Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/30/2006 5:18:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 5:21:19 PM EDT by StariVojnik]
Say it ain't so! Relentlessly smeared as a crap rifle by the AR snobs, the AK is beating the panties off them plastic AR bitches!



www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=432513&page=1
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:36:09 PM EDT
Glock is right up there as well! My 19

Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:36:38 PM EDT
And both are being bitch slapped by the Glock.

All that is happening is that the AR crowd is admitting that AR's need to be broken in first, while the AK was made to be used by illiterate conscript farmers that barely know which end to point at the enemy.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:37:52 PM EDT
yeah AK is definitly my pick....AR? who in their right mind....
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:38:14 PM EDT
Can I use my AK, with my G19 on my hip? That's my own personal favorite combo.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:39:57 PM EDT
AK every day.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:41:26 PM EDT
answerring 1911 is a joke. GI 1911 maybe, modern tight tolerance 1911, DEFINITELY not.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:42:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Unicorn:
And both are being bitch slapped by the Glock.

All that is happening is that the AR crowd is admitting that AR's need to be broken in first, while the AK was made to be used by illiterate conscript farmers that barely know which end to point at the enemy.



"by peasants, for peasants" - the ak 47
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:47:46 PM EDT
I've owned one AR or another the past 10 years, and I'm really and AR fan, but, 3 weeks ago I bought a Vector arms AK. It's my first real experience with an AK, and I gotta say, it's now my goto gun. As far a the Glock is concerened, I've never owned any other brand.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:54:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 6:28:29 PM EDT
If you had to choose a weapon to defend your life and you have not test fired it. Which weapon would it be?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ 66 ] AK 47 [ 35.11% ]
[ 21 ] M16 or AR-15 [ 11.17% ]
[ 57 ] Glock [ 30.32% ]
[ 14 ] 1911 [ 7.45% ]
[ 14 ] Other. Please specify. [ 7.45% ]
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 6:36:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 6:37:41 PM EDT by HUNGARYAN]

Originally Posted By StariVojnik:
If you had to choose a weapon to defend your life and you have not test fired it. Which weapon would it be?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ 66 ] AK 47 [ 35.11% ]
[ 21 ] M16 or AR-15 [ 11.17% ]
[ 57 ] Glock [ 30.32% ]
[ 14 ] 1911 [ 7.45% ]
[ 14 ] Other. Please specify. [ 7.45% ]



I will bite,

Hands down, "Mossberg M500 pursuader or any other M-500 out of the box"

A 12 ga, with extreme reliability in suburban settings when the sh*t hits the fan or when zombies come a callin.

Of course my Maadi and AMD will be close by
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 6:48:30 PM EDT
My only choice.

Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:09:37 PM EDT
damn read my mind,

AK and a G19
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:21:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 7:24:27 PM EDT by Dawg180]
If I have to use a firearm to defend my life then I am going to grab the closest one, hope I kill the sonuvabitch, and THEN worry about if I am holding a Goddamn Glock or 1911!



Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:25:01 PM EDT
In an IDPA competition this weekend I had three FTF in a Glock 19, my times were horrible, never use aftermarket unlined mags
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:26:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Gunner:
In an IDPA competition this weekend I had three FTF in a Glock 19, my times were horrible, never use aftermarket unlined mags



Never use an aftermarket mag period ...
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:29:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 7:33:41 PM EDT by robpiat]


Link Posted: 1/30/2006 8:23:59 PM EDT
Now THOSE are what you call FAIL SAFE weapons!!!!
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 9:02:33 PM EDT
AK and G22.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 10:19:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 10:22:44 PM EDT by KMFDM]
I digress here from the main topic momentarily to address these off topic qoutes:

"When you compare the two weapons, side by side the two platforms are designed to meet a common goal. That common goal is to kill whoever is trying to kill you. Those illiterate farmers in Mogadishu showed the lack of effectiveness of a poorly trained, uneducated mob armed with AKs.

Those same illiterate farmers were killed by the thousands by the M16 platform in the hands of trained troops with proper tactics, good ammo and proper leadership and training."

This one will probably get me in some trouble:

Yes, they showed the world that the best equipped country could be punked out and their awesome equipment destroyed and then forced to leave their country, meanwhile not having achieved their goal when they left................So what if we killed a couple thousand of them, there were thousands more ready to bring the fight to our guys. Killing thousands of them means nothing in the end if we don't achieve our goals.
This is not meant as a slight against the troops who were there, they did a awesome job against overwhelming odds and kept alive and fought of becoming another "Alamo". I'd be willing to be if we did not have the little bird gunships there it might have ended not so well for us. Who had to come bail out those guys? I would guess a fair amount of the U.N. relief force (some of whom were probably armed with AKs) . How many million did we kill in Vietnam with the most advanced technology we could muster? How many Afgans did the Russians kill? But the main question being: who was left when all the smoke cleared? It wasn't us or the Russians was it? (How many million Russians did the Germans kill in WWII also). The body count mentality of "well we killed more of them" of the M16 generation astounds me-it ignores one glaring reality: In the end does it really matter how many you killed if you did not achieve your stated goal and your enemy is still in power when you leave?

The nasty buggers there actually have a holiday for the day that they made the Americans go home, if I understand it correctly.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 10:29:19 PM EDT
tag for later
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 10:33:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedGoat:

Originally Posted By Unicorn:
And both are being bitch slapped by the Glock.

All that is happening is that the AR crowd is admitting that AR's need to be broken in first, while the AK was made to be used by illiterate conscript farmers that barely know which end to point at the enemy.



I am not so sure your assessment of the design purpose of the AK is correct. It was built with looser tolerances, and it is true that a large number of its users are illiterate.

I don't think your term 'broken in first' is a valid point. Even assuming an M16 needed to be 'broken in', you forget that you will seldom find armies using 'New in Box' weapons. Most are hand-me-downs from other units and have gone well beyond the commonly established 'broken in' stage of use.

The original M16 is nothing like the modern version. The number of advances in design, materials and craftsmanship negate most, if not all of the arguments for the reliability of the AR/M16 platform. when compared to the looser tolerances of the AK design.

All small arms are prone to poor ammo design, faulty magazines, lack of proper maintenance and user error (ever seen an illiterate farmer loading the rounds backwards? I have...)

When you compare the two weapons, side by side the two platforms are designed to meet a common goal. That common goal is to kill whoever is trying to kill you. Those illiterate farmers in Mogadishu showed the lack of effectiveness of a poorly trained, uneducated mob armed with AKs.

Those same illiterate farmers were killed by the thousands by the M16 platform in the hands of trained troops with proper tactics, good ammo and proper leadership and training.

To say the weapon is designed for illiterate farmers, and to see it perform so poorly in the hands of its target audience would negate the validity of your argument.

To summarize, you state that the AK was designed to be used by illiterate farmers. the users in Mogadishu meet that requirement. The M16, you imply, must be broken in and used by a 'non-illiterate' person.

Assuming your criteria was met, and each was used by its target audience, it is easy to see which weapon system was properly designed to achieve its purpose.

TRG

AK: Retarded Baby could use it. Jam free. Just plain cooler. Minute of Bad guy to ~300m-400m, Jamless.

M16: It jams. Not as much as it used to, but still enough to make me feel nervous if i had to fight with it. Less stopping power. Complicated. Tools needed to break down.

IOW, I would take the gun that don't jam and is MOB, then the Jam-o-matic that is crazy accurate. And needs to be cleaned whenever you have a chance.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:54:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:09:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 6:10:50 AM EDT by Pave]

Originally Posted By Wackypeacock:
My only choice.

i15.ebayimg.com/03/i/05/e2/23/3c_1.JPG



Just don't put your eye out....
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:16:49 AM EDT
The relieving force was the Malaysian Battalion, who were all armed with M16A1s.

Simon
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:07:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedGoat:

Originally Posted By AKLover_91:

TRG

AK: Retarded Baby could use it. Jam free. Just plain cooler. Minute of Bad guy to ~300m-400m, Jamless.

Jamless? Unless you mean "total lacking in delicious preserve and fruit spreads" then you are wrong. I have seen many AKs jam.

M16: It jams. Not as much as it used to, but still enough to make me feel nervous if i had to fight with it. Less stopping power. Complicated. Tools needed to break down.

Tools to break down? Lost me there, because the last I checked my M16 is broken down with two pushpins and a round of ammo.

IOW, I would take the gun that don't jam and is MOB, then the Jam-o-matic that is crazy accurate. And needs to be cleaned whenever you have a chance.

Suit yourself.

TRG




Ive seen MANY/MOST ARs at the range jam at least once.....for AKs, the only issues ive seen (which are RARE) are improperly built ones from kits, century slop builds/murder jobs aka WASR high caps, and mags that have been modified to be used for a different caliber (using modified EG 5.45 mags for a .223 AK)..... aside from those circumstances, ive NEVER seen an AK jam, nor had one jam on me.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:49:10 AM EDT
As far as the Mogadishu thing is concerned I'd guess the outcome would have been pretty much the same if the Somalia militia had been armed with the M16 & the Rangers/Delta had AKMs.
Good tactics & training generally will prevail. When the skinnies jump around out in the middle of the street, hold the rifle overhead or at hip level & empty the mag on full auto they're going to get smoked by the guys firing aimed semi fire from behind cover, no matter what the rifles are.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 9:32:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 9:34:07 AM EDT by MauserMark]
+1, the weapons used by the Somalis had little to do if anything with how effective they were in street battles.

The Russians and Chechens are armed with the exact same weapons and calibers, and the kill rate there is probably 10 chechen fighters per every 1 russian soldier.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 10:42:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 10:43:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 10:54:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Unicorn:
All that is happening is that the AR crowd is admitting that AR's need to be broken in first, while the AK was made to be used by illiterate conscript farmers that barely know which end to point at the enemy.



Not really.

I didn't select the 'AR' because it wasn't specified who manufactured it. Give the choice between one of the cheap ARs (DPMS/Oly/Vulcan/ Model1 etc) I'd MUCH prefer the Glock.

Now if the choice had been YOUR Ar or "Colt' or another quality brand (Bushy, CMT etc) then my choice would have been different.

I know Glock's quality, reliablity, and they tend to hit where you aim right out of the box. I can't say the same for the budget end AR manufacturers.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 12:13:37 PM EDT
The AR and the AK, both are Fine Rifles...Pick the 1 that you have the most Ammo to feed it...And , if it jammed, use the Bayonet
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 1:02:44 PM EDT
AK and Glock

the most reliable combat grade weapons out of the box (or crate or hole or whatever)
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 2:21:46 PM EDT
My Army trained college educated ass will take an AK & a Glock.
I get get the feeling someone has been watching Black Hawk Down recently.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 3:54:40 PM EDT
AK and XD...man I love those initials
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:13:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:03:15 PM EDT
Ive seen them all jam. AR/m16 and AK's of all makes. Out of the many thay have passed through my hands only my Bulgie SLR 101S ( Milled ) has not had a stoppage. It is a sweet shooting rifle. But my go to rifle is a AR15A1 I built. It just fits me and I handle it very well. Light and accurate.Very relaiable. But Im not in the least feel Im under powered/ armed with an AK. WarDawg
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:07:52 PM EDT
I would probably take a Galil over the standard AK, with a Glock for backup. But if given a choice between an AR with all the bells and whistles, or a plain jane AK, I would take the AK anyday.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 9:19:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedGoat:

Originally Posted By Dieter122:

Originally Posted By TheRedGoat:

Originally Posted By AKLover_91:

TRG

AK: Retarded Baby could use it. Jam free. Just plain cooler. Minute of Bad guy to ~300m-400m, Jamless.

Jamless? Unless you mean "total lacking in delicious preserve and fruit spreads" then you are wrong. I have seen many AKs jam.

M16: It jams. Not as much as it used to, but still enough to make me feel nervous if i had to fight with it. Less stopping power. Complicated. Tools needed to break down.

Tools to break down? Lost me there, because the last I checked my M16 is broken down with two pushpins and a round of ammo.

IOW, I would take the gun that don't jam and is MOB, then the Jam-o-matic that is crazy accurate. And needs to be cleaned whenever you have a chance.

Suit yourself.

TRG




Ive seen MANY/MOST ARs at the range jam at least once.....for AKs, the only issues ive seen (which are RARE) are improperly built ones from kits, century slop builds/murder jobs aka WASR high caps, and mags that have been modified to be used for a different caliber (using modified EG 5.45 mags for a .223 AK)..... aside from those circumstances, ive NEVER seen an AK jam, nor had one jam on me.



Then, you should probably get out and shoot more.

I have heard ALOT of people make claims about how the AK 'never jams'. Odd, because I have seen them jam for a variety of reasons.

There is also anecdotal evidence that suggests the AKs 'reputation for taking abuse' is actually detrimentlal to the function of the weapon. They do require proper cleaning, storage and service.

Many owners, in both the Third World and the First, are mislead by the AKs supposed ability to suffer abuse and remain functional. Poor construction materials, climate and abuse lend themseles to bolt rusting shut, springs decaying, etc.

Blow away the myths of 'never jam' and 'even an illiterate farmer can use it' and you get back to the nuts and bolts of what works.

The sights on an AK are dismal, the cheek weld does not lend itself to target aquisition and situational awareness. The standard round is not known for being accurate, and the quality of the weapon firing it also speaks of innacuracy.

I don't feel that an AR/M16 is a hands-down choice for me when it comes to an ultimate weapon. Personally, I prefer other things for my personal defense... like a beltfed!

The Ak is fine, lots of people love them. But, they are not the ultimate weapon that people think that they are.

It reminds me of kids with Riced-Out Honda accords bragging about how they can beat a Ferrarri. About how their ricer only cost them 10k and a Ferrarri is 'too expensive to maintain.'

AKs jam. AKs break. AKs are poorly designed.

TRG


Same goes for the M4 guy, who mounts every "tactical" add on possible to their M4 and still can't hit the target.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 2:45:25 AM EDT
well the AK got my vote

in general the AK is way more reliable and easier to take care of that any m-4/m-16/ar every was.

7 years with the m-16a2's and m-4's i never felt confident in those weapons,. god help you if your in a situation where you cant stop and clean you rifle,..with out several hours of traing to do imeadiate action drills,...and spending countless hours per week cleaning and maintaing,..the ar family is to complicated and troublesome,...it has to have the right mags,..the right ammo,..and must always be clean to function properly

now an AK is alot more user freindly,..vastly more reliable,..and you can still hit what your shooting at very easily out to 200m-300m, dont even start with the crap about shooting further. most situations you be lucky to even see 300m away.

now ive see some pretty F-ed up AK's overthere that ran like a champ and ive seen other ones that barely got any weapons mait. done to them jam or not work. sure every weapon has to be cleaned every now and then to work properly. but unlike the ar,..with a AK i could at least go a week with out having to worry if if my rifle will fire

i dont think that crap about target users holds water,...any professional soilder will be able to swiftly and skillfully break there foot off in there oppisitions ass,.. weather they are armed with m-4/m-16,..AK-47's,..bolt action rifles,.. pistols or even down to sharp sticks or rocks.

the only reason the m-16/m-4's are worth a damn is because of the training and disapline of the soilder useing it,..and the money and maintence the army puts into the damn things.

the AK is just a simpler,..no fucking around kind of weapon

and thats why i love them so
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 8:34:04 AM EDT
Top Top