Tell me again,why the AR is better than an AK???? - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Tell me again,why the AR is better than an AK???? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 1/29/2002 6:51:41 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:

What reliability problems are you referring to? I was unable to find any reliability problems related to the AR10 after the change from steel swaged barrels inside aluminum sleeves to chrome lined all steel barrels. My reference was the Black Rifle.

I am refering to the current production Armalite AR-10 and Stoner SR-25, which have not proven to be sufficiently reliable. The USMC tested the SR-25, but civilian use has shown that both have problems. It may be an old design, but it hasn't gone through its teething period yet.

I do so like folks who make flat statements - no maybes - no most of the time - no qualifiers at all.

Do you consider the Portuguese AR-10's tested ?

".....which have not proven to be sufficiently reliable." Here you refer to the SR-25 and the AR-10.

Do you have a clue as to who uses - say the SR-25 - if anyone ??

I don't want to flame you but with your flat and unqualified statements it is unavoidable.

Get a clue. Or maybe add - I believe - In my opinion etc.

Posted: 1/29/2002 6:57:04 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Pat Rogers' article in a recent issue of SWAT explains why a collapsible, not folding, stock is preferable for use on weapons used for serious gunfighting.

According to Pat, folding stocks which incorporate adjustable length of pull would be fine.

The collapsible stock of the M4 is a desirable feature.

The short LOP of many AK weapons is already short enough for use in these contexts.

JAW

Maybe "PAT" would like a stock that doesn't fold or telescope ?
Maybe "PAT" would like a stock that folds and telescopes ?

Tell me how many 'AR" rifles has "PAT" designed and for whom ?

Posted: 1/30/2002 4:53:13 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Pat Rogers' article in a recent issue of SWAT explains why a collapsible, not folding, stock is preferable for use on weapons used for serious gunfighting.

According to Pat, folding stocks which incorporate adjustable length of pull would be fine.

JAW

Maybe "PAT" would like a stock that folds and telescopes ?

Behold!

Posted: 1/30/2002 7:05:24 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pat Rogers' article in a recent issue of SWAT explains why a collapsible, not folding, stock is preferable for use on weapons used for serious gunfighting.

According to Pat, folding stocks which incorporate adjustable length of pull would be fine.

JAW

Maybe "PAT" would like a stock that folds and telescopes ?

Behold!

Un f*****g believable !!!

(I know I prevail on your generosity but do you have the model with small 'horns' available ??

Posted: 1/30/2002 8:22:52 AM EDT

[#5]

Pat is an end user, not a designer.

Perhaps you should read the article.

Posted: 1/30/2002 8:33:58 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Pat is an end user, not a designer.

Perhaps you should read the article.

I do not rely on anything entitled "SWAT" for my information. (Should add that I DO listen when scopes/scoping for urban engagements is involved.)

This may come as a surprise but somehow I didn't believe "PAT" was a weapons designer.

Posted: 1/30/2002 9:06:06 AM EDT

[#7]

Or....."Simply Irresistible"

Posted: 1/30/2002 9:34:28 AM EDT

[#8]

5subslr5,

That is your loss.

Some could take the same attitude towards internet chat rooms.

At least with published periodicals you know who the source is.

Pat Rogers is highly respected in his community and his reputation precedes him. I would at least CONSIDER his input regardless of where it was published, but that is just me.

JAW

Posted: 1/30/2002 10:30:21 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
5subslr5,

That is your loss.

Some could take the same attitude towards internet chat rooms.

At least with published periodicals you know who the source is.

Pat Rogers is highly respected in his community and his reputation precedes him. I would at least CONSIDER his input regardless of where it was published, but that is just me.

JAW

Understand your point. Consider most if not all information. Again I agree - at least the information is sourced.
(I did point out that scope information I do consider.)

(A good part of my problem concerns the AR-10 and SR25 info (?) posted above without qualification and without much knowledge. The genesis of the AR-15/M16 is simply history and can be researched by anyone willing.)

Posted: 1/30/2002 11:46:13 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Are you kidding me? The AR10 is the father of the AR15, it was the first and has had a spotless record in the limited areas it was adopted. This record cannot be matched by the AR15 with the abysmal conversion to ball powder causing incredible fouling and stoppages.

Actually the father of the AR-15 was an ArmaLite rifle called the "Stopette" in .222.

I really enjoy learning from you sir, but I must respectfully correct your above post. From the Black Rifle page 56, "The first design Armalite submitted... was a short lived creation from the designer of the AR5 called the Stoppette... A few preliminary tests...resulted in unacceptable climb. Important lessons had been learned about climb and contollability in the AR10 program: so much so that the decision was taken at Fairchild to produce an AR10 "lookalike" to fire the .222 Remington round." This AR10 lookalike obviously became the AR15, using the same operating system, hence the 'father of the AR15' term.

Further, the Stoppette was designed by the designer of the AR5, a former USAF suvival expert and gunsmith named Robert Enewold. It did not have the same operating system as the AR3, AR10, or AR15. All three of these weapons were designed by Gene Stoner using the Johnson type bolt.

Without Stoner designing it and without the Johnson type bolt, the .222 Stoppette can at best be called a 'cousin' of the AR15, as it only shares the Armalite name.

If I, or my sources are mistaken, I apologize.

Posted: 1/30/2002 12:32:32 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are you kidding me? The AR10 is the father of the AR15, it was the first and has had a spotless record in the limited areas it was adopted. This record cannot be matched by the AR15 with the abysmal conversion to ball powder causing incredible fouling and stoppages.

Actually the father of the AR-15 was an ArmaLite rifle called the "Stopette" in .222.

The switch to ball powder was the fault of the Army and the Army alone.

Neither ArmaLite nor Colts' was informed of the powder change until after the fact. Then both ArmaLite and Colts' changed the AR-15 (M16) to use the different powder to cover the Army's sorry ass.

I really enjoy learning from you sir, but I must respectfully correct your above post. From the Black Rifle page 56, "... resulted in unacceptable climb. Important lessons had been learned about climb and contollability in the AR10 program: so much so that the decision was taken at Fairchild to produce an AR10 "lookalike" to fire the .222 Remington round." This AR10 lookalike obviously became the AR15, using the same operating system, hence the 'father of the AR15' term.

Further, the Stoppette was designed by the designer of the AR5, a former USAF suvival expert and gunsmith named Robert Enewold. It did not have the same operating system as the AR3, AR10, or AR15. All three of these weapons were designed by Gene Stoner using the Johnson type bolt.

Without Stoner designing it and without the Johnson type bolt, the .222 Stoppette can at best be called a 'cousin' of the AR15, as it only shares the Armalite name.

If I, or my sources are mistaken, I apologize.

THANK YOU !!

Your reply has been of more help than you can imagine. I've been trying to remember "Robert Enewold's" name for about two months without success.

Might as well heat-up the discussion.

Gene Stoner didn't design the AR-15. (Rather than responding point-by-point this ought to do it .)

For further fuel Gene Stoner didn't design his first 5.56mm weapon until 1973 and that weapon was never produced (The FARC). Master Stoner was a believer in the 7.62 for military use - not the 5.56.

Oh, the Stoner 63 - Stoner didn't design it either.

Light up the fires !

Posted: 1/30/2002 12:55:32 PM EDT

[#12]

THANK YOU !!

Your reply has been of more help than you can imagine. I've been trying to remember "Robert Enewold's" name for about two months without success.

Might as well heat-up the discussion.

Gene Stoner didn't design the AR-15. (Rather than responding point-by-point this ought to do it .)

For further fuel Gene Stoner didn't design his first 5.56mm weapon until 1973 and that weapon was never produced (The FARC). Master Stoner was a believer in the 7.62 for military use - not the 5.56.

Oh, the Stoner 63 - Stoner didn't design it either.

Light up the fires !

Eugene Stoner's reasons are good enough for me and are why I own an AR10 and not an AR15 or anything else in 5.56.

It would be an interesting story to hear from Eugene Stoner regarding Colt holding the patent on 'his' gas tube and bolt carrier group. Isn't this patent issue the reason why Mr. Stoner went to work for Cadillac-Gage in the late 60's?
I thought some other designers at CG took Stoner's newly designed operating system and made the Stoner 6- series of weapons.

Again, I am here to learn, if I am wrong please help.

BTW what happened to the other gentleman that was running down the reliability of the AR10/SR25 systems? Do you think he realized his error?

Posted: 1/30/2002 1:21:10 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

It would be an interesting story to hear from Eugene Stoner regarding Colt holding the patent on 'his' gas tube and bolt carrier group. Isn't this patent issue the reason why Mr. Stoner went to work for Cadillac-Gage in the late 60's?
I thought some other designers at CG took Stoner's newly designed operating system and made the Stoner 6- series of weapons.

BTW what happened to the other gentleman that was running down the reliability of the AR10/SR25 systems? Do you think he realized his error?

(What set me off was the total certainty - if the guy knew who was using these weapons.......)------------------------------------------------

Of course Mr. Stoner is deceased but I would truly loved to have had an hour of his time. Probably I couldn't have afforded it if offered.

Before moving to CG - while at ArmaLite Stoner designed two rifles - the AR-10 and the AR-16 both in 7.62.

If I ever knew I've forgotten why Stoner went to CG - at any rate he was definitely there by 1962.
Anyway while at CG Stoner designed the Stoner 62 and you guessed it in 7.62.
You are correct in your mention that other designers were brought in to design the M63 in 5.56mm. (Those guys were Sullivan and Fremont.) (The CG owners wanted a 5.56mm weapon - not a 7.62.)
In Vietnam the SEAL teams did some cutting down and adding and the 63 was a very effective weapon.
The Marines apparently wanted the weapon but....

There's a guy "SF" on this board that has good knowledge of the SEAL teams use of the '63.

There's also a guy "Gus" that knows a ton more than I do about ArmaLite/Stoner, etc.

Anyone choosing to engage either of these two on these topics do so at heir peril !

Posted: 1/30/2002 1:25:02 PM EDT

[#14]

5subslr5,

Fair enough. BTW, SWAT is under new ownership and it a much better periodical than it once was. The quality of articles/authors is much improved.

For a free download of an issue check out www.thefiringline.com.

Back on topic, I cited the article to illustrate that the collapsible stock of the M4 was a salient feature that was desirable. A salient feature that the AK does not have.

Best regards,

JAW

Posted: 1/30/2002 1:34:29 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
5subslr5,

Fair enough. BTW, SWAT is under new ownership and it a much better periodical than it once was. The quality of articles/authors is much improved.

For a free download of an issue check out www.thefiringline.com.

Back on topic, I cited the article to illustrate that the collapsible stock of the M4 was a salient feature that was desirable. A salient feature that the AK does not have.

Best regards,

JAW

Understand and thanks for the link and update !!
(I should know better than to eliminate any source of knowledge as I have so little.)

Some one - maybe "Major" mentioned above that perhpas the "AK" should be compared in another group ??

Sometimes remembering "why" and for "what" a weapon was designed can be beneficial.
The "AK" certainly fit the Soviet Army's desires, needs and philosophy of the time.
(Had they not been atheist the philosophy might be roughly characterized as spray'N pray.)

Posted: 1/31/2002 6:02:21 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmm, I wonder what makes these people think that they would be making all kinds of 300+ yards shots in a war. That's just silly. Unless you are in a desert or artic tundra, how would you even see your enemy from that distance. Chances are you'd be fighting in cities or forest/jungle areas. You guys must have x-ray vision or be expecting the enemy to be wearing neon pink unitards or something:-)

During WW2, infantry combat occured at 1,000 yards (in the North African desert), from 200 to 600 yards (Alutians), 400-500 yards (the beaches of Normandy and Anzio), less than 200 yards (the hedgerows of Normandy), less than 30 feet (the jungles of the South Pacific), etc.

Fighting occurs in jungles and forests and cities and on mountains and in deserts and in open fields. In a place like Afganistan, where the terrain favors long range shooting, I'd imagine an AR would have a significant advantage over an AK.

Even inside 300 yards, the higher hit probability of the AR would be an advantage. The higher hit probability comes from the ARs accuracy, low recoil, and at short distances its flatter trajectory is also an advantage. Short range targets are not always fully exposed . . .

I stand to be corrected here and elsewhere but I believe the standard infantry engagement range is assumed to be about 125 yards. (From memory.)

Posted: 1/31/2002 6:49:44 PM EDT

[#17]

WHEW!!! what a bee's nest, you've stirred up me lad... How about: the AR 15 is for the more sophisticated shooters who care for and properly use and maintain their weapons while the Aks are for mindless blasting Animals??? That's why I have both... Seriously though guys they're apples and oranges...

Posted: 1/31/2002 7:18:49 PM EDT

[#18]

I think oranges are tastier than apples.
In general.

Posted: 1/31/2002 7:22:41 PM EDT

[#19]

Hmmm... A lot of people knocking the AK, but this is AR-15.com. I have an AK-74 clone that I love. Accuracy is pretty good. I also have a Valmet in 5.56 which shoot like a dream. It is smoother shooting and jumps less than any AR I have shot. Accuracy is great and reliability is exceptional. Those are two damn fine AK's. Comparing the 47 to the AR-15 is kind of apples and oranges. Comparing Valmets, Galils and AK-74's to AR's makes more sense.

Sounds like people are slamming the AK for it's reliability. I find it humorous people call the AK design ineffective in combat. There are more AK variants in service than any other gun. More than all the other Western variants combined. Estimates place the number around 50,000,000 or more. Consider also that groups like the Navy Seals use AK's on ocasion. Just because an idiot can maintain it doesn't mean only an idiot would use it. The M-16 is an well designed, effective weapon, but so is the AK. Both have their advantages and weaknesses.

Posted: 1/31/2002 8:08:43 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted: IIRC most of the 1770's era 'Kentucky' rifles were chambered for .50, this chambering was reduced over the next two hundred years to .30 with the M-1 .30-06 (7.62x63mm). This M-1 was without a doubt (one of)"the best battlefield weapon ever developed".

actually if you want to get really technical the 30-06 round was developed for the m-1903 bolt action rifle, which was the standard infantry rifle of world war I.

Posted: 1/31/2002 10:39:24 PM EDT

[#21]

It should be noted that when the SEALs use AKs, it isn't because of any inherent superiority of the AK, but because the sound of an AK being fired will draw much less attention, and give away much less information, then the very different sound of an AR or other 5.56mm weapon.

-Troy

Posted: 2/4/2002 4:35:54 PM EDT

[#22]

SEALs use AK's for a variety of reasons, including sound. Though they could suppress their AK's (or their M4's) if sound were the over riding consideration.

JAW

Posted: 2/4/2002 5:00:04 PM EDT

[#23]

Actually, the AK does some some inherent advantages over the M-16 or M-4. It can be slogged through silty water with less fear of jamming because of the loose tolerances. That is not an opinion, that is fact a fact. I don't know how much truth there is in it, but apparently it can be brought into operation more quickly when emerging from water. I've been told it is ready to fire once the barrel is clear, while the M-16's gas tubes are more slow to drain. I've never tried it, but it makes sense. The big gas system of an AK has so many leaks it should drain nearly instantaneously. Also, AK ammo is probably much easier to come by around the world, particularly in areas that are troubled and full of conflict.

These advantages come at the expense of accuracy and controllability in full auto amongst other things. Man there are a bunch of AK haters here.

Posted: 2/4/2002 6:42:27 PM EDT

[#24]

Perhaps the Palestinians would be a good source for information. From what I have seen on TV they appear to have switched from AK's to AR's.

Posted: 2/6/2002 5:45:09 AM EDT

[#25]

It isn't an accurate comparison because the other posters are correct, apples and oranges. Better off comparing the AR the Famas, Aug or that Enfield the Brits use. One thing the AK lovers always bring up is reliability. Does anyone have problems with the A2 (or later) configurations? I carried an M16A2 for five years in the desert (29 Palms and Somalia) and have never seen a jam unless firing black powder blanks. Any US soldier/Marine going into combat is going to have a clean rifle. Maintanence is a benchmark in the military. I carried a rifle a LOT and never had a problem finding time to wipe it down, punch the bore etc...Maybe conscipt troops in the 60's with no cleaning gear or training and bad ammo had problems, but I think it's a moot point today.

Posted: 2/6/2002 7:59:37 AM EDT

[#26]

Just some random thoughts.

If you assume that engagements will be urban/suburban and thus, under 300 yards, shouldn't you also assume that the nature of your engagement will require you to carry a whole lot of ammo (ala Blackhawk Down)? Thus, the weight of your selected round becomes critical.

If you assume your engagements will be between 100 and 600 yards, wouldn't you want a weapon system that can prove highly lethal at close range, while also giving you the ability to reach out and touch someone at 600... You can buy commercial loadings of .223 that make mil ball ammo look puny at close range...and there are clip loadable HPBT in .223 that will make 600 no problem.

Under all circumstances, wouldn't anti-ballistic armor capability be a plus?

Lastly...where does "the ultimate in reliability" really come unto it's own, outweighing the many advantages the .223 based assault rifle brings to the party...

I have both an AR and AK based rifle, I practice with both (as I see a use for both)...but the AR would go to the gunfight on my back if I had time to reach my gunsafe to make the choice.

Posted: 2/6/2002 9:36:54 AM EDT

[#27]

I think we are talking about two different things. I'm talking about the AK design and operating system. Seems like most of you guys are talking about just the 7.62x39mm variety. If you look around, it seems like fewer and fewer countries are using that variety and more have switched to 5.45x39mm and 5.56x45mm AK's. The latter types of AK's are much more accurate and allow soldiers to carry more ammo. Third world countries still seem to use the 7.62 varieties mostly, but I saw plenty of AK-74's in afganistan in the news. The shortcomings of the 7.62x39mm cartridge are not the shortcomings of AK's in general. Seems to me that the AK is great design that suffered from a poor cartridge. The 22 cal varietys offer everything I would wand in a weapon.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Tell me again,why the AR is better than an AK???? (Page 2 of 2)

Armory » General Firearm Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us