Quoted: Quoted: www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault.htm An AK-47!?!?!?!?!   That's what a friend of my Monkeys Uncle told the dog who passed it on to the Son of Sam who told a corrections Officer that told my priest in confession said. your kidding right?? did you click on the link? aren't you familiar with the Galil or Valmet ?? www.isayeret.com/weapons/galil.htm www.valmet-weapons.com

Yes!

Don't know about thunder ranch, but I've taken my M4 through various rifle schools. It has never given me a problem that wasn't ammo related. IE: light primer strike or such and this was cheaper ammo as we were shooting a ton. We all cleaned our rifles everyday after 500 plus rounds some days. Can't say what would happen after 2000 rounds uncleaned as my rifles don't go that long without cleaning. No one shooting with us which were mostly all ARs and a few HKs (no AKs) had any problems with their ARs becomming unusable. Maybe thunder ranch has a differnt story but I haven't seen a problem yet. Take care of your rifle and it'll take care of you.

Exactly LE6920, oh and what's this "Evil Politically incorrect look", & how's that a pro?

Geez - people are getting all defensive about their beloved ARs.  The AR is a GREAT rifle, but this wasn't an issue of "which is a better rifle?", it was purely a question of reliability.

Unfortunately, despite those of you that think the AR is perfect in every way, it is only as reliable as an AK when it is kept clean and fed good ammo.  On a range, with time to clean every couple of hundred rounds, of course an AR can be as reliable as an AK. Under those conditions, ANY well-built semi-automatic rifle should function flawlessly.

Under more rugged and "combat" conditions, there is unfortunately no doubt that IN GENERAL, the AK system is more reliable than the AR system.

The fact that someone knows someone who once shot 4000 rounds through an AR without a failure, and someone else once saw someone at the range with a cheap egyptian AK clone that jammed on every round has nothing to do with anything.

The fact that a lot of countries chose the AR also does not have to mean too much.  Look at where they get it.  The Galil (and Glion) is generally a better rifle, but whenyou can get ARs for free from the US, why would you pay to build your own?  Lots of US allies choose the AR because they get big discounts, or because they have decided to go with the 5.56, and the AR is a lot cheaper than other alternatives.

Saying that it must be the best, because all of the US armed forces use it is also somewhat narrowminded.  I suppose that means that if the AK really was better during the Cold War, the US would just have ordered millions of them from the Kremlin to equip the US military?  yeah right.  If the FAMAS were better do you really think the US would equip its military with a FRENCH rifle?  God forbid!  It had to be US made, but that does not mean it could not have been better.  A better gas piston system, for instance, could probably improve reliability quite a bit.

Just my $.02 - I don't really like 5.56 anyway.  Let's debate 5.56 vs. 7.62 instead

Quoted: ...and what's this "Evil Politically incorrect look", & how's that a pro?

I said that the pro's and con's were IMHO (in my humble opinion).  My pro's may be your con's.  Any rifle that the liberals hate because of its looks is something I find desirable.  

 Ha!!  QCMGR, you are full of BS!!!  At my local Sportsman's Warehouse, I talked to someone at the gun department who served in the Navy from 1977 to 1999.  Guess what he was?  An SBU operator!!!  These guys see the same action as SEALs, since they deliver and pick them up, which is when they get shot at the most.  I asked him if it was true that the SEALs and other Spec Ops use the AK almost exclusively, he said no.  The only time they use AKs is when going into missions that they need complete deniability.  They some times use when they have a chance at getting them REALLY muddy, but he said they often used M16A2 rifles or carbines, usually Bushmaster or Stoner.  He said they are better made than standard military M16s and are more reliable in the respect of parts breakage, but he said both standard mil spec and the SEAL issue will keep on shooting no matter what.  He said that AR-15 rifles are very reliable.  He says the AK will take a lot more and keep working, but it had to be that way for Russian conscripts who drop their loaded mags in mud, but still use them anyway.  The AR-15 is a very reliable rifle.  They will keep shooting, even with some grit in 'em.  It will still function well in combat.  From Grenada to Kosovo, the A2 has performed very well.  Many military authorities will tell you the AR-15 is a very good weapon, and is very reliable.  So, the AK is more reliable, but the AR is very reliable, still.  More than reliable enough for combat.  I think I would take my AR any day of the week, with my Otis CK in the buttstock.  

This weekend is the shootout for between my AR, and my buddy's AK.  Guess I gotta get practicing to prove the AR is more accurate, 'cuz I don't want shooter error to affect the comparison in any way.

Quoted: but the millitary has done vigorous testing and has confirmed the 5.56 is the most all around efficient round there is for combat "war".

The .223 Cartridge Case has a case length of: 1.76 inches long. With an average muzzle velocity of 3250 fps for a 55 grain bullet from a 20 inch barrel.



The 22 PPC has a Case Length of: 1.505 inches long.
Average Muzzle Velocity is around 3500 fps from a 20 inch barrel for the same bullet.

The 22 PPC has a higher load density than the .223 and has a more consistant burn rate. (ie. the 22 PPC is inherently more accurate than the .223).
Because the 22 PPC has a shorter case length than the .223. This would result in shorter (and lighter) receiver and bolt when comparing 2 rifles of similar design, but designed around these 2 cartridges.

So..it seems to me..that if you were going to go the 22 cal route, 22 PPC would be more "efficient" than .223 in terms of weight of the rifle and performance of the cartridge.

So..wouldn't an AR15 designed around the .22 PPC be better than the an AR15 designed around the .223 ?

Quoted: good point Tomac I guess I'm just American, oh and the AR's light weight, accuracy and wounding capabilities are a plus in my book. The AR is just a weapon that was designed to be very balanced, in all aspect's of what a combat rifle should be.

Weight of an AR15 A2 HBAR: about 8 lbs.
Weight of an AK Clone: about 8 lbs.

Somehow..I don't think you will find too much of a difference in weight between a 5.45 x 39 mm cartridge and M193 Ammo.

Of course..if you are talking about the original AR15 configuration (with the crummy sights, skinny barrel, slow twist rate and crummy accuracy) then yes there is a substantial difference in weight between the 2 designs.


The Professional Ordnance Carbon 15 Rifle is intrigueing..but they seem to have some reliability problems.

Quoted: FUCK THIS SHIT! AR'S ARE RELIABLE! WHERE IS YOUR HEAD'S? UP YOUR ASS! GO TELL ALL THE MARINE'S, ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, THAT THEY MIGHT AS WELL GIVE UP BECAUSE BIN LADEN'S WEAPON'S ARE SUPERIOR TO OUR'S. ALL THEIR'S ARE GONNA DO IS JAM AND SHIT AND THE TALIBAN GUY'S WILL HAVE A STRAIGHT SHOT. SO FUCK IT WE MIGHT AS WELL START PRAYING TO ALA.

Eugene Stoner evidently wasn't really satisfied with the AR 10/ AR 15 Gas System, and ended up designing the AR 18 and then the Stoner 63 Weapons System.

The USMC preferred the Stoner 63 over the M16 but due to politics, budget, logistics and procurement concerns stayed with the M16 and ended up redesigning the M16A1 into what is known today as the M16A2.

The Army initially didn't want to replace their M16A1's with the M16A2 but ended up following suite anyway.
(Now everyone seems to be moving towards the M4 Carbine because the M16A2 is too heavy - (the M16A2 is only about 3/4 of a pound lighter than the M14 Rifle).

As an aside: Eugene Stoner came out with the AR10 before the AR15. Similarly he came out with the AR16 BEFORE the AR18.

Quoted: Quoted: FUCK THIS SHIT! AR'S ARE RELIABLE! WHERE IS YOUR HEAD'S? UP YOUR ASS! GO TELL ALL THE MARINE'S, ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, THAT THEY MIGHT AS WELL GIVE UP BECAUSE BIN LADEN'S WEAPON'S ARE SUPERIOR TO OUR'S. ALL THEIR'S ARE GONNA DO IS JAM AND SHIT AND THE TALIBAN GUY'S WILL HAVE A STRAIGHT SHOT. SO FUCK IT WE MIGHT AS WELL START PRAYING TO ALA. Eugene Stoner evidently wasn't really satisfied with the AR 10/ AR 15 Gas System, and ended up designing the AR 18 and then the Stoner 63 Weapons System.

From ArmaLite:

"It was obvious from Army purchases of the AR-15 that Fairchild had erred in selling the AR-15 in 1959. To recover from that error, ArmaLite set about to develop a new rifle that wouldn’t violate the Stoner gas system patents, which now belonged to Colt’s. The result was the AR-18, which began development in 1963. The combat effectiveness of the .223 caliber cartridge was now well proven. ArmaLite hoped to build a new rifle capable of displacing the AR-15 in the hands of the Army. The AR-18 combined the lessons of the AR-15 and the AR-16 in a rifle capable of competing for the many expected contracts for new rifles."

Quoted:  Ha!!  QCMGR, you are full of BS!!!  At my local Sportsman's Warehouse, I talked to someone at the gun department who served in the Navy from 1977 to 1999.  Guess what he was?  An SBU operator!!!  These guys see the same action as SEALs, since they deliver and pick them up, which is when they get shot at the most.  I asked him if it was true that the SEALs and other Spec Ops use the AK almost exclusively, he said no.  The only time they use AKs is when going into missions that they need complete deniability.

Dude,

I was joking.  Spec.  Ops. uses the M-16 family of weapons because they are B-E-T-T-E-R than the AK.    

I love AK's and AR's; peasant or elitist, makes no difference to me.