AR vs. AK

[JD42]

Re: AR vs. AK

I personaly like both. The Ar15 for egro's and ease of use. The AK for relaiblity and simplicty. I kind of wish the company that made the Ar lowers that allowed the use of AK mags was still in buessness. Best of both worlds.

 

[R700widowmaker]

Re: AR vs. AK

well i'm not really worried about long-range accuracy. i have an m-24 for that

but anyway, i'm a former pj, so i"ve fired plenty of ar's. but from what little experience i have with ak's, i really like what i've seen so far. i've fired a mak-90 and an sgl-21, and at 100 yds, they do quite well. my m-24 can do 800 yds (so far, need a better scope to reach further) and 100 yds is plenty good enough for what i need. (preparing for the zombie apocolypse) lol...

what's the first thing you feel when you shoot an enemy?
-the recoil of the rifle!

 

[Rovieairto]

Re: AR vs. AK

This topic should burn in hell forever.
Pick a bullet dispenser and be done with it.

Training, and experience are worth so much more than the subtleties of the various tools involved.
I wish tools would be more subtle anyhow.

Now:
9x19 or .45 ACP ????
I'm a man, so naturally I shoot the .45 ACP +p+ subsonic, frangibles in a 1911 with extended clip.

 

[DP425]

Re: AR vs. AK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: usafpjm14sdm</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
what's the first thing you feel when you shoot an enemy?
-the recoil of the rifle! </div></div>

I cannot recall hearing someone who impressed me much at all ever saying that... and I've heard it far too often. Almost like the calling card of someone 100% fake.

That's not to imply you're fake, but that sort of thing doesn't really inspire high confidence around here.

 

[BW88]

Re: AR vs. AK

Primary Weapon Systems makes an AK dressed like an AR.

 

[dpairborneranger]

Re: AR vs. AK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: usafpjm14sdm</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
what's the first thing you feel when you shoot an enemy?
-the recoil of the rifle! </div></div>

I cannot recall hearing someone who impressed me much at all ever saying that... and I've heard it far too often. Almost like the calling card of someone 100% fake.

That's not to imply you're fake, but that sort of thing doesn't really inspire high confidence around here. </div></div>


^+1

 

[steve123]

Re: AR vs. AK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sacp81170a</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J-Ham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The AK is more accurate than people give it credit for.
The AR is more reliable than people give it credit for.</div></div>
I like this post... short & concise.

I (like a lot of us here) have carried AR's in some pretty adverse conditions... I'm not sure what some people are doing to theirs to have so many "reliability issues". YMMV. </div></div>

I agree. I've carried an M-16 everywhere from the Alaskan tundra to the Saudi desert to the jungle in Panama. Properly maintained, I never had any issues. Then again, I was never sent into the jungle without a cleaning kit like the troops issued the early models. I've also never had any problems with real combat accuracy in an AK. Been using the AR for 30+ years, the AK for 20+. There are situations where I would rather have had one vs. the other, but not because either was in some inferior to the other. They have differing characteristics which fit different needs. Knowing enough to know the difference is the key. </div></div>

IIRC when the M-16 was first placed into service the deciding powers had changed their mind on the power level of 5.56 and demanded, last minute, a hotter load to be spec'd. This combined with the other factors like carbon fouling, grime, lack of proper lube added to reliability issues.

I have a older AR and used to complain about reliability issues. Smithed up some M4 feed lips, kept it properly lubed, worked up a good load up and it hasn't malfunctioned since.

I have witnessed a couple AK variants malfunction. They were also down right inaccurate. I like SKS's much more!

What's the hybrid child of a AR/AK crossbreed ? It's a Robinson Arms XCR. A very innovative weapon. One of the best gas piston 223's I've owned!

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: AR vs. AK

Actually the excessive carbon fouling was caused by using ball powder instead of single base extruded powder. The round was initially put into service with the full power 3250 fps 55 gr. fmj. bullet. And, remained at that power.
What happened was some of the ammo companies couldn't get hold of the right powder at that time (or didn't want to spend the money) and asked if they could substitute the ball powder which gave excellent velocity. Not understanding how critical it was to have clean burning ammunition, the Bureau of Ordnance ok'd that change. That got rectified sometime later but not before the damage was done.

I personally noticed at different times how clean the ammo was to shoot. Sometimes after a live fire it was like cleaning after blanks. Where every last ounce of carbon goes back in the receiver Other times times it was like I might have put a few rounds through my rifle. When I shot half a can that day.

As far as preference, I will always take reliability over accuracy as long as it shoots to the necessary range. I can make the M16 work, I can't make the AK's that I shot, shoot accurately to the necessary ranges I consider minimum. The ones I shot though were Vietnam captured and were pretty well used up then and then to have us GI's go every 4-6 months and break them out and do a bunch of shooting all in one day didn't leave them in their prime as far as accuracy.
That said about the AK, if one were to start with much tighter tolerances, given better sights, and ammo, they could well be as accurate as an AR. Time will tell.

 

[fargo007]

Re: AR vs. AK

I was issued my first AR in 1986, and bought my first Kalashnikov in 1987.

It cannot be overlooked that the Kalashnikov is the most successful combat rifle ever produced. EVER.

Owing to that alone, it makes sense to become proficient with them and understand their capabilities, because the chances of encountering one have got to be like 8:1 over any other rifle.

I enjoy shooting and training with both platforms. They are different but equally worthwhile.

--Fargo007

 

[lamarbrog]

Re: AR vs. AK

What a creative topic, I don't think this has ever been covered before.

The AK is not nearly as inaccurate as most people will lead you to believe, but the AR definitely has an edge.

In my experience with both rifles, an AK has "decent" reliability at all times... no matter the situation. That said, I have spent a good bit of time with quite a few AKs, both semi and full auto, and have never found one that exhibits the unstoppable reliability they are known for. Clean, dirty, wet, dry... they are "so-so" in pretty much all aspects to include dependability, durability, maintenance, and ergonomics.

The AR/M16/M4s I have encountered are <span style="font-weight: bold">extremely</span> reliable if given even a modest amount of care. Clean it with gasoline and lube it with motor oil- it doesn't matter, as long as you actually do clean and oil it. (And not even that often... squirt some lube in every 500, and clean it every thousand or so.) If you, for some moronic reason, choose not to maintain the rifle, yeah they run into issues. The neglect really has to be chronic for it to occur, though. I can keep an AR running until spring failures (which an AK has, too) at about 5000 rounds given 10 minutes every 1000 rounds. 50 minutes of maintenance over the life of the rifle before parts need to be replaced is not a lot... Maybe it isn't ideal for a Russian conscript, but neither of us are illiterate peasants (at least, I'm not) so I don't see how that is the least bit relevant.

The thing I love about the AR platform is that with $100 worth of tools and spare parts you can rebuild it indefinitely. Need to change a barrel on that AK? Better find your 20 ton press.

A common talking point is how much faster and easier it is to strip down an AK... But no mention is made of the fact that the AR field strip allows exposure to far more parts for examination and quick replacement. Try replacing your AK's firing pin in the field without tools, like you can on an AR.

I like to shoot AKs for entertainment... they're a blast to shoot. I love that "clack clack" sound they make as the action cycles. An AK74 on full auto with a rate of fire reducer is about the most fun I've ever had shooting. That said... the AR15 and family is the more practical and versatile design.

 

[fargo007]

Re: AR vs. AK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ColtTX</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What a creative topic, I don't think this has ever been covered before.

The AK is not nearly as inaccurate as most people will lead you to believe, but the AR definitely has an edge.

In my experience with both rifles, an AK has "decent" reliability at all times... no matter the situation. That said, I have spent a good bit of time with quite a few AKs, both semi and full auto, and have never found one that exhibits the unstoppable reliability they are known for. Clean, dirty, wet, dry... they are "so-so" in pretty much all aspects to include dependability, durability, maintenance, and ergonomics.

The AR/M16/M4s I have encountered are <span style="font-weight: bold">extremely</span> reliable if given even a modest amount of care. Clean it with gasoline and lube it with motor oil- it doesn't matter, as long as you actually do clean and oil it. (And not even that often... squirt some lube in every 500, and clean it every thousand or so.) If you, for some moronic reason, choose not to maintain the rifle, yeah they run into issues. The neglect really has to be chronic for it to occur, though. I can keep an AR running until spring failures (which an AK has, too) at about 5000 rounds given 10 minutes every 1000 rounds. 50 minutes of maintenance over the life of the rifle before parts need to be replaced is not a lot... Maybe it isn't ideal for a Russian conscript, but neither of us are illiterate peasants (at least, I'm not) so I don't see how that is the least bit relevant.

The thing I love about the AR platform is that with $100 worth of tools and spare parts you can rebuild it indefinitely. Need to change a barrel on that AK? Better find your 20 ton press.

A common talking point is how much faster and easier it is to strip down an AK... But no mention is made of the fact that the AR field strip allows exposure to far more parts for examination and quick replacement. Try replacing your AK's firing pin in the field without tools, like you can on an AR.

I like to shoot AKs for entertainment... they're a blast to shoot. I love that "clack clack" sound they make as the action cycles. An AK74 on full auto with a rate of fire reducer is about the most fun I've ever had shooting. That said... the AR15 and family is the more practical and versatile design. </div></div>

AK firing pins don't break. ;-) It's a stamped piece of sheet metal with a rounded nub on the end. Even if they did, do you realize that all the tools required to disassemble the bolt head are there in the buttstock toolkit? It's very easy to do.

I don't share your conclusions on reliability, as played out by personal observation of hundreds of specimens of each gun. I've been running matches with both AK and AR shooters for the past six years.

In that time, there has been only one AK shooter that I can recall having a gun so broken that he could not finish a CoF with it. A fired case did not exit the receiver and became lodged up inside the top cover. That was the only time I saw that particular malfunction occur.

There is at least one DNF AR shooter every match. Larger matches we see more.

...And this is across a truly random sample. I had no control over who performed what maintenance to either gun, how much "modest care" each one received, or what magazines or ammo the shooter chose.

Now, the AR shooters on average outscore the AK guys wholesale. There are a few AK shooters that are shit-hot and will best quite a few on the AR side, but it has never happened that a Kalashnikov shooter has completely won the match.

Nobody wants to put the AR up against the AK by fair comparison, but by beginning the comparison only after the AR receives a significant head start of some type, usually consisting of a cleaning and lubrication regimen.

I do think the AR is the overall better platform, all things considered, but if we are going to compare reliability, it has to be done apples to apples.

--Fargo007

 

[lamarbrog]

Re: AR vs. AK

I think I pretty well responded to all your concerns in my original post.

First, let me say that the primary problem I see from AKs is stuck cases which tear the rim and require the cleaning rod to remove. From ARs, I see fouling in the firing pin channel that builds up from insufficient lubrication causing light strikes on high round count guns, particularly on full auto.

I'm aware that the tools are there... but whether they can be effectively used is a different story. Both times I've tried using the supplied kits to strip a bolt, I've broken the dumb punch and had to go get a real one.

By a "fair comparison" I assume you mean "no maintenance". Okay, sure, the AK (which in my experience will likely malfunction if the test is extensive) will probably be more reliable than the AR. The thing I don't understand, is why the AK fans are so focused on the rare possibility that you might need to fire in excess of 500 rounds (more than double a typical combat load) before oiling, and over 1000 rounds (almost five times a typical combat load) before being able to clean the rifle.

I won't say it couldn't happen... but I think we can agree the possibility is extremely slim, and if the battle is that intense you'll probably be killed fumbling the more time consuming reload on the AK.

Given the more likely scenario, that you're not ever going to fire 500+ rounds from your personal weapon in a firefight with no breaks, where you have the ability to take less than a minute to drop oil into your BCG... The AR definitely comes out on top.

So, yes, a scenario does exist where the AK would be superior. However, if that unlikely scenario does occur... pigs are flying around, hell has frozen over, and I'm already out of ammo since my chest rig doesn't carry 1000 rounds.

 

[kortik]

Re: AR vs. AK

O.K., here is my expeience. Was born in the USSR, spent some time in the army, did a bit of shooting. In all my years spent in the evil empire, I 've never seen or heard about AKs jamming or otherwise not working when needed, oiled, cleaned or not oiled and not cleaned. Please consider that all AKs I've shot over there were true military models and made in the USSR, which is a huge difference from the pile of questionable quality AKs which American shooters forced to buy over here for the lack of the original ones. AK-47 observation: not practically accurate in full auto, decently accurate in semi-auto up to 250-300 meters, but punches thru just about ANYTHING. AK-74 observation - very good in any firing mode, very little recoil, practically accurate to 300-400 meters, but very noisy with muzzle brake, makes weird holes, but weak on steel plates. For the Soviet army, long range accuracy of AKs was never a big concern, that is what SVD was deployed for. There were roughly 1:10 ratio between AKs and SVDs in the soviet army, and it somewhat makes sense - not every private is a good shot, but you can find someone from 10 dudes who do better than others and get him SVD. .30 cal SVD is a better 600-800 meter killer that AR in .223. So, it was all figured out with certain concept of fighting in mind.... I do not have practical experience with ARs. I do think AR is a fine weapon if properly maintained, as others mentioned.

 

[Snape315]

Re: AR vs. AK

For me, it all comes down to FLEXIBILTY.

The AR15/M16 has it.
The AK-47 & 74 don't.

An AR15 can be configured to do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING an AK-47 or AK-74 can do. The reverse is not true.

My favorite AR15 is my LMT MRP. For me, it offers the Best of the Flexibilty aspects of the AR15 platform.

Want a gas piston system for increased reliability, fine. Run any of the GP uppers available or just swap barrels.

Want to run the 7.62x39 or 5.45x39 caliber for a harder hitting round, fine. There are several uppers in that caliber or once again, just swap barrels & bolts.

Want to run a superior round to .223/5.56mm or 7.62x39 / 5.45x39... fine. Calibers like the 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, 300 AAC Blackout, & .204 Ruger are just a upper or barrel swap away.

 

[Turk]

Re: AR vs. AK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Emouse</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You mean the cheap romanian and hungarian junk thats made its way into Iraq? That combined with magazines and spares sourced from elsewhere results in weapons that dont function.

Late/Current AK74 etc made in Russia and now elsewhere are certainly not junk, inaccurate or prone to failure.

The AK has worked since 1947. The AR has been a lenghty excercise in turd polishing to just make it function.

Other AK variants such as the Galil/Valmet and R4/5/6,...inaccurate? To say that is total nonsense.

And finally yes the HK416 and its clones,..a gas piston operated AR. Far more AK than many will want to admit? </div></div>
416 is far more AR then people like to admit; and speaking of "polishing a turd"; how's the L85??

 

[5RWill]

Re: AR vs. AK

Everyone has an opinion on this topic i guess i'll throw mine in. I prefer a AR over the AK any day. Reliability also relies on the user. Keep an AR "wet" lubed up it will run with the best. As kraig showed pictures of and stated it's been put through some harsh conditions. I prefer the accuracy, ergonomics, range, and round of the AR over the AK. I know thats a huge debate also, but hey i just like the 5.56 it's been doing it's job handily for years now. Fact of the matter is this argument will continue for another sum odd years and never settle. But one part that is true for both weapons, it's man made, it's prone to failure.. Period.

I mean that in the context that no weapon is perfect, not in the sense that they're failures.

 

[VYD]

Re: AR vs. AK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kortik</div><div class="ubbcode-body">O.K., here is my expeience. Was born in the USSR, spent some time in the army, did a bit of shooting. In all my years spent in the evil empire, I 've never seen or heard about AKs jamming or otherwise not working when needed, oiled, cleaned or not oiled and not cleaned. Please consider that all AKs I've shot over there were true military models and made in the USSR, which is a huge difference from the pile of questionable quality AKs which American shooters forced to buy over here for the lack of the original ones. AK-47 observation: not practically accurate in full auto, decently accurate in semi-auto up to 250-300 meters, but punches thru just about ANYTHING. AK-74 observation - very good in any firing mode, very little recoil, practically accurate to 300-400 meters, but very noisy with muzzle brake, makes weird holes, but weak on steel plates. For the Soviet army, long range accuracy of AKs was never a big concern, that is what SVD was deployed for. There were roughly 1:10 ratio between AKs and SVDs in the soviet army, and it somewhat makes sense - not every private is a good shot, but you can find someone from 10 dudes who do better than others and get him SVD. .30 cal SVD is a better 600-800 meter killer that AR in .223. So, it was all figured out with certain concept of fighting in mind.... I do not have practical experience with ARs. I do think AR is a fine weapon if properly maintained, as others mentioned. </div></div>

Born in the "evil" empire myself. Agree on all points. Just wanted to add, if you remember the Afghan war, an AK74 was a weapon of choice for both sides; newer rifle, controllable in full-auto mode, and nasty wound ballistics.
As far as AK vs AR debate goes, let's just leave it for keyboard commandoes to argue about...

 

[ker2222]

Re: AR vs. AK

sks..........reliable as an ak, accurate out to 400 yards with iron sites......

god I wish I still had all the ones I bought for 100 dollars back in the good old days.....

 

[Mute]

Re: AR vs. AK

I have more than my share of both ARs and AKs. If things get nasty, I'm grabbing one of my ARs. I've never had a problem with AR reliability. Too many people under-lube and over-clean their ARs.

 

[marduk185]

Re: AR vs. AK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ColdShotKill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TBannister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok. How about if you had to choose between Glock and the 1911 to pair with your AK vs AR?
</div></div>

i see what you did there

</div></div>

1911 beats glock trashplastica every time hands down.

 

[KillShot]

Re: AR vs. AK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marduk185</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1911 beats glock trashplastica every time hands down.</div></div>

I agree with your comment about 1911 beating a Glock but after reading your reason for editing (FAL is better than ar or ak), you should really consider being a stand-up comedian.

 

[XMC]

Re: AR vs. AK

Another 2 cents. I originally qualified with the M-14. Moved to the M-16 in ITR. Shot on the batallion rifle team with M-16. For issue weapons, I found the M-14 won on reliability and accuracy over the M-16. So, I would question why anyone would limit themselves to the AR or AK platform. Both are inferior (unless highly modified from issue specs)to available 30 cal (and larger) platforms. If the purpose is going to be specialize for just urban use then I guess that could be justified, but once the first shot is fired all plans go to hell. If I'm going to have a weapon I may need to depend on to defend my life for all posibilities, planned and unplanned, I'm going with a quality 30 caliber weapon. If the decision is based on which is best for imagined specific scenarios then it doesn't really matter. Shoot based on your priorities, fun, cheap, acurate to 25 yards, whatever. I prefer to prioritize round ballistics in available platforms as more of a measuring stick.

 

[MDStroup]

Re: AR vs. AK

How about we all agree both guns are the best at what they do and each one is intended for a different purpose so each one is used differently, dont forget that most of the guns today probably wouldn't be around if it wasn't for either of them.

 

[Remoah]

Re: AR vs. AK

Get an AR.
If shit hits the fan, there's tonnes of them lying around you can scavenge parts from to repair yours with, and the ammo is also very common. Also, the AK is great, but all the stopping power in the world don't mean shit if the bullet doesn't hit the target.

 

[bmt]

Re: AR vs. AK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The AK is more accurate than people give it credit for.
The AR is more reliable than people give it credit for.

</div></div>

Amen

 

[DerMeister]

Re: AR vs. AK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArmaHeavy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: redneckbmxer24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would like somebody to show me some actual FACTUAL information that proves the AK is more reliable.
</div></div>
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/o9oITR_KZok"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/o9oITR_KZok" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
</div></div>

That weapon was clearly lacking the barrel pin or the front trunnion wasn't attached to the receiver correctly, and was not due to the design of the weapon.

While I don't really like to get into these debates, I personally prefer the AK. I have an SLR-106fr(5.56x45mm) AK as my go to gun. It is a well made, reliable, and accurate enough. I would own an AR if I could afford to buy a high-end one.

However for the money, a well-made AK is hard to beat.

 

[DerMeister]

Re: AR vs. AK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A2DownRange</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This has a very easy answer. Buy both.

I'm not trying to be smart, but you are correct that both have different weaknesses and strengths. I don't see the AK as an effective rifle over 100 - 150 yards.

I also would consider the SKS. It's the best of the AR (accuracy) and the AK (30 caliver round). Truly a remarkable rifle. </div></div>

I really have never witnessed any huge advantage an SKS has to an AK in accuracy. I think the only increase you will see if at all is from the 4" or so more distance between the sights. Both can do around 4 MOA from what I have seen.

 

[jakerz3]

Re: AR vs. AK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The AK is more accurate than people give it credit for.
The AR is more reliable than people give it credit for.

</div></div>

Well said. I have to agree with this.

 

[Rovieairto]

Re: AR vs. AK

I'll go so far as to make a wager with anyone who wants to journey to my home range in Minnesota.

Me: 16.x" chrome lined, mass produced 1-9 barrel, with carbine sight radius (a standard A2 carry handle carbine) vrs.
You: iron sighted AK.

We can shoot for hits on 4 moa targets out to as far as you care to go (1000 yard limit).
We can make time, and shooting positions a variable too.
How many hits in a minute at distance or something similar.
Give me your ideas.
Have as much crap on your gun as you want.
Use a bi-pod for all I care.
Just bring an AK type rifle with iron sights and all the accessories you need.

Must wager something beforehand.

 

[Rovieairto]

Re: AR vs. AK

I'll go so far as to make a wager with anyone who wants to journey to my home range in Minnesota.

Me: 16.x" chrome lined, mass produced 1-9 barrel, with carbine sight radius (a standard A2 carry handle carbine) vrs.
You: iron sighted AK.

We can shoot for hits on 4 moa targets out to as far as you care to go (1000 yard limit).
We can make time, and shooting positions a variable too.
How many hits in a minute at distance or something similar.
Give me your ideas.
Have as much crap on your gun as you want.
Use a bi-pod for all I care.
Just bring an AK type rifle with iron sights and all the accessories you need.

Must wager something beforehand.

 

[Emouse]

Re: AR vs. AK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The AR beat the AK like a red headed stepchild in every category but system cost.

That's why we use it, and all the third world countries use the AK. </div></div>

What a fantastically stupid statement.

 

[Grizzdude]

Re: AR vs. AK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Emouse</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The AR beat the AK like a red headed stepchild in every category but system cost.

That's why we use it, and all the third world countries use the AK. </div></div>

Wow, now this guy is a winner

 

[kimberseries1]

Re: AR vs. AK

I've owned(past tense) a Saiga AK Sporter. Replaced stock with pistol grip, replaced hanguard with hard poly tri-rail. 1st mag out, firing pin failed to ignite 3 primers out of 30. Probably cheap ruskie junk ammo, but needless to say, it doesn't sit in my safe anymore.

I also hadn't moved the trigger group forward to standard ak config. so I don't know if that made an impact or not. I'm an ar guy now. All that about ak's being easier to take apart....how hard is it to tear down an ar?

Yeah, you can clean an ak with diesel for 40 years and have a smooth bore rifle, but I clean all guns after nearly every outing anyway. I'll take an ar for a shtf gun, I can pack much more ammo than 7.62x39. Plus, m855 penetrator is not made for dropping people, it's made for going through body armor. For quicker drops, use Hornady TAP, that's what LE does.

 

[marduk185]

Re: AR vs. AK

sks is a good choice too

 

[cramey74]

Re: AR vs. AK

I love my AK'S
I love my AR'S

My go to gun---whatever is close

 

[kimberseries1]

Re: AR vs. AK

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marduk185</div><div class="ubbcode-body">sks is a good choice too </div></div>

+1! I'd take my Yugo over a Saiga 8 days a week......

 

[kritos666]

I think this is clearly answered here:

AR-15 VS AK-47, Solved Once and For All - YouTube

"Dangit... I dropped my ham samich in my AK again" will an AR fire with a ham samich stuck in it .. I think not question answered

 

[kritos666]

I think this is clearly answered here:

AR-15 VS AK-47, Solved Once and For All - YouTube

"Dangit... I dropped my ham samich in my AK again" will an AR fire with a ham samich stuck in it .. I think not question answered

Sorry I couldn't resist

 

[Tevis]

That video is amazing! What an internet jewel!!!!

In all seriousness if we look at the situation rationally, the amount of ammo used to familiarize yourself we each rifle and train with each will cost a good bit more than either rifle (assuming standard quality of each weapon). So just get both and sell the one you don't like after you are done.

 

[Ammo dog 2311]

i'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but i want everyones opinion on this. i am prior military, and i have shot ar style rifles for a very long time. but i cant help but notice the advantages that the ak has over the ar. the ak is more reliable, easier to disassemble, shoots a larger round, and is less exspensive. the ar is more accurate, and has less recoil, but i think i would rather have a rifle that doesnt jam, and has more penetration. if i want accuracy, i'll pull out the m-24.

any thoughts?

The ak-47 has only one task it does well, shooting people. The ar can do that plus a lot more. If you want a PDW then the ak gets the nod. If you want to do anything else then the ar is the weapon of choice.
I have a JP-15 and an armalite and neither has ever jammed on me ! With the price of ammo you are better off getting a AR in .22lr then an AK. It's pretty said when a 22 has the same accuracy as a ak-47 out to 100-150 yds. I own lots of weapons but I shoot my rim fire far more often.
With all that being said I will probably own a AK-47 some day just because it always goes bang !!!