and find the real truth about reliability of both rifles. I always see post comparing both rifle and all the time the votes for the AK say "cause you know the reliability of the AR if it gets dirty" F- that sh!t, I'm tired of hearing that crap. All those AK lovers are just rolling over reliability stories from Nam. Will someone just find out for real, bury the two in dirt sand etc. and lets see what happens. I got AR's but dont own an AK, the closes thing I got is an SKS tula but that will be unfair to the AK.
Thanks
BALOO.

I'd like to see anyone bury their AR or AK in the dirt just to prove a point.  I'm not that adamant about being right.  I agree with you on where most of the AK owners get their information on the reliability of the AR.  I own both and I have never had a problem with either of them.  If 200 rounds of Wolf ammunition does not get a AR dirty enough to malfunction, I don't know what will.  If anything the reliability of the cheap AR magazines might be in question.  I have had some problems with them, but put in a 30rd standard GI issue mag and your good to go.  

the israelis did it in the 70's.
the ak won[:D]- hence the galil.

iirc,saw some video of the tests in the 80's

The AR-15 rifle system is very reliable,and it also has gone through decades of improvement.
Now,I would not be suprized if the AK is SLIGHTLY more reliable,I am saying this because the AK has a big-ass chamber when compared to the tight precision AR-15 chamber.Now,any GOOD soldier knows,keep dirt and crap outta your weapon.It's not THAT hard,unless you are in extreme evironments.Like I was saying,the AK has a bigger chamber,so obviously its going to be able to digest more dirt before it grinds to a halt.The AR-15 is also one of the most reliable weapons ever.Whenever somebody boasts about the AK-47 being the most awesome weapon,just ask him of how many professional shooters have won tourneys with AKs.
Look at the AR-15,it's as reliable as possible,while using a precision tight chamber,and it's blowing away other rifles in the NRA tourneys.I personally think the AR-15 is the "best overall" rifle system availible.I still like other guns too however:)

Check this out.  Oldie but goodie.

[url]http://www.armalite.com/streamingMedia/ar10Video/ar10_highMotionVideo350kbps.wmv[/url]

apples and oranges anyway. the ak was made for thick russian farmboys (with apologies to any russian farmboys on the forum[:D]), to function under the WORST conditions. also cheap to produce and forgiving of shoddy manufacture.
cheap and dirty. if i was in sf, and had to train hillfolk in say... uzbekistan, i would want them equipped with ak's. they go 'bang' every time.

the ar, on the other hand took advantage of modern (well, for the late 50's) manufacturing techniques and materials- mainly to reduce the infantryman's burden and increase his ready ammo capacity. they also have greater accuracy potential than they ought to.(although, i have a sar-3 .223 that is about as accurate as some of my ar's) for my personal weapon i would want an ar- with plenty of spares.

pick what you like, it's the operator that matters.

old saying: beware of the man with ONE gun- he probably knows how to USE it!

i have several of both.[:D]

I just buried both, now to wait for those AK and AR trees to start growing any time now.

Yeah, what SGB said !!!!
The Israelis, both IDF and civilians have access to a bunch of different weapons and more often than not they go with a M16 or a variant of it. My brother spent 2 years working in Israel and out of his tons of pics he took of people with weapons, most all had M16's.
I like the AK's but to compare the two, it would be like comparing a dodge to a BMW.
51 out...
[frag]

[left]Tournaments is not combat has combat is not tourny's, you cannot compare the two the tourny is a controlled atmosphere while combat is very uncontrolled, you can shoot all day with a M16 on a range, but never really have anything do with the battlefield enviroment. example: like knob creek you can shoot all weekend down there trying to simulate combat but cannot happen, your not dragging the gun through a muddy field while low crawling or jumping over a brick wall, and drop the gun, or a morter shell landed next to you and a ton of dirt landed on top of you, or shell fragments nicked you or your weapon. or tripped while running for cover then all of your equipment goes flying in the air(this happen to me alot while doing my duty in the army).
[/left]

You have to understand what is going on with these 2 rifles to understand this topic. And after you understand this you will not want to argue this any more.

The AR-15 has gone through decades of improvements. It is tighter and more accurate. Chamber is tighter,the whole gun is of better quality and design. Of the decades of improvement all the bugs have been worked out,the powder in the military ammo has been changed to perform better in the weapon.
The AK-47 Is a great gun for what it is designed for. It is designed for pesants to fight. The manufacturer wants reliability. That means loose fit. Tight enough to function but loose enough not to jam. Accurate enough to hit a person 200 to 400 yards. I would say 400 is pushing it.
Now the AR has the ability to perform outstanding accuracy. I got 1.5 inch groups(at 200 yards) out of my colt match target with a 1/7 bbl. I was using black hill 75 gr match ammo and hornandy 75 gr match ammo. Now I don't think an AK can do that nor do I think it was designed to do it. Both guns are designed to do what they are designed to do.

So the answer to the question is which one will perform better after being burried in dirt. Well I would say the AK cause of the looser fit. But I don't know any solider that is going to burry his weapon and expect it to function flawlessly and put his life on the line in that situation.
I don't plan on going to war so I will stick with the AR and if I were to fight in the military I am glad we have the M16. God bless the USA.

I think if you burry any gun and enough dirt gets into the workings of the action any gun will malfunction.
Quick point then I will end this. I was shooting at the range and my mossberg pump action was leaning against the bench. I just bumped into it and it fell to the ground. Landed in the sand,I picked it up and it was rendured inopperable. Dunsky! Finuto! Had to strip the whole weapon down and clean it real well before it would work again. So good luck on finding out the answer to your question which gun will be more reliable.

If you want your AK to be a range gun then look at this [url]http://www.ruger-mini-14-firearms.com/Page10.html[/url]
Sub MOA from an AK.

I have both so i can drool over both. [:D]

My buddy (MET1 on the list) has done things with an AK that I'd never do with my AR.  He dunks it in streams, throws dirt in the action, etc.  Yep, it still works.  Obviously he was trying to prove a point, which I now concede.  Hell for reliable.  At one point he kept adding and adding sand until FINALLY you couldn't even cycle it manually.  THEN it jammed.  (whew!)  

No way it would work with an AR.

Col Hackworth tells a story of being in Vietnam when a bulldozer unearthed an old VCs grave where he'd been buried with his AK for some reason.  The guy had obviously been there awhile.  Hack put in a mag and it didn't skip a beat.

No way it would work with an AR.

I always make a point of the accuracy of the AR over the AK (he likes the AR too, btw).  Then we go shooting and shooting targets (rapid fire type scenarios, not bench) out to ~150yds, and guess what, he's right there with me.  I hope he doesn't read this but unless you're shooting past ~200 yds, you're probably just as well armed with an AK (he might say "better armed.").

I cant stand all the myths that AK are so much more realiable that AR's. My brother is always yelling at me BS about how the AR is so unreliable and the AK is next to impossible to have a malfunction. Let me take his AK and ram a bucket full of dirt up the chamber and see how well it works then

Like MG_ME I have both and drool over both[;)]



Because they're free?

The Galil is both it takes features from the AR and the AK. I had a friend that was on the review board. The IDF takes grunts and non-coms to test their equipment. Not political appointees.

Let me know when they are ripe and I will come help you pick a few.

One main reason the Galil models are in the background in the IDF is because Israel has gotten s*** loads of M16A1s, Colt M653 carbines from the U.S dirtcheap.

 Blah , Blah , Bladdy Blah Blah .
Not this line again .
Christ if you want an AK than buy one . yes it is more reliable .
If you like ARs than good for you . They are
more accurate but need more maintenance .
 ( cleaning )
I have both , like both ,  and shoot both .

[left]I agree, i have both, and i use both! i like them equally of course. AK sucks in accracy but who gives a damn if you blasting an old car door away, now that's fun. i take my
bushmaster out and blast and have just has much fun iam wanting an AR10 and thinking about getting one. [/left]

OK, I get to play, "been there, done that."

I have personally poured dirt into an AK, an AR, a Mini 14 and an HK.  The AR and Mini choked, the AK and HK kept right on shooting.  This was northern Nevada dirt in about 1984, before these damn rifles were so expensive and I would never do anything so dumb nowadays.

The AR just won't stand up to abuse like an AK.  I hope that's not a surprise to anyone.

according to a fmr golani brigade soldier i have spoken with- the elbit killed the galil.
just too heavy with optics. hmmmmm, why do you suppose ar stands for armaLITE rifle. fairchild made aircraft- think about it.

the whole "which one is better" argument is ludicrous. just like i tell my customers- it all depends on what QUALITIES you need. the ar is a fine rifle, but it is not as robust as an ak. i have 3 of each and i can ALLWAYS count on my ak's to go bang. the ar's, however have some qualities that i prefer- ergonomics, light weight, better accuracy potential, low recoil, etc... even if they are sometimes finiky.

btw, toyota beats BOTH ford AND chevy- ha, ha![:D]

Like many others here, I have a few of each...

They are both "purpose built" weapons...Meaning they were each built with a specific purpose in mind....

My opinion is:

The AR-15 is designed to be more accurate than the AK-47...

The AK-47 is designed to be more
reliable than the AR-15...

My AR's are just as reliable as my AK's, but they took a little mag work to get them that way...
The AK's ran 100% right out of the box...
Which rifle would I grab in an emergency combat situation ???
...Probably the AR-15, if the weather was nice...
Otherwise, I'd grab an AK and head for the hills...

Which rifles would I give to my friends and neighbors when the SHTF?
...My AK-47's, without question.
They are idiot proof...
If they drop it in the mud ?
Just dunk it in a creek to rinse it off, and go back to shooting...

Could I do that with an AR ?
I doubt it...  

Imagine this combat scenario...

If you were being pursued, stalked, followed or tracked, and were running through the woods and tripped and fell in a creek or dropped your gun in the mud, would you have time to stop and field strip,clean, and lube your AR-15 ?

Not me, I'd keep running, 'cause I know my AK would still function...

If I were making a planned assault or ambush, then I'd definately have my AR-15...
I just like shooting them a whole lot more...
Follow up and rapid fire shots are quicker and more accurate with the softer shooting AR in my opinion...

I own both, I love both, and I shoot both...  

I think the only way to judge them, is to judge them on what they are designed for...
They really can't compare to one another...

Didn't someone say....                        "Apples & Oranges" ???

Why choose? you can buy an AK for 250$.

i got both it doesnt matter to me. i would trust my life to either of em

To answer this question I post some text from [url]http://www.isayeret.com/weapons[/url].

The IDF was on a very tight shoe-string budget not allowing it to buy Israeli made firearms, especially with large quantities of Galil SAR still available, and since the U.S. Foreign Military Support (FMS) money to Israeli has to be spent back in the U.S. using American dollars.

So the Galil was never officially adopted by the IDF, part from a few samples that entered the IDF as a status symbol for high-ranking officers.

Ever since its first introduction in 1987, the sawn off CAR15 was an immediate success within the IDF SF community. Not so much for its inherent concealment tactical advantage, but rather since it was a huge status symbol, especially since in 1992 the 14.5 CAR15 become the standard issue weapon in all infantry oriented units, including both SF and regular. So carrying a sawn off CAR15 not only meant you are a SF operator but it also meant that you are a member of one of the more prestigious CT units.

In the IDF SF units and in the IDF in general, where status play a major role due to the soldiers' young age, the operators pushed to change the entire Designated Marksman system to a carbine based configuration.  

[b]To make it short: It is a politic/money/status thing[/b]

[b]Sorry, better use the complete link[/b]

[url]http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/guide.htm[/url]

Look at "Assault Rifles"

I seriously doubt that the Israelis would use ANY weapon that failed to perform, or put the lives of their people in danger. The AR is used in a combat environment on a daily basis in Israel. and yes I do believe that politics(close ties with the U.S.) does play a role, but ultimatly Israel will look out for Israel first, and that means giving the IDF and civilians the best possible arms available.
I am quite sure that they have FULLY tested the AR in "torture" type tests, and if nothing else in daily combat.
They choose the M16. I think that says it all.
This is not a flame at the AK's cause I like (and own)them too.
The desert environment in Israel is similar to where I live and where I spend my time shooting, so their experiences mean a lot to me.
51 out...
[x]

Butkus51, of course the M16 is a reliable rifle. No doubt. The Israeli wouldn't use a rifle that fails when it counts but they also have to finance their weapon purchase and like I posted: [b]The U.S. Foreign Military Support (FMS) money to Israeli has to be spent back in the U.S. using American dollars.[/b] And so the choice has to be made on an american rifle. The M16 - what else?