ME NO FORGET.ME LOVE AR-15 LONG TIME!!!

The AK had nothing to do with the Vietnam war, politics did. Again only countries currently fielding 47's are ones that can't afford an AR, A stan, Somalia, etc.. Heck even Palestinians are using M16's now. The penetration advantage is pure gunshop BS, penetration has never been a problem of the 5.56.

hhttp://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/1327297.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921F7C3FC3F69D929FDE844D777E733CB99C70BB7F34E05006371ED69EFE1048615E30A760B0D811297ttp://img.slate.com/media/10/020416_Palestinian_M16.jpg

Too beaucoup!!! (sp?)

Personally from a ballistic stand point this is a better question that the perverbial 270 vs 30/06 you read on other posts. The 223 and 7.62 are completely different rounds and each serves its purpose better in its own environment. That being said, it seems the question is not which caliber is beter it is what platform is better? No?

I personally like the AK because it is CHEAPER to own and modify based on what i have seen. The AR has more options and is the "AMERICAN" thing to do. That being said i dont own one but my very good friend owns several of each and lets me use them. so my $.02 is probably not worth much....

Does anybody else find it funny, that every time this aurgument comes up it boils down to 2 POV's.

Trained Personel, whom have used/operated both platfroms, seen first hand the reliability of each, accuracy of each, and the damage of each round. Who 98% of the time choose the better of the two the AR-15.

ArmChair Commando's. Who see the Tacticool factor in the Kolishnikov or have heard form some buddy or gunshop commando about how its 10X better...Well its not.

Look at the Units whom use each 1 side you have trained profesionals, the other guerilla's. Any civilized half way funded unit thats has a choice picks anything other than a Kolishnikov for good reason. While I will say it was a briliant design for the 50's to be made as a cheap and durable Assult Weapon it no longer is up to par, well maybee over the SKS or type 56's.

End of Story

i cannot believe you ask this question! ak versus ar, you will probably get 100 pages on this topic alone! Haven't you heard enough on this ak versus ar in your life?

ARE YOU SAYING ONLY ZOMBIES WOULD USE AN AK?!?!?!?!

I guess Russia, China, and Finland (to mention a few) don't count as civilized?

I still don't get your point though. If you're saying that only a 'trained professional' can operate an AR, then I'd say that's an advantage for the AK.

The comparison really depends on what you're using it for. For hunting, AR hands down for it's versatility and accuraccy. But if you're arming a militia in a post-apocalyptic Obama wasteland, then it would have to be the AK.

uuhhhh, maybe not all three. I've been to at least China, and not necessarily just the nice parts either, and civilized is a bit of a stretch.

Oh and to the person who is disregarding calibers and just comparing platforms, i don't think that's the right approach either. The caliber has to be included. But for fairness's sake limited to the 223/556 and 7.62x39 for the AR and AK, repsectively.

China also switched to it's own rifle and it's own caliber (5.8mm), the Type 95 bullpup. It's made to (theoretically) perform better than the 5.56, 5.45X39 and 7.62X39mm. They make an export model in 5.56, but i've never heard of any actually shipping.

The Russians have been trying to improve the AK for 30+ years, the AK-74 was a stopgap because the various alternatives cost too much. The AN-94 Nikonov was adopted but never in any number due to this. Finland uses what works, and they haven't fought a war since 1945, they're not in a hurry to change a weapon made for conscripts, used by conscripts.

The AK's not a bad rifle, but generally when people have a choice, they pick an AR. Special ops groups from countries that don't even use them tend to use them (Poland's GROM, the various French groups, Norway just adopted the HK416 across the board to replace the G-3, etc).

Forget this AR, AK mess! Both are proven combat warriors. I have both and love them both. The boar, however, is awesome!

No they are civilized, Russia no longer uses the AK-47, they use the 74 which fires a round that is more like the 5.56. Finland last I saw used mainly 550's and FAL's. Even China has better things now.

In this day and time there is alot better options which is the point I was making, even when they first came out the AR was a much better choice.


No I'm saying ask any person whom actually knows what there doing and 98% percent of the time they will pick the AR because its a better more versitile platform. Just take a look at the poeple in this aurgument providing the best info for the AR there trained individuals which is the point I was making.

Why would it be the AK, in your scenario where in America, where the Ar-15 5.56 is our country's primary Military issue Rifle and LEO Patrol rifle, which means you could easily find 3 key things, Ammo, Mags, and parts. Battlefield pickups will be plentiful for this platform, not for the AK.

The AR is More Accurate, when your AK can hold 2MOA at 500yds with irons call me.
Just as dependable, its not uncommon to run 2K-3K between cleanings, Lube I can use any motor oil, cleaning any solvent.
Lighter.
Faster on reloads.
To anybody who wants to make the argument about the round its self being in adequit, keep one thing in mind. Pigs are used as human anologs quite frequently in the science world. So the 300lb boar with the massive wound from 1 77gr OTM above is a great represenitive of a 5-10 250lb man.

Add to the fact, I can carry a 10" SBR door kicker upper and a 20" DM upper and have any scenario covered. I would say yeah that is the better of the two guns.

Thanks sir!!!

Actually, Finland has been using AK variants for the last 40+ years. The M62 and a few in between models, the current issue is the Sako (formerly Valmet) M90, in 7.62X39 with a aperature sight on the receiver dust cover, a side-folding stock, and other improvements. It's functionally similar to the mid-size Galil, just not as heavy.

So the fact is its not a AK-47, which is my point in this day in time most pepople whom have a choice don't use a AK-47. A variant which is loosly based on the Action is not a AK which is the aurgument being made.

If you don't have a choice, you have to make the best of what is given to you(AK) and I will say when it was designed nothing came close and even the early M16's where not as good of a design but, now that most of the design flaws have been worked out of it(M16) its no longer the case. During the time period it(AK) was designed it rieghned supreme but that is no longer the issue, I will even say that about the M16 family it is no longer a top choice although it is up there. If you where asking my true opinion I would say the FAL was made about the same time and was better than both.

The Valmet/Sako is an AK action. It's just been "Finnish-ized", no different than quite a few other countries' AK's.

Aside from the receiver rear sight and furniture differences, it's functionally an AK. A Hungarian AMD 65 doesn't
"look" like a conventional AK but it is. Something like a Galil is still functionally one, even though it has a different bolt handle, thumb safety, folding stock, etc.....internally it's a AK.

To each his own. I've used both in the real world, it boils down to the mission. I had an AK, M4, MP5 and RPK issued to me. I picked my own kit based on the mission, sometimes it was the AK, sometimes it was the M4. It's like asking with is better, redheads or blonds? You can get the job done with both if you know what you�re doing.
S/F
gf

So what kind of situation would lead you to chose an AK over an AR and vice versa? Really interested to know.

WOW! This whole thread is

Funny stuff.

AR fan myself BTW

My only experience with the AR platform was with the M16 & Stoner variants almost 40 years ago. While the AR is more accurate, it is also more delicate and affected by environmental conditions than is the AK. If accuracy and finesse were my primary objectives and I could guarantee that I'd have the opportunity to maintain the rifle regularly, I'd go with the AR, but if I want something that will go bang in the widest possible conditions - even if circumstances caused me to neglect its upkeep - the AK would be my weapon of choice, hands down.

Man that is an ugly rifle though!

I've used AK's when I want to look and sound like something other than what I am. I've used AK's when everyone else on my team only had AK's. Being able to share ammo and mags is huge. I like the options and accuracy of the M4/M16/AR but the truth is sometimes you have to work with what you have and that aint always US issue. I�m not saying one is "better" than the other mind you, just that I�ve used both and they each have their role. If someone were breaking in my house at 330 at night, I was drunk/hung over, half asleep and could only pick one rifle to be next to my bed, I'd take an AR. AR is the weapon system I have to think about the least to operate.
S/F
gf

Godfather, you and I are on the same wavelength. I've owned an AK and have quite a few rounds through them, but the AR platform is what i've been using and trained on for just over half my life.


I prefer the AR, but an AK can certainly get the job done if you understand it's strengths and weaknesses.

Ron, AR's aren't exactly affected by weather/conditions any more than anything else. Sand may gunk one up slightly faster, but i've run M16s and M4s in snow, rain, icy cold, swam and waded streams wtih them....they all went bang. For that matter I was playing OPFOR for some guys deploying, took an M16A2E3 (full auto A2 variant) off the rack where it had been bone dry for a year, dumped 14 mags of filthy blanks through it in field conditions without any lube and it ran fine (MUCH to my surprise.....blanks make them jam like crazy).

40 years ago, sure (though experiences varied) due to the chrome/powder etc issues. But it's not 1966 any more. With a good lube any standard issue M4/M16 will run well in any conditions except possibly freezing cold (change to LSA).

Back in the early '70s, when I carried an M16, we learned quick that if we didn't clean them almost daily, they were likely to jam the next day. While some of the problems were admittedly due to the flake powder some procurement officer bought because he could save 1/4 cent a round, jams were still too commonplace to be acceptable, especially in a hot zone. By the same token, the AKs we got hold of would pretty well fire right up until they fell apart.

I hope for our service men & women's sake that the weapon has been improved, and that my perspective is obsolete. But until I see that the old problems have been fixed, I'll likely remain wary of the platform. I'm sure that the black rifle manufacturers & dealers won't be losing any sleep over an old man's opinion, though.

AK , there is a reason almost every county in the world uses them.