Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/6/2002 2:00:02 PM EDT
Trying to figure out which rifle to buy next, I like the Carbine AR types, for close quarter use (if needed) But I also like the AK, although I have never shot one before. I have heard that they are more reliable then the AR types, because constant cleaning is needed in order for the AR to perform properly such as in sandy conditions in Desert Storm. So tell me your opinion as why the AK is better as far as reliability then the AR also please tell me about accuracy . Thanks
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 2:28:07 PM EDT
This could take months to argue out on the AR side of this forum, but to keep it short...

The AK design is made much more simple, and with much looser tollerances. The cheapest AK will work as well as the best because the design is that simple and robust. You can not say that about an AR. It is mutch more reliable than th AR under almost any condition, but, the trade off is that it is not as accurate. Expect around 50% larger groups with the AK than the AR. You can expect groups close to an AR with the 5.45 round. (at least in mine.)

The gun was made for poor stupid conscripts to learn to use fast, and provide an overwhelming volume of fire with minimal mechanical dificulty. The AR was designed for a well trained professional army that will take the time to clean the weapon and take good care of it.

Basically, the AK is designed to do the same job in the battlefield as the AR, but the Russians just took a different route.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 2:34:24 PM EDT
Don't belive everything you hear... and only 1/2 of what you read.


The AK is a fun and simple firearm. It is indeed reliable, and as effective as the operator using it.
No way is it better than an AR. They are not even in the same class.
In my opinion, as an owner of both, the AR is a far superior piece of engineering, both in ergonomics and mechanics. It is significantly more accurate inately, and easier to shoot accurately. By analogy The AR is like a "BMW" of firearms.
In comparison the AK's mechanics are simple, and crude tolerances and assembly techniques do have a favorable effect in terms of the firearms ability to operate in a poorly maintained condition. They also affect the accuracy and overall efficiency of the machine. It will swallow anything for ammo, and happily, but fit and finish are typically "3rd world". By compairison it is the original VW bug of a gun...
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 2:39:38 PM EDT
We can sit here and beat a dead horse all day, but the fact remains that theoritically, experimentally and in real world usage the AK is far more reliable than the AR-15 system could ever hope to be. People and soldiers that use the M4 or M-16 will always say it's a damn good gun, and when properly maintained, it is.

As for accuracy potential, the AR-15 has the edge. DCM/CMP rifle competitions are dominated now by AR-15s with stainless steel match grade barrels. The tolerances are tighter, and the design lends itself to greater accuracy potential.

However, since you only want a carbine for say, out to 100-200 yards max, I guarantee that if you purchase a high quality AK variant, such as an AK-103 from these guys:

www.ak-103.com
or
www.krebscustom.com
or the best:
www.solsticearms.com

you will get a rifle that matches or bests an M4 carbine using good/new Russian ammo.

To start though, people will probably tell you to get a bare bones Romanian SAR-1 (7.62) or SAR-2 (5.45) AKM and AK-74 clones. That way, you can learn the weapons system, and how everything works without spending $800+ on a custom built AK.

This is what I did, and if it wasn't for the LEGP AK here on AR15.com, I would have bought an AK-103 from AK-USA by now

One more thing, get both an M4 and 5.45 or 7.62 AK. It's good to get to know both weapons.

themao
________________________

Got ice picks?
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 2:48:21 PM EDT
Thanks for the information, didnt meen to open up a can of worms here! I will definetly look at the links, and I think I should probably get both!! And then I can have my own opinion! Thanks again!
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 2:50:38 PM EDT
Well a REAL Man ....

(oops wrong forum )

AR's & AK's are like Salt & Pepper - You
Need BOTH!
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 3:19:31 PM EDT
Grock,
I must disagree with a couple of your points. As a combat weapon, the AK is far superior to the AR. It does exactly what it was designed to do without exception. The AR, on the other hand, does exactly what it was designed to do...shoot qualification courses. Let's compare a few points...

1. Most AR's are selective about what you feed them. Most AK's couldn't care less...to include Wolf.

2. The gas system on the AR blows burnt powder and gas directly into the oily bolt and carrier. The AK blows burnt powder and gas directly into the dry gas block. Very little gets to the bolt and carrier.

3. The AR is built to very tight tolerances requiring constant cleaning and lubrication. The AK is built to looser tolerances requiring very little cleaning and lubrication.

4. The AR is designed to take advantage of the inherent accuracy of both the rifle and the round it fires. The AK is designed to give minimum combat accuracy, although some AK's do very well in this regard.

5. With regards to #4...the AR sights tend to be more complicated and prone to breakage. The AK sights are simple and rugged.

6. Ergonomics is definitely subjective, but for me the AK is more ergonomic than the AR. It seems to fit me more naturally. I have noticed that my face stays cooler due to the fact that the rear of the AK action is open and not cluttered with optics, sighting devices, and carry handles.

7. And finally...it's easier to get the handguards off the AK!

As a side note, I used the M16A1 and M16A2 extensively in the Army as well as owning a Bushmaster M4gery.

Bradd
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 3:37:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2002 3:39:51 PM EDT by Boom_Stick]
I have to say, after owning both the AR and the AK I am convinced that the AR15 is superior. Not only can I do all gunsmithing (including re-barreling) in my own home, but the AR is the most versatile.
Lightweight, accurate, aluminum mags (steel mags rust), plentiful supply of parts......the list goes on.

Here are some REALLY good articles to read.
Why an AR15?
A funny line from the above article, "if you are a peasant who needs to be told not to defecate in the drinking water supply then stick with the AK."

Heres an article from isayeret.com about the IDF's choice of the M16 over the AK.
M16 Vs. AK47/Galil

Both articles are very informative.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 3:40:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2002 3:51:29 PM EDT by CAMPYBOB]
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 3:42:14 PM EDT
Age old debate. Chevy vs Ford. AR vs AK. Chocolate vs Vanilla.
I don't think there is a right or wrong answer.
My first cool rifle was a mini 14. The second was a 20inch Bushy that I bout about three years ago. During that three years I have bought six AKs. I think that says alot about how I feel about them. I like my AR but one is enough. I love my AKs. ARs are overpriced IMO. I get about the same groups out of my mini 14, or Sar3. Just slightly better than the AR. But in all fairness I spend alot more time with the Sar3. CB
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 3:48:13 PM EDT
Campy-



I'll keep my AR, and AK... different tools for different tasks. And I'll concede on the "tolerance" vs. "clearance" arguement- but I believe everyone knew what was meant!
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 3:50:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 3:52:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 4:01:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2002 4:02:44 PM EDT by Bradd D]
One more thing and I'll shutup!

After either rifle spends any amount of time in a combat environment fit and finish becomes a moot point. Take a look at an M16 that's been in service for about 20 or 30 years...pretty ugly rattle trap. Fit and finish is only a qualifier for safe queens and range guns...it has absolutely nothing to do with which is better in combat.

FWIW, the fit and finish on my Arsenal SA M-7 easily rivals anything Colt or Bushmaster has to offer.

Bradd
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 4:32:14 PM EDT
OK Campy, we bow down to your knowledge, we did meen "Clearences".

BTW, by the looks of the picture, you have a cute young new admirer! he he.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 5:08:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2002 5:10:05 PM EDT by drjarhead]
AR15 is superior to your cheap commie gun!

Seriously, the debate about reliablity is way over emphasized. The AR is a very reliable weapon and you never know, that extra inch or two in accuracy may just save your life someday--or someone elses. The AR has it hands down for ergonomics. I think it has the best ergonomics of any mil-type rifle available. Once again that extra second it takes to clack that AK selector lever down, not to mention the noise, may also save your life.
And if reliability becomes a problem there'll be plenty of AK's lying around for me to pick up

Oh yeah: Get several of both
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 6:29:05 PM EDT
Just so you don't think I'm not really fond of my AK; here is one of my favorites:



Link Posted: 9/6/2002 7:03:52 PM EDT
The TRUTH about AR vs. AK:

Both are proven battle rifles.

The AK is definately the more reliable of the
two. Why ?

Kalashnikov said it himself in a interview. He designed the rifle with GREATER tolerances. By him doing this it allowed the rifle to operate even in the worst conditions.

It is how Russians design. They wanted a rifle that would always work no matter how bad conditions got. Accuaracy was a secondary concern.

I know from personal experience how a AR is effected by sand and dust. If lubricated with CLP our M-16s would crust up with dust and sand when I was in the Gulf. Even the smallest amount of sand would cause problems.

You can feel the grit of the sand when you pull back the charging handle.

We fixed this in the Gulf by using powder graphite instead of CLP for lube. We cleaned with CLP, dried up as much as we could then lubed with powder graphite. Weapon would still get gritty but could be cleaned with a AP brush quickly.

While the AK is more reliable under extreme conditions, it is not as accurate as a AR.

The AR is definately the more accurate of the two. Why?

Yes, tighter tolerances...and design.

The sights also play a big part of why the AR is easier to shoot accurately than the AK for most people.

While being the more accurate of the two, the AR is also the more complex. Complex can also lead to more inherent problems.

I own both a AR and a AK.

Give me a AR and my enemy a AK, put us at 400-500 meters apart and I would feel safe that I could hit him before he hit me.

The fact is they are both great rifles.

Even though I said one is more reliable and one is more accurate. That does not mean that the other one completely sucks.

The AK is a acurate battle rifle just not as accurate as the AR.

The AR is a reliable battle rifle just not as reliable as the AK.

And those are the facts...




Link Posted: 9/6/2002 7:13:10 PM EDT
So tell me your opinion as why the AK is better as far as reliability then the AR also please tell me about accuracy . Thanks

The damn things just plain work! Kids in 3rd world countries just need ammo, a rag, and a little leftover cooking fat to keep them running.
Look at the number of topics and replies to the AK specfic forum and AK troubleshooting forum, then compare to the number of topics and replies to the AR specific forum and AR troubleshooting forum. HUGE difference in ratios. The AK is almost hassle free, or Campy just gives us better answers the first time :)

That one less moa in accuracy from a basic AR compared to a basic AK will save you only if the gun goes bang...

I really like my 20" M15A4, but own 3 AKs.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 8:07:47 PM EDT


Sorry, it's the best I could find.


Truly, it's a dead horse. But I'll join in, what the hell...

I've built up AR's from parts using just a couple of tools, including rebarrelling them.

I've machined an AR lower receiver from a raw forging with a small milling machine and a handful of cutters and drills.

Every last part of an AR can be disassembled with a few punches and a couple of hand tools. The only specialized tool needed is the barrel wrench, and a receiver vise block comes in handy, too.

When it comes to flexibility and configurability, the AR platform completely eclipses everything else in the world. It's the closes thing to a universal rifle platform anyone has ever seen, and it does all its assigned tasks very well. Whether it's door-to-door urban combat or taking the trophy at the thousand yard line, there's an AR that can do it. And you don't have to be a gunsmith to make the changes.

But on the other side...the AK design is the only one I've yet seen that will continue to function after you throw a few fired cartridge cases into the action. It seems to be as immune to mud, dirt, sand, and other foreign matter in the mechanism as a gun possibly could be. Heck, I've heard enough stories about AK's being hidden in a mud bank and being fired immediately after clearing the barrel that I'm starting to believe it. No one questions the ability of an AK to operate in a very dirty condition.

That being said, I'd rather have an AR if I could only have one. I am well educated enough to know how to keep my rifle fairly clean even in adverse conditions and it really doesn't take long to clean it anyway. And I'd much rather have the far superior accuracy of an AR on my side.

CJ

Link Posted: 9/6/2002 8:58:22 PM EDT
The AK is somewhat more reliable than the AR but the AR is still one of the most reliable modern assault rifles in service.

The AR is somewhat more accurate and has superior ergonomics superior sights. The AK is accurate enough for government work though and has plenty good field grade accuracy.

The most important part of the equation is a trained and in the know operator. That is %70 of the equation anyway. This requires study and practice and you can't buy it in a box and bolt it on. You gotta tune your own neurons.

I persoanlly perfer the AR by a slight to moderate margin due to the superior sights and ergonomics. However, I would not feel naked or undergunned with either choice. The divide is not so wide as some would have you believe.

Buy one (or more) of each and decide for yourself, that is the only way you will ever be satisfied.
Link Posted: 9/6/2002 9:27:45 PM EDT
Dammit Campy, I said tolerance on a friggin DCM rifle! Don't put me in the f#$#-up group!

USMC_LB: If you looked at the rather sloppy fitted Colt M4 they send to the US military and compared it to a brand new AK-74M from Izhmash (or hell, an AN-94 Akaban), the two rifles are at a dead heat when it comes to accuracy and tolerances (maybe not clearances). The M4, with the feed ramp Colt barrel, has a rather sloppy chamber for a good reason. The AK though is superior in terms of reliability due to its operating system hands down, and the G36 possibly more so.

Anyway, JanMichaelVincent, get both a M4 and some sort of 7.62 or 5.45 AK. Learn both.

themao
_________________________

Got ice picks?
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 12:18:13 AM EDT
cmJohnson, no flame intended here, but you state that you are smart enough to keep your rifle clean in adverse inviroments and can clean it quickly...

Have you ever been in combat? Ever been to the "Eastern Front in April"?

I remember I had a had time keeping an M-48 Mauser clean in Slovenia once the weather turned bad. That is nowhere near as complicated as the AR, and I consider the Mauser to be the best battle rifle ever built.

Again, no attack, just wondering what your basis for the statement was.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 12:19:16 AM EDT
Grock, is that an ergo grip on your AK? looks nice.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 1:36:31 AM EDT
They are both great guns. Get the one that suits you. If you want a rifle you don't have to clean (practically never), don't have to worry about jamming, do the job close up, and not need extras with it, get the AK.

If you want a very precise rifle at greater distances, can add innumerable extras onto, have a virtually limitless supply of parts far, get the AR.

TS

BTW, I've fired 300 rds through my SP-1 didn't clean it and went and shot 150 rounds a little over a week later. But I would guess that that is the exception.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 3:11:08 AM EDT
So what are you guys trying to say?

Just kidding, I really opened one up, a dead horse, got that right. With that said, I know I'll end up getting both! Im convinced that a sling shot might be my best option, no cleaning and plenty of ammo! Thanks again!
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 4:27:36 AM EDT
Love the slingshot line!
You can also get AKs in 5.56 with more consistent western ammo to close the accuracy gap further, and beat the horse with yet another stick.
Maybe I should post "Why AR and not AK" on the other side and see what happens...
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 4:54:09 AM EDT
Hey "AirWolf" sorry couldn't resisit that one. Getting both rifles is probably the best solution, you will most likely like both equaly for different reasons.

This was probably the shortest arguement on this subject in a while, I can't belive it only went just over 1 page. Like RS39 said, as it on the AR side, see how many pages it goes!!
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 5:33:38 AM EDT
AK vs AR
I prefer the AR it suits me better. More accurate, better human engineering, better sights and higher quality.
The cartridge the AK fires ballisticly isn't much better than a .30 carbine. For almost the same weight and less bulk in mags you could have a .308.
The AK is also not a rugged as peaple let on. have you seen the screws that hold the stock on ?
AS far as the reliability factor, some of the gross overstatements in regards to the AK, I'd have to see them to believe it.
But on the other hand if the AK is your choice, to each his own , it is just not the one for me.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 5:57:58 AM EDT
Scottfn308, it is fine that the AR suits you better, everyone has their opinion on what suits them better and that is based on a personal preference for whatever reason, but please get some of your facts straight.

Most people do not argue the accuracy, with few exceptions the AR is more accurate.

The sights are a matter of conjecture. That has been the standard "european" sight style for over a hundred years, it works well, I can out shoot almost any rifle with those sights in my Mauser 98 or Swedish Mauser.

Better Human enginering and better quality? I will let Campy ot Themao have at that one.............

Balisticly no better than .30 carbine?

.30carbine 110gr.FMJ - 1900 fps - 882 Foot pounds of energy.

M-43 (7.62 X 39) 123gr.FMJ - 2329 fps - 1470 foot pounds of energy.

Not even close, not that I would want to be shot by either.

Same weight and less bulk in mags you could have a .308. - Uhm..... have you ever carried a fully loaded 30round .308 mag in any rifle, the rifle is heavier, and the ammo weight is MUCH greater.
In Afghanistan the U.S. forces must clean their weapons twice a day. Do you think that the guys we are fighting clean their weapons often? Do you think they even have cleaning supplies? Do you think they even know weapons maintinence? Their weapons still work, its just a good thing the operators are not as good as the weapon.

BTW what is wrong with the screws, I have never seen a stock come off. I agree that I would rather have an AR or larger rifle for close combat, but then again, thats what bayonets are for.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 6:46:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By obershutze916:
cmJohnson, no flame intended here, but you state that you are smart enough to keep your rifle clean in adverse inviroments and can clean it quickly...

Have you ever been in combat? Ever been to the "Eastern Front in April"?


Again, no attack, just wondering what your basis for the statement was.



No, I haven't been in combat. Nor do I expect to do so. But I know the common sense approach to keeping the workings of the rifle fairly free of dirt. They're pretty simple: Use "shoot-off" muzzle caps, and keep a spare handy...and don't actually shooth them off if you have a moment to remove it by hand and save it. That'll keep the bore clean from the muzzle end. Keep a magazine, even an empty one, in the mag well whenever the rifle is outside the armory. That'll help keep foreign objects from getting in via the mag well. Keep the bolt closed and most especially keep the ejection port cover closed. A round in the chamber is fairly effective at sealing the bore, too. I don't really have to mention that you'd of course keep the safety selector on 'safe' until you needed to change that, but I did anyway.

And it's probably worth it to get some rubber magazine covers to keep the dirt out of your mags, too.

These simple precautions will keep most of the dirt out of your rifle most of the time. Maybe I'll go out and prepare one of my rifles just as described, throw it in a sand pile, bury it, let it sit there for a bit, dig it out, shake it off, and then carefully field strip it and see how far the sand got. Or do it in mud.

You could take this a little bit farther by running a strip of tape across joint between the upper and lower receivers (rubber electrical tape would be effective) and taping the magazine to the mag well could also be effective at keeping the small stuff out. The tape can be
quickly removed if you leave a 'pull tab' hanging off it. And you just MIGHT consider sealing the gas tube entrance in the upper receiver with a bit of RTV, because those four little holes are certainly big enough for sand to get through. In fact, I think this is probably a good thing to do as a matter of course.

CJ
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 7:34:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2002 7:36:46 AM EDT by Bradd D]
<begin quote>Originally Posted By scottfn308:
AK vs AR
I prefer the AR it suits me better. More accurate, better human engineering, better sights and higher quality.
The cartridge the AK fires ballisticly isn't much better than a .30 carbine. For almost the same weight and less bulk in mags you could have a .308.

Ballistically the 7.62 x 39 is roughly equivalent to the 30-30, the 5.45 x 39 is roughly equivalent to the 5.56 x 45, and the 5.56 x 45 is...well...equivalent to the 5.56 x 45. AK's come chambered in all three. As far as weight, a .308 battle rifle is much heavier than an AK chambered in 7.62 x 39.

The AK is also not a rugged as peaple let on. have you seen the screws that hold the stock on ?

The AK is a very rugged firearm. Your example is a matter of aesthetics and has nothing to do with being rugged. People don't have to let on that the AK is rugged. It's history speaks for itself.

AS far as the reliability factor, some of the gross overstatements in regards to the AK, I'd have to see them to believe it.

The AK is reliable...period. It isn't ammo selective, will function with all kinds of foreign matter in the action, and requires very little maintenance or lubrication. Most of the stories come from people actually abusing their AK's to see what they can take.

But on the other hand if the AK is your choice, to each his own , it is just not the one for me.<end quote>
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 7:42:51 AM EDT
CmJohnson, sarcasm noted! LOL

Link Posted: 9/7/2002 8:45:39 AM EDT
obershutze916,
I have shot both .30 carbine and AK so tell me how 14gr. of bullet and about 200 to 300fpsec. can = almost twice the energy.
Most of the 7.62x39 I have chrono.ed was at about 2000 to 2100fps.
I was also refering to the weight of the mags and the ammo: a loaded mag of 7.62x39 is about the same weight as a loaded FAL, HK-91,M1A mag.
Also a milled recvr. AK is also a 8-9lb rifle and that is not far from a FAL M1A or HK
AS far as humanengineering goes the saftey on an AK is in the WORST possible location. Something that was refined on the Galil and Valmet series
The gross overstatments I was refering to are: rifles working with empty shell casings in the chamber, rocks in the action, ect.
and yes I have seen AKs with the stock broken off, rear sights broken off, all from being dropped
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 8:57:13 AM EDT
Ober, yes Sir, it is an Ergo sure grip. I like it; It's much more natural than the factory item.

Link Posted: 9/7/2002 9:23:35 AM EDT
Grock, cool, I have one on my AR-15, I really like it. I just wish I had bought the ambi grip instead of the right hand only, but I still can't complain. I had just never seen one on an AK, it looks good and evil.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 9:32:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2002 9:34:09 AM EDT by Bradd D]
Originally Posted By scottfn308:
obershutze916,
I have shot both .30 carbine and AK so tell me how 14gr. of bullet and about 200 to 300fpsec. can = almost twice the energy.
Most of the 7.62x39 I have chrono.ed was at about 2000 to 2100fps.

Per the PMC website:

7.62 x 39 123gr FMJ vel = 2350 me = 1495
.30 carbine 110gr FMJ vel = 1927 me = 906

Don't have to tell you how it happens...it's published ballistics.


I was also refering to the weight of the mags and the ammo: a loaded mag of 7.62x39 is about the same weight as a loaded FAL, HK-91,M1A mag.

Same weight at the loss of 10 rounds...hmmm.

Also a milled recvr. AK is also a 8-9lb rifle and that is not far from a FAL M1A or HK.

Most AK's are stamped receivers weighing in at about 6.5 to 7 lbs. My stamped SAR-2 is considerably lighter than my milled SA M-7.

AS far as humanengineering goes the saftey on an AK is in the WORST possible location. Something that was refined on the Galil and Valmet series.

Would you have your safety on in combat?

The gross overstatments I was refering to are: rifles working with empty shell casings in the chamber, rocks in the action, ect.

It's been done by many reputable people on this and other boards.

and yes I have seen AKs with the stock broken off, rear sights broken off, all from being dropped.

These were extreme cases I'm sure that would have broken parts off of any rifle subjected to such a "drop"
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 9:44:37 AM EDT
Scott,
I don't know how the balistics guys figure this stuff out. I am sure there is a simple formula for kinetic energy that they use. I averaged out the info I looked up in several books and that is what I gave to you.
I am not a balistition so I can not answer your question for you, this data has been roughly the same from all sources for years so it must be right on. I would hope so at least!

A loaded Ak mag probaly does weigh as much as an M1A, FAL, etc. mag, but realize that we are talking 20 rounds of .308 to 30 rounds of the 7.62 X 39. I will give you that the "bannana clip" style mag is a bit on the awkward side. the Bulgairan mags are better in that respect though. Realize to that we are also talking different type of rifle, we are comparing a "battle rifle" to an "Assault style rifle".

As for the human enginering, again that is a mater of personal preferance. I agree that the Galil beats the crap out of the AK in the selector, at least in my opinion. I had one in .308, damn thing weighed as much as a tank. I like the selector on the AK, but again its personal preferance.

As far as the "gross over statements" I have never heard any of those, but I would have to agree, I think most of that is urban ledgend. I would like to see any gun shoot with a shell stuck in the chamber!

I have seen AK's in combat, (not for a long period of time though) have been selling the rifles for 10 years, been shooting them roughly the same amount of time, and been selling ammo to guys in this caliber for all this time. I have never once heard of a stock comming off. never had one coompalint. I have a hard time believing that they came off just from normal useage and being dropped. Buy hey, it could happen.
I will conceed that in my opinion, the stock is the one reason I would choose the AR for close combat, if you need to butt stroke someone, I would take the AR (fixed stock)any day over an AK.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 9:53:42 AM EDT
Here's an interesting article with regards to reliabilty...

www.valmet-weapons.com/Torture_Test_Page1.html

Enjoy!

Bradd
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 10:30:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By obershutze916:
CmJohnson, sarcasm noted! LOL





Uh, but I wasn't BEING sarcastic. I was quite serious about these dirt prevention techniques.

When I use sarcasm, look for an appropriate smiley. As in,



CJ
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 10:45:31 AM EDT
cmjohnson,
Just design a rubber sleeve to completely encase the receiver on the AR...or just buy an AK!

Bradd
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 10:47:11 AM EDT
Well, Thanks Bradd. Now you have reinforced my desire for a Galil even more. What's a guy to do?
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 10:50:53 AM EDT
obershutze916,
I do agree that under extreme cond. that the AK might be slightly more reliable.
However that comes at the cost of accuracy.
I have no grudge against the AK, I have owned a couple, fired several more. I just feel that the AR is a better rifle for me.
I have shot several groundhogs and the like with AKs, carbines, and ARs and the results are about the same.
Any rifle needs care and maint. and I will agree that the Ak may need a little less than some.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 10:57:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 5555:
Well, Thanks Bradd. Now you have reinforced my desire for a Galil even more. What's a guy to do?



Yeah...I didn't do myself (or my checkbook) any favors by reading that article either!

Bradd
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 11:32:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 11:49:12 AM EDT
Scottfn.308, no big deal, we just have a different view on the subject, like someone said here a while ago, it like the old Ford vs Chevy debate.

Both are fine rifles, I own both,and I think that our conversation helped JanmichaelVincent to decide what he should get.

Just glad we could keep it civil and not turn it into a pissing match.

CmJohnson, man...you are hard core.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 12:17:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2002 12:21:22 PM EDT by scottfn308]
Originally Posted By obershutze916:
Scottfn.308, no big deal, we just have a different view on the subject, like someone said here a while ago, it like the old Ford vs Chevy debate.


/Just glad we could keep it civil and not turn it into a pissing match./

obershutze916,
I am glad too, no sense getting pissed off.
That is why they make all kinds of rifles!
no two people like the same 2 things.
Let's just hope that someone learned something from all this ranting!
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 12:33:08 PM EDT
Thats why I like these forums, its great to be able to get all the different opinions, it helps out alot getting information from people who have experience with these rifles, I sometimes question Magazine publications that seem to give every rifle a great review. Thanks for all the responses! -JMV AKA-Airwolf, and Hippie Marine boot. Take care!
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 12:38:01 PM EDT
JMV,
Yeah it is hard to believe magazine articles.
Sometimes you can even hear the advertising dollar
talking while you read them.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 1:01:53 PM EDT
Regarding kinetic energy...

energy = mass x (velocity squared)

Raising velocity has a much greater impact on energy than raising mass would.
Link Posted: 9/7/2002 1:24:52 PM EDT
I think there's room enough in the arsenal for both an AK and an AR. Both are battle proven and each has its individual strengths.


The only fundamental difference is...

The purpose of a 'scope on an AR-15 is to be able to hit a dime at six hundred yards.

The purpose of a 'scope on an AK is so you can see just how much you missed by!

How to hit the target at 600 yards with an AR:

Get some good quality ammo. Sight in, and shoot.

How to hit the target at 600 yards with an AK:
Grab the rifle by the barrel in a baseball bat grip, run forward 599 yards directly toward the target with the rifle in hand, and take a good swing at the target.


CJ

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top