I should pick an AK up just to have as a reference rifle.

So will 7.62x39. It just takes longer to get to the target and has a massive amount of drop.

I only own a couple of AK's and I own them for two reasons;

1. It's a historically significant firearm development.

2. Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg et al. Including any and all other promoters of the Nanny State.

AK triggers are horrible. No other word describes it. They have a long pull, excessive over travel, sometimes slap and otherwise fire at unpredictable times in the trigger squeeze.

The sights are unseeable buy anyone over age 40.

They weigh too much and are ungainly.

They kick more than AR-15's.

Most of the ammo available is steel cased, berdan primed and corrosive. The bi-metal bullets cut barrel life in half. Reloading is the only way to guarantee accurate ammo. Boxer primed brass cases are relatively rare and must be purchased in bulk when they finally show up. AK's are known for violent ejection and almost every case gets damaged if you can find it. I have a Valmet ejection buffer installed on one rifle that helps in this regard. I would buy and try anything on the market to protect my brass from ejection damage.

With all that being said, they can be a hell of a lot of fun to shoot, are economical and easily upgraded. The rear sight should be replaced immediately with an adjustable ghost ring.

I've used the Ultimak gas tube on my cheap 10/63 rifle and have swapped between a micro red-dot sight and a 1.5x long eye relief handgun scope. Both work very well on the rifle and allow a low head position and a good cheek weld.

On my Poly-Tech Legend I installed Larue's rear sight mount that utilizes a Burris Fast Fire red-dot and it's fast into action as well.

I suggest you buy a cheap AK and ride it like a mail order bride. Purchase a bunch of surplus ball ammo and shoot it like it's going to be outlawed tomorrow. It is not accurate, as in competitively accurate, past 100 yards. The barrels are the lowest grade available as is the ammo. It is lethal and dangerous and perfectly suitable for urban or jungle warfare where close range shots are the norm.

For me the AR-15 continues to be my #1 choice, but we are after all in the AK forum and when you ask about AK's vs. AR's in the AK forum you can pretty much predict what the prevailing opinion will be. I am always impressed with accuracy and all of my AR-15's shoot under 1 MOA with match ammo. I have never had a malfunction in my AR's unless they were odd ball calibers like 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel or 7.62x39mm. Those haven't had all the bugs worked out yet, especially when it comes to magazines. 5.56mm magazines from major G.I. contractors are always reliable in my experience.

Vietnam war stories to the contrary, AR-15's are incredibly reliable fighting rifles. I've competed in close to 200 NRA/CMP/DCM tournaments where thousands of rounds are fired in a day and rarely see a malfunction of any kind. One person's bad experience when the rifle was in it's infancy (1960's) gets repeated time and time again until the average person thinks that it's the current truth. It just ain't so.

This debate has been going on 50 years, now. At least this thread hasn't boiled down to "Yer mudda's a hor!"

I say AR15 is a better rifle; but the AK is a better weapon.

The AK will function under adverse conditions when the AR will fail. I don't mean hundreds or thousands of rounds, I mean being carried, dropped, submerged, thrown, run over, beaten, neglected and abused. The kind of abuse a weapon on the battlefield can see, because we do not prepare for what will happen, we prepare for what may happen. It is a simpler, more durable design.

Now when I say the AR is a better rifle, I mean it has greater accuracy potential, it's lighter, and it's easier to maintain at the armorer level.(An armorer can replace barrels, gas blocks, receivers, etc with little more than a vise, hammer, drift pins and wrenches. An AK will require an actual gunsmith with the proper equipment and machinery to change barrels, check and adjust headspace, etc)  Logistically, it's a better choice for a large military.

The AK is a better weapon in close-quarters, and I don't mean the caliber; most variants, aside from those with certain folding stocks, can be used as a makeshift bludgeon when someone's trying to wrestle your rifle away from you. And the rifle will continue to function. I know some smartass is going to say that if your target is too close to shoot, you're close enough to punch/kick/stab/etc. But when you already have something heavy and sturdy in your hands, instinct is going to decide that the blunt object in your hands is the best available weapon, since it's already in your hands, and therefore faster to deploy. This is also why I support issuing and training with bayonets.

My grandad told me all about how he "broke his M16 over a VC's head and had to pay the Army $65," so I'm a little biased. It's just harder to break a rifle with a steel receiver than it is to break one with an aluminum receiver. And being heavier lends itself to being used with a bayonet, too.

Now there's a reason I prioritize a rifle that does better up-close. I was raised to believe that infantry should be trained and intended to do what marksmen, artillery, aircraft and armor cannot do; CQB. A tank can't clear a building and save the hostages inside, for example. So having a weapon that can be used to bash some prick's head in one moment, than used to shoot his buddies in the next room a minute later is a little more than just a fringe benefit. Plus, y'know, plan for what might happen, stack the cards in your favor, etc.

For home defense, I am more likely to wind up wrestling with an intruder in the dark than shooting at someone more than 30 feet away. So I would rather have a rifle that lends itself to such a scenario.

TL,DR; AK breaks skulls.

You don't say.....BTW the maximum distance a soldier is expected to engage and be able to hit a point (man sized) target is 550 meters with an M16, 500 meters with an M4, best I recall it's 800meters for an area target.

This may be true in the past but no longer true with modern AR's.

Its still true today.  The issue of AK's failing is due to the influx of substandard US manufactured parts and guns. And with AR kits running below $400 its popularity undoubtedly skyrocketed.  Still, one can easily find many more instances of AR failures than AK.  Entire videos have been made with exploding AR15's....the same 2 or 3 AK failure vids is what AR fanbois circulate.

I guess personal experience is what one needs to make a decision, mine starts with the AK in 1989, and then 7 years military experience shortly after that.  The type of failures that would put a rifle out of the fight have been with the AR from what I have seen.  Yes, I still have plenty of AR's, but they are more for tinkering with than anything else, an AK resides by my bed for "bumps in the night".  

RAS 47's, C39's, IO's etc cannot be classified as serious guns imho, and are the main reason we see the recent disdain for the AK here in the US...My opinion.

I wanted to add that I am putting together a M4gery that I plan on running hard to see what it will do.  The barrel and BCG will be of good quality.

There are many more ar's than ak's in the U.S. so you are going to find many more videos of ar's failing.  Most, if not all,  of the kabooms that happen in AR's is ammo related, usually reloads.  

If your personal experience tells you that ak's are more reliable than so be it, im not judging, but its not gospel and the sample size is so small it hardly registers.


What I meant to say in my quoted statement above is that although I do believe that back in 'nam AK's were probably more reliable than AR's, in modern day they are equally reliable.  I have plenty of both and in my experience I would not think twice about betting my life on either platform.

And yes I always exclude the substandard rifles that have tarnished the ak's reputation, nothing but russian and bulgarian in my safe

For some reason i find the AK 7.62x39 easier to shoot than AR 556x45. Even in full auto, i dont know if its the slower rate of fire, but maybe its just me, and im a small build guy. Dont get me wrong, i love the AR platform. I can find myself admiring the looks of AR more than AK, but in the range its totally different. In terms of accuracy, unless youre in competition, i dont think it makes much of a difference dont you think?

Heres an interesting vid of AK in action, not necessarily a proof that AK is accurate, but its definitely good enough.

https://youtu.be/h9BC_45Xlt0

Yup I remember that, and my favorite targets to knock down with a trusty M16A2 or M4 were the 300 meter targets during qual, I made that comment because people say the AKM is only effective out to about there,so why not compare the AR with range you have mentioned against something with similiar range instead

Trying to make the comparison less of an apples to oranges and more of a red to green apple comparison

Yeah, not so sure what that video proves, but try this one for evidence that with good fundamentals and a properly built AK you can make hit out to as far as you need to. Reid is an excellent shooter, so this ain't just the gun making magic shots, but clearly the gun ain't holding him back either.

Just to prove that an AK is by no means inaccurate, that video shows if AK is inaccurate, those soldier would have been shot dead. Mind you, those are standard 1950s Russian AK, unmodified, upgraded etc.

I love both, but my go to is the AR

gotcha

Come on man even Mikhail knows the AR is superior.

So, the best CQB warriors in the world are basically not using the right tool for the job... Gotcha.

Yup.

I've seen the same proportion of AK failures as I've seen AR failures. I've been in classes where the only gun to shit the bed is an AK while the ARs still ran like sewing machines.

On another point, I've heard that it's common practice for Russian soldiers to gather around after being issued guns and mags to swap mags around to see which ones work in which rifles...

I have mags that will absolutely NOT fit into the mag wells of one of my AKs but function fine in others and vice versa. Not that it's a "failure" per se but it's indicative of the types of issues that the AK suffers from that rarely gets discussed.

 
Yeah. No reason to hate on either one. They're both very unique. And the philosophy behind each rifle's design really doesn't make it fair to compare them to each other.

The AR and the AK have a lot more in common than people think.

Assuming both are built to spec the AR will be a but more accurate and the AK will be a but more reliable.

The AR still can't shake it's rep from its issues in the beginning and (it seems military guys mostly) the AK gets the old "it's not as reliable as everyone thinks, the AR us more reliable!!!11!1 hurry" because they come across AK's that are built in freakin caves buy tards with crude tools. The fact that they work is a miracle.

Personally, I go in cycles. I'll shoot my AK's for a couple months and swear I love them and then I'll shoot one of my AR's one day and then they will be what I shoot for a couple of months. Rinse, repeat. Sprinkle in a FAL, Saiga 12, this, that, once in a while and you're good to go! :)

Until the tolerances get as loose as the AK's Yes, it is. Any engineer worth his salt will tell you it's an undeniable fact that no amount of fanboyism (not saying you are one) will change.  Modern AR's are awesome and have closed the gap considerably but let's no kid ourselves. Between two properly built rifles the AR will stop because of crud and other debris, on average, first.

Thats a pretty bold statement to make without any sources cited.

I was thinking of those exact videos.

Oh yeah, I think both performed well considering.

Really?

The best CQB warriors in the world use what they are issued, what their teammates are using,(Commonality of parts/magazines) what their COC is willing to pay for; and their choice depends on where they are, what they're doing, and who they're fighting. SEALs, Delta, SOG and a number of other American SF groups used AK's, and still use them to this day.

When I said the AK is more reliable under adverse conditions, I meant more along the lines of neglect and lack of lubricant, rather than sand/debris in the gun, seeing as that will make any gun fail.

Sand getting into an AK WILL cause it to malfunction, don't get me wrong. But it'll continue functioning longer than an AR would under the same circumstances.(IE, sand inside the gun)

The Kalashnikov is over-gassed by design, and there is a lot more mass in an AK BCG than that of an AR15. Therefore, according to my lowly minor in physics, the AK is more likely to overcome a sticky FCG. And the AK having stronger FCG springs lends itself to reliability, if a shitty trigger pull.

Now it's easier getting debris into an AK than an AR. Also easier to get it out. It's all give and take.

As I said earlier, the AR15 is a better rifle. But I believe that the AK is a better weapon. Personal opinion, it's worth what you paid for it.

Heavy Metal: I don't know if grandad had to pay the army or not, but he swore be damned that he did when he told me back in the 90's. Can't ask him now.

I don't find one video interesting. The same video AR guys run too and treat like it was scientific and it totally proves the AR's superiority (not implying you're an AR guy Heavy, I don't know, it's just what I typically see from the AR side when this topic pops up). It's a statistically irrelevant YouTube video with a million factors that are not controlled. It's a "fun" video and nothing more. At least viewed scientifically. That's why I said on average. If he would have done that fifty times between both guns if bet the score would favor the AK.

I can find a hundred YouTube videos of basically the same thing where the AK "wins" or the AR does. None of them should be taken as anything other than fun.

Although I will admit the video that supposed me a bit was the iraqivetern videos where they try to burn down both weapons. The AR did around 840 rounds I think. The first AK, which proves my point about poorly built vs well built locked up after only a couple hundred rounds. But what really surprised me was the good AK lasting just about that same as the AR. Although I guess we should be impressed. I don't think hundreds upon hundreds of rounds of suppressive type fire, consecutively, are what Stoner or Kalashnikov had in mind when they made these weapons. Lol.

Nothing will change the tolerance factor. It's not an assumption. But like I said, the two guns are a lot closer than people think. The AR is really reliable now and the AK can be really accurate.

Just as an example, the British SAS don't use the Enfield that's issued to the rest of their army. They get to choose what weapon they will carry and they default to M4s.

I'm pretty sure that if Delta or ST6 wanted to run AKs , they'd be allowed to.

While I'm not saying that's not a decent argument, I don't see why the team guys don't choose SCAR's as Thier main, go to gun. It's an improvement over both weapons.

Well they do/did run HK 416's so similar to the SCAR (in that they are both piston guns.)

Funny you should mention that...

The SCAR-L underwent field testing in A'stan with SEALs (IIRC) and it was determined that it didn't do anything that the M4 couldn't do.

And I'm pretty sure the SCAR-H is still being used in limited applications.

But the bedrock platform is still the M4. It is still proving to be one of the most flexible platforms ever developed, when you consider all the roles it can play depending on how it's configured, from the MK18 to the MK12 and everything in between.

I find videos to be ridiculous. Who in there right mine would submerge any firearm in mud then try to fire it? How can one test of only two rifles be indicative of anything?

People posts these "informational videos" as if they are trying to teach the general public something of substance. The fact is they are teaching people unsafe practices which can and have blown rifles to bits. People have been injured, probably killed when rifles were fired with barrel obstructions.

No matter what rifle you like or prefer, always keep it clean and never fire any rifle that has mud or any other crud in the bore.

They have several videos some of sand and of mud. The first one they did after crawling through the mud. A lot of folks felt that the AR did well in that video because the mud wasn't directly on the ejection port. When they were crawling through the mud they kept a cover over the muzzle to prevent obstructions. Karl and Ian are very knowledgeable about firearms in general. They did the videos to dispel some myths out there, not to suggest that people keep their guns in that condition for general use.

Best solution is to have one of those laser thingies on your left shoulder like the Predator.

Ridiculous. No such weapon exists.

The real question is would you rather field an ak or an ar if youre in a jungle surrounded by Predators with those thingies.

I believe the Iraqveteran video of the burn test is an inaccurate assumption of JUST bad quality vs good. The 2nd video was an ak with a heavy barrel where the ar15 was govt profile if memory serves and funny enough that's what cause the failure in the ar15. Put a heavy barrel in that thing and bet it would continue chewing. Not even mentioning the different cyclic rate. ( I don't think these types are test are accurate representation either as this would never occur.  I think the mud/dirt is more realistic in a SHTF)

One thing I do give credit to the first ak video is a bit of banging had it up and running again....

Yes I own both ar's and ak's and I'm about to post my opinion so you can "fan boy" me if you want :)

My first purchase was an ak. I enjoyed the cheap price tag, the cheap ammo and the firepower that came with it. I still have this ak (amd 65) and it's been a GREAT rifle. Very accurate and very reliable. I have modded it quite a bit so it no longer looks like an amd 65 so it's gained a little weight but overall very good rifle and was my go-to for approx. 3 years.

I purchased an AR for the wife at some point and honestly, i enjoyed it. It was very lightweight and ergonomics were great. The wife also liked the weight but didn't like the sound (women are hard to please as most know). The crack was "too loud" and she preferred the ak's thump. (go figure).

Around this time I also took a liking to the 300 blackout round. After sometime I finally decided i wanted a sbr'd 300 blackout suppressed and started down that path.

After I put this together I was more than happy with it but my ak has seen over 2000 rounds without a malfunction and i was just starting out with the 300blk so I didn't trust it yet. Now I have put well over 1000 rounds through it in both sub/supers suppressed and unsuppressed and no malfunctions to date.

Overall I have moved to the AR being my go-to and honestly it's about the versatility of the weapon system. Both are super reliable and accurate. What makes the difference is having a weapon system that has the same power, better accuracy, same overall length, lighter while also having a white light, red dot and suppressor attached to it. 300 blackout sbr'd is my go-to. It can do everything my ak can do with having all those force multipliers and being lighter. I can't think of a reason not to use it  over the AK. Everything is QD as well so if something does break or needs to come off it can quickly and at that point only becomes lighter and lighter.

The last nail in the coffin was chest rigs and magazines. It's just lighter and easier to remove ar15 mags from pouches and reinsert vs the AK. I still plan to keep my ak's and would use them but it wouldn't be my first choice if given the chance to make the choice.

In the end, I'll have my two sbr'd ar15's and two sbr'd ak's and wouldn't be upset with either.

Nice thing about sbr ak is no tube so it folks up nice into a backpack with a 20 round mag.  AR has that tube off the back so not as compact for a Katrina gun.

While I do agree the AK will come out of the backpack operable much quicker. You can still easily fit a broken down AR in there.

Here's my daily carry backpack... 10.5" sbr'd AR w/ silencerco omega (plus a bunch of other stuff).

Nice setup, I just hope you have proper paperwork for that assault water bottle I think if you want the best answer in a long term bugout and exposed scenario. Choose what is easiest to feed in your area. I think anywhere in this country a 5.56 ak is a good bet as ammo is common in military and law enforcement That's just me I own 4 ak and 2 ar15 rifles I love my DDM4V5. I think in the end of world type stuff 5.45 or 7.62x39 wouldn't be as logical as most police stations and military armories will not support that caliber as far as I know. So pack what your sure of and can feed it best. Also don't forget to give it a good gun bath scrubbing once in a while regardless the platform you choose. A clean and lubed gun is a happy gun no matter who designed her or country of origin. I'm looking at this as a Boy Scout be prepared I know the op wasn't talking end of world, but I say pack what would work in any possible scenario the longest. Only my opinion

I currently own a couple AR's and an AK. I love both, but for their own reasons. Me grabbing one over the other is dictated by the situation on hand right THEN, or for a trip that I am planning. Where am I going, am I competing, as it just going to be a trunk gun for the weekend, etc. The modularity of the AR is obvious, but the AK to me is better than an AR in other ways, like being cheaper, so I don't worry so much about corrosion or other things stemming from owning an expensive rifle. I don't baby any of my rifles, but there's just something about an AK.

I guess if I had to JUST KEEP ONE, *shocker* I'd choose my AK. It was made in a Rifle Dynamics class by a friend. Had the guts polished, rear sight mod, dura coated, and synthetic furniture. No optics, just a sling and mags. I get caught up on the bells and whistles so much that stepping back and shooting a naked rifle makes sense to me. I love the inexpensive ownership that comes with an AK for these reasons as well. I didn't buy a red dot, Magpul mags are cheap, and ammo is cheaper too in most cases. The .30 cal punches hard too, and folks argue cover vs concealment and such, but it's a comforting thing having bigger bullets I guess.

Sorry for the scatter brained logic. I hope this helps in the debate.

Nah I think your post was completely reasonable:)

I thought AR failure was its gas tube.  

Absolutely LOVE my hydroflask!! Keeps liquid cold for days.  Highly recommended!!

Here's my two cents.

Any modern combatant who would carry an ak into combat over an ar is retarded.

This conclusion could be made on the controls alone.

Horrible safety, optic mounting, magazine loading, charging handle, ect

The internals on a real AKM are completely asinine.

The AR is much easier to fully break down.

Please do not argue this unless you have assembled a real AKM fire control group.

With that all said I do like the AK for what it is. I do own one and enjoy shooting it. In true arfcom fashion. Get both!

What in the ever loving fuck!?  wow

Problem?

While we are at it the sights and trigger are horrible too.