I'm an Ak man myself. Lets hear what IA likes.
Ok, this should get this section going AR-15 VS AK-47
I'm an Ak man myself. Lets hear what IA likes.
ar-15.
more accurate than the ak.
I'm Russian. You know my answer.
AR will give you better accuracy at 200+ yards. How many targets do you ever plan to engage at that distance? The AR-15 jams way too often and is too picky when it comes to ammo/cleaning. The ak will eat up anything you feed it. The newer Ak variants are more accurate and can also be chambered in 7.62x39, 5.45x39, and 5.56.Originally Posted by Tran
Last edited by Problematik; 03-27-2009 at 10:40 AM.
AK more reliable. Those things are like rocks
Exactly. AR's are delicate compared to to AK's.
Which would be a favorable characteristic in a woman.. Not an assault rifle..
AR it looks cooler
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
voted ak... reason being is simply reliabilty and full auto compared to three round burst on military issued weapon. bigger round as well
1999 Mazda Miata- For Sale $4,500 FRIM!
both.
But, I voted AK for one reason, and one reason only: knockdown power. For the record, I want ZERO of the shot placement BS. Shot for shot, a 7.62 is tearing shit up and the 5.56 is just cutting a nice little hole.
Not necessarly true, when the 5.56 penetrates its target it tumbles and shatters leaving the target with a shit load of lead throughout the point of impact and around it. So dont completely bag on the 5.56 saying that its small and wouldnt do anything, thats the mistake that the vietcong made in the Vietnam conflict when the M16 A1 first came out, and they obvioulsy thought wrong. So essencially the 5.56 is tearing shit up, and the 7.62 is knocking shit down and punching a decent sized hole in its target.
Life begins at 6000 RPMS.. You will notice an audible change in engine noise, large increase in acceleration and any female passengers will immidiately start to remove their clothing.
AK-47 won the war.. Swamp, mud, rice fields, we couldn't shoot.. They could.. Maybe if we had a better gun, we wouldn't have lost that war..
If we had a foward assist on the M16A1 for the first half of the conflict, the gun would have been alot more deadly too. But I do agree with you, the AK is definatley more durable gun. But Id still take a AR over an AK any day just because of the accuracy, and you can carry more ammo on you because the 5.56 is alot smaller than the 7.62, and all you have to do is clean it and the gun will be just as good durability wise as the AK.
Last edited by VTECking; 03-26-2009 at 09:41 PM.
Life begins at 6000 RPMS.. You will notice an audible change in engine noise, large increase in acceleration and any female passengers will immidiately start to remove their clothing.
1st, the AK is just as accurate up to 200yards.. So really the accuracy argument isn't valid.. And comabt is done well withing 200 yards.. 2nd you are comparing later AR versions to the AK 47, the first version.. You should be comparing it to the later AK 47 variants like the AK 74 which is more accurate..
LOL the AR is NEVER and will never be as reliable as an AK no matter what.. Clean it? Well the mere fact that you have to clean it every time you shoot a bullet makes it inferior and a bad design.. An assault rifle used in war shouldn't be something you baby and clean all the time.. It should be something you throw around, drop in the sand, never clean, but will ALWAYS shoot no matter what..
That is the only argument for the AR, but it isn't even valid..
At 30 yards, I can shoot the head of the silhouette at least 29 times out of my 30rd mag (at very worst).. But I usually do it 30/30.. The accuracy argument is really weak because the difference can only be seen after 150+ yards..
Now, when am I going to need to shoot further than that? Most combat, especially in gorilla warfare, is done well within that range..
The AR will not shoot if it gets near sand, water, etc.. My AK will shoot, every time I pull my trigger.. Whether I am in water, in a sand storm, crawling in mud, and etc.. The same cannot be said about the AR..
The AK also performs way better than the AR in all aspects in full auto..
AK-47 #1
Last edited by Frög; 03-16-2009 at 01:19 AM.
Can't argue with that!
If you watch the video I posted, at 7min, they mention how ugly the AK is..
But I like the way it looks..
Last edited by Frög; 03-16-2009 at 01:02 AM.
since its shtf scenario i would say its a tie, maybe leaning towards AR due to the possibility of more ammo being available (police stations, military bases ect).
Both are great weapons, but the AR in general is better. Which is better in SHFT???? Which ever you can get parts and ammo for. Thats why everyone should own both ...even though i dont
The ultimate SHTF (non-zombie) is the handgun of course! High cap, with tons of spare mags. AND CONCEALABLE!!!!!!!!!!
"The 1911 is a collection of subsystems that must work together. Each part must be prepared and fit properly not only in and of itself, but also with regard to the other parts with which it must operate for the gun to function and appear as desired."
Gas system of an AK, the rest AR.
Enough said.
Honda RC51 SP1
Yoshi RS-3 Cans
520 Conversion
Clip Ons
Race Tech Fork Kit
I have both and like both. It really is a toss up for me in the SHTF general scenario. I'm accurate with both, but the AR is more manueverable (sp?) IMO.
The 7.62 steel core is a punch load, but 5.56 can be had hot too. In trajectory, the AR would likely get the nod. Capacity, the AR would get the nod only because the mags take up less space than banana AK's would. Reliability, the nod would likely go to the AK simply because it will shoot a rock if you file it down to fit in the barrel. Most modern AR's are more than reliable, but even cheapo AK copies are reliable, so the nod in that category would likely go to the AK. Accessories, the clear winner is the AR since you can get some nice rails and have USEFUL accessories mounted and you would be covered in 99% of scenarios.
It's a toss up for me.
That's why you should own BOTH.....
okokok
Chuck Norris with an AK
versus
Jack Bauer with an AR
gogogogogo
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Chuck, all day.
Ur crazy. Bauer all the way. Chuck is a joke (yes i said it)!!!!!!!
"The 1911 is a collection of subsystems that must work together. Each part must be prepared and fit properly not only in and of itself, but also with regard to the other parts with which it must operate for the gun to function and appear as desired."
AK, all day.
i like both but like vteckidd said the ar does look cooler and has many fun attachments like the 40mm grenade launcher (autrey's armory has one) but i like the ak just bc what frog said it is more reliable.... i want both but dont have the extra money for both lol
NO NWS
You know, if you look hard enough, you get a 40mm launcher for an AK, :boobies: too. With all the aftermarket stocks and accessories available these days, anything you can put on an AR, you can put on an AK.
I, like Jaime, personally own both (looking for pics on old comp/PB account to post) and wouldn't trade either one. My AR is a little finky when it comes to ammo, though, andd Failure to Feeds are a little too common for me to consider it a first choice in a SHTF scenario, when my ammo choices would be eventually limited to whatever i can scavenge.
x2
this is a 74, but the 47 has the same:
nice, I was about to look for a pic of a tac'd out AK, but you did the leg work for mex2
this is a 74, but the 47 has the same:
a full review of the ar vs ak was a couple months ago in Combat Tactics magazine. The AR won hands down. 95% of people just vote on what they hear on the internet, and read on gun forums.
Both are great guns and have thier own purpose and place but the AR is the superior weapon, no doubt. Now if you ask which is the best for YOU and YOUR purpose, thats a WHOLE NOTHER TOPIC.
But the OP didnt ask a question that everyone is giving him answers for. He asked which is the better SHTF gun, and my answer remains which ever one you can get parts and ammo for.
"The 1911 is a collection of subsystems that must work together. Each part must be prepared and fit properly not only in and of itself, but also with regard to the other parts with which it must operate for the gun to function and appear as desired."
I have talked to many people that have owned AR's and switched to AK.. So many issues with jamming, and common multiple fires with one pull of the trigger..
The AK is a superior weapon, that cannot be argued.. Combat tactics magazine is bias for the AR if they said it was better.. It out performs the AR in every aspect except accuracy but only past 150+ yards.. The AK variants with the 5.45 is MORE accurate that the AR..
Also talking to marines who were in the gulf war, they told me about horror stories about the AR in desserts.. In windy situations, the AR was so unreliable that they had to put their rifle in trash bags to avoid any sand getting in it.. Only when they were getting shot at, they would open the bag and STILL couldn't shoot a full clip because it would jam..
Last time I was at the range, some guy had an AR.. Every pull of the trigger, it would shoot 3 and jam.. His gun was barely used.. His buddy told me that the happiest two days of his life where when he bought an AR and when he sold it..
Now, ammo for the AK is so hard to find(for the 7.62), and in a SHFT situation, I would like an AR.. But for combat, in a war, AK..
I like AR's, I would love to have one, but to say it is a superior weapon? I remember watching a documentary where designers and engineers of the AR where admitting that the AK was a better weapon overall.. The simplicity and ruggedness of the AK is what makes is superior..
Here, /discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h08NtNOLYuo
AK is also FAR superior in AUTO..
AK, Hands down..
Last edited by Frög; 03-19-2009 at 11:10 PM.
AHHH its coming! lol
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (2 members and 0 guests)
Frög, Danny
That video seemed pretty biased. I know gun magazines are 100% biased. But i will summerize the article i mentioned. They compared the two guns on 10 topics, one point for each topic for the winner. Here ya go. let me know what you think. My opinions stands: both weapons have a place and purpose and they dont neccesarily overlap.
RECEIVER VERSATILITY: 1point AR 1 point AK
BUTTSTOCK ERGONOMICS: AR 1 point
OPTICAL SIGHT SUITABILITY: AR 1 point
RAIL ACCESSORY INTERFACE: AR 1 point
STANDARD BALLISTICS: AK 1 point
COMBAT RELIABILITY: AK 1 point
LONG RANGE ACCURACY: AR 1 point
GRENADE LAUCHING: AR 1 point
ERGONOMIC FACTORS: AR 1 point
REMEDIAL ACTION DRILLS: AR 1 point AK 1 point
FINAL SCORE: 8 to 4, AR Winner.
I found these hard to argue with. If you have some more topics to add we can debate those but these 10 are basically set in stone and i think most would agree to that.
"The 1911 is a collection of subsystems that must work together. Each part must be prepared and fit properly not only in and of itself, but also with regard to the other parts with which it must operate for the gun to function and appear as desired."
Agreed, you can't argue with those being true.. But those don't mean anything! Stock ergonomics? Who cares?
The red ones really don't matter in combat.. The fact that they added those comparing factors was to give points to the AR and an unfair advantage.. I mean, why didn't they add EASE OF DISASSEMBLY(sp?), DURABILITY/RUGGEDNESS, MAINTENANCE etc.. Things that matter! If they did, the AK would be the winner..
Also, isn't OPTICAL SIGHT SUITABILITY an added BS criteria when they already gave a point for the AR for RAIL ACCESSORY INTERFACE? That comes hand and hand! Thats a free point for the AR!?!?!
The Orange ones are also somewhat stupid.. In combat, most of it is done well within 200 yards which accuracy is the same.. Beyond that, use a sniper.. The AK's accuracy is more than enough.. Grenade launching? Sure, but we are comparing the rifle!
About the video, I don't see how it can be biased.. Some fact can be, but the main message of comparing the AR and the AK isn't.. The co-designer is saying HIS gun that he designed isn't as good as the AK.. Shouldn't he be biased the other way?
Edit:
Ahh I think I might of missed that..
Last edited by Frög; 03-20-2009 at 12:08 AM.
Exactly why I started this thread. Lol
NEW SCORE 8 to 5
Looks like we should give the AK another point (tieing in the Grenade catagory). Even though i have yet to see any insurgents running around with this varient.. blehhh
QUOTE:
AK-74M. The latest variant, issued to the Russian troops since early 1990s. Key differences from the earlier AK-74 rifles are the side-folding plastic buttstock and the scope mounting rail on the left side of the receiver.
AK-74M with GP-30 40mm grenade launcher installed
"The 1911 is a collection of subsystems that must work together. Each part must be prepared and fit properly not only in and of itself, but also with regard to the other parts with which it must operate for the gun to function and appear as desired."
Come on fooo... its bed time
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (2 members and 0 guests)
Danny, Frög
"The 1911 is a collection of subsystems that must work together. Each part must be prepared and fit properly not only in and of itself, but also with regard to the other parts with which it must operate for the gun to function and appear as desired."
I tried! But you can take your time, I have work until 6am, so I got all night!Come on fooo... its bed time
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (2 members and 0 guests)
Danny, Frög
The people carrying them are all different sizes. You really going to argue that an adjustable stock is not a factor of combat effectivness? I would tend to think most CQB guys would say it helps alot, since they are all different sizes.
I may be willing to take a half point vs a full point for this one.
I disagree that they dont matter, but agree that the should have added maintenance in there. Durability goes under reliability in my opinion.The red ones really don't matter in combat.. The fact that they added those comparing factors was to give points to the AR and an unfair advantage.. I mean, why didn't they add EASE OF DISASSEMBLY(sp?), DURABILITY/RUGGEDNESS, MAINTENANCE etc.. Things that matter! If they did, the AK would be the winner..
Disagree. Our rail system is seperate from the standard issue top rail for optics. Our rails let mounting and dismounting (just as easily) tac lights, ir lasers and a host of other things that give us an INCREDIBLE advantage, and advantage that is worth at LEAST 3 points lol. Optics is one thing, but accesories that make locating, IDing a potential threat and then sharing that information with others is a whole seperate ball game. IMO of course.Also, isn't OPTICAL SIGHT SUITABILITY an added BS criteria when they already gave a point for the AR for RAIL ACCESSORY INTERFACE? That comes hand and hand! Thats a free point for the AR!?!?!
agreed somewhat.The Orange ones are also somewhat stupid.. In combat, most of it is done well within 200 yards which accuracy is the same.. Beyond that, use a sniper.. The AK's accuracy is more than enough.. Grenade launching? Sure, but we are comparing the rifle!
He is just mad becuase his last name is sullivan. Not Stoner. Thats sad he is admitting that a Russian tank commander that had no engineering education out engineered him. I think Mr Sullivan and his son just wanted some attentionAbout the video, I don't see how it can be biased.. Some fact can be, but the main message of comparing the AR and the AK isn't.. The co-designer is saying HIS gun that he designed isn't as good as the AK.. Shouldn't he be biased the other way?
ok dammit, im biased. im going to bed. AR is still better for our military and the AK is still better for those miltarys/terrorists who cant afford ARs.
Ok u want the real winner here? HK416, no stfu
"The 1911 is a collection of subsystems that must work together. Each part must be prepared and fit properly not only in and of itself, but also with regard to the other parts with which it must operate for the gun to function and appear as desired."
Good points.. Glad we can have a civilized debate!The people carrying them are all different sizes. You really going to argue that an adjustable stock is not a factor of combat effectivness? I would tend to think most CQB guys would say it helps alot, since they are all different sizes.
I may be willing to take a half point vs a full point for this one.
I disagree that they dont matter, but agree that the should have added maintenance in there. Durability goes under reliability in my opinion.
Disagree. Our rail system is seperate from the standard issue top rail for optics. Our rails let mounting and dismounting (just as easily) tac lights, ir lasers and a host of other things that give us an INCREDIBLE advantage, and advantage that is worth at LEAST 3 points lol. Optics is one thing, but accesories that make locating, IDing a potential threat and then sharing that information with others is a whole seperate ball game. IMO of course.
agreed somewhat.
He is just mad becuase his last name is sullivan. Not Stoner. Thats sad he is admitting that a Russian tank commander that had no engineering education out engineered him. I think Mr Sullivan and his son just wanted some attention
ok dammit, im biased. im going to bed. AR is still better for our military and the AK is still better for those miltarys/terrorists who cant afford ARs.
Ok u want the real winner here? HK416, no stfu
I do want to say that to me, Reliability isn't the same as Durability..
Article I found interesting. Nuances between the two:
One measure of durability is represented by the duration of product ownership. Reliability, on the other hand, represents interruptions in usage during that ownership. The ownership of any product or system cannot be enjoyed if it is continually interrupted and the desired functions lost for even a brief time. This means reliability takes precedence over durability even though both are desired in most applications.
Not saying that the AK is more durable, I would think so but I don't know for sure..
Good points.. Glad we can have a civilized debate!
I do want to say that to me, Reliability isn't the same as Durability..
Article I found interesting. Nuances between the two:
One measure of durability is represented by the duration of product ownership. Reliability, on the other hand, represents interruptions in usage during that ownership. The ownership of any product or system cannot be enjoyed if it is continually interrupted and the desired functions lost for even a brief time. This means reliability takes precedence over durability even though both are desired in most applications.
Not saying that the AK is more durable, I would think so but I don't know for sure..
good point on the durability vs reliability (i forgot about that topic in my operations managment course lol).
I would say they are both durable considering thier intended uses. Which one would be more durable if put in a dirt hole for 20 years? I think we know the answer for that. But i would say for combat purposes they are both pretty dang durable.. But then again i havent gone to war with either.
"The 1911 is a collection of subsystems that must work together. Each part must be prepared and fit properly not only in and of itself, but also with regard to the other parts with which it must operate for the gun to function and appear as desired."
This thread really interests me, not for arguments sake but more of WHY lol.
I think that tac'd out ARs and AKs are kind of like a honda with a body kit. 99% of people have them soley to floss with. IF someone breaks into your home, who thinks to grab their tactical AK, unfold the stock, blah blah. I think i'll grab my .45 or 9mm.
That being said, i love the rifles and have a Colt ar-15. Ive used the rifle to shoot 100 & 300yd matches. I don't have a folding stock or laser sights or even a grenade launcher.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
