If you could only have one, which would it be?

Which one?

  • AK-47

    Votes: 32 36.8%

  • AR-15

    Votes: 55 63.2%
  • Total voters
    87
I guess what the question boils down to, is which gun does what it was designed to do better.

I think that the AR can be taken apart easier and I find I like the way the AR shoots better.

But the AR costs 3x the other. And for the most part, that savings extends into the cost of magazines, etc.

What gun would you say has the better round?
 
AK-47. Most likely our enemies will probably be carry them and we could take parts and ammunition from them, thats my reason, I also like the caliber :rolleyes:
 
These are two different animals. the AK-47 is a military rifle capable of full auto. The AR-15 is a civilain version of a miliraty rifle, with only semi auto. A better second choice would be the M-16 A1, which I would choose. A little less reliable, much more expensive and much more accurate (May be attributed to ammo, though). If I could have only one, the AR wins. An AR-10 would be even better, but wasn't a choice. I just have trouble choosing a weapon eveloped by Communists.
 
I'd want an M4, but the M16/AR-15 type rifles are about the most modular kind of rifles I can think of. There's so much you can do with them to improve the rifle if you want to put the money into it, and the military versions of the rifle are very accurate and reliable too.
 
A real "AK-47" has not been made since the 1950s. So I would take that in a second, since it has tremendous collector value.

But then, an original Armalite AR-15 is pretty rare too.......
 
AR15, but only if I was playing on our turf. If I was going to play a home game in Afganastan, I would want the AK47.
 
AK, plain and simple, reliability under any condition.

dont give me that...my AR never jams crap...drag it in some sand then come tell me that it still functions.

oh, and on the fn/fal post, i agree, but it was not a choice :D i gots me 2 of em', as well as 1 ak, and 1 ar
 
Kalashikov in a heartbeat if I was in the field. That way you never run out of ammunition. You nail an opposing fire team, you get their rounds and mags.

As for accuracy:

1) The AKs are accurate enugh.

2) I am not a sniper.

3) Enemy infantry tend to be moving durring an engagement and require short bursts to plant their zig-zagging behinds.

If not in the field I would take the AR.

1) parts commonality

2) ammunition availiability

3) modular.
 
Well having fired both, in bad conditions, and currently own both I would go with the AR. Actually either would be ok with me except for one thing...............accuracy. I have never seen an AK yet that can come close to matching the accuracy of the AR.
Now I will say that the AK's will shoot all the time, they might not actually hit anything but they will shoot all the time. But, I actually like to hit what I'm aiming at with only one shot, so I would use the AR.
Now don't get me wrong, I do like both weapons..........and this is just an opnion.....so you AK guys just ease up on those triggers.
see ya later
DA
:D
 
I've always said AR for the same reasons stated above. Despite viscious sentament from the jamming problem the original M16's had, the problem has long since been fixed. I don't hide under mud, so the cleaning problem is not an issue. Under normal field conditions - yes, even blowing sand - the AR/M16 functions fine.

That said, I voted AK.:confused:

For some odd reason, my behind-the-seat gun has been my SSR-85b Polish AKM since the first day I shot it. I get 6" groups at 100-150yds, and I've got a sweet 4x24 PSO scope on it.

Despite other shooter's opinions, I find the open sights easier to use when quick reflexes are called for.

I stockpile much more ammo for the AK due to the cost and availability.

Parts, if they were ever needed (see above: reliabilty), are readily available as AR parts, but are much cheaper.

As for SHTF, I'm hidin. If the 'enemy' is farther than 150yds, I'm stayin under my rock and keepin quiet. Thinkin I'll be courageous is a nice thought, but I'm not relying on it.:cool:

First rule of survival: If you don't get in a fight, you won't die in a fight.
 
Lethality?

The AK round is moving too slow and is too long to do the damage a much smaller bullet (namely M855, M193) moving faster is capable of.

Accuracy? I've shot M855 out a scoped AR 15 that was 1/3 MOA! That was honest 1" , 5-shot groups at 300 yards. I think its too accurate as this was out of a USGI (FNMI) 1:7 chrome bore.

Ammo? If you find useable enemy ammo on the battlefield, you will probably find useable enemy rifles. Weak point on using what you enemy does. Besides, we are talking Homeland Defense here.
 
Had the choice, chose the AK. I live in the desert so for me, the "field" is very dusty, gritty, etc.

God forbid it ever comes down to using it, but if I have to it will probably be to get the Hell Out Of Dodge... IMO the AR and AK are equally effective for unaimed suppression fire and I'm handy enough to be accurate with iron sights at reasonable ranges without taking the time to think "hmmm... there they are! almost have the perfect sight picture almoss(zzZZZPPP >thunk<)"

If you have the time (and stones) to wring the accuracy out of the .223 and AR platform at long ranges during a live firefight, you are lucky indeed. IMO, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top