I had a conversation with a group of young guys about the speed of shooting an AK-74 (5.45x39) versus an AR.  Think quality stock AR carbine with good trigger and a red dot sight versus a SAR-2 or Bulgarian 74 with the same RDS.  Hit a basketball at 50 yards with 10 shots as fast as you can.

I was lonely saying an average competent shooter could shoot faster with a 74 in 5.45x39.  I have seen video of guys driving ARs super fast but they would likely also be super fast with a 74.  I thing the mechanical speed of an AR is faster than a 74 is faster, and I have never timed myself, but the lower recoil of the 74 makes it much easier for me to drive fast!

Anyone ever test themselves on this?

I’ve never tested this, but I’d expect the difference would be minimal if both guns have similar set ups.

With similar muzzle device I don't think there will be any difference. The one you train with the most will be fastest.

I'll take a flying guess! I have AR's and an AK-74, and I would say the answer depends on the ability of the shooter, with very little difference in the rifles themselves.

Added, if I had to choose one for only speed, I would probably go with the AR only because the barrel, to me, seems to be in better alignment with the stock producing less muzzle rise when fired. Again, I think the difference is insignificant.

I haven't tried this with a timer, but I'd be hard pressed to see a world in which you could transition a 5.45mm AK to a firing position, go from safe to semi, and then put 10 rounds into a target before setting to safe and coming off target faster than a well-built AR. If all you're doing is firing from semi on a bench rest with no mechanical manipulation, MAYBE, but that's on shooter skill more than the capability of the weapon.

Even the best Bulgarian and Russian AKs in 5.45mm I've shot have had more recoil than a well-built and properly-gassed AR.

Maybe someone will come along and prove me wrong, I dunno. Shot timers don't lie.

The 5.45 has a little bit less energy than a 5.56 and the typical 74 is maybe a little heavier than an AR. Which would give a slight edge to the 74. But the big AK bolt has a lot of mass moving around during firing compared to the "cleaner" DI recoil of the AR.

Are we talking equal muzzle break? I think it would come down to the trigger.

I’ve done plenty of CQB drills with both.  Realistically there is not a ton of difference, but I expect that the AR is faster, particularly in a 16” midlength configuration, or running something like an A1.  I’m a lefty which is a benefit for running AKs, but the AR just has a lot less reciprocating mass, the reciprocating mass is almost all inline with the shoulder, and the safety is faster.  The difference in speed goes down if you run the AK eastern style aka don’t try to actuate the safety on and off when not actively engaging target, but the AR still has less mass.  Reloads are faster with an AR as well.  5.45 has less recoil than 5.56, but I don’t think that’s as important as the improved ergos and lower reciprocating mass of the AR.  If you incorporate night vision and IR aiming devices, I think the AR pulls even farther ahead.

Overall I think AKs have a higher floor due to the easy to learn manual of arms, but ARs have a higher ceiling due to inherent advantages in ergos and operating system.  Realistically you can be very fast with either as long as you train.  Standing still and dumping mags, I’m not sure there is a huge difference.

It's shooter dependent, whatever manual of arms you are more proficient at you are going to shoot faster with.
Klayco47 (check out his stuff on youtube) does a lot of competition shooting and has no issues winning with AK's in 5.56, 5.45, and 7.62x39.

in 3-gun matches, the AK-74 looses a lot of time flicking off the safety and doing mag changes

I was RO’ing an AK shooter once

start position was low ready, safety on

SHOOTER STANDBY .....BEEEEEP

one...one thousand....two...one thousand

BANG BANG


I think i could do better, but i remember thinking - 2 whole seconds to get a shot off ....Yikes

.

Interesting!  I got my first SAR-2 in 2001 or 2002 and remember being amazed at how fast I could shoot.  Also - ammo was cheap like maybe $100 for a 750 round case of Barnaul which was the "good" ammo and I'd shoot 3X the amount of AR ammo on range trip.  

My AKs have very minimal wear on the receivers from using the safety (shame)!!  Back then I used a Russian Kobra sight and thought it was the bees knees.

I also didn't consider that my ARs back then (Rock River CAR, Colt A1, and a DPMS A2) were less refined than my current ARs.

Thanks

That's lack of training, not an issue with the platform.
If proficient with the AK you can have the safety off by the time your rifle is up (especially easy if you are using something like the Kreb's safety) and mag changes can be done in 3 seconds or slightly less. Keyword is practice.

true

but if you want to win at 3-gun, setup an AR

I have the extended safety, and always wanted to try it in 3-gun, but never did,....same with my Garand.

Hmmm.  I have only shot my AK74 (bulgarian - have not shot the russian yet) and a gun at a range by a nice guy who got me hooked (romanian) and it is extremely flat shooting. Both guns were stamped receiver mil spec in theory.  Very consistence though in terms of performance and feel.  With ARs I have shot a whole bunch of different guns and I can say that some shoot amazing and some shoot like crap.  Some are solid, even on F/A, and some rattle like garbage.  Its not really a fair comparison.  What I really should try is IMI Galil vs. bulgarian AK74.

I've been shooting both (milled AK (7.62x39) and high end AR in 5.56) for about 10-15 years.

AR is better at

• better inherent accuracy, better quality barrels, better triggers, etc


• better cheek weld


• optics mounting (options and overall quality)


• better ergonomics for selector


• better ergo for mag changes


• 5.56 in 16" barrels is a much better round than 5.45

AK is better for

• 7.62x39 works awesome in short barrel setups so you can make very tiny and effective guns with it


• 7.62x39 is usually cheap and widely available in a way that 300 BLK isn't


• AKs can fold, which is another point towards compactness


• with decent proejctiles 7.62x39 is a solid performer- ie soft points and HP if they work


• same for 5.45 but 5.45 is dominated by FMJ loadings/milsurp

IMO AK platform in 7.62x39 is a great substitute for 9mm subguns (pretty much makes them pointless IMO) but it's mediocre at imitating the AR-15 at doing full size rifle stuff. 8-10 inch barrel AK with suppressor is hands down superior to nearly anything else in that size range.

I don't do 3 gun, but you can absolutely win 2 gun with an AK. I don't record any of my matches, but you can watch an AK shooter win matches on Klayco47's channel. Hell, he wins matches with a Draco equipped with a wire folder.

No personal opinion, just posting for discussions sake.

That video is completely full of shit.

Recoil:
The AK isn't a bolt action rifle and the problems aren't from the recoil of the bullet, they're from the mass and layout of the operating system. The problem is that the AK has this huge heavy off-axis thing called a bolt carrier and gas piston.

Every time you fire the AK, the bolt carrier is thrown hard (by gas pressure) into the back of the receiver and then flies forward again at a slower speed under spring pressure. And since all of this is off axis with the barrel, the gun jerks back and forth every time you fire it. Sure, this technically isn't "recoil" in the strictest sense, but the person shooting the gun has to compensate for it.

Ergonomics
It's possible to train around almost anything but no one who has used both AK and AR will claim that the ergonomics are comparable.

It's like this website is made of code from the 90s.

We are having the same conversations we had in the 90's here as well....

Let me boil down every single AK vs AR thread: AK is more durable. AR is preferred by women, FUDS, and people from Iowa.