Trust me, it's not.  I know of very few guys who own just one gun.  Hence my question to all you fine AR-15 owners. -- Do any of you own an AK-47 variant?  And if so what are your thoughts?  I own a Romy SAR-1 and it literally rock and rolls!  It eats everything I feed it and nothing sounds better than that famous "crack" from the round it fires.  I will be getting a Bushy soon because I like the refinements, its looks, and the all around qualities of it.  I was just wondering if you guys have ever had the pleasure of cracking off several hundred rounds of an AK-47?  If you would like another inexpensive, fun, cheap to feed carbine to compliment your trusty AR-15 look at the Romanian SAR-1's.  Try to get one from 2000 and newer -- Cost is around $329 and that includes a 10 round mag, a 30 round mag, cleaning kit, and sling.

Happy shooting!

The absolute best version of the "AK" series is the Isreali Galil. The IDF has tens of thousands of Galil's in storage and have issued the IDF troops M-16's and M4's. These were decisions made by people who face combat situations everyday.
also not a flame.[;)]

Type 56 and a Valmet M76. Love to pick up a Galil, but these silly state AWB laws. :-\

I have a 16" LW A2 and a Saiga AK-103 variant.. built both.. haven't shot the AR yet.. put around 500 rounds through my AK
---
Ive shot AR's before so I already know how that is, but my AK does feed everything and makes a beautiful sound when fired.. only complaint would be the accuracy, but even at that, a little more practice couldn't hurt

[img]http://photos.ar15.com/WS_Content/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=3620[/img]

Saiga

Since this picture, I have dropped off the POP24 and opted for a dust cover mount 3X9 and permenant mount telescope bi-pod.

I own two preban AR-15s, one with a Bushy Dissapator upper, and the other a collapsing stock carbine.  Both from the early 70s.

I also own two Chinese AK types and a SAR2 5.45X39.

Which is better?  Well define better.  Both have strong and weak points.

I guess that I can sum it up best by saying that if I had to go into combat today, I would feel EXTREMELY well armed with either!

If given a choice, I would take either an AK or an AR over any other weapon.

I dearly love the FAL, AR-10, M1A and Garand, but I would choose either the AK47/AK74 or AR-15 over any of them.

That's my choice, yours may differ.

Tom, nice pic!  For those who might be interested in learning more about AK's, check out this site -- It is an excellent site with tons of info, just as this AR-15 site is packed with information.  --- www.ak-47.net, and this one is awsome also -- http://linx310.nothingbutguns.com

Frankie, I've got a SAR in each flavor, and a couple of SKSs.  They're fun to shoot, and they run forever on the bare minimum of TLC, and will shoot everything known to man in terms of ammo.  Pretty much the exact opposite of my ARs hehehe.  Although my ARs are my favorite rifles, I've had lots of fun with the AK variants.  Especially being able to bump fire the occasional mag or 2 through the SARs.  

Okay, for all the folks about to flame me for admitting to bump firing, don't.  If I could afford $10K for a class 3 weapon I would...but I can't, and even if I could, I've got as much chance of getting a CLEO signoff around here as Ian Paisley does of becoming the Knights of Columbus man of the year!  So my once or twice a year po'boy substitute is a little bumpin'.  

Finian,

This isn't a flame, just a warning.  Several pholks have had their AK KB (kaboom) while bump firing.

The full auto AKM has a "rate reducer" to prevent this.  The semi auto doesn't, obviously, and therein lies the danger.

I know that lotsa pholks do it, but a few pholks regret having done it.

I had a SAR and what can I say about it?  Its heavy, not accurate, has horible ergonomics, poor terminal ballistics is slow to reload, cant be free floated, has poor sights, cant get a cheek weld with an optic mounted and in general is just a cheap primitive thing.

That said its fun to shoot, never needs cleaning and can be abused like nothing else.  I wont be owning another AK though as I am switching to the AR exclusively so I can work on my skills and I can mount all the needed accesories to make the rifle far better it is in stock configuration.

Id get an AK but I just dont have the money right now. I mean its better than one of those POS Cetmes for just plinking and the ammo is cheap same thing with the mags.

Join us on the dark side.  [}:D]

I hate the position of the safety and the lower end (aka more common variants) have the single hook triggers which snap back sharply into the finger. I was a big AK fan and though I respect its strengths, I have lost some enthusiasm for it after joining this board. Between 10-50 (some even 75) yards it is acceptably accurate, provided yours doesn't have an affliction such as sight cant. Its true strength is its astounding threshold for punishment and abuse, even in the face of poor hygene. This and the $300 price tag make this an ideal SHTF weapon for the truck or a second property that is rarely visited.

DevL -- Cool, at least you had one so you do know how fun they are.  Now..... (No flame, just my response)-- You say --- 1. It's heavy. Heavy to who?  Beavis or Butthead?  It isn't heavy for me.  2. Not accurate.  True, not as accurate as an AR-15, but accurate none the less.  3. Horrible ergonomics.  From 1947 until around 1989 ergonomics was unheard of. Just another Political Correct term.  4. Poor ballistics, slow to reload.  I don't know what you mean...You mean cycle of fire?  This thing rocks!  5.  Unable to free float.  True.

I'll be the first to say it is no match for the AR-15 in a "match" situation.  But, in the jungle, desert, mountains, flat lands, or urban jungle it will hold its own with the AR-15.  Not bad for a 56 year old design.  I hope you don't own a Model 1911.  Heck, that design is close to 100 years old and it still rules the roost.  Thanks for responding and for the good debate.  Good luck with your AR-15. I'll be right behind in my purchase!

*Heavy?  Not at all, its actualy a light gun.
*Not Accurate?  That is relavent, are you talking about over 1000meters and what caliber?
*Horible ergonomics?  You mean the safety?  One thing.
*Poor terminal ballistics?  Try the 5.45X39 that'll do ya!
*Slow to reload?  Do you mean the magazine or the gun? Mags load just as quick with stripper clips, and the gun can be reloaded just as fast as an AR(unless you are talking competition shooting)

Thats all I have to say on this...


BISHOP

They are both fun. I have an ugly ass Mak 90. The finnish is not great it has the thumb hole stock. But it works great, and to me just as much fun to shoot as my bushy. The bushy also cost me about 500 bucks more than the ak. I think most people have problems with AKs because they might be a little snoby. Its like they dont want to be seen with one. If you like them, get one and enjoy your freedom to own such a weapon.

 Yep, Hungarian SA 85M, it eats dirt and shits fire.
Although Im quite certain I look prettier holding one of my ARs

I had one of the original AK-47 civilian imports. Shot it in many IPSC 3 gun matches, with good accuracy. Although shooting bowling pins with iron sights at 100 yds was pushing it. Paid a whopping $160 for it, 6 30 rd mags, mag charger, and chest pouch. Only problem with it was the cover latch cut the heck out of my cheek when shooting it.

My only regret, that I swapped it for a Glock instead of paying cash.

And this too, is not a flame... but...

The IDF ordered M16s and M4 with the FMS money given to them by the United States for development of their military -- One of the hooks that comes with FMS funds, is that the money can only be used to purchase equipment that is made in the United States.

I have several of each, in many different calibers(9mm, 5.45x39, 5.56, 7.62x39, 7.62x51). Each has its own place. I like them all equally for different reasons.

I'm not wealthy enough to be snobby about anything, including guns.

I know several people that won't own an AK variant, because they think they are POS. They like to shoot them, they just won't buy one. Oh well, more for me.

I would own an ak if they had a sight system that I could use. ak sights I have seen are too dificult for me to use.

Not owning an AR-15 (yet), I will try and give what I think are the positives and negatives of this fine carbine, and of the AK-47.

AR-15 Positives:
Light
very Accurate
Low recoil
Accesories readily adaptable
Cheap ammo
Plentiful ammo
Plentifull mags avail.

AR-15 Negatives:
Finicky in dirty conditions
Finicky with its diet
-----------------------------
AK-47 Positives:
Durable under all conditions
Plentiful parts avail.
Plentiful ammo
Cheap ammo
plentiful maga
Cheap mags
Eats anything it's fed
Large range of high capacity mags

AK-47 Negatives:
Sub par accuracy at long distances
Minimum optics available

Now, after I get my Bushy I will probably have more positives to say about the AR-15. In my humble opinion they are both battle / survival ready weapons.

TomJefferson,
What is that Stand that you have that rifle sitting on?
Thanks..

Looks like a Ping Pong Table to me!

Talk about heavy, try puttin' a 75 round drum mag on your AK. Hell of alot of fun to shoot but ya do have to eat your Wheaties. I've got both a AR and a AK love 'em both. Sometimes when I really want to make a lot of noise I pop in a couple of 30 round mags hold the AK in my left hand and my AR in my right and just dump 'em both. [heavy]

Wrong. Why use the guns you make yourself when you can get them from America for $200 a pop? Also, Israel hasn't fought in the desert for extended periods since the Sinai in 1973.

Here's my SAR-2. I tire of people comparing the AR-15 with the AK-47. It's not a valid comparison. Rather, you should compare an AK-74/101 to the AR-15/M4 rifle. 5.45x39 vs. 5.56x45. That's a better comparison in terms of ballistics and accuracy. My SAR-2 will shoot 2 MOA easily with Barnual ammo. It's not as comfortable as my Bushmaster carbine, but it's a damn good rifle.

[img]http://www.hunting-pictures.com/members/themao/scope2.jpg[/img]

I have a Galil AR (AK action in .223).  I certainly felt that it was one of the better rifles or I wouldn't have bought it.

However, after going to a recent Tactical Carbine class (everyone else was using AR's), I now have greater respect for the AR.  After shooting the Galil all day (around 600+ rounds) it certainly "felt heavier" to me.  It might have been me, but everyone else did seem to reload quicker than me.  The magazine has to be fitted correctly in order to lock into place on my AK variant.  The safety on the AR is a definite plus.  The optic's setup on the AR is also great.  And lastly, I certainly didn't see many feed problems with the AR's.  

Personally, I feel my Galil (18") is as accurate as any of the shorty AR's (16"), which seems to be the popular style right now.  I don't know about other AK variants.  (The Galil uses an aperture sight just like the AR).

OK first the AK is made of all steel and not polymer or aluminum so it is inherantly heavier than an AR.  I am a big and strong guy but lighter is ALWAYS better in an assault type rifle.

The AR is faster to reload because you just push the mag release and slap a mag in and hit the bolt release.  In an AK you have to remove the mag with the off hand the rock and lock the new mag which is slower and more easily screwed up if your in a hurry and you must manually cycle the bolt to get it back in action.  The AR is off and running on a new mag far before an AK.  Faster is ALWAYS better in an assault type rifle.

The 5.56 has better terminal results in soft tissue than 7.62 or 5.45 AKs as the 5.56 fragments and the AK rounds do not.  Even a soft point 7.62 has inferior terminal effects to a good 5.56 round like the 75 or 77 grain ammo in soft tissue.  More lethal is ALWAYS better in an assault type rifle.

The 5.56 shoots flatter and is more accurate than the 7.62 or 5.45 rounds in the AK.  We all agree on this point.  More accuracte is ALWAYS better in an assault type rifle.

As far as ergonomics the safety, the charging handle and the lack of cheek weld are all complaints.  The AR has none of these problems.  More ergonomic and comfortable is ALWAYS better in an assault type rifle.

So the AR is lighter, faster, more accurate, more lethal and more customizable with "gadgets"

You give up the ability to not clean the rifle and it costs more.  To me the AR is superior in every way if cost is not a consideration and you are self disciplined enough to keep it clean and lubed.  For that reason I am devoting all my training to the AR platform from now on.  It is better than the HK 90 series, AK types, M1 carbine, and every other assault type rifle I have tried and owned.  Yes an AK is the best choice if your on a budget but if you can afford all the goodies for an AR, the ammo and the training, it is better in every aspect.  I am not a collector.  I want to train to be the best I can be with the best weapon platform I have available to me.  After owning several differnt types of rifles I am convinced the AR is the cream of the crop.  I will be owning only ARs from here on out.  BTW anyone want a good condition M1 carbine with M2 bolt for $400 with 2 M2 marked USGI 30 round mags? It sure sucks how expensive the add ons on the AR are though.  The flashlight on my AR is more than I paid for my entire AK... [:(]

All the points you make are valid sir. I think the M4 wins hands down over any other rifle today IF you need to add stuff like a NVD, Aimpoint, Surefire, laser sight, etc. A M4 with a SIR is probably the most versatile rifle in the world (short of a SPR with a mid-length SIR).

However, if I need a no frills rifle in .223, an AK-101 clone would be the ticket. I'll accept the poorer ergonomics, slower mag changes and lack of a bolt hold open device for the AK-101's virtual indestructability and reliability. The optics side plate on my 5.45x39 SAR-2 will be able to accept a variety of scopes and sights, granted that it's not nearly as comfortable as a M4. It's still a versatile rifle that can get the job done, with good accuracy.

If it was legal, I wouldn't own any of the above. I'd own a Sig 550 and a 551 in two set-ups. One for a main battle rifle (550) and one for CQB, general use (551 with a 16" barrel. Only problem I'd have is that the barrel is not chrome lined. The G36 is probably better still, but they lack solid iron sights (although H&K might change that down the road). A G36 with diopter sights like a G3 would be ideal.

I have owned a Poly Tech Legend and an Arsnal AK47.  They were "fun" to shoot.  I've sold them.

I now have two Bushmaster AR's.  A 16" carbine with EOTech sight and a 20" rifle with a Lupy scope. (Also a Rem 700P, .308 in an AICS to really reach out an touch someone).

To make this short and sweet, I'm in total aggrement with Devl.  I couldn't say it any better.

Four ARs, and six AKs (including the .223 Galil and the .308 Valmet), so I really do walk both sides of the street [:D].

As an "as issued" piece in an organized military environment, the AR/M16 is definitally superior.  On the other hand, if I was heading for the boonies by myself, or with a few others, in a "Red Dawn" kind of situation, I'd take an AK.

Yes, the AR is more accurate and has better ergonomics; but the AK will keep chugging long after an AR needs to be recycled thru the repair/refitting shop.

i've got one SAR-1 and several ARs.

the AK sits in the corner, makes me appreciate the ARs more.

the AR is more flexible, can be anything form a lightweight carbine with A1 sights, to a 24" HBAR varmint gun, a M4gery with anything you want to hang on it, a 9mm subgun, a .22 with either a conversion kit or a dedicated upper, various other calibers including .50 Beowulf or .458 SOCOM, and even .50 BMG.

no other platform has more stuff available for it.

add all that to what DevL said!