The functional difference between the AR & the AK

D

dZ

New member
When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that
ballpoint pens would not work in zero
gravity. To combat the problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12
million to develop a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside down,
underwater, on almost any surface including glass and at temperatures
ranging from below freezing to 300C.

The Russians used a pencil.
 
I love that!!

As people say "state of the art", what does that mean indeed?

One word would explain it,

---- simplicity ----.


If you can develop a simple method to resolve a complex problem. That is state of the art.

If you look into an AK, you will wonder why we need so many parts to file a round.
 
I would describe it thusly:

-AR: MOA for $900 or so
-AK: 3 MOA for $350 or so.

(I know, I'm simplifying.) I really like the pencil analogy.
 
Since a SIG 550 is also piston-operated, I suggest you better correct
your price estimates, at least as long as you buy the rifle in the US.
In Switzerland, we'd have problems getting a Daewoo DR-200, though. :)
 
Armalite is now producing the AR-180B, an updated version of the AR-180, which is what the AR-15 should have been. Simple, stamped parts (the new lower is polymer), easy takedown, no crud in the receiver, easy to clean, operates in very adverse conditions. MSRP will be $590.

Jim
 
I am fascinated by the new Armalite AR-180B. Has anyone actually seen one or handled on?

If it works like advertised, I'd be willing to sell my Mini-14 to finance its purchase!

Skorzeny
 
Let's see...hmmm....

The Russians lost the space race. Then they lost the cold war. Their cost cutting brought them the disaster of Chernobyl. Ultimately their entire empire went tits up.

It wasn't just because they adopted a battle rifle that was designed for peasants who didn't understand why it was bad to poop in their own water supply...that was just a symptom.

Simplicity and expediency have their places but it behooves us to look for better, long term solutions when we have the chance. The AK is okay and will indeed fill a niche....for a while. It will buy one the time to arm yourself with an even better rifle.

I really don't have anything special against the AK. However, to suggest it is better than the AR---plllleeeeeezzzzeeee!!!!

BTW, there are plenty of reasons writing important records and notes in ink are superior to writing them in pencil. Legibility and longevity come to mind.
jack
 
DZ,

I sure don't see many AK's capable of first round center mass target strikes at ranges exceeding 100 yards.

I know I'll hear about all the range heros that shot a supposed wonder group at 25 yards, but then we're talking real world here and the AK frankly is a junker looking for a future organ donor to operate it.

Besides, NASA don't get into firefights.
 
There's something to be said for engineered simplicity. The Russians build planes, through good engineering, that can do things that our planes can't. Specifically the Su-27 doing the "Cobra manuever". They don't achieve excellent low speed manueverability by utilizing computers, they worked hard and solved the problems.

I've popped rabbits at 100 yards with my AK just snap shooting. This was not a fluke, as I've done it several times.

If I had a choice between an AK-74 and a M16, I'd take the AK. I like the AR, but I think the AK is a better weapon.
 
We all remember the gen 1 '16 jam-o-matics. Some folks just can't get past 60's history to modern times when we own AR's that have not been cleaned in 3000 rounds and still maintain operational integrity.

I'll be sure to read the Camp Perry Highpower results for the AK's used this year.

Oh,

On the Cobra manuever.......the F-15, F-16, and F-18 pilots demonstrate that on a regular basis at the Alliance Airshow.

Gotta keep up with fact and abandon rumor.......:barf:
 
Facts

The Chief of Staff of the Air Force stated one just recently. He made it abundantly clear that when US pilots are given a chance to fly SU-27's and MiG-29's during dissimilar air-to-air training, they routinely outperform US pilots in F-15's and F-16's. Look it up in Air Force Times if you don't believe me.

As for that first-round center mass target hit past 100 yards, I'll take up that offer with my Bulgarian SLR-95. I get to choose the ammo, though, and it ain't gonna be Wolf, it'll be Lapua, Federal, Winchester, or my handloads. That's like folks trying to wring accuracy out of a Springfield M1A Super Match model using Radway Green, good guns and crappy ammo don't mix.

And I'll leave my Colt Competition HBAR at home in the safe, because even though it's accurate, it sure ain't a combat rifle, fussy about cleaning and weighing the same as a Garand. Progress, indeed.:rolleyes:
 
Camp Perry isn't much of a rebuttal-babied AR's aren't going into combat. Neither is the F15's doing the Cobra manuever as they are fly by wire.
 
:eek: It's the He-Man AR Haters Club Part XIV!!! :eek:

One of the best threads ever. Look it up for much educational "debating". :)
 
AR v. AK

I have been to four rifle classes where between 500 to 1000 rds were fired over a few days.

First, almost all the AR-15s choke at least once over the course. Maybe its bad magazines or assembly but, bottom line they don't make it through the courses w/o jamming.

Second, we're talking combat accuracy not Camp Perry. All the students I have been in class with could not utilize whatever accuracy potential the AR-15 may have over other rifle systems. Those who shot the best groups did so due to skill not the rifle. Splitting hairs between 1 moa or 3 moa with an iron sighted gun is a complete waste of time.


The rifle must work every time no matter what. The AR-15 doesn't. There all alot of other rifles that will FAL, G3, M-14, AK, etc.
 
I think both rifles are excellent pieces of equipment, and would feel very comfortable with either. Both have readily available ammo, as well as just about any hunk of hardware/accessory you might want to hang on them. However, when I decided to purchase one several years back, the AR was over $600, and an excellent AK variation (Bulgarian SA-93) sold for $240. I bought the AK. That is another advantage of an AK, it can be manufactured for a fraction of the cost, while still maintaining excellent reliability. My purpose for buying one was to have something fun to shoot (relatively inexpensively), but also to have something to defend my home in case of major turmoil (SHTF).

I think the AR is a fine rifle and would love to have one. For my purposes, I just couldn't see the justification for paying an additional $360 for it.
 
Both are fine weapons. I have 2 ARs and an AK. None of my weapons has ever failed or jammed. I think that the AK vs AR think is the same as the Ford vs Chevy argument.
Don't believe what someone says about Veitnam or whatever because the M16/AR15 just isn't the same as it was back then because there have been many refinements. Remember that the Ak was designed in 47 and had enough time to work out the bugs and the AR appeared around 65 and was rushed into service before the bugs had been worked out.
Bottom line is this... take both weapons out and shoot them and see which one you like best and buy it. Most guys will just buy the cheaper weapon and then spout off about what happened in 'Nam. Better yet, buy both weapons and say that you have the best of both worlds.

Here is a pic of a couple of my toys.
fe3c8da0.jpg.orig.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top