Ok I know these discussions have been done a few times here.



If any vets would like to chime in on this too.



On the AR although the accuracy is really what makes the difference the reliability on the rifle seems like it still has it's issues even after all these years. And the 223 round although more accurate doesn't have as much punch as the AK.

I like the AR for the sheer amount of ammo you can have with you. The lightness of the weapon is a plus too.



On the AK for me reliabilty is the most important thing and every ak I've had always goes bang when the trigger is pulled. I do think the idea this weapon is basically indestructable is over rated but it does take a lot to break it. What it lacks in accuracy it makes up for in the power of the round.



Ill always prefer the AK over the AR but I do respect the AR a lot more then I used too.

Well here's a fresh, new topic to discuss.

Now let's do 9mm vs 45acp.  No one's really ever talked about the differences......

Seriously?

Get both.

The AK round has more punch? The common AK ball ammo does poorly with repect to terminal performance except for barrier penetration. 7.62x39 ball wins big time against 5.56 in barrier penetration, is inferior in every other way.

Now let's do 9mm vs 45acp. No one's really ever talked about the differences......



9mm all the way cheaper ammo!

They are both good rifles and both combat effective.

The AR is a bit more accurate and the AK is a bit more reliable.

The idea that the AR is way less reliable and that the AK is horribly inaccurate are both myths, but it is true each one has a bit of an edge in their respective strong points. I think the anyone who does think one completely sucks, probably does have not much experience with that platform and hasn't given it a fair try.

I don't have any ARs anymore,  they aren't for me, I prefer the AKs.

I actually shoot the AK a bit more accurate, but thats just me, I understand most others have the opposite experience.

The nice thing that I like about the AR is lighter ammo and mags.

Go with what works for you and don't worry about what others use.

You'd think somebody with close to 1000 post in a year would know to get both by now.

OMG

Unless your capital budget limits you to AK
AR > AK in every single way imaginable the ergonomics, functionality, terminal performance is night and day better .

The other super power that fielded the ak agrees with me and thus bore the expense of making an ar-ski-74 in 5.45

This has been beat to death  like the forces going into battle with ak's vs those with ar's

9mm is much superior I'm with you there.

Sold all my 45s

which ak round are you talking about? 7.62x39, 5.45x39?

To be fair 9mm /.40 .45 all work about the same in killing/ disabling biped threats with 9mm you get more better ammo / weight ratios period
but yes 9mm is better simply for the fact more is more

My AR goes bang every single time I pull the trigger and it hasn't been cleaned in awhile.  So I guess I don't see where the AK has the advantage.

Keep in mind I come from a family where my father hated and I mean HATED the M16! So needless to say I'm a little biased. He did say he loved his M14. Honestly price was a big thing too. A Ak for 400 bucks compared to a ar which starts at 600 and goes up.

Stupid rookie, we all know the .40 cal is the right choice

Let me help

The other super power that fielded the ak agrees with me and thus bore the expense of making an ar-ski-74 in 5.45



That's true except the creator of the AK was opposed to it. He wanted to modernize the 7.62 round. I've owned a ak74 and I loved it. Sadly it was stolen from me but I plan to get another one :)

my ar chokes often if the bolt isnt lubed.  maybe i have a cheap dpms rifle, but it is what it is.  i also have a lancaster ak74 rought rider that beat itself to shit.  saigas and non-us built aks run well.

i own both, but i currently have more aks.  i plan on building a few ars to even out the herd.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Frankly I've had more problems with AK reliability than with AR reliability (which is then 9 times out of 10 a bad mag).  Keep your bolt and rails lubed & reasonably clean and you're good to go.

Not really. With ball, the .45 makes a hole that's about 60% bigger, with good JHPs the difference is about 38% (which can be the frontal area of a FMJ .40). So two hits from a .45 is ~ 3 from a 9, in terms of crushed tissue . . .

Mini-14 FTW...




























Just kidding.

We had some good stories on Iraqi AKs jamming. One Marine officer an his XO carried AKs during the invasion, the CO's AK jammed the first time he needed it.

Later, they test fired 40 captured AKs, IIRC all jamed at least once and several wouldn't work. They were a mixed bag of AKs, the CO's previously mentioned was an old forged receiver AK. So many were old and poorly maintaind, but the old claim that AKs always work was shown to be BS.

IMO, the main AR reliability issue is the mags. The GI type are almost disposable. AK mags are heavy and robust by comparison. With modern mags like PMAGs, I think the major AR reliability fault is fixed.

ARs can be very accurate with a full floating barrel. Accurate enough to win at camp perry or be a sniper rifle in a western army. The AK isn't close.

Not arguing math but a .38 inch hole in a spine/lung/heart/brain just as quickly and effective than a .45 IMHO

I worked for an AR manufacturer for almost 10 years, 5 of which being in the shop both in production and repair.  Thousands of AR-15 type rifles ship out of there every year and the whole "reliability" bitch about the M16/AR-15 is an old myth.  The only reliability issues I ever saw were due to tolerance stackups, or rifles not maintained or using shit ammo/mags.  Years ago American Eagle ammo sucked (maybe it still does, but I stayed away from it) and lots of customers had problems with it.  A simple change of ammo would eliminate "reliability" issues 99% of the time.  Occasionally there would be something like a faulty magazine, gas key coming loose, or a chamber or gas port being out of spec on a barrel.  Overall the design is very sound and it is very simple to correct the rare (in my experience) problems.  But you get guys posting online about how whatever manufacturer sucks because they have problems with their rifle feeding shit ammo from shit mags.  I've personally seen guys on this very site complain about issues and not post the whole story when I worked in the industry.  There's guys I dealt with at that company that would be on here "[manufacturer] sucks" and on and on about their issue but leaving out the fact that they were trying to shit ammo from shit mags and how upon receiving their rifle at the factory, using factory ammo and mag, we can't duplicate the problem.  So then we suck and are not helping him with his rifle or won't stand by the product.

My opinion is that the M16/AR-15 reliability reputation goes back to the design being rushed into Vietnam with a non-chromed chamber and using a different powder than the rifle was originally designed for.  That's what it always comes down to, or "I knew a guy who's friend's dad had a Bushmaster that..." whatever.  If the design was that bad, it would not be the military issue rifle for 40+ years.  There has been plenty of time to build a better design, why hasn't it been done?  Why does all the "new" stuff boil down to an AR-15 based design with a piston?

I personally do not like AK rifles, I do not like the ergonomics, sights, or trigger.  People like them, and that's great, to each their own.  The only AR-15 problems I have ever had in my own personal rifles was a failure to extract problem that was due to a worn extractor.

And no, you really *don't* need a piston to make an AR-15 rifle run.

I've always suspected if you made an AK reciever that combined the existing receiver and the trunnion as a single piece of steel or aluminium, you would have a much more accurate rifle.  And if we are going that far, might as well put a thread on barrel in there since you'll need a new one from any parts kit anyways.

It is on my to do list, way down, but still on there.

You get out of here with your anecdotes from real life. We don't need your kind butting in while experts are rehashing. [j/k]

Sigh.

I've never had problems with accuracy with my AK. I've never had my AR jam.

I don't expect to hit a target at 500 meters with a Romy AK, but Kreb's Custom AK's (they use a Saiga host iirc) can tag steel at 500 8/10 times. Alternatively, I do expect my AK to go bang if I don't clean it, drag it through mud, etc. I prefer AKs just because for some reason, they have a spot in my heart.

I can expect to hit consistantly with my 20" barrel AR at 500 meters. I can nail 300 meters out everytime I pull the trigger at that range. I've never had a FTE or FTF. I've never had any problems because I keep it wet and carry Break Free wherever I go. Do I expect it to go bang if I crawl through a river bank and get water/sand/clay/mud in it? A couple times, sure, but its not like it takes a ton of time to field strip and give it a quick wipe. The only times I had a jamming issue on any weapon was the old ass A2 I used in BCT, and it was day 2 of our FTX, with rain, dirt, and 300 rounds of blank ammo fired through it previously and I punched the forward assist and kept firing.

If you think 5.56 is underpowered, try 75gr ammo out of a 20" 1:7 twist barrel. If you still think its underpowered, sell the rifle and get a .308 AR. Problem solved.

The solution is still get both. Too heavy to carry both? PT till your asshole sucks buttermilk.

The AR has the accuracy, ergos, and ballistics. The AK is as advanced as a club, can be swung like a club, and is as reliable as a club.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

The .45 should provide for a faster bleed out in the heart, for identical hits and similar non expanded bullet shapes.

What about .223 vs 5.56

AK under 50 yards

AR over 50 yards

just stop please!

Beans!

Does his post look like a joke to you???

Are police officers civilians?

Can fire melt steel?

My ARs as well as M16s and M4s that I have been issued have all worked flawlessly through many thousands of rounds. I routinely fire several hundred to a thousand rounds between cleanings. I beat the crap out of them and generally abuse them. I have never had a stoppage that was not due to a damaged magazine or a faulty round. The same can be said for both my AKs. Both weapon systems are reliable.

The 5.56X45mm cartridge, though it comes in many flavors, tends to cause MORE tissue damage than the 7.62X39mm cartridge at any range that you are

A: likely to need to shoot someone
or
B: able to hit them with an AK anyway.

7.62X39mm ball has a slight advantage over 5.56X45mm ball when it comes to penetration of hard obstacles. The amount of advantage is debatable and dependent on many factors such as range, barrel length, bullet construction, and the type of obstacle.

I go with my Arsenal SA M5G for two reasons. The availability of 5.56, and as I am not a disciplined soldier I want the easier cleaning of the AK. AR platform is only as good as the guy maintaining it.

The AK is like a John Deere tractor, and the AR is like a Porsche.  Put them both on the race track and the John Deere is going to run for ever without breaking, but the Porsche, while it needs more maintenance, is going to win the race, and in the race of life or death, winner takes all.

Yup, those high powered misses are really effective.

Beans in chili FTW!

I don't understand these threads at all.  There will  never be a perfect battle rifle and gun owners will never agree with each other.

In on 1.      


I'll go with my AK over an AR...just personal preference, both are good rifles.

You could always get one of the MGI rifles that uses an AK magwell on the AR platform..............

AK a bit more reliable...Try vastly more reliable.

Get both.