Someone posted the opposite on the AK side and I would like to "the other side"
Although I am NO proponent of the AK series,
I do concede that under certain conditions
the AK might be more reliable.
However, I have fired and fielded both weapons
in all kinds of conditions, extreme heat, extreme cold, rain, mud, snow, rivers, lakes, dust, wind, ect.  
With the exception of the 7.62x39 being less
resistant to blowing off target in high wind,
and penetrating slightly better,
they performed about the same.
Although the M-16 does need slightlt more maint.
it is a sound design. (just keep your dust cover closed.)
The M-16 got a bad reputation in Viet-Nam when it
was first adopted.
That was almost 40 years ago!
The stories just never die ! WTF??????
What do you guys think ?
AR  or  AK   ????

My dream gun would be an AK action, in 5.56, and AK style magazine.

The biggest two problems remaining with the AR, in my opinion, is the magazine, and requirement that ammo is just right for it.

The AK magazine, with it's continuous curvature, allowed right from it's inception, a follower design with a huge (1.5 inches front and back) legs curved to the shape of the mag- never any problems with canting rounds jamming the gun.

Green followers were a late afterthought to the 30 round AR mag, but still not as good as an AK style giant front and back leg follower.

On ammo, I have some brands of ammo (PMC comes to mind) that shoot all day in my Mini-14, but choke my AR like a chicken bone in the throat.

I have some new mags and good ammo to keep my AR happy, and in this situation it is as good as an AK.

I replaced the standard A2 front sight post with a match front sight, and after this change, much prefer the AR sight for distance shooting over what comes with most AK's.

I also prefer the heavy barrel on most civilian AR's to the thin AK barrels, which heat up the gun after very few rounds are fired.

With my main AR that I actually shoot all the time (Colt Sporter 20" HBAR), I've never had a real problem with it.  I had one bad magazine that I threw away, but since then, I've used all types of different mags and ammo.  

Lots of different combinations, never any problems.  I've fired well over 20,000 rds of ammo through that thing and have never had a case where it had constant failures from a certain type of ammunition or magazine.

Maybe mine's the exception, not the rule.  

All weapons have their strengths and weaknesses.  When the rifleman is properly trained, and sound tactics are utilized, either the AK or AR is more then up to the task.

Both weapons have benefited from some cross pollenation, and the results of that can be seen in the Daewoo K2A2, Stoner M96, and others.  We can also see what happens when a Swiss watch maker gets ahold of an AK when we look at the Sig 550.

The reality is this.  Training of the rifleman is what make the difference.

I agree with the mag shortcomings.
I also have 2 AR's  that have went over the 5k mark with no major probs.
Yours is not the exception sanjosesrt.
The 7.62x39 is also over rated I think,
If it was such a damn good cartridge, why
did the Russians develop the AK-74 ? MMMM.....
AR's are a little ammo sensitive,
pretty much
Junk in = junk out !
The only problem I have had is the extractor spring wore out
after 11 years in my Colt.
I replaced it with a Wolff for $3.50 and I guess I'm
good for another 11 years.

DON'T CARE TO SUPPORT THE ENEMY !!!!


WILL NEVER DO COMM-BLOCK SHIT !!!!!!!!!




FOUGHT THE BASTARDS AND WILL NEVER SUPPORT THEM !!!!!!!!

Quoted: Someone posted the opposite on the AK side and I would like to "the other side" Although I am NO proponent of the AK series, I do concede that under certain conditions the AK might be more reliable. However, I have fired and fielded both weapons in all kinds of conditions, extreme heat, extreme cold, rain, mud, snow, rivers, lakes, dust, wind, etc..   With the exception of the 7.62x39 being less resistant to blowing off target in high wind, and penetrating slightly better, they performed about the same. Although the M-16 does need slightly more maint. it is a sound design. (just keep your dust cover closed.) The M-16 got a bad reputation in Viet-Nam when it was first adopted. That was almost 40 years ago! The stories just never die ! WTF?????? What do you guys think ? AR  or  AK   ????

What do you mean by more maintenance?  A little more cleaning time on the AR but when have you had to tweak or swap parts on the AR?  I know I never changed a thing in almost 2 years on mine.

Hoplite,
    I meant cleaning when I said maint.
I have not had to tweak or swap out anything,
other than previously mentioned extractor
spring. (after 11 years)

Moreso than any other reason, this is why I dont like AKs;


Moreso than any other reason, this is why I like AR's;

newarguy,
I have been saying this for years, no one seems to believe me !

I carried the CAR when I was in the service.  I pointed it at guys who carried the AK.

I'm here to write about it.

nuff said.

TSL,
 They must have been farther than 200yds. away !

Quoted: Moreso than any other reason, this is why I dont like AKs; www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid33/p2b692a8da8c1a9cde891fa7fdc43ef56/fd3f97bc.gif Moreso than any other reason, this is why I like AR's; www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid33/p94cfb2022e8dc7a15264fb04bece769c/fd3f97b9.gif

You may want to spend a little time and look at the ballistics of the AK-74 round, since the AK-47 was dropped many years ago.
Nothing like a lacquered, pre-scribed bullet in regards to ballistics.  It seemed to work well on the Afghanistans.

scottfn308, Why not just own them both??????

To me, the major advantage an AR has over an AK is it's ergonomics.  Quick mag changes while keeping the "threat" covered.  Your right (shooting hand- of course for righties only) never leaves the trigger area.

Also the gear is more ergonomic.  All AR 15/M 16 mag pouches/vests etc., are designed for numerous mags and quick changes in mind.  It seems all the solviet block equipment is slower, less comfortable and bulky.

Quoted: Quoted: Moreso than any other reason, this is why I dont like AKs; www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid33/p2b692a8da8c1a9cde891fa7fdc43ef56/fd3f97bc.gif Moreso than any other reason, this is why I like AR's; www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid33/p94cfb2022e8dc7a15264fb04bece769c/fd3f97b9.gif You may want to spend a little time and look at the ballistics of the AK-74 round, since the AK-47 was dropped many years ago. Nothing like a lacquered, pre-scribed bullet in regards to ballistics.  It seemed to work well on the Afghanistans. scottfn308, Why not just own them both??????

Actually I was speaking with a member of my NYPD Academy company who was in the Russian Army.  He tells me that they are going back to the 7.62 round.  Something about the AK 100.

On going back to 7.62x39,  I had read recently that some Soviet Special forces preferred the 7.62x39 for it's superior penetration through vehicles and un-reinforced buildings,over the 5.45 cartridge, but I would be surprised if they went back to 7.62x39 all together.


The one plus side I think to the new Soviet 5.45 ammo compared to NATO 5.56 is that they deliberately designed it with a much thicker case rim, for less chance of an extractor tearing through it.  

scottfn308,

the AK vs. AR debate will continue until the end of time; pundits of both camps will most likely have to agree to disagree. although i am know expert, here's my $0.02 worth:

both weapons have their advantages and disadvantages. it seems that every person has their own opinions based on fact, heresay, theory and experience. what we need to understand is that both weapons were designed to fill a certain need and the problems were approached with two very different design insights. i enjoy both weapons immensely (and i'm pretty new to the AR club)

• the AK is an inherently crude design with very loose tolerences. it was designed for simplicity as the key element: at the time, the soviet army was based largely on conscript personnel with little or no education, so the weapon had to be simple enough so that ANYONE could maintain and operate it. the loose mechanical tolerances were also a major part of the design: kalashnikov himself said that the tolerences were loose for utter reliablility in extreme conditions and little maintenance.

• the AK is also very cheap to manufacture. being simple and crude, cost effectiveness became a natural bi-product of the production process (esp. when they transitioned to stamped steel from machining blocks of metal). in this regard, it has made the AK one of the most prolific arms of the late 20th century. third world armies and terrorist organizations alike have relied on the AK b/c they can't afford AR-15s/M-16

• but with this simple and mechanically loose machine, you cannot expect match-grade accuracy, nor will you ever get it. but you DO get a very effective and reliable assault weapon that can inflict substantial enemy casualties… even in the hands of a substandard soldier, which was the name of the game for soviet military doctrine.

• the AR-15 was designed for a more sophisticated military machine + a highly trained soldier (something the US prides itself on, and rightly so). it was designed to be a lightweight weapon with a high rate of fire and excellent intrinsic accuracy. in order to do so, the mechanical tolerences were very precise.

• this precision made an inherently accurate rifle and it literally can shoot circles around the best AK out of the box. but this precision and detail also leads to a more complex weapon that requires more maintenance and a slightly stricter ammo diet.

• although the AR costs much more, it can be argued that "a little goes a long way." in contrast to soviet military doctrine, current US military doctrine holds that higher technology in fewer numbers can achieve better results than sheer numbers. there is little doubt that an AR-type rifle in the hands of a well-trained soldier is a very effective battlefield weapon, indeed.

i guess what it really comes down to is the operator of the weapon. a highly-trained and motivated soldier has a much higher chance of being effective in the field with any weapon he has in his hands (and esp. the one between his ears). conversely, a substandard soldier with even a sophisticated weapon has a very high probability of becoming a casualty.

Dano, do you mean this AK-74 round? I've spent a fair amount of time looking into most common military rounds. It has very similar ballistics to the 47. Both are quite boring...



Lots of very good info here;
home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html

No, not the commercial round, but the ammo/round that was used in Afghanistan.

The round was pre-scribed from tip to base, then lacquered sealed to hold it together during flight.  When the bullet found it's target, it splintered. It made one hell of a mess.  Granted that it didn't do well on hard targets, but on human flesh, it was devastating.

I check and see if I can find the write up on round.  The report was written at the time of the Soviet/Afghanistan conflict.

P.S. I just found the write up on the current militarty ammo, the Wasp.

"The 5.45 is a very lethal round, due to its unconventional design.  The military round (known as WASP ammo) is a mild steel cased with a lead sheath.  Inside the sheath is a soft steel core with an air pocket at the tip of the round.  When the bullet comes into contact with an object, the soft steel core moves forward causing the bullet to tumble.  This tumbling effect greatly increases the wound channel and the lethality of the bullet."

Quoted: No, not the commercial round, but the ammo/round that was used in Afghanistan. The round was pre-scribed from tip to base, then lacquered sealed to hold it together during flight.  When the bullet found it's target, it splintered. It made one hell of a mess.  Granted that it didn't do well on hard targets, but on human flesh, it was devastating. I check and see if I can find the write up on round.  The report was written at the time of the Soviet/Afghanistan conflict. P.S. I just found the write up on the current militarty ammo, the Wasp. "The 5.45 is a very lethal round, due to its unconventional design.  The military round (known as WASP ammo) is a mild steel cased with a lead sheath.  Inside the sheath is a soft steel core with an air pocket at the tip of the round.  When the bullet comes into contact with an object, the soft steel core moves forward causing the bullet to tumble.  This tumbling effect greatly increases the wound channel and the lethality of the bullet."

Steel-cored hollow points?  Aren't those illegal under international law for use in military rifles?

Dano, is this a round that you can get commonly? Is it readily available? If so where? If not, whats the point?

New-Arguy

There is a guy (Chief Thunder on AK-47.net) who has a lot of the wasp ammo coming into the country but it is locked up in red tape at the moment (probably because of the soft steel insert).  It is corrosive however and still it only tumbles but it is a VERY long bullet... 50% longer than a 5,56mm round and causes damage by tumbling in as little as 1-2" of flesh. It then veers off in a random direction in the body.  Its more effective on periferal hits than 5.56 but less so on direct hits.  The air pocket Wolf and Barnaul 60 and 59 grain ammo has similar though not identical terminal properties.  Its a fun round to shoot and very cheap but its not a 5.56mm  I would never sell my SAR 2 though and I carry it in my trunk since if I ever have to use it, its effective, reliable and I wont cry if it gets taken by the police after a shooting.

No, not the commercial round, but the ammo/round that was used in Afghanistan.

Dano,
You better get your head out of your A$$ and start listening to New-ARGUY and Actually try READING the document he's posted links to.

When Dr. Fackler was doing his research on the 5.45 there was NO SUCH thing as 'Commercial' 5.45 - the Cold War was very much going on and he only had access to the Military rounds.  Duh - this is covered in his numerous published scientific papers on the subject of 5.45x39 Wound Ballistics.  Where do you think he got the AK-74s and 5.45 ammo?  He didn't go down to Billy-Bob's gunshop, while we were giving Stinger to the Mujahadeen we were getting stuff too.

This so called 'Wasp' round is nothing new and the terminal ballistics are well documented and widely available - they are nothing to write home about.

If you guys spent more of your time actually doing research on the subject rathing than repeating 'old soldier stories' and listening to a guy who want to sell you somthing (gee a gun retailer/importer must know more than the Worlds foremost expert on terminal ballistics...) you might learn a thing or two...

[/rant off]

By the way if you want my take on the AR/AK debate I summed it up in this paragraph from my article on Why an AR15? (groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/whyanar15.msnw):

"Why not get an AK? They are considered more reliable and can be almost as lightweight. The 7.62x39 penetrates cover better and is even cheaper than 5.56. Both the rifles and magazines are cheaper!" Want to read about a 10,000 round torture test of an AR-15 (www.galleryofguns.com/shootingTimes/Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=1205)?  Reliability superiority claims aside, if you care for your AR it won’t let you down; if you are a peasant who needs to be told not to defecate in the drinking water supply then stick with the AK. It’s true you can get some AK style rifles that are almost as lightweight as an AR (though I can always get a lighter AR than AK). These rifles have the stamped receivers (not as strong/long lasting as the much heavier milled receiver versions) and more often than not are built rather cheaply (there are many complaints of parts that break or wear out quickly with the US produced models - I have witnessed one of these). While 7.62x39 steel case is cheap (imported stuff) you can find steel cased .223 for the same prices if you look around (and the .223 is lighter to carry!). If the President or ATF decide to block importation of 7.62x39 then you are limited to a few domestic companies to produce the round (and domestically produced 7.62x39 is far more expensive than 5.56/.223). Spare parts availability may be more common world wide, but here in the USA it’s much harder to locate parts for the AK (besides do have the 20 ton press in your tool box which is needed to rebarrel your AK?). Most AK variants are notorious for accuracy problems. The problems are two fold; poor sights, and a loose system designed for high reliability. While the Valmet and Galil models have improved in these areas, the stock AR is significantly more accurate than AKs; and when tuned for precision, none of the AKs can come close to matching the AR. The AK has limited configurations, and to change configuration you need a new rifle. Configurations are pretty much limited to a 16" barrel carbine or the elusive RPK copy (20+ inch barrel with a bipod and larger stock available only in 7.62x39). Optics mounting is limited (and less than ideal), barrel length is fixed, and the caliber can’t be changed. The ergonomics of the AK are poor, especially when compared with the ergonomically correct AR. To remove the safety your hand has to leave the pistol grip (hear that KLUNK as the safety is disengaged?). The AK cannot be ‘charged’ when the rifle is in ‘safe’, the bolt does not stay open after the last shot, nor is the magazine change as quick or easily as the AR-15s. If you're a lefty watch out the for bolt handle as it moves back and forth for each shot.  The AK is commonly found in two calibers the 7.62x39 and the 5.45x39. Neither is as effective as the 5.56 (produces as large a wound at typical combat distances of 100M or less), the 5.56 also has a longer effective range and better accuracy. While there are 5.56mm AKs, getting parts is more difficult and magazines are rare and expensive.  The better 5.56 AK types, Valmet & Galil, are far more costly in the US than even a Pre-Ban AR-15, and finding magazines (assuming the rifle wasn't modified to use AR-15 magazines) and spart parts is even tougher than the run of the mill AKs.  Since the AK is a foreign design, support (parts/ammo/gunsmith knowledge) for the AK in the US is not nearly as high as the AR type rifle, that coupled with its ergonomic deficiencies make it less suited as a personal arm. <SNIP> I’m not saying the above rifles are not without merits; that would be incorrect. The AK clearly has an advantage in cost and can suffer more negligence. The ‘Battle Rifles’ have a range and cover penetration advantage; also they would be much better for hunting larger game at longer ranges.  The M17 is more compact with the muzzle velocity of a larger rifle.  The Mini-14…..well at least it doesn’t LOOK like an evil assault weapon. The bolts on all the above rifles do stay cleaner during shooting, but they all have gas systems that need cleaning (unlike the AR).  During NATO ammunition testing in 1979 no other rifle (HK, Galil, etc.) was as reliable as the M16, so I don't think a dirty bolt is a big issue.  No other rifle make a better all around rifle for general use (target practice, hunting, high power competition, home defense) compared with Eugene Stoner’s AR-15.

I'm always amazed when I read these AK vs AR threads and hardly no one ever talks about the WEIGHT DIFFERENCE! I've lugged them both all day and I'll tell you the AK with optic (Kobra) and a loaded 30 round magazine is one heavy critter.

My AK74 clone weighs only 7 pounds with mag, sling and a Kobra sight mounted.  The same as my Bushmaster carbine.  Not all AKs are heavy.

One of my law partners and I went through the Urban Rifle course at Thunder Ranch.  He used a civilian version of the AK-74 and I used a Robinson Armament Expeditionary Rifle.

Although both guns consumed about 1000rds each without a hitch (we cleaned them every night) we are going back to Urban Rifle II with AR-15s.

The AK was plenty accurate, but it was not as easy to manipulate as the AR.

The Robinson was just too darn heavy for this game and the lack of protection for the magazine release button was a definite drawback.

Both of us now have short ARs that we have pounded thousands of rounds through.

While I like the AK for its simplicity and ease of maintenence, I hit better with an AR.  Hitting is what it is all about.    

Sorry to burst your bobble there Devl but your AK-74 clone comes in at just around 7lbs all by it's self. Kobra is 15oz (1lb) and add another lb for a LOADED magazine. Your AK-74 now weighs in just about 9lbs! Handling your AK in your living room is nothing like carrying it in the field all day.

Never having been in combat nor in all honesty does it seem likely I have no opinion about either weapon as a combat tool. I own to ARs and Olympic Eliminator and a 24inch fluted bull model one on a Oly lower with a RR 2stage trigger and one AK a Vepr II in 7.62 x 39. I enjoy poking paper with my AR's and love the longshots I am learning to make with the heavier rounds from black hills. That said this deer season I will in all likley hood be carrying the AK with a 5 round mag Stuffed with Corbon ammo and the Kobra on top. With the heavier ammo it hits like a 30/30 and is plenty accurate out to 120 yards (here in NH a 100 yard shot on a white tale is the exception.  But for the woodchucks Mr Stoners gun is the end

I wonder what you guys would think of this article that I wrote awhile back:

www.defensereview.com/article.php?sid=216&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

And ED_P, why not just get yourself an AK-74?  From everything I've ever heard, the 5.45x39mm round is ballistically superior to our 5.56x45mm, supposedly having superior effect on human targets.  From what I understand, this is made possible by the air pocket behind bullet's nose. The round is also a boattail design, and utilizes a tapered case.  This latter aspect is supposed to promote greater feed reliability--not to mention the fact that the firing platform is a Kalashnikov sytem, which is about as reliable as it gets under adverse conditions.  Plus, if I'm correct, the cartridges themselves are lighter than our 5.56 cartridges.

David, I believe you have some poor info;




Here's a good link with info on common military rounds. Wasnt this posted earlier in the thread? What info do you have that contradicts this?
home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html

Own both and as far as weapon goes, I like em both.  The AR is a bit sexier altough I like the feel of the bigger 7.62 round.  

Unfortunately, I draw the line in acuracy.  I can't even contemplate putting the 7.62X39 and the 5.56 in the same class.  The 7.62X39 drops like a rock and has about the acruacy at distance of one of my black powders.  On the other hand, the only rifle in my arsenal that out performs my AR is my 8mm Mauser which by the way has about the same velocity between 2,700 fps and 3,300 fps.  Forget the 7.62X39 for anything over 300-400 meters, while the 5.56 can push out to 600-800 meters.

Everyone talks about the penetration of the 7.62X39 when they compare it to the 5.56. In the real world neither round has penetration and quite frankly neither were designed to have.  If I'm going to take a vehicle out, it will be with a large caliber rifle, nuf said.  What it comes down to is preferance it is one of a bigger bullet at close range, AK, or more bullets at close range, AR.  An AR will push more out acurately than an AK at close range.  You get into the same thinking comparing a 45 to 9mm pistol round.  Stopping power vs distance.  Hell, a brick does real nice from here to the wall.

In Nam, the kill ratio of the US Army using 5.56mm M16 over the VC using AKs 7.62X39 even in the worst battles was over 10 to 1.  Before you think it, the VC were tough hardened little bastards that had been fighting the war for decades while we were a bunch of green kids right out of basic.  Up until Tet, they had the edge on experience and tatics.  We kind of wiped em out during Tet.  

I can put the final point in one phrase, One Bullet, One Kill.  The AR has the edge hands down.  The other guys on this post have more than covered this topic.

I like both rifles and enjoy shooting both but honestly feel just because they have been pitted against each other in combat for so many years, they shouldn't even be compared to each other.  They are two distinct rifle types each with their own characteristics.  If I was starting a revolution and was arming kids with an IQ of 60, the AK would be the choice. I'm not nor do I plan to, so the AR in my mind is superior in every way.      

Bravo T.J.!

Quoted: Sorry to burst your bobble there Devl but your AK-74 clone comes in at just around 7lbs all by it's self. Kobra is 15oz (1lb) and add another lb for a LOADED magazine. Your AK-74 now weighs in just about 9lbs! Handling your AK in your living room is nothing like carrying it in the field all day.

I just reweighed it.  7.5 lbs with Kobra, sling and no mag.  8.5 with a fully loaded mag.  Mine is a stamped reciever, 16" barrel 5.45, synthetic furniture.  Its the lightest AK you can get.  

Its still less than a half pound heavier than my Bushmaster post ban 16" HB shorty.

The charts being shown here also show how "devastating" the M855/SS109 round is, but that's the very round that's been complained about as not lethal enough by recent US users, (or am I confused?) so I take those charts with a grain of salt, though they are interesting, and probably a rough proximity to injury potential.

David Crane,

If military style 5.45 was available on the civilian market, I would consider it over 5.56, but the stuff I've seen for sale does not have alot of the bullet design features included in military 5.45 to enhance it's lethality, though it shoots fine out of 5.45 guns.

I do think some aspects of the 5.45 round, like the thicker case rim for more strength against ejector tear throughs, are a good idea, and if a completely militarized (not Wolf) brand was available to US consumers, I'd have it higher on my list as a good choice.

I mostly shoot for historical significance anyways, so my one AK has to be in the classic 7.62x39...

We were told in the Marines that the 5.45X39 round has lots of hydrostatic shock and that it was a horrific round to be hit with.

quote:
"The reality is this. Training of the rifleman is what make the difference"

I think the above statement says it all. You can argue till the end of time which is better, but the bottom line is they both work. The question is, can YOU work them both? I think most of the negative comments about the AK come from ignorance of it from people who have never tried to use one or took the time to learn its little quirks. I have 3 AK's, all of them can dump a mag one handed, while the other waits to replace it with a fresh one. Simply lower the muzzle while depressing the mag release with the middle finger of the hand on the grip, the mag will fall right out. The safety can be swept off with the middle finger of the hand on the grip without taking that hand off the grip, and I dont have large hands. Its no louder than a M1/M14 safety being taken off, and can be done quietly if need be. The last round hold open is only a handicap if you make it one. Whats it matter if the gun goes click, or wont even do that(in the AR's case), the guns still empty. So you reload it and either hit the bolt release or stroke the charging handle. You still have to do "something" to get them both back in action. With the AK, you simply reach under and with the palm facing the gun,work the charging handle with you thumb. It very easy and fast actually, if you try. My point to all this is, if all you had available to you was an AK, could you get it into action and do something with it? Or would you still be bitching about its little quirks and your perceived short comings? Personally, I wouldnt feel under gunned with either, after all its just a tool, the weapon is what wields it.

T.J. _ If you are getting 3,300FPS out of your 8mm it damn well better be a Panzerbusche 39.  Otherwise I call bullshit. Don't stand in the same state with me when you fire that thing.

I will try to be as objective in this as posible.  We see these same statements over and over again, but............

1) you can not compare the 5.56 to the 7.62 X 39. It is a much older round dumped almost 30 years ago. Compare current rounds, 5.56 (62 grain) with the 5.45.

2) Ergonomics is always the opinion of a single individual.

3) Dr. Facklers name is always brought into this arguement.  A) Who is he? (credentials) B) When was his study done?  C) Who was he working for (posible biases)?

4) Many have stated that the 5.45 has much beter performance in periferal hits. What is the combat ratio of periferal hits to torso hits?

I just always see the same arguements thrown around like they are gospel...just a thought, not taking a side in either camp.

ScottFn308, don't let Campy see this arguement, he'll flip his lid.

Edited to ad that I am not asking for the same old six page long links, just short sweet simple answers.  I am sure I am not the only one who has though this.

I can't believe it.  I'm going to wade in on a AR vs. AK topic!!!

I own one very customized AK (SAR-1) and 2 AR's (not counting one that's half built.)  So I can be reasonably objective.

Quoted: I will try to be as objective in this as posible.  We see these same statements over and over again, but............ 1) you can not compare the 5.56 to the 7.62 X 39. It is a much older round dumped almost 30 years ago. Compare current rounds, 5.56 (62 grain) with the 5.45.

This is true.  However, one thing to take into account is availability.  5.45 AK's, mags and ammo are uncommon.  Slight disadvantage.

2) Ergonomics is always the opinion of a single individual.

This is simply NOT true.  The study of human factors is a science.  It is possible that you as an individual may be so accustomed to the AK that you're not bothered about it.  But to imply that things like location and operation of the safety or mag release, how the sights work, fit of the stock, etc. are equivalent between the two rifles is bogus.  Ergonomics of the AR are superior, PERIOD/FULL STOP.

I don't mind plinking with the AK once in a while, but the safety is a pain, located on the wrong side of the gun, and only works AFTER you've loaded the chamber.  The mag catch is like something designed in the 19th century.

3) Dr. Facklers name is always brought into this arguement.  A) Who is he? (credentials) B) When was his study done?  C) Who was he working for (possible biases)

Can't touch this one.  You can always pick-n-choose your experts.  But if you're comparing 7.62x39 to 5.56NATO, there's no way that 7.62 has the expansion of the 5.56.

4) Many have stated that the 5.45 has much better performance in periferal hits. What is the combat raio of peripheral hit to torso hits? I just always see the same arguements thrown around like they are gospel...just a thought, not taking a side in either camp. ScottFn308, don't let Campy see this arguement, he'll flip his lid.

Well, lemme just add my own $.02

Mounting optics on the AR is far easier.  The Picatinny rail is universal and the number of options you have for your AR is limited only by your wallet.  The side rail of some AK's is only used by sights like the Kobra.  I can't comment on the UltiMAK gas tube weaver mount.

The AR can be fully disassembled and rebuilt by your average guy in a garage (like me!)  The barrel can be removed and reinstalled to the upper with one readily available special tool.  I don't know one person in 10,000 that has the tools in their garage that's capable of doing the barrel/trunnion/receiver stuff on an AK.

COST IS NOT AN ADVANTAGE TO THE AK.  When I first got my AK, it was because it was cheap at $320+, then I replaced the stock, had it refinished, and got the RSA trigger.  Guess what?  Now I've spent MORE than a decent AR!

The sights on an AK are crap

Did I mention that crummy safety?

The out-of-the-box stock is as attractive and functional as a 2x4 unless you are Gimly the dwarf.  No I take that back, Dwarves have a keen sense of aesthetics.  Let's change that to Gollum.

The options you have for personalizing an AR are endless (optics, grips, stocks, bbl length & weight, accessory rails, etc.).  An AK is very limited.

Let the games continue!

While I agree that ergonomics is a science, asking any group of people will yield a wide array of results as to what is most comfortable.  I agree that in my opinion the mag catch on the AK sucks, but to someone who is well trained on it, they may like it. I do not like the standard stocks that came with any of my AK varients but do like the K-Var stocks.  I personally think they have better ergonomics than the AR, but I wouldn't want to have to go hand to hand with an AK.  It would be AR all the way on that one.

Ak 47 & 74 mags are equally abundant.  Ak-74 mags have acctually tended to be cheaper recently, at least in my area.

Optics are great, I use them on my Swedish Mauser for groundhogs out to any range I can see them.  If I miss, it is my fault, not the gun.  That being said, I personally don't like optics on modern combat rifles.  I hated them on my STG77 (Steyr AUG) and I don't like them on my AR.  I am a little old school when I say just teach your soldiers to shoot.  

Carbine_Man,

Though I lean towards AR for the most part, I would much prefer an M1-A type safety from an ergonommics standpoint, where the index finger taps forward to release, (or as I often do, touch forward to ensure it's off right before taking an important shot).  The AR makes you start moving your thumb around to check it or set it.  In the military world, it's handy that the fire select and safety are there in one spot, but in the civilian, semi-auto world, the M1-A safety is much more ergonomic than the AR, in my opinion.

quote:
"An AK is very limited."

The AK and AR for that matter, are only limited by the person who uses them. I think these discussions are limited by the fact that they are based on to much information, most of it based on "I heard" or "They said" instead of first hand experience. The reality is, your "issued" what you get, depending on who's army your in. You don't get a choice, and more than likely, you wont get any fancy gizmos to go on it either. You will learn to understand why combat rifles are short stocked, and be glad it is. You will also learn that all that time at the range shooting at little black balls and silhouettes was pretty much a waste of time. The farm boys what started to hunt at 7 and 8 will understand this, the city boys don't have a clue. Quick to acquire, mid to close range sights are of more value than small aperture long range ones, unless your shooting at the previously mentioned black balls and silhouettes. Get over it. These discussions are more about who has the prettiest, gizmo loaded, transformer changing, super toy than it has anything to do with a combat rifle.

Well to throw in my .02

The AK has 1913 spec rails on side lever mounts as well as scope rings on the side mount.  Anything you can put on an AR you can put on an AK.

There are many different inds of stocks, grips and foregrips available.  AR has no advantage here.  They even make an AK RAS which cost more than the AK!

Barrel length, no advantage to the AR.  THE AK has the Romanian copy of the Dragunov length barrels, PRK barrels, 18", 16", Krinov etc.

Sights.  The AK USED T HAVE tritium sights available but mepro does not make em any more.  The sights are hard to use but fast to aquire.  I still will give the nod to the AR.  The improved sights on AK clones are at the back of the upper reciever to increase sight radius.

Mag release.  Use the mag wing and its as fast to unload as an AR.  Still slower on the reload.  There is no bolt release.  Its slower on the reload but faster to use the charging handle.  I keep my AK in the trunk without a round in the chamber.  If I need it I grab it and work the charging handle... done.  Its the perfect trunk gun.

The AK safety sucks plain and simple.  There is noone on earth that can work the AK safety as fast as the AR safety.  

The AR is by far more accurate.  The AK more reliable.  The AK used to be handicapped by its trigger but the RSA trigger has narrowed that gap to next to nothing.

The AK does not use a flashhider in its most common configurations.  It also cant be silenced worth a damned.  Advantage to the AR.  The AR can also swap uppers easily.  

All in all the AR is a more expensive and refined weapon.  It is leap and bounds superior to the AK in most every way.  As for the reliability factor.  The AR requires occasional cleaning.  The AR is ONLY for people who are not 3rd world illiterates.  The AK can be used by anyone.  I will always take an AK for a trunk gun and an AR if I had to do serious social work where i might need to reload (SWAT, HRT, etc.)

www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m16vsak47.htm


Check this link out

I say screw the AR-15, screw the plain jane AK-74M. Mao wants one of these:



It doesn't get much better than that. The Sig 550 is probably the best all around assault rifle today. I know the Valmet is more durable, but they don't make them any more and the Sako 95 is in 7.62x39 mm. What we do need is a G36 with REAL iron sights, a durable outer shell, heavier barrel and a Pictinny rail to go with it.

themao
____________________________

Got ice picks?

Troy, thank you for the requested info.

Anyone have the statisics on the torso to "periferals" hit ratio.  I personally think that could have some beering in the arguement.

Just walked in the door and decided to check in before hittin' the sack.  new-arguy, the bullets being shot out of M4's tend not to do what you see in your diagram. They're tending not to frangize, or frangate, or whatever you call that.  Instead, they tend to stay perfectly in tact, not yaw at all, and go in and out of the target very quickly.

The 5.45x39mm military round, however, from all reports I've heard, yaws pretty much every time, and gets the job done.  The 7.62x39mm is a .30 cal round, so at least it makes a bigger hole than the 5.56, no matter what.