot anyway? Self-defense? That's a far-fetched scenario, IMHO.
Reliability -- the only full-auto AK I ever fired locked up on me. Not the M16 or the Bushmaster XM15 I have. The AR series will blow a lot of junk out all by itself. But, do you not plan on maintaining your weapon? Don't fall into that trap of "I went 5,000 rounds without a cleaning." Clean your rifle! Use ONLY USGI mags, and shoot quality ammo (I shoot GI surplus M193) and you'll notice those AR "reliability" problems go out the window...
But vastly superior? To each their own... I think it is "superior."
762x51
Member
I had this AK built to kind of fill the AR spot in my collection. I think it overcomes most of the shortcomings people associate with AK's quite well including the accuracy issue. I'll probably buy an AR at some point anyway......but this rifle really does everything an AR can.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37689
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37689
No, the AR didn't origonally evolve because they wanted it to be even more effective. They had to evolve the AR to even get the thing to work! Infact they spent 30+ years tinkering around with design of the gun, mags, and ammo to get something which was slightly less than a POS. Finally after so many years it is a "decent" rifle, but far too weak and finicky to be effective in real combat.
I have shot M-16s and ARs most of my adult life, starting in the Marine Corps when I was 17. I never shot an AK until just recently when I decided to buy an SAR-1.
First impression after firing the SAR-1? No wonder those poor bastards always loose the battle. The AK may keep on firing after a lot of abuse but it will take a magazine full of ammo to make the same kill one shot in an m-16/AR will take. The AK accuracy is poor. The fire control is crappy. The recoil tenderizes your shoulder.
Ok, enough slamming the AK. It IS somewhat fun to shoot and I am going to work on my technique to shoot it better. I also admire it's simplicity.
The M-16/AR is really the battle Cadillac. It's really a no brainer after you have fired both of them. Yes, you do need to take care of them and CLEAN. It's not so bad for the reward.
Bugs66
First impression after firing the SAR-1? No wonder those poor bastards always loose the battle. The AK may keep on firing after a lot of abuse but it will take a magazine full of ammo to make the same kill one shot in an m-16/AR will take. The AK accuracy is poor. The fire control is crappy. The recoil tenderizes your shoulder.
Ok, enough slamming the AK. It IS somewhat fun to shoot and I am going to work on my technique to shoot it better. I also admire it's simplicity.
The M-16/AR is really the battle Cadillac. It's really a no brainer after you have fired both of them. Yes, you do need to take care of them and CLEAN. It's not so bad for the reward.
Bugs66
As further evidence of my mental deterioration, I'm still waiting for a board to open up that has only six topics:
1. AR vs. AK
2. SHTF firearms
3. 9 mm vs. .40 vs. .45
4. Should I vote Libertarian?
5. Mall ninjas
6. Bear defense
Really, what more do we need?
1. AR vs. AK
2. SHTF firearms
3. 9 mm vs. .40 vs. .45
4. Should I vote Libertarian?
5. Mall ninjas
6. Bear defense
Really, what more do we need?
- Status
