Why is an AR15 better than an AK?
- Thread starter synapse
- Start date
- Status
Kaylee
Member
Hi.
This is your friendly really anal board nazi, saying it's time to get back onto topic 1. Or take it to general.
-K
This is your friendly really anal board nazi, saying it's time to get back onto topic 1. Or take it to general.
-K
BryanP
Member
Okay, AR vs AK. I don't own either (well, I own all the parts to build half an AR ), I've fired each exactly once thanks to friends and acquaintances and I can honestly say I want one of each eventually. Part of me says "finish building the AR." Another part says "You could buy the AK for less than the cost of the upper you still need for the AR."
), I've fired each exactly once thanks to friends and acquaintances and I can honestly say I want one of each eventually. Part of me says "finish building the AR." Another part says "You could buy the AK for less than the cost of the upper you still need for the AR."
Master Blaster
Member
762X51
Making an AK look and shoot as well as an AR-15?
So for $300 more retail than a bushmaster you can make an AK almost as accurate, with sights that are almost as good, and almost as aesthetically pleasing (top cover movement on AK with peep sights?) as an $800 Bushmaster?
How good does that AK shoot anyway???
My thought is to appreciate each for its advantages, and try not to see the flaws.
Get both and enjoy.
Making an AK look and shoot as well as an AR-15?
So for $300 more retail than a bushmaster you can make an AK almost as accurate, with sights that are almost as good, and almost as aesthetically pleasing (top cover movement on AK with peep sights?) as an $800 Bushmaster?
How good does that AK shoot anyway???
My thought is to appreciate each for its advantages, and try not to see the flaws.
Get both and enjoy.
762x51
Member
Almost? It's AS accurate as my buddys Bushy M4....if not moreso. That was one of my goals. True....it cost a couple of hundred more but that can be attributed to some of the parts I used. Money was not a concern for this project but the price can be cut down to about $850 or $900 and still have the same basic weapon without some of the sugar coating. The brake I used was $115 alone. As for the top cover movement.....there is none....or at least not enough to make a difference. This is what you get with a QUALITY made AK. Unfortunately, everyone out there thinks that SAR's are the norm in fit and finish for an AK.....not so. The Izhmash and Arsenal built rifles are much more detailed and solid. As far as aesthetics goes.....that is a subjective thing. I happen to think AK's look a hell of a alot cooler than AR's and ones things for sure.....I won't find myself shooting next to another one at the range. This past weekend I must have seen about 35 AR's at the range all pretty much the same.
As to how well it shoots......I posted a mini range report on the original thread. It's a great gun to shoot. Everyone else who shot it thought so too.
I too try to see a weapon for it's advantages not flaws, however this was a purpose built concept rifle just to see if all the issues generally associated with AK's could be solved. I think it was a success.
Master Blaster
Member
The handle on my A2 bushmaster does not come off, like the cover on an AK, its not held on by the recoil spring rod, so I would guess that the long term accuracy and durrability of the A2 sight on a standard (non detachable handle AR) would be much better. The AK could have a screw added on the front of the cover to help that peep sight retain long term accuracy.
I realize you are not going to take the AK into battle or have it run over by a truck, Nor do I plan to do this to my Bushmaster, or even my SAR-1 (which has a movement free top cover, but it is still a thin sheet metal cover that will loosen over time, since it was not designed to be a platform for a peep sight by commrade Kalishnakov).
The point is that better is subjective here since both will be combat accurate. The question is better for what???????
The other point is that you get what you pay for, and a really good AK can be just as expensive as an AR-15.
I would still say that match grade accuracy is the domain of the AR not the AK (custom or not), while reliability may be the AKs strong point.
762x51
Member
I'll agree with you there.....MATCH accuracy (specifically highpower) is still the AR's domain. I personally have no interest in high power competition though as i'm sure most out there who are buying these rifles are not. (I'm not knocking high power here please don't get upset Steve ....I just don't have an interest in doing it) Not to mention the fact that most of these highly accurate AR's are accuracy tuned in one way or another. Maybe if I could get Douglas or Shilen or someone to make a 20 inch match AK barrel......hmmm....
So maybe there is ONE thing the AR can do better.....for the moment.
....I just don't have an interest in doing it) Not to mention the fact that most of these highly accurate AR's are accuracy tuned in one way or another. Maybe if I could get Douglas or Shilen or someone to make a 20 inch match AK barrel......hmmm....So maybe there is ONE thing the AR can do better.....for the moment.
Steve Smith
Moderator Emeritus
Everybody's got a right to their own opinion of Highpower, politics, sex, and all the rest of the important stuff.
Sir Galahad
member
Hey, why not combine Steve's statement with a TV show and ths thread and we'll have "Sex, ARs, and AKs"?
I'm an AK man, of course. But think about calling the networks about the TV show idea. They won't take my calls anymore since I suggested making the Democratic Presdential Debates into a new TV show. It was going to be along the lines of the old show "Make Me Laugh" (remember that show? Where stand-up comedians did their shtick and you had to keep from laughing to win?) In my show idea (I call it "Voting For Laughter"), the candidates stand in front of a contestant and the contestant has to keep from laughing as Dean and Kucinich and Co. explain their foreign policy and economic policy. If the contestant doesn't laugh, he wins. Think about what a great show that'd have been!
I'm an AK man, of course. But think about calling the networks about the TV show idea. They won't take my calls anymore since I suggested making the Democratic Presdential Debates into a new TV show. It was going to be along the lines of the old show "Make Me Laugh" (remember that show? Where stand-up comedians did their shtick and you had to keep from laughing to win?) In my show idea (I call it "Voting For Laughter"), the candidates stand in front of a contestant and the contestant has to keep from laughing as Dean and Kucinich and Co. explain their foreign policy and economic policy. If the contestant doesn't laugh, he wins. Think about what a great show that'd have been!
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Whut Kaylee sed.
Art
Art
Here's my version of the whole debate. The AR-15 is better because it has better sights, better ergonomics, and bolt hold-open. And you can swap uppers.
The AK is better because it is less expensive, and will run forever on minimal maintenance.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
The AK is better because it is less expensive, and will run forever on minimal maintenance.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
Sir Galahad
member
Somoeone said tha the AK recoil "...tenderizes your shoulder..." HUH??!!! You need to get out there and fire some substantial calibers more often! My AK is the lightest centerfire caliber I own. And I'm not a big guy either at 5'7" 125 lbs (and that's after putting on weight!.) I was ROTFLMAO in basic training many, many years back when guys were whining about the recoil and noise of the M-16A1. I went in there having shot only Mausers and Lee Enfields. The 5.56 was recoil non-existant. Well, maybe it floats some boats, but low recoil does not necessarily a good rifle make. A .177 pellet rifle has pretty low recoil, but I doubt many would want to rely on one of those in a defensive role.
AK vs AR is an argument that will never end. I've said it before, I'll say it again. I repaired the M-16A1 in the army. I bought an AK.
AK vs AR is an argument that will never end. I've said it before, I'll say it again. I repaired the M-16A1 in the army. I bought an AK.
sm
member
Don't own either, don't have an opinion. Since I have never jumped in and posted on this "topic"...thought I would. Ahhh, now I've participated in all the hot topics of never-ending debate.
Carry on...I may actually own one, both...oh my!...I see what happpens when treading new waters... bye...
Carry on...I may actually own one, both...oh my!...I see what happpens when treading new waters... bye...
556A2
Member
Yep, the AK SUCKS, its accuracy is horrible (Never designed for accuracy, a 7.62x39mm bullet in the chest, leg, pelvis really hurts). The AR SUCKS also, its SOOOOO unrelible (Granted the gas system is a weak point, but for being around in service since the 1960s, I think its not THAT unrelible, also). The AK works, the AR works.
PS: The AK has been through several evolutions:
AK-47, first a stamped/milled, then totally milled, then totally stamped (AKM). Don't forget the AKS (folding stock) on milled receiver, and the AKMS (folding stock on stamped). The AK-74 has several different evolutions also.
PS: The AK has been through several evolutions:
AK-47, first a stamped/milled, then totally milled, then totally stamped (AKM). Don't forget the AKS (folding stock) on milled receiver, and the AKMS (folding stock on stamped). The AK-74 has several different evolutions also.
Pumpkinheaver
Member
The FN/FAL and/or L1A1 are better than both of them.
Joe Demko
Member
Why? We have Blain.
Kaylee
Member
okay. we're done.
- Status
