Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/2/2005 8:34:13 AM EDT
i must say im sorry, i read the forums this morning and things got a little out of hand i didnt mean to piss anyone off just thought we could have a spirited debate over the two. Im new to the whole forums things , what is trolling?
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 8:50:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Arsenal:
i must say im sorry, i read the forums this morning and things got a little out of hand i didnt mean to piss anyone off just thought we could have a spirited debate over the two. Im new to the whole forums things , what is trolling?


Basically doing anything to start an argument.

I would be considered a troll if I started a thread in which my starting post was...

"Colt sucks. Discuss"

I would know that doing that would start an uproar.

Also trolling can be construed to mean following threads around and pissing in them.

An example would be if I disliked LMT so much that everytime I saw an LMT post I would reply to it that "I hate LMT" or some other defamatory statement that adds nothing to the ongoing conversation.

Do not feed the trolls.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 8:56:19 AM EDT
Who cares?

They are two different weapon systems, and people are free to choose whatever makes them happy. There are a handful of people I would pay attention to on this board, a larger group that I read with interest, and a bunch who can say what they want and its just text on a page.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 8:57:50 AM EDT
Arsenal, I don't have a problem with a real debate over which rifle is better. I think the problem was your delivery and the fact that you decided to start it in the AR forum. You acted like an ass and I was happy to see the AK sides reaction. As I stated in last nights thread, I am an AK guy myself, but you will get no support from me when you come on the AR side just to start shit.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 8:59:10 AM EDT
no problem arse.

Chime in anytime, but before you do, ask yourself.....is this going to start a shitstorm? If yes...abort

If not ...submit
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 9:39:32 AM EDT
It didn't help you that most of your conclusions were complete crap. I don't see how someone who actually owns both would say what you said. Particularly about AR15 reliablility and cleaning times.



1. reliability= horrible< total lie
2.accuracy = great
3.cleaning = horribly time consuming <total lie
4. LBE load out = good
5. durability = horrible <total lie
6. recoil =decent

yet most seem to choose them under the harshest conditions

AK
1. reliablity=Great
2. accuracy =fair to good dependign on calibur and manufacturer <total lie
3. cleaning = easy, but doesnt have to have it <total lie
4. LBE load out = Fair depending on calibur
5. Durability= excellent
6. recoil = heavy to fair 762-heavy 5.45 -non exsistant






I've seen AKs and ARs malfunction. I've seen some AKs that are okay in the accuracy department, but saying AKs are good and ARs are great isn't a fair comparison. Cleaning the AR (cleaning the barrel at least) is just as easy if not easier than the AK. Only the first M-16s had reliability issues. That was because of bad powder and the fact that they told soldiers they didn't to be cleaned.

AKs are a bit more reliable than ARs, and ARs are a lot more accurate than AKs. However, that doesn't make the AK indestructable, as your posts would make it sound. ARs are a little less reliable, but that doesn't mean that they are worthless pieces of crap that fail to fire every other round.

If you owned both, you wouldn't have made such a BS post. I own both and like both, but you're greatly exaggerating the weaknesses of the AR and the strengths of the AK. Stop getting your information second hand from the "former navy seals/special operations/commandos" at the gun shows and get some firsthand knowledge.


Rant is officially over.


Link Posted: 10/3/2005 6:44:30 AM EDT
AKs are for poor people.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 6:54:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:
AKs are for poor people.



+1
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 7:11:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By brian427cobra:

Originally Posted By DevL:
AKs are for poor people.



+1



I'm poor!!!

But I've still managed to get both an AK and an AR. I won't mention which one I like better. No need to fuel the fire.

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 1:16:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:
AKs are for poor people.


The most accurate statement.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 1:21:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 1:21:33 PM EDT by MauserMark]

Originally Posted By DevL:
AKs are for poor people.



A good AK will cost around the same as a lower end AR, about $600/$700.

A cheaply made and inaccurate AK will cost you $400 or less but what's the fun in that?

Or you can build a good AR15 for the price of a nice AK from Arsenal, AK-USA and so on.

AKs are for people who like AKs.

ARs are for people who like ARs.

I happen to fall into both categories.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 1:25:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MauserMark:

Originally Posted By DevL:
AKs are for poor people.



A good AK will cost around the same as a lower end AR, about $600/$700.

A cheaply made and inaccurate AK will cost you $400 or less but what's the fun in that?

Or you can build a good AR15 for the price of a nice AK from Arsenal, AK-USA and so on.

AKs are for people who like AKs.

ARs are for people who like ARs.

I happen to fall into both categories.



One of the smartest posts I've seen in these debates. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 1:42:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 1:44:02 PM EDT by tooly]

Originally Posted By DevL:
AKs are for poor people.



Yeah ok .... What I got my sa-m7 for , I could got an ar 15 !!!
And I also have a armalite !!!
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 1:50:26 PM EDT
An AR is more maintenence intensive but maintained Id say reliability is right up there with an AK.The AK has more pentetrating power in targets harder than people..walls clay,wood but other than that both will kill for sure.I likke comparing rifles in the same league.Like comparing the M16 to other 5.56 weapons.Lets compare the AK say to the M14 id give the edge to the 14 for accuracy,lethal range.both just as reliable AK edge on mag capacity.That being said I also own an AK...polytech under folder.To each his own including opinions.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 1:53:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattld:

Originally Posted By Arsenal:
i must say im sorry, i read the forums this morning and things got a little out of hand i didnt mean to piss anyone off just thought we could have a spirited debate over the two. Im new to the whole forums things , what is trolling?


Basically doing anything to start an argument.

I would be considered a troll if I started a thread in which my starting post was...

"Colt sucks. Discuss"

I would know that doing that would start an uproar.

Also trolling can be construed to mean following threads around and pissing in them.

An example would be if I disliked LMT so much that everytime I saw an LMT post I would reply to it that "I hate LMT" or some other defamatory statement that adds nothing to the ongoing conversation.

Do not feed the trolls.



The term "trolling" often gets used that way, especially around here, but originally it meant something a little different. A good "troll" was someone who managed to incite problems in a subversive way, rather than a direct way. A troll might be someone knowledgeable about a topic, who signs on under a fake newbie account and asks a really stupid newbie question with just the wrong wording, knowing that it will cause a flamewar between everyone else on the board. Or they post what sounds like an informative paragraph on some topic, but intentionally screw up a few keys facts in order to confuse those less knowledgeable and/or bait someone into arguing about it. The best trolls are clever, subtle artists. If a troll is dead obvious to everyone (even those less experienced in looking for it), then it really isn't a good troll. Just posting "I hate LMT" over and over is really more in the category of "flamebait" than "trolling". Almost all trolling of course amounts to flamebait, but the distinction is generally that flamebait is direct and obvious, whereas trolling involves at least some amount of subterfuge.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 2:12:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MauserMark:


A cheaply made and inaccurate AK will cost you $400 or less but what's the fun in that?


I happen to fall into both categories.




For sure, I've seen some Saiga's new for 180!!!
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 2:32:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 2:51:47 PM EDT by jb241970]

Originally Posted By Lon_Moer:

Originally Posted By DevL:
AKs are for poor people.


The most accurate statement.



That's quite a blanket statement.
I'll bet I make more money than you, and I own four AK's and one M4gery.
Wanna bet me??
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 3:58:07 PM EDT
AKs are made to be cheap. They are not made to be expensive, accuate or nice. They are made for 3rd worlders to be able to mass produce them on primitive equpiment. They are designed to need minimal maintaining by 3rd world idiots. They are the perfect firearm for the poor and ignorant and thus are used by the majority of poor and ignorant countries. I used to have an AK. That does not change the fact they were, and are, designed for poor, ignorant people in 3rd world countries. They have poor recoil characteristics, suppress horribly, have built in negatives to accuracy, have poor sights, are unergonomic, tend to rust easily and are generally not very well good firearms compared to the newer designs of firearms that assume the end user will be intelligent, trained, well equipped and disciplined.

AKs are for poor people.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:00:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 4:01:24 PM EDT by DevL]

Originally Posted By jb241970:

Originally Posted By Lon_Moer:

Originally Posted By DevL:
AKs are for poor people.


The most accurate statement.



That's quite a blanket statement.
I'll bet I make more money than you, and I own four AK's and one M4gery.
Wanna bet me??



I bet I could whoop your ass with one hand and can pick up 10X more pussy than you. What does that proove? That I have too much testosterone flowing and an insecurity complex so I need to brag and boast? Donald Trump can buy 4 Geo Metros... Geo Metros are still for poor people.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:22:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:
AKs are for poor people.





$699 cheap
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:23:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:

Originally Posted By jb241970:

Originally Posted By Lon_Moer:

Originally Posted By DevL:
AKs are for poor people.


The most accurate statement.



That's quite a blanket statement.
I'll bet I make more money than you, and I own four AK's and one M4gery.
Wanna bet me??



I bet I could whoop your ass with one hand and can pick up 10X more pussy than you. What does that proove? That I have too much testosterone flowing and an insecurity complex so I need to brag and boast? Donald Trump can buy 4 Geo Metros... Geo Metros are still for poor people.




Oh - and I guess that doesn't count as TROLLING ?
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:24:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:
AKs are made to be cheap. They are not made to be expensive, accuate or nice. They are made for 3rd worlders to be able to mass produce them on primitive equpiment. They are designed to need minimal maintaining by 3rd world idiots. They are the perfect firearm for the poor and ignorant and thus are used by the majority of poor and ignorant countries. I used to have an AK. That does not change the fact they were, and are, designed for poor, ignorant people in 3rd world countries. They have poor recoil characteristics, suppress horribly, have built in negatives to accuracy, have poor sights, are unergonomic, tend to rust easily and are generally not very well good firearms compared to the newer designs of firearms that assume the end user will be intelligent, trained, well equipped and disciplined.

AKs are for poor people.



Pretty much right on....
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:29:32 PM EDT
I agree with Mauser Mark. I have a SLR-95 and it's nice, but I'am looking forward to owning a nice CAR AR...
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 4:49:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MauserMark:

Originally Posted By DevL:
AKs are for poor people.



A good AK will cost around the same as a lower end AR, about $600/$700.

A cheaply made and inaccurate AK will cost you $400 or less but what's the fun in that?

Or you can build a good AR15 for the price of a nice AK from Arsenal, AK-USA and so on.

AKs are for people who like AKs.

ARs are for people who like ARs.

I happen to fall into both categories.




Well said sir......

I own both, love both....arguing over which one is better...........who cares, enjoy what you have.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:28:28 PM EDT
The AK is a "first generation" assault rifle. Same category as the original, the Stg44. As such, it has some design deficiencies that have been addressed in later designs, ergonomics being the biggest area. Since the comparison was directly to the AR15/M16, the AR has a degree of modularity that to my knowledge, is unequaled by just about any other design out there. That one characteristic makes everyone else play catchup.

Others have addressed most of the real and imaginary defects. No need to go into them again.

On the plus side, you need to remember when the AK was designed, their history and what they intended to do. Don't forget a fundamental maxim of Russian arms design. Better is the enemy of good enough. In just about everything, the Russians made a conscious design to make it just good enough and then make a lot of them. We pay a lot for AKs in this country, but if you were sitting down to produce a rifle and you had to choose between the AK(AKM, the stamped version), M14, FAL, G3 or M16, the cheapest to manufacture by far would be the AK. For a poorer nation, you don't have the money for optics anyway, so you don't need a weapon with good optics mounts and long range accuracy. The buttstocks are robust and can take a beating and can be cheaply replaced. Laminated furniture is strong and doesn't warp, but the original purpose was economics. Laminates let you use what is essentially scrap wood, pieces that are too small to make a stock out of by itself. The controls and sights are simple. The rear sight follows the pattern of sights that have been used for probably 200 years in one form or another. Peep sights are relatively new.

If you want cutting edge, sci-fi technology with modularity to allow task specialization, look to the AR. If you want simplicity, stick with the AK. If you like both, get both. I did.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:30:32 PM EDT
I'd like to add one of those "poor people rifles" to my armory.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:46:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AWACER:
I'd like to add one of those "poor people rifles" to my armory.



Get two their "cheap"
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:52:42 PM EDT
AK's are pretty solid weapons.
The trigger pull is kind of funny, but
I wouldn't hesitate to carry one in a SHTF situation.
I would definitely take any AR over any AK, though.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:53:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 6:00:10 PM EDT by ALPHAGHOST]
it was not a "debate"

you initiated a direct, unfounded, and troll bashing on ARs

and where are your pics of your

dude, i may say that AR are a horrible combat weapon.; never said i didnt own one or even several. I would never even own a hesse weapon. Another thing, i own one Knight carb and a Colt m4 SBR
......if you dont mind


both are great guns, both have thier faults and strenghts and not all AKs are "for poor people"

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:56:26 PM EDT
I pretty much agree with Devl. But I like both ( I like almost all guns) so I own both...but only 1 AK!
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 6:20:09 AM EDT
Arsenal =
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:45:13 AM EDT
I'm still waiting to see what his combat experience is since he said "an AR is a horrible combat weapon".

He came off a lot like a 12-year old whose parents were away for a few hours.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:05:25 AM EDT
Man im sorry i started the fire but you people seem to be keeping it lit very well! Look the AR "the gun as it is not bad, its the gas system. H&k's m4 is flawless in everyway. The piston was the solution to every problem the AR was weak in. So i should have been more clear as to what i was saying was the main flaw.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:07:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 8:13:54 AM EDT by rifleman2000]

Originally Posted By Arsenal:
Man im sorry i started the fire but you people seem to be keeping it lit very well! Look the AR "the gun as it is not bad, its the gas system. H&k's m4 is flawless in everyway. The piston was the solution to every problem the AR was weak in. So i should have been more clear as to what i was saying was the main flaw.



More Bullshit.

Give me a break. The AR was designed specifically to cut out the gas piston. It works. The only reliability issues military ARs EVER had were in Vietnam, and that was due to the powder used, not the rifle design.

I have carried ARs since 96, including a year in Iraq. Get your facts straight.

ETA: HK can suck it.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:11:49 AM EDT
if i owned a digital camera i could show the pics; whats the big deal ,two AR's like they are hard to obtain. If i did have a digital camera they would surely not be the first of the rifles i would boast about. Dealer samples are where its at :)
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:14:02 AM EDT
ok, then why did the military put the revamp project into HK's lap?
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:19:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Arsenal:
ok, then why did the military put the revamp project into HK's lap?



They didn't, they solicited these things called bids. HK is one of the bidders.

Or maybe you should tell me, genius You seem to have all the answers, the wrong ones anyway. In fact, you are so smart my head hurts.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:24:04 AM EDT
yeah bids or whatever. Well even with HK"s system they still lost , SCAR won at least for the SF boys , its got an AK bolt system :)
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:28:54 AM EDT
The military may say its open but only certain companys get the door opened for them even if the have a fine weapon , like RA
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:36:26 AM EDT
This is the same guy who doesnt see the point in soft armor and thinks magazines are just fine for protection from pistol rounds. Check out his thread in the tactical gear forum.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:41:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Arsenal:
yeah bids or whatever. Well even with HK"s system they still lost , SCAR won at least for the SF boys , its got an AK bolt system :)



Gee, the SCAR is an FN design. And its and AK bolt system? Nice logic, twisting the argument. I never said that an AK is a bad rifle. But you said the AR is a bad rifle for above name reasons, which is BS.

Let me help you though, since I pity small and feeble minded.

The Galil has an "AK BOLT SYSTEM."
The K2 uses parts of the AK design.
The Sig 550 uses an AK style system.
The FN FNC has AK features.

That's some of the big names, though I have to add that many rifles including some of the above also incorporate AR features.

Let's look at kickass HK, and their lame-ass XM8, which was a re-packaged G36 which used the AR18 (ever heard of one) system. It is the same system rifles like the SA80 use.

Keep it coming,

If you keep it up, you'll be as smart as me.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:42:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MrKasab:
This is the same guy who doesnt see the point in soft armor and thinks magazines are just fine for protection from pistol rounds. Check out his thread in the tactical gear forum.





Wow! Too much cool-aid.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:50:55 AM EDT
Let him (Arsenal) use magazines for his concealed body armor!We should really not be arguing over which is better here, as people have already stated. Discussing positive and negative points of both? fine. AKs make bigger holes. ARs put the holes a little closer to where you want them. ARs look cooler, AKs can be used and abused. so what? Its like debating a truck vs a bulletbike for crying out loud... let it go, were all on the same side here!
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:52:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CowChaser:
Let him (Arsenal) use magazines for his concealed body armor!


We should really not be arguing over which is better here, as people have already stated. Discussing positive and negative points of both? fine. AKs make bigger holes. ARs put the holes a little closer to where you want them. ARs look cooler, AKs can be used and abused. so what? Its like debating a truck vs a bulletbike for crying out loud... let it go, were all on the same side here!



It is sad though, this board is for the spreading of INFORMATION, not DIS-INFORMATION.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:56:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 9:02:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 6:00:14 PM EDT by CowChaser]

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

Originally Posted By CowChaser:
Let him (Arsenal) use magazines for his concealed body armor!hould


It is sad though, this board is for the spreading of INFORMATION, not DIS-INFORMATION.



If a .45 acp will go through a plate of iron about 1/4 inch thick, I dont think mags is going to do anything... maybe im wrong though



What exactly makes the Gas pistion so desirable vs the normal gas system? I would think the piston would add a lot of weight when the normal system works very well as it is... any info anyone?
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 9:22:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 9:23:29 AM EDT by rifleman2000]

Originally Posted By CowChaser:
What exactly makes the Gas pistion so desirable vs the normal gas system? I would think the piston would add a lot of weight when the normal system works very well as it is... any info anyone?



The argument for a gas piston is that the carbon builds up on the pison, not the bolt. Simply put, that's about it. Some claim that makes for easier maintenance or more reliability, but I have yet to see evidence of either claim.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 9:37:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Arsenal:
if i owned a digital camera i could show the pics; whats the big deal ,two AR's like they are hard to obtain. If i did have a digital camera they would surely not be the first of the rifles i would boast about. Dealer samples are where its at :)



Good evasion, .
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 10:22:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 10:25:24 AM EDT by SMGLee]

Originally Posted By Arsenal:
yeah bids or whatever. Well even with HK"s system they still lost , SCAR won at least for the SF boys , its got an AK bolt system :)



Never mind....
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 10:49:16 AM EDT
The assault wheelbarrow system is where it is at!
Don't you guys recognize gunkid when you see him?
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 10:54:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:
AKs are for poor people.



Oh ya'!
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top