Ok. I'd like some objective input here I am going to try to keep objective on this one.

I have been thinking lately about alot of posts here and on other websties about statements by many (myself included) about the reliability of the AK system and M16 systems respectively.

NO#1 Reliability.
AK: The AK is a pretty reliable weapon that is fact from my experience. They tend to work under the most adverse of conditions and are much easier to maintain and keep in an operational status. In my experience the AK is much more durable especially in the hands of untrained personnel and personnel with very limited cleaning supplies and third world personnel. The biggest hang up in my experience is ammo, some of it out there in the world is terrible to say the least and most of the worst it is of middle-eastern mfr. I have seen AKs that have 3-5 different types of ammo stuffed in 1 magazine (catch as can I guess). I have had to condemn whole lots of AKs because they were made poorly at the factory and quite a few did not work when they reached the troops. But I have seen AK magazines and recievers packed with sand work. I have seen AKs that were not cleaned for years still work. I had an AK that was made in 1960 in Afganistan that was in really rough shape and probably had not been cleaned well since it was taken from a Russian soldier. It went through 1000 rounds in one day and the reverted to semi-automatic fire only while set in automatic, after cleaning the gas port it was good as new. I have repaired many AKs that people had broken or certain parts had worn out. But I have not had to repair near as many AKs as I have M16s per capita. AKs do jam and break though.

M16: Reliability. The gun when well maintained does fine, I had a few jams with mine when I was down range. Mostly due to magazines or gas rings lining up (alot of vibration in a M113). If the weapon is not well maintained it causes problems in my experience. I "combat" cleaned mine daily before every mission and I had a lot fewer issues with it than others who cleaned theirs less frequently. I cannot say I have seen an M16 work reliably as an AK when packed with sand and dust. The M16 has more things that wear out than an AK. Especially gas rings. Yes, they are a cheap piece to replace but finding them sometimes is not easy. The M16 has come along way and is really a pretty decent design but it requires more care than an AK in my experience. I also have had guns fresh form the factory not work either and had to be sent back.

Ergonomics:
AK: It is a club and has a poor safety for sure, it doesn't take all the high-tech add ons near as well as an AR for sure. But when it comes to speed of malfunction clearance and idiot factor the AK leaves the M16 well in the dust. Plus I can use it as a club if needed.

M16: Few rifles are as comfortable too shoot or feel as good or as easy to shoot. Accessories, need I say more? Controls are well placed. Malfunction clearance is a joke on this gun though-very poorly thought out it in my opinion it requires both hands to be utilized. To which I have seen very few people be able to do while under any form of stress (S.P.O.R.T.S.). An AK is at least twice as fast in this matter.

Sights:
AK: We all know here. The one thing I (personal observation) have found it is easier to engage moving targets with the AKs sights than an M16s.

M16: Allows for more precision shot placement and a bunch more of stuff we all know. Does anyone ever use the elevation drum though on the A2 style sights? I am curious here.

Accuracy:
AK: reasonably accurate to 300M, 500m possible.

M16: Very accurate to 500M.

Magazines:
AK: Pretty darned good design and I can beat someone to death with it if I have to and more than likely it will still work afterward.

M16: Flimsy, poorly designed (mind you the aluminum). These in my experience are the main cause of stoppages in the M16 series and especially in the M4.

These are some of my observations. please put some of yours.

What do I personally own more of? ARs. What do I shoot more of? AKs.  What do I prefer to carry while downrange? An AK when I can get away with it. What do I carry in the car? depends on how I feel that day.

Try to keep this from becoming an AR (or AK) sucks thread.  

Quoted: Try to keep this from becoming an AR (or AK) sucks thread.

Oh, come on now...you know EVERYBODY gets worked up over THIS subject!!!




I'll try...and all of my judgements are made from first-person, hands-on experience...

AR EXPERIENCE...


I spent 6 1/2 years in the Army with the M16A2 as my issue weapon. It's what I was trained on and I'm used to it's "quirks" & idiosyncracies.

I've owned three AR's...Colt pre-ban Green Label 6600 HBAR(which I actually owned before I joined the Army...), a home-build "Shorty"(11.5" barrel, 5.5" permanently attached flash hider, A2 upper, 3-position collapsible butt-stock) that was assembled using mostly Olympic Arms parts with a few DPMS parts thrown in for good measure, and my current "M-4gery Carbine-type thingy" that was assembled using mostly RRA parts with a Bushmaster barrel and TROMIX lower receiver. I no longer own the first two and, in fact, spent several years "AR-less" before I built my current AR...

The Colt NEVER jammed and neither has my "M-4gery". The Olympic Arms jammed on it's first trip to the range...the culprit was a cheaply-made DPMS extractor that broke at the pin...Upon close examination, it actually appeared to be a cast part. Replaced it with a good extractor and never had another problem with it. Ever.

All were/are accurate...1.5 - 2.5 MOA or so using plain old FMJ ball ammo...I have always preferred WWB ammo for plinking in my AR's...just habit.

I use only 20 round & 30 round USGI magazines. I inspect them from time-to-time to make sure they're in good shape.

I don't consider myself to be a "neat-freak", but I do clean my weapons after each trip to the range, regardless of type or model. A clean weapon is a reliable weapon...that being said, AR's ARE NOT hard or complicated to maintain. They are not complex or fragile, despite what the naysayers spew.

I also think the AR is more modular and adaptable to different situations/missions than the AK. It also has a much wider selection of accessories available to enhance it's capabilities.

The A2 stock is O.K., but I think it's a bit too long. An A1 length stock would make it easier to point & handle. A collapsible/adjustable stock is the best choice of all.

The sights on AR's are excellent, but they're just a little too much on the "target" side for my tastes, but that's probably what has helped with the M16/AR's reputation for accuracy. I know that I never had a problem hitting the 300-meter pop-up targets on the Qualification course. And I always qualified "Expert"(36 or more hits out of 40). On the downside, they can be a bit on the slow side in low light.



AK EXPERIENCE...

I've owned two AK's...the first was a Bulgarian SLR-100H that was assembled by Gordon Technologies. They have a reputation as being one of the best "post-ban" milled receiver AK's out there. The other AK was a Century Arms SAR-1. A standard run-of-the-mill "post-ban" stamped receiver AK.

Never had a jam with either one of them, either.

But...both were VERY disappointing when it came to accuracy, even when shooting from a bench-rest. The SLR-100H would group at about 10" - 15" at 100 yards, regardless of what kind of was ammo used. The SAR-1 was worse, averaging 18" groups at 100 yards.

I tried Wolf, Barnaul, Ulynovsk, and even some Chinese-made Norinco ammo. All gave the same poor result.

I sold both because I just couldn't accept accuracy that was that poor...

Who knows...maybe I got the worst speciman of each one that was made.

I actually like the sights on the AK, believe it or not. They make the weapon quick pointing and, IMHO, are better suited for low-light conditions than the iron sights of the M16/AR series. My only gripe about them is that they require a "special tool" for adjustments.

I also like the shorter stocks on AK's rather than the NATO-length stocks. The shorter stocks make them easier and faster to point.

The biggest thing AK's have going for them is simplicity. A 6-year-old with an attention span longer than 10 seconds can learn how to maintain one...

Now, don't get me wrong...I haven't completely written off the AK. I bought two of the Romanian "G" kits in new condition that are currently on the market. I'm going build them up on the Global Trades 1.0mm receivers. I still think AK's are fun to shoot and want one(or two...or more!) in my collection.


Based on my experience with the two different systems, I prefer the AR...there, I've said it. Flame away...


Just my $0.02...YMMV

I have both.  I still do not understand what the hell people mean by ergonomics, the AK is easier to sling over the back and is pretty flat and packs alot like a lever gun.  Yea, the safety is loud and clunky, but I find it more comfy to shoot than an AR in stock form as I hate the AR's fat forearms.  I am beginning to think the ergonomics issue is just a argument brought up because most AK folks do not have a dictionary to figure out what that word means .

I like them both and would have a hard time choosing just one.  I guess if I had to live with only one I would take the AK just in case I had to pound tent stakes or club seals or something.

I see that you list the Ak as "being easier to use and train third world personnel on" which seems to be a common comment.  Honestly, what makes the M16 so much more difficult for an untrained person to understand, at least function wise?  About the only issue i can see is that there are more moving parts in the action that need to be removed for cleaning.  

My girlfriend knew little to nothing about guns but had no problem understanding how an M16 came apart for cleaning, how to clean it, and how to put it back together with about an hour of training.  

I have owned and used both made by an array of manufacturers and they both jam and they are both accurate for the purpose.I do not see all the hype that is said and repeated about one being better than the other.Most people repeat what they hear and never used these weapons.But back to the subject; the big difference is sight picture and ability of feel for weapon while in use.The akm loses for sight picture and m16 loses for feel for weapon it does not feel right when moving quick from many targets.As far as to me the point of maintence, both are the same.Both are good to me and trust each one i will not say one is better than the other;I like the way a scope goes on m16 better too.I did not have a chance to try KOBRA but that could be a new light for a akm.

This is the  biggest gripe for me with the 16...
I carried an M16A1 for 6 1/2yrs and loved it  but I hated the A2 for a 1/2 yr...The added weight,The handguards and WHY do you need to screw with the sights..
The A1 was battle sighted and thats it.
I have used my A1 doing my job and never had to shoot again.
I was in Panama,,Desert Shield/Storm and Somalia....what fun.
What I don't like about 16's in general...The direct gas injection!!!!
Inprovements...Better ammo...A frangilbe AP round???Make it light weight  like the A1.and A1 sights...who has ever had the time to adjust thiere sights in a firefight?


The AK.......I don't like the Sights....Thats it....
Of course this is just IMHO from personal observations.
By the way...I own 5 AK's and no AR's

I agree about the A1, although I've never used one in combat.

The 2 A1's I've had were much more enjoyable to haul around and shoot with then the heavier barrel A2's and I like the triangular handguards much more.

I've just always been fearful of trusting my life with them in the event I have to use one in a long period of time, without access to cleaning supplies.  I've had 3 ARs (2 were the A1's) only the Colt ran flawlessly, the other 2 eventually gave me a FTF or some other issue.



-mark

Quoted:

+458357935734987594

the Dupe Police wont even respond to this post, its so far dead and beaten

Quoted: Quoted: +458357935734987594 the Dupe Police wont even respond to this post, its so far dead and beaten

Yea, this topic is brought up alot. What makes his post different is the fact. He's talking about AK's and M16/AR's that were used outside of just shooting at your local range.

I vote that this be the last thread EVER on this topic, and all future topics about "AK vs. AR" be locked!  All in favor say "aye"

Hell, put a tacked thread with title: "AR: gas system sucks, accuracy rules.  AK: Can be used by third world farmers, accuracy sucks, reliablility rules.  We know, end of story."

aye

Quoted: aye

aye.... im in favor

Quoted: I vote that this be the last thread EVER on this topic, and all future topics about "AK vs. AR" be locked!  All in favor say "aye" Hell, put a tacked thread with title: "AR: gas system sucks, accuracy rules.  AK: Can be used by third world farmers, accuracy sucks, reliablility rules.  We know, end of story."

+1

how about starting a tacked indefinite AR vs. AK thread, and let it get to 40 pages and then lock it.

-mark

My MAC-12 in .380 beats every AR and AK on the planet for both accuracy and reliablity!

The AR malfunctions I experienced in Afghanistan were caused by fine sand.

Most if not all of the malfunctions I experienced in training were caused by bad mags.

Neither of these have anything to do with the gas system. I've fired hundreds of rounds at a time, of BLANKS, without a malfunction caused by action fouling. Anyone who has fired blanks in an AR knows that they are much dirtier than live rounds. IMO, the AR gas system is not as bad as people make it out to be. The AR is susceptible to malfunctions in a sandy environment, but these are not the fault of the gas system, they are the fault of close tolerances on the carrier rails and the locking lugs.

As far as ergonomics go, the AK's safety sucks. It's impossible to operate without shiting your grip substantially.

I don't care about the mag release, as I'm not one to obsess over speed reloads. I don't shoot IPSC with my AK.

The charging handle on the AK works great if you're a lefty, not so well if you're right handed. The charging handle on the AR sucks for everyone.

Quoted: The AR malfunctions I experienced in Afghanistan were caused by fine sand. Most if not all of the malfunctions I experienced in training were caused by bad mags. mags seemed to be 90% of the problem with the problems I've had with ARs (cheap mags that I used go figure) The AR is susceptible to malfunctions in a sandy environment, but these are not the fault of the gas system, they are the fault of close tolerances on the carrier rails and the locking lugs. well said As far as ergonomics go, the AK's safety sucks. It's impossible to operate without shiting your grip substantially. I love the AK system except for the safety, I think it's a major drawback, even after shooting the German MP44/STG44 which has a safety almost identical to the AR, I felt it could of been improved on by the Russians I don't care about the mag release, as I'm not one to obsess over speed reloads. I don't shoot IPSC with my AK. I don't have a problem with the mag release that much, other than it's not as ergo as the AR's, but neither is the M1A1 or HK rifles... The charging handle on the AK works great if you're a lefty, not so well if you're right handed. The charging handle on the AR sucks for everyone. Another thing I noticed on the STG44 was the charging handle on the left side of the receiver, much easier/faster to use when changing mags, Everything on the STG could be done the same way it's done on the AR (release button on the right side for the mag, charging handle on the left side, safety/selector almost identical to the AR except for the semi-to-auto selector)

 thanks for the input.

Is it time for the daily AK/AR thread? I must have not been paying attention.

Locking threads because the topic has been discussed before isn't the answer. This thread started out with an honest observation, and a request to keep it legit.  You do not have to participate in the thread, or for that matter even read it. But you should not want to lock it simply because you are tired of the topic. If threads start getting locked due to repeated content, half of the discussions in this forum will disappear.

Quoted: Locking threads because the topic has been discussed before isn't the answer. This thread started out with an honest observation, and a request to keep it legit.  You do not have to participate in the thread, or for that matter even read it. But you should not want to lock it simply because you are tired of the topic. If threads start getting locked due to repeated content, half of the discussions in this forum will disappear.

I agree to a point.

I think any thread is beneficial, even if it's a repeat, but...

when 10 threads appear everyday with the titles,

"Which AK should I buy, I'm new?"
"Where can I get 5.45x39 or 7.62x39?"
"I got trigger slap, how to fix?"  

and so forth.

All 3 could be complimented, by 3 tacked perm threads with the titles:

"Which is the best AK to start out with."
"AK Ammo shortage and what to expect"
"WASR problems that can be fixed"

then lock the threads that come up when someone was too lazy to search or notice the tacked threads above.

that way active threads or really good novel thread subjects aren't lost into the 2nd and third pages. I've missed some good threads on here because I forgot to read the 2nd, and 3rd pages.

I don't agree on the malfuntion clearance. I think an AR is easier because mag manipulation is so simple and user friendly.

Quoted: I vote that this be the last thread EVER on this topic, and all future topics about "AK vs. AR" be locked!  All in favor say "aye" Hell, put a tacked thread with title: "AR: gas system sucks, accuracy rules.  AK: Can be used by third world farmers, accuracy sucks, reliablility rules.  We know, end of story."

How about just adding to the thread and not driving it into a wall. How many threads are started in here on a daily basis and nobody complains about it, You have the freedom to own guns, the freedom of speech and the freedom to not read the threads that you dont like! I bet you jump in on every "What kind of AK should I get?" Thread that starts. But you thrash what I would say is the best comparison of the AR and AK platforms I have read on here in a long time. He is not Asking which is better but stating his opinion on how they compare to eachother and other peoples experiences between the 2 platforms.

My opinion, I really like both guns, ARs/M16s are pretty fun to shoot but for a combat rifle I feel that they are too high maintenance. Theres no worse feeling then racking your charging handle and letting it go and it doesnt go anywhere. I feel that the accuracy that you get from the tighter tolerances is not worth the dependability you give up. A vast majority of firefights happen within 300 yards and with your blood pumping and bullets flying at you you arent gonna be making well aimed shots with wind calls at people standing silhouetted on the top of a burm from predetermined distances.  As well as the 5.56 round has no terminal ballistics, at ranges that far out its punching small holes in people and they are still moving, The kills need to be from tramatic shock not blood loss. How would you rather go? The terminal ballistics are good from close up but the whole business of shooting someone in the chest and it coming out thier big toe is nonsense. The bullet only bounces if it hits solid bone and even then usually punches right through and out the back leaving a small hole. The ballistics are ruined by people using 16" barrels. Because the round was made for a 20 inch barrell. Just like the 7.62X 39 was made for a 16" barrell and there is little to no advantage of shooting it out of a 20 barrell. Aks are a better weapons system for combat, The looser fitting parts allow for larger particles or buildups to get in the travel of the internal parts and not hinder the operation. Therefore less jamming. I think the biggest reason for the AKs being inaccurate is more the ammo than the platform. But shooting a bigger round gives you better terminal ballistics, at close to medium ranges lets say 300 yards the round is devastating. Once again at Long ranges the terminal ballistics are lacking, But the round nor the gun was made for long range shooting. As far as ergonomics? The AR platform has a better safety....But the buffer tube makes it a harder gun to carry due to lack of no folding stock, I can take my underfolder, and drop it in my pack. An AR would have to be carried or strapped to the outside of the pack leaving it open to the weather as well as things falling down the barrell, or getting in cracks where it shouldnt be. Which one is tougher...I could use the old I would drive a car over my ak and it would still fire.....But who says you cant do it with an AR? Has anyone tried? I have seen an M16 take 3 AK rounds, 2 in the reciever and 1 in the buttstock. Did it still shoot? Hell no! But would an AK? But it did save the Marine that was shooting it.
Price? The us government pays, If I remember correctly, 685$ for an M16-A2........Aks range from 300-1300 Depends on the quality.
Both are great guns that do exactly what they were designed to do. ARs were made for accuracy.  AK were built to shoot every time.

Having shot and owned several ARs(Bushmasters and Colts) , a Colt M16A1 and several AKs (SAR, Chinese, and Vector Folder), I have formed my opinions.  Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.  

Both are good systems for what they are designed to do and will work well with some proper care.  

AR/M16
1.  I have found the AR series much more finicky.  If you have a good one keep it, if it does not work get rid of it quickly if you can not get it to work.  I have had some that did not want to work well no matter what was done.  I have had a couple that worked well.
2.  The mags are the weak part of the system.  If the mags do not work with changing springs or followers ditch them.  
3.  The gun is lighter. easier to cary, easier to carry ammo for and easier to manipulate the safety.
4.  Cleaning the gun can be done easily with some proper training or use of a good manual.  Improper cleaning or not cleaning will lead to problems eventually.
5.  ARs seem to shoot more accurately but match accuracy is not important to me.
AK
1.  The AK series tend to eat most ammo that you can fit in the mags.  I have yet to see one jam personally.  I am not saying the AK will not jam, I am sure that they can and will.  The ones I have seen shot were maintained, but then again so were the ARs that I seen jamming.
2.  AK mags are very robust.  I do have some that the followers stick in the mags.  They can be damaged and rendered unreliable.  
3.  The AK safety can be manipulated fairly quickly with practice but does involve moving my firing hand.  The AK can also be reloaded fairly quickly with practice and good technique, not as quick as an AR, but not sure in a real self defense type of situtation that a quick reload would really be needed.  If I am speed loading lots of 30 rd mags with either gun I am hoping that I have a lot of buddies with me with bigger guns than I have.
4.  Cleaning the AK is simpler than the AR and the system seems to work better with no cleaning or improper cleaning.
5.  The AK series is usually not match quality accuracy but I am not looking for that.  The system is accurate enough for self-defense.  

I think that both systems are fine if given a good quality gun, mags, ammo and proper care.  I personally have chosen the AK system as what works best for me.  I no longer have any AR series guns.  I do own three AKs.  The above are my observations and opinions.  Just my $0.02 for free



Ron

Quoted:

"Cocaine is a powerful drug." - Rick James

Quoted: Quoted: "Cocaine is a powerful drug." - Rick James

It can make one too cool for the room.

Quoted: Quoted: The AR malfunctions I experienced in Afghanistan were caused by fine sand. Most if not all of the malfunctions I experienced in training were caused by bad mags. mags seemed to be 90% of the problem with the problems I've had with ARs (cheap mags that I used go figure) The AR is susceptible to malfunctions in a sandy environment, but these are not the fault of the gas system, they are the fault of close tolerances on the carrier rails and the locking lugs. well said As far as ergonomics go, the AK's safety sucks. It's impossible to operate without shiting your grip substantially. I love the AK system except for the safety, I think it's a major drawback, even after shooting the German MP44/STG44 which has a safety almost identical to the AR, I felt it could of been improved on by the Russians I don't care about the mag release, as I'm not one to obsess over speed reloads. I don't shoot IPSC with my AK. I don't have a problem with the mag release that much, other than it's not as ergo as the AR's, but neither is the M1A1 or HK rifles... The charging handle on the AK works great if you're a lefty, not so well if you're right handed. The charging handle on the AR sucks for everyone. Another thing I noticed on the STG44 was the charging handle on the left side of the receiver, much easier/faster to use when changing mags, Everything on the STG could be done the same way it's done on the AR (release button on the right side for the mag, charging handle on the left side, safety/selector almost identical to the AR except for the semi-to-auto selector)  thanks for the input.

the STG is not an AK. It might look similar, but its different mechanically; rollerlocking last time i checked

Quoted: the STG is not an AK. It might look similar, but its different mechanically; rollerlocking last time i checked

are you serious?  

I think that's well established, and it wasn't my intention to imply they were similar.  I said the AK could of taken or improved on some of the aspects of the MP44 like the selector, or just putting the charging handle on the left side.

Don't be under the impression that I think these 2 rifles have anything in common other than they go boom.

that is a pretty popular misconception even on this board.  Every MP44 thread that's started maybe once a year, there's a rush to be the first one to say, "you all know the AK47 was a total rip-off of the MP44 right, I mean look at both, you can tell Kalashny didn't come up with anything original."

Quoted: "Cocaine is a powerful drug." - Rick James

then I'm glad I've never tried it, imagine THEN what I'd be like.

Quoted: Quoted: "Cocaine is a powerful drug." - Rick James It can make one too cool for the room.

or in your case, to cool to use the search engine.

j/k

Quoted: As well as the 5.56 round has no terminal ballistics, at ranges that far out its punching small holes in people and they are still moving, The kills need to be from tramatic shock not blood loss. Shock is bullshit.  The only parts of the body that respond to "shock" are the brain and the liver when ipacted by a projectile at 2200 feet per second or faster, which is a little slower than an AK's MV. The ballistics are ruined by people using 16" barrels. Because the round was made for a 20 inch barrell. HaHa.  Very funny. The looser fitting parts allow for larger particles or buildups to get in the travel of the internal parts and not hinder the operation. Therefore less jamming. Clean it and you won't get a malfunction.  Jam is what my Grandma used to make with apricots. But shooting a bigger round gives you better terminal ballistics, at close to medium ranges lets say 300 yards the round is devastating minimal. Once again at Long ranges the terminal ballistics are lacking, But the round nor the gun was made for long range shooting. And therefore can be used to 750 meters like some M4 variants.

Quoted: I have both.  I still do not understand what the hell people mean by ergonomics, the AK is easier to sling over the back and is pretty flat and packs alot like a lever gun.

I don't know why you'd want the gun on your back really... but I see your point.

Quoted: I have both.  I still do not understand what the hell people mean by ergonomics, the AK is easier to sling over the back and is pretty flat and packs alot like a lever gun.

I don't know why you'd want the gun on your back really... but I see your point.

That is just how I sling it.  Big two point sling, and it rides muzzle down flat on my back.  I can still shoulder it or carry it in front as well.  

I just like my guns to be flat, but I am weird like that.

Being an ar guy, a bushy m4gery and an A1 clone, i had to give the ak a whirl, so i ordered a yugo underfolder.  To me they are both great guns, both have advantages and disadvantages, i wish people would just stop trying to compare them so much, theyre 2 totally different rifles.

Quoted: Besides, can't we all just get along................look..........ebony  black and plum  purple get along just fine.....

I kill myself.

Quoted: StG-44's weren't roller locking, that's the '45, which was never issued.  The StG-44 uses a tilting lock, almost like a FAL or an SKS. Anyway, yeah, it's an old topic, and it might be beat, but, the poster did lay out real world experiences and in a way that I agree with. So. No lock. Besides, can't we all just get along................look..........ebony and plum get along just fine..... img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Range%20Day%209-13-05/Half%20Sized%20Range%20Day/RangePics9-13-05002.jpg

All my babies are BLACK and I am White. Next time I see Mr. K  I will ask him were he got his info to build the Ak47 from.  

Quoted: Clean it and you won't get a malfunction.

Cleaning? I thought it took more than just cleaning to have a running AR? At least that's what I read on the AR side

Quoted: Quoted: As well as the 5.56 round has no terminal ballistics, at ranges that far out its punching small holes in people and they are still moving, The kills need to be from tramatic shock not blood loss. Shock is bullshit.  The only parts of the body that respond to "shock" are the brain and the liver when ipacted by a projectile at 2200 feet per second or faster, which is a little slower than an AK's MV. The ballistics are ruined by people using 16" barrels. Because the round was made for a 20 inch barrell. HaHa.  Very funny. The looser fitting parts allow for larger particles or buildups to get in the travel of the internal parts and not hinder the operation. Therefore less jamming. Clean it and you won't get a malfunction.  Jam is what my Grandma used to make with apricots. But shooting a bigger round gives you better terminal ballistics, at close to medium ranges lets say 300 yards the round is devastating minimal. Once again at Long ranges the terminal ballistics are lacking, But the round nor the gun was made for long range shooting. And therefore can be used to 750 meters like some M4 variants. Quoted: I have both.  I still do not understand what the hell people mean by ergonomics, the AK is easier to sling over the back and is pretty flat and packs alot like a lever gun.   I don't know why you'd want the gun on your back really... but I see your point.

Moron, You are thinking of shock like going into shock. Traumatic shock meaning the damage caused by the amount of energy the round deposits into the body therefore damaging the area surrounding the impact area. If nothing but the brain and liver are affected by tramatic shock how can you explain People and deer dropping dead within seconds of being shot in the chest with large calibre rounds? And are you suggesting that the 5.56 round was not developed for a 20 inch barrells, How about checking some ballistics charts on the muzzle velocity of the round leaving the barrell of 20" barrels VS 16" barrels. And the fact that you say the 7.62 round does minimal damage shows that you live and brreath the AR15.....and have no idea except what your friends that got you into guns, Probably AR owners, Have told you. College boy, have you seen the 2 in action? have you ever shot an AK? Have you ever seen a ballistics chart? And yes the AK "can" be used out to 750 meters....Well the area target of an M16 A2 is also 1300 yards...But that doesnt mean your gonna hit a person. And as I said "THE ROUND NOR THE GUN WERE MADE FOR LONG RANGE SHOOTING" You can shoot a slingshot a hundred yards too, But that dont mean it is gonna hit something. As far as cleaning......Go to a combat zone and spend a few months....You dont go to the range and come home and clean your gun.....You ride around in a 7 ton for days on end hoping johnny towelhead doesnt launch an RPG at you while your giving out food to his freaking son. Next time read the whole thread, make sure you comprehend, do some research and form your own opinion about something based on personal experiences. You sound like Combat Jack coming over here trying to spout off AR side catch phrases.......Thanks for playing and try again when you have more than 50 rounds through your friends AR and join a website cause you want to buy an AR of your own someday, COLLEGE BOY'

I think we can agree that both rifles have good points and not so good points. That's why I have both. That said, my gvt issued M16A1 was a piece of crap and jammed every three rounds.  think it was a prototype for the three-rnd-burst mechanism for the M16A2 I still like my AR15 though, and would not give it up for anything. my AKs, what can I say that has not been said. One of my Romanian 74s has not been cleaned in 3 years (on purpose) and still shoots like a champ. Enough said.

Hey, I got an honorable mention!

BTW, the COLLEGE boy is correct in regards to the wounding mechanism of the 7.62 being crushed tissue, not hydrostatic shock. You should read what Doctors Fackler and Roberts have to say on the matter.

Have you ever shot anybody with 7.62?

Quoted: Moron, You are thinking of shock like going into shock. Traumatic shock meaning the damage caused by the amount of energy the round deposits into the body therefore damaging the area surrounding the impact area. If nothing but the brain and liver are affected by tramatic shock how can you explain People and deer dropping dead within seconds of being shot in the chest with large calibre rounds? And are you suggesting that the 5.56 round was not developed for a 20 inch barrells, How about checking some ballistics charts on the muzzle velocity of the round leaving the barrell of 20" barrels VS 16" barrels. And the fact that you say the 7.62 round does minimal damage shows that you live and brreath the AR15.....and have no idea except what your friends that got you into guns, Probably AR owners, Have told you. College boy, have you seen the 2 in action? have you ever shot an AK? Have you ever seen a ballistics chart? And yes the AK "can" be used out to 750 meters....Well the area target of an M16 A2 is also 1300 yards...But that doesnt mean your gonna hit a person. And as I said "THE ROUND NOR THE GUN WERE MADE FOR LONG RANGE SHOOTING" You can shoot a slingshot a hundred yards too, But that dont mean it is gonna hit something. As far as cleaning......Go to a combat zone and spend a few months....You dont go to the range and come home and clean your gun.....You ride around in a 7 ton for days on end hoping johnny towelhead doesnt launch an RPG at you while your giving out food to his freaking son. Next time read the whole thread, make sure you comprehend, do some research and form your own opinion about something based on personal experiences. You sound like Combat Jack coming over here trying to spout off AR side catch phrases.......Thanks for playing and try again when you have more than 50 rounds through your friends AR and join a website cause you want to buy an AR of your own someday, COLLEGE BOY'

Wow... that post is retarded.

Quoted: I was hoping this thread would stay civil, it had up to this point.   Please consider editying your posts for personal put-downs.  If this thread stays civil, mabey we can get it move to General discussion and tacked. Please stay civil....as Sir Loin woud say.....doin' it fo' the shorties......

This thread is so incredibly innacurate that tacking it would be an inevitable disaster.  It is filled with misconceptions and flat bullshit.  If you want and AK/M16 thread to tack', have some one that knows what they are talking about write one up and tack it, then lock the fucker so no one can add in their erroneous observations that miss the point completely.

Quoted: Quoted: I was hoping this thread would stay civil, it had up to this point.   Please consider editying your posts for personal put-downs.  If this thread stays civil, mabey we can get it move to General discussion and tacked. Please stay civil....as Sir Loin woud say.....doin' it fo' the shorties...... This thread is so incredibly innacurate that tacking it would be an inevitable disaster.  It is filled with misconceptions and flat bullshit.  If you want and AK/M16 thread to tack', have some one that knows what they are talking about write one up and tack it, then lock the fucker so no one can add in their erroneous observations that miss the point completely.

I sense an Alpha male type A personality here....

Quoted: Quoted: StG-44's weren't roller locking, that's the '45, which was never issued.  The StG-44 uses a tilting lock, almost like a FAL or an SKS. Anyway, yeah, it's an old topic, and it might be beat, but, the poster did lay out real world experiences and in a way that I agree with. So. No lock. Besides, can't we all just get along................look..........ebony and plum get along just fine..... img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Range%20Day%209-13-05/Half%20Sized%20Range%20Day/RangePics9-13-05002.jpg All my babies are BLACK and I am White. Next time I see Mr. K  I will ask him were he got his info to build the Ak47 from.  img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/M4-TUNA/41221874109_0_BG.jpg

I remember that day! THanks to the Tuna I know own a 74....with a shit load of mags.

i JUST WISH THE AK HAD A LAST SHOT BOLT HOLD OPEN.

Quoted: i JUST WISH THE AK HAD A LAST SHOT BOLT HOLD OPEN. hr

1+ Here
But its cool thow....I try to unload a empty mag and load another, and cock it in 4 to 6 secs...thats about the same time it takes the average m4 operator to do the same.....