AR15 VS AK47,Pro and Con of each?

4

45automan

New member
Well guys what do you all think? I like AK 47's myself since I can't afford an AR-15:( I have heard a great deal of combat takes place at ranges of 200yrds of less. Is this true? If so the AR being more accurate doesn't really matter does it?Are the new AK's that are coming through with pistol grips and 10 US parts any good? I have heard talk of the internal parts being to spft. Is this the case?
Thanks,45automan
 
This is my opinion, but it is based on extensive experience of field use of the M16 in the Infantry and hauling various ARs and AKs around the woods and swamps of my friend's cattle ranch, hunting hogs etc.
It is also based on in-depth conversations with various combat veterans who I trained under and served with, who had experience from Vietnam all the way up to Bosnia.
The AK47 is a gun designed and built for the Lowest Common Denominator. It was built to be issued to poorly-trained, unmotivated troops and to untrained and poorly-equipped geurilla units who would never clean or maintain them and wouldn't be able to shoot them accurately even if they were inherently accurate.
For this reason, the rifle was built with an emphasis on durability and reliability. If you want a gun that you don't have to clean or maintain, and aren't that concerned about accuracy, it is the gun for you. And by accuracy I don't mean 300+yard accuracy, I mean 100+ yard accuracy. SOME few AKs are capable of 2 MOA accuracy or so with the right ammo, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
Me, I appreciate the upside of AKs, but I was trained to be a rifleman, not a spray-and-pray cannon-fodder who is only there to pin the enemy down till I can call for air support or artillery.
I was also trained to properly clean and maintain a rifle, so keeping an AR/M16 reliable is not a big chore for me. Personally, I consider the AR/M16 system to be one of the best weapons systems around. It's very versatile and adaptable, there are a multitude of very useful accessories for it and it is capable of pinpoint accuracy out to about 300 yards. It's easy to maintain and to work on, very ergonomic and has what I consider the best iron sights on any combat weapon.
Opinions vary and I am sure a certain moderator will be along shortly for his regular bashing of the AR system based on a bad experience with one Bushmaster that turned out to be a wrong part rather than any fault of the design. But that's my thoughts on the matter.
 
Darn, If you can't afford an AR then you can't afford my preban Polytech Legend AK. I'm still looking for a su..I mean a buyer. ;)
 
Darn it George, don't leave without me! You know I don't like AR's either! 45automan, basically most folks will tell you that if you plan on engaging targets beyond 300 yds, to use a battle rifle rather than an assult rifle. With that bit of advice, we can eliminate both the AR and AK from long range tactical use. Under 300 yds, the accuracy issue is less of a concern. So basically, if range isn't a concern, and accuracy isn't much of a concern, then you might as well choose a rifle that will work, because range=time and if your prima-donna rifle (read AR) screws up with the enemy 1K yds out, you've got some time, but if it screws up with less than 300 yds to your enemy, you'd better have fast hands. Get the AK.
 
Accuracy always matters and you can miss just as easily at 100 yards as you can at 600 if the rifle isn't inherently accurate and has sub-par sights, as is the case with the AK. The reliability issue is a red herring mostly brought up by people who don't know how to clean and maintain their rifle.
 
Reference these threads:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=16040


http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=16053


http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=16064


http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=16074


We've argued about this topic before...enough is enough. You CAN miss more easily at 600 that 100, becaue the target appears smaller, bullet drop actually plays a role, and wind will play a role as well. So no, you cannot miss as easily at 100 as you can at 600. Also, please explain the spotlessly cleaned and well lubricated ARs that I have personally seen jam like grape jelly (sorry, I couldn't resist). If you say "the ejector/extractor, ouija board needed tuning" well, AKs flat don't NEED to be tuned. One of these days Rikwriter will figure out we were all right, but it will be too late...his rifle will have jammed and some guy with a muddy AK will get him while he's preaching the virtues of a cleanly rifle.

Sorry! Oh that was so wrong! How dare I! Now, where's that Shiner?

Addendum for the Moderator: I went ahead and rewiewed Forum Rule #3, because I figured I'd be told to anyway. I won't add anymore to this ongoing war.

[Edited by Frontsight! on 11-20-2000 at 11:14 PM]
 
Well I for one know how to clean a rifle, and I prefer the FAL of all of them. :)

I'm going to base my opinions on my experiences between a few ARs and a few AKs. I've never been in combat, I've never shot anybody, I've never jumped out of an airplane, I've never eaten snakes for dinner in a Mekong village, and I've never defused a bomb while hanging under a speeding bus. Now with my qualifications out of the way, I will proceed to give you my opinion on this heated topic which I hope in no way shape or form offends anybody besides those who usually get offended. ;)

The AR has two big advantages over the AK, accuracy and ergonomics. The AR is a pretty comfortable weapon to shoot, the safety is much better than big clacker on the AK. The AR is more accurate, and has better sights. I can get some pretty darn impressive groups out of my Bushmaster using Black Hills 55gr bullets.

The AK however, as was stated so eloquently above, was designed for the lowest common denominator, meaning that you can kick the hell out of it and it will still shoot. The tolerences are very loose, and the design is simple. It is not a gun that will impress any snobs at the range, but it will always go bang. The AR is more accurate, but it needs to be treated better. Its kind of like one of those prom queen types, thats all pretty and stuff, but stuck up and snooty.

For the money, you can pick up an AK for less than half of an AR. For more money, take a look at the VEPR II at http://www.robarm.com which is supposed to be the best AK in existence, with a good trigger and good accuracy.

We recently had a long string of threads instigated by Mad Dog about the AR, when the search function is up you will probably want to read those. Whoops sorry, just noticed that Frontsight! has those posted, thanks.

I bought my AR to be my be all end all break glass in case of emergency gun. I did that on a college student budget, it took me a while to save up. I loved it, it was my best purchase ever, it cost more than my car (no really). But then I started to have problems. I discovered that the spring loaded ejector could be jammed by a brass shaving about 1/16 of an inch, bad ejection, no function, that made me lose lots of confidence in it. I discovered that the magazines were pretty weak, and malfunction prone. I discovered that it was a pain in the butt to clean since it ejected all of its carbon directly into its action.

Do I hate the AR as much as some people around here, not even close. But I've lost faith in it as a fighting weapon. I'm holding on to mine because its fun to shoot at the range, and it makes a good gun for teaching new shooters due to the light recoil.

The AK is no beauty queen, the stocks are built for pygmies, the sights are pretty sucky, and I don't like the safety. In my opinion it is accurate enough to get the job done, we went pumpkin shooting Saturday morning, we could still hit the 200 yard pumpkin pretty consistently with a SAR 1. We could rapidly walk hits into the 300 yard one.

Also cheaper than the AR, take a look at some of the parts FALs that are out there. The Century ones occasionaly have some problems, but they can be fixed up by a smith, and still be cheaper than an AR.

7.62x39 vs .223 vs .308= A whole nother world of arguing. The .223 fmj is supposed to do more damage to humans than a 7.62x39 fmj. Ok, I can buy that, so use softpoints for serious work and shoot cheap milsurp for practice. I shoot a .308, I can't see that not working on a person by any stretch of the imagination.

Whew, that is probably the longest post I've ever written.
 
Frontsighti said: >>One of these days Rikwriter will figure out we were all right, but it will be too late...his rifle will have jammed and some guy with a muddy AK will get him while he's preaching the virtues of a cleanly rifle.<<

Fraid not, ol' chum. I have already gotten M16s and AR15s muddy and sloppy and they fired just fine. Anyhow I doubt I will ever be up against anyone with an AK as I am not even in the reserves anymore and am getting a bit long in the tooth to be called to active duty. And if the stuff ever hit the fan, I doubt the bad guys would be carrying AKs. But you go ahead and be condescending, it only makes my arguments look better by comparison.
 
Pros:
AK-more robust magazines, better penetration of cover, cheaper ammo.

AR-better ergonomics, better sights and flatter trajectory, lighter mags and ammo, more common ammo.

One big con to the AK is the awkward magazine locking.

Conslusion: Ak is my house gun, AR is my outdoor gun. Prefer the Garand shortie to both at this point. FAL superior in theory but the ergonomics don't work for me at all.
 
The AR15 and its .223 cartridge has withstood the test of time. The Soviets has upgraded the AK47 to the AKM and later to the AK74 (5.45x39mm)to try to copy the advantages of the .223 cartidge, e.g. less recoil in full-auto fire. Now there is a new AN94 which also uses the 5.45x39mm. So I would say the AR15 is a better choice.

The AK47 has a distinquish sound signature, so to avoid friendly fire, the AK47 was used by U.S. Special forces during deep insertions into enemy territory. So not just the "bad guys" use AK47. :D
 
my take

This is coming from somebody who's owned and fired both an AK and a Bushmaster AR, not to mention GI M16A1's and A2's.

The AR is a fine weapon system, so long as you treat it right. Sometimes, when they get worn out, (like the used and re-used ones we had in Basic) they begin to malfunction at a distrubing rate. (nothing more frustrating than having a jam on the range when you're trying to qualify). The A2's sights are easier to adjust than the A1's, and include an elevation sight, but that's just dressing. A soldier isn't going to be shooting at anything at 600 meters with open sights from an M16 anyway. The AR/M16 has lots of little pieces that get lost if you're carless, especially in the field. I don't like 3-round burst, either. It doesn't give any advantage over semi, unless you're fighting supermen who require three bullets to die. As for training in the Guard (with our old A1s, which, oddly enough, were in better condition than the A2s we had in basic), we only have a short range, so that means plastic, low-velocity rounds, which REALLY muck up the works, and the AR has a rather dirty gas system to begin with, which is half the reason it needs to be cleaned so often. The only other things we get to fire are blanks, and those, aside from being very dirty in their own right, are inherently unreliable, because thye mess with the gas operation. And their magazines, although they are lightweight, are fragile, and a dented or otherwise "bad" magazine can result in failure to feed. Too much spring tension gives you double feeds. We were even told (in basic, by the Drill Sergeants) about a catastrophic failure known as a "pop-and-no-kick". I'm not sure what that is, but it leaves the rifle dangerous (they have to call in EOD) to handle. One kid's M16 fouled up so bad they had to call in the armorer to fix it. On the Civillian Market, ARs are expensive if they're any good, but they are very accurate, if you get a good zeroing on the sights.

AKs were designed with a completely different philosophy. While the M16 was born out of a desire from Bobby Macnamara's know-better-than-thou WHIZ KIDS, the AK was born out of a desire for typical Russian rugged efficiency. While the AK isn't as accurate at longer ranges as an AR, it can still hit a man-sized target. 7.62x39 has more muzzle drop than 5.56mm, too, but this isn't really a factor at realistic combat ranges. The AK's sights were fine to me. Mine didn't have a standard stock; I put a synthetic stock on there that gave a longer trigger pull. The AK's system of operation is simple, and there is very little to go wrong. It field strips into a lot less pieces than the AR, and those pieces are bigger. There are no windage sights on most of them, but that didn't bother me. Seems to me that if I'm in combat I'm not going to go messing with my sights every time there's a freaking breeze anyway. I prefer the AR's slap-in magazine and push-button release to the snap-in magazines/flipper release of the AK, and AR magazines are smaller and lighter than AK mags. But AK mags are made out of steel, and thus are sturdier, and pre-ban AK magazines are some of the most inexpensive on the market. Plus, if you hate reloading, you can get drums of 75 or 100 rounds. The action of the AK isn't perfect by any means. The slapping of the bolt wears down on the receiver, but they have a small pad you can insert into your AK to alieviate that.

The choice, however, is yours. Both weapons have their good points and their bad points.
 
"Pop, no kick" is NOT a malfunction inherent or unique to the M16. It is simply a squib round, where there is not enough gunpowder to send the bullet out of the barrel. It's dangerous in that you can blow the barrel if there's a round stuck in it, but it's dangerous in ANY firearm. It is not more likely to happen in an M16 than any other firearm.
And BTW, the 7.62x39 has a precipitous drop at ranges far shorter than 600 yards...it will drop pretty far at anything over 150 yards. But the argument isn't really about caliber, as even the Russians realized that the 7.62x39 was an inferior antipersonnel round and dropped it in favor of the 5.45x39.
 
I have two AR15s (Colt Match Target and Eagle Arms Golden Eagle), an AR10, two AKs (Rumanian and Bulgarian), an M1A and FN-FAL (post-ban Imbel receiver with mostly Steyr parts).

I much prefer the AR15s over the AKs. They have been very reliable for me. I've fired thousands of rounds through them and had 2 feed failures (magazine related). Mine are quite accurate, helped by 2-stage match triggers. The sights are quite good, and the round shows relatively little drop until out past 200 yards. Not so good in a strong wind at the 600 yard line, even with 69gr match ammo. I do keep them clean, but it's not hard to do. Only thing I don't like about field stripping them is reinstalling the retaining pin for the firing pin. Wouldn't want to have to do that at night in a foxhole...

The AKs simply aren't as accurate, even when mounted with a scope. Part of that is probably the ammo. The AK triggers aren't very good and sights are downright terrible. Fine at a 100 yards against a man-size target. 200 yards is really stretching it. Reliable. Don't like the mag-change system -- I find changing the mags on an AR to be MUCH less fumble prone. Stocks are too short. The only AR-type gun that I really like is the Valmet. Rather spendy, unfortunately. They are reliable and can be field-stripped by a monkey.

The AR10 is nice, but I've had problems with some of the mags not locking in place. Relatively heavy. Quite accurate. Very nice trigger. Nice ergonomics.

I like the M1A, though cleaning and field-stripping isn't a joy. Lovely trigger. Nice sights. Feels right in my hands. Nice .308 ballistics. More recoil than an AR15, of course, but not bad. Has the same type of push in and rotate mag system as the AK.

I'm not a fan of the FAL. Yes, it is easy to clean. Make sure you have the gas port adjusted properly though. If you have it opened up too much, the case won't eject fully. Then the case can get jammed between the dust cover and the bolt. Take it from me, this is not an easy malfunction to clear. Sights on the FAL are only so-so. Trigger just plain sucks -- way, way too heavy. I don't particularly care for the ergonomics. It's too heavy, with too much of the weight out front. And the receiver is too long, placing the handguard too far away. Has the same type of mag system as the AK and M1A. I wouldn't want to have to hump that beast over hill and dale.

Of these rifles, my favorite is the AR15, followed by the M1A. YMMV.

What was it someone (Cooper?) said? "Only accurate rifle are interesting."

M1911
 
If you're only going to have one SHTF/combat rifle, have the AK. It won't fail you and they're more accurate than their detractors claim. Mine was 100% reliable right out of the box (literally pulled from box, mag inserted, bang, bang, bang) and had remained so since. I had one failure, in I don't know how many thousand rounds, and that was a dented primer, no ignition (not the gun's fault).

If you have an AK and must have one, like I did, go ahead and buy an AR. Mine took about 500 rounds to break in, in which it repeatedly jammed. Since then, it's been reliable, but my confidence is still less than 100%.
 
Get one of each and be done with it!

There, that'll take care of the problem! I have one AR (Preban Colt Competition HBAR), and one AK (Bulgarian SLR-95). I'm also in the process of building a NFA-papered Krinkov in 7.62x39, and have been sitting on an Olympic Arms preban lower for something to do at a later date. Looks like it'll become a 6PPC now. When the Y2K scare came around, the wife got the Colt, I got the AK. She wanted the AK for it's obnoxious bark (Tokarev-style muzzle brake), but had only trained on the AR, and was comfortable with the recoil, rear peep sight, and safety, so from an ergonomic standpoint the AR prevailed for her.

There's a ton of variables to introduce into the AR vs. AK argument. My SLR-95 has fired only US manufactured or my own handloaded ammo, and has performed inside of 2 MOA, but as RikWriter said, that's the exception, not the rule, and I could see where a cheaper stamped AK, like one of those MISR-90 hybrids, wouldn't do so well, but I'll bet they would still fire under adversity. I am, however, confident of the gun's ability to engage targets out to at least 300 yards, no problem.

My personal Colt Competition HBAR, on the other hand, was a good example of how QC can go South in a hurry when production is sped up against a deadline (Crime Bill of '94) The barrel actually loosened up from the upper receiver after 100 rounds, producing shotgun patterns. The trigger was an abomination, and you could drive a truck in the gap between upper and lower receivers. All fixable, as I eventually did, but it was definitely not my idea of a "ready" gun.

I requalify on a regular basis with the M16 (and the M9, but that's a whole different ball of wax), and have used M16's that should have been rearsenaled long before they were issued to us, with loose front and rear sights, gas scraper/piston rings on the bolt that don't, you name it. Made the AK look like a tackdriving beanfield rifle in comparison. The most recent example I qualified with last year was an early variant, no forward assist, no brass deflector hump, mated to a new HBAR barrel, handguard, front sight, and closed-bottom flash hider. It actually grouped pretty well, enough to get an Expert rating. I'll bet the armorers got a chuckle out of it when they sent it out.

In basic training back in 1986 (Gawd, has it been that long ago?) when we initially qualified on the M16, the southpaw recruit on the line to the left of me had an out-of-battery ignition that cost him his fledgling Air Force career, with a burned right cornea. To this day, I make damned sure any M16 handed to me gets a thorough going-over and cleaning, and that firing pin had better float freely...
 
What do you mean just ONE of each?? :D

allguns2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top