AK or AR

L

Laxidasical

New member
I recently purchesed a Bushmaster XM15 E2S (AR-15). While reading through the manual of the Bushmaster I almost got scared to shoot the thing. If I saw "gun may explode if..." one more time, I would have been tempted to return it!!!

Then I took it apart...could they have possibly put any more small (breakable) pieces in there??? That got me to thinking about an AK-47 I use to own about 6 years ago. It was the easiest thing to take take apart and put together (with VERY few parts).

I tend to believe that the fewer parts a firearm has, the better!!! Is this true with the AK vs. AR??? Have any of you had extinsive experience with both??? If so, compare the two for functionality, reliability, and accuracy??? Then tell me which one you'd pick if all hell broke loose!!!!!
 
If "all hell breaks loose" I'm taking my HK. :)
Is that what you want a rifle for? To sit in corner waiting for the apocalypse or do you want someting to shoot and have a good time with?
 
Lax, shooot that rifle with confidence. All that "blowing up" talk is the Bushy lawyers talking. It's a legal necessity, nothing more.

I have 3 AR15's and have enjoyed all of them with no problems. I consider Bushmaster to be one of, if not the, best AR15 manufacturer out there. Two of my 3 AR's are Bushy's.

The "all hell broke loose" question is a big can of worms for just one thread. Both the AR and AK variants have pros and cons. The AR's are more accurate (than the AK's) with lots of inexpensive parts and accessories. The AK's by design are more rugged but lack the accuracy. It's a matter of preference - or a coin toss as to which rifle to "grab" if the SHTF.

If I needed a battle rifle for close range urban "disputes" I might grab an AK. If i wanted the ability to use a rifle for short range AND longer range work I would grab the AR.

I could go on for pages so I'd better stop now. You have a very nice Bushmaster rifle. Go shoot it!

CMOS
 
Non e of my rifles came with an "explosion" warning. I don't think that the companies who built my rifles had a need for lawyers to write that sort of thing into the manual...of course, I don't own an AR either. The closest thing to an "explosion" warning is a pamphlet that came with the SA M1A talking about slam fires. That is a rare problem due to high/soft primers and/or gunk in the firing pin hole. As I said, none of my battle rifles have an "explosion" warning. CMOS, I'm sure your rifle is fine, but maybe a look into FALs is in your future? Big solid parts!
 
Depends on what you want and your level of training and proficiency. If you have limited experience with military-style rifles, the AK is very easy to maintain...actually, I know people who NEVER clean their AKs.
Me, I basically learned to shoot with an M16 so an AR feels natural to me and I know how to treat it to make it perfectly reliable. It is the gun I would grab if things ever went bad and the guano hit the turbines.
 
I've got a couple of each. My ARs are much more accurate than my AKs. The .223 round, while not having as much punch as 7.62x39 at closer ranges, is a much flatter shooting round. The ARs have better sights and better triggers (mine have 2-stage NM triggers) than the AKs. That makes it relatively easy to hit a 300 yard target with the AR. I find it much harder to do the same with an AK.

Yes, the AK is easier to clean than the AR. In battle conditions, it is undoubtedly more reliable. But I've fired thousands of rounds through my ARs and only had 2 feed failures (both probably due to dinged up mag feedlips). In a SHTF type of situation, I'd grab the gun I that gives me a better probability of hitting: an AR.

YMMV. If in doubt, get both.

M1911
 
A good Scout...

"Is that what you want a rifle for? To sit in corner waiting for the apocalypse or do you want someting to shoot and have a good time with?"

I want my rifle to do both. That's why I suggest .308 and FAL. My FAL has only 4 or 5 parts (depending on how many beers I have when I count them) and they each weigh in at 2-3 pounds each. If you drop one, you will most likely find it.

Rick
 
The first rifle I ever bought was a AK. I sold it 6 months later without firing a single shot.

What I hate about the AK is that it looks like it was put together by a blind chimp. The workmanship is real shoddy; the parts look like they were hammered/forced together. Everything just didn't fit together right. The barrel was rotated so much that the front sight didn't even line up correctly to the top of the receiver. The front sight post had to be moved all the way to one side to align the sights. As for the sights, they were terrible. A rear notch on a rifle is unacceptable.

The AK was designed to be manufactured with minimal cost and it shows big time. I'm sure it is reliable as hell and can be fired after being buried with a dead Viet Cong for 10 years. And sure, a retarded orangutang could take it apart and put it together without trouble.

But for me, a gun is more than just a tool. It has to be a fine piece of workmanship that I can live with for life, like a fine watch, clock, or nice jewelry (not a rusty old hammer with a bent neck and chipped wooden handle).

I consider the AR to be the antithesis of the AK. I can live with the AR. Maybe the Garand. But what I really want is a Steyr Scout.
 
My first choice would be a Garand, second choice an AR15. I would pick the Mak90(AK) next, then M1 carbine and FAL. The reasons have little to do with their theoretical capabilites and more with the handling and my real results.

I found the AK to be awkward for prone shooting, magazine changes. Aftermarket peep sight really helps.

AK is adecent gun but flatter trajectory, better sights and ergonomics, easier mag changes would favor the AR. AK round defeats cover better at close range and mags are less prone to damage...but it is a better submachine gun replacement (AKM) than a rifle, IMO.
 
8200 rpm, you should have shot it a lot and in different conditions before selling it. Maybe then you'd have a different opinion.

Finely crafted instruments are great when the circumstances call for them, but that crude hammer will come in handy from time to time.
 
Destructo6

To be quite honest, I kinda regret selling it now b/c of the current legal situation here in CA. Most black, bad and ugly semi-auto rifles are banned for good and have to be registered.
 
I have owend both AK and AR style rifles. I have enjoyed both. From a purely pride of owenership perspective it's hands down the AR. They are more accurate, have much better workmanship, and are much better engineered than AK's. AK's do work though. They are most likely the most reliable assult rifle ever. Part of the reason for there reliability is that they are so sloppy in regards to tolerances. AR's are much tighter and thus more dirt sensitive. Keep your AR clean and you have one of the finest if not the finest assult rifles in the world. IMHO that is.


Jay
 
I have an AR, it shoots fine. I don't know that I would want it if TSHTF. I really got it because my wife was afraid of the recoil of a 30-06 (from eye opening experience-- literally). She learned on an M16, so the AR was a logical choice for her deer rifle. She is scary accurate with it. It still doesn't comfort me like the M1 Garand.

The AR is much more accurate than the AK, the AK is much more durable than the AR. I vote with Oleg, the M1 Garand is just as accurate as the AR, with a little better range and a lot more whoop-a$$ downrange. It is just as reliable as the AK if not more so.

My brother had an SLR 95 (a finely tuned AK), and while it was more accurate than the run of the mill AK, and looked like the Bulgarians took pride in their workmanship, it wasn't as handy to lug around. The magazine placement makes it awkward to cary except by sling. The AR is more handy in this respect as there are numerous ways to carry it comfortably (I have logged many-a-mile with an M16 and leather personel carriers). Still the AR doesn't inspire confidence that you'd have with an AK or M1.

The best all-around carry gun of all time is the M1 Carbine. Those who have carried it know how good it feels in your hand.

Go get a CMP M1 Garand, and cherish that part of history. Mine was built in 1940, and so I know that this rifle has earned its respect. It is reasonably (military) accurate, and it is somewhat easy to carry. While you can't get a zillion round mag for it, I consider that to be one of its strong points.

If you just have to have an AR or AK, get an SLR 95 if you can find one. While more expensive, they're pretty nice guns for an AK.
 
The M1 carbine also takes the cake as the best-pointing rifle of the bunch. I am continually amazed at how handy mine is.
 
if you are going to carry a Rifle for a long time i'd say git an M1 Carbine, it's .30-Carbine Round will stop a man at 0-yards and it will stop a man at 300-yards if you know how to shoot it. and it's as reliable as that AK-47, and you can git GI 30-round Mags from $16 to $19 and you can git the 15-round Mags for $6 to $11 so it's the best if you are looking for a Rifle for Carrying out back or for going it to Combat:)
 
Is the AK-47 cost effective these days ????

Seems like the decent ones are going for as much, if not more than a well made, unissued, brand spankin new AR.

I'd take a $7-800 Bushmaster over some parts kit any day. Alas, I live in CA :(......:mad:!
 
Keep the Bushy. About it exploding you didn't say what the rest of warning was? May be talking about a slam fire. I SF years ago while shooting a M-1 Carbine. It will get your attention.

As you have probably seen there is a great debate as to what rifle is best for combat.

My choice is the M-16A1 or a AR-15 SP1 or a newer version with a 1:11 or 1:12 twist barrel.

Concerning the 5.56 NATO round being marginal is a crock. I've seen quite a few men hit with the M-193 ball, 7.62x39 Russian and 7.62 NATO. If I had a choice of which not taking a hit from it would be the M-193 ball.

I know this is only actual combat experience(M-60 gunner, Squad Leader, Hawkteam Leader (Ambush Team) and an Infantry Platoon Sarg.) and not as good going to some shooting school for experience. But that's my experience. Also never seen a 16 jam in a firefight. Most rounds I ever put through my 16 in one setting was in a firefight and went through 13-14 mags. (loaded with 18 rounds each) and it never missed a beat. Also concerning AK's I've got a couple myself but I'd take a AR any day for any combat situation.

Turk
 
Thanks a lot for your replies!!! I have a lot more confidence in this rifle due to them. As soon as I get a chance to shoot it myself I'm sure I'll have even more. I would have gone to the range this weekend, but we're gettin' a lot of snow here!!!

Thanks!!!!!!!
 
Laxidasical, I can't tell where you're from, but ... try to take a Tactical Carbine course. Even a 16 hour weekend course will give you lots of tips on the care, feeding and use of your AR. The Bushmaster is a fine rifle.

Regards from AZ
 
DUDE,

I have a couple of M1 Carbines, and I live the little rifles to death. However, I really doubt that I'd seriously consider a 300 yard shot with the Carbine, even if I thought I could hit a man sized target at that range. The retained energy would be minimal, and he's likely to have a real rifle to shoot back with! For a Carbine zeroed at 100 yards, the drop of a 110gr round at 2000FPS MV is six feet, and the retained energy is only 243FP. The sights may be able to be set at 300 yards, but I wouldn't want to count on the Carbine to disable someone at that range, unless it was a lucky shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top