AK vs AR

[huntpotter]

How about a Sig556. AK style gas system and bolt. Takes AR mags. Swiss design. Accurate barrel. It is like an AR-47, or an AK-15.... ?????

 

[Miso Beno]

I'm just going to leave this right here.

From the lovely folks at Cavalry Arms in Arizona.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dipghcp929I

Thesis: The AR15 rifle is more reliable than people believe it to be.

The Test:
Part 1: Dust cover open and up, cover the rifle in sand and run 5 magazines through it.
Part 2: No cleaning conducted after part 1, Dust cover open and up, cover the rifle in sand and run it over with a Jeep, then run a magazine through it.

Results:
Part 1: The rifle functioned flawlessy with no malfunctions. The action was somewhat sluggish towards the end as oil cooked off and more dirt entered the action.

Part 2: The rifle did suffer two malfunctions that required combat racking, but otherwise ran. All lubrication was cooked off and there was sand in the action. The larger particles; small rocks, prevents the bolt from going all the way into battery twice. I honestly did not expect it to work at all at this point.

The CAV-15 receiver and C4 handguards survived without damaged. The CMMG upper was not damaged aside from finish wear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8SSQ_wIG4o

Thesis: The AK type rifle is more reliable than AR15 type rifles

The Test: Fire one mag to confirm function, load rifle and bury in sand with dust cover/safety down, fire one magazine, repeat.

Results: The open areas of the AK type rifle allow dirt/dust to get into the action in large quantities, preventing them fire control from functioning. While a gas piston MAY be more reliable, the AKs fire control are more prone to outside fouling than those of an AR15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo5WhVvtYak

Quotes taken from this The Flamboyant Rodeo thread. there are photos and a fine discussion within the tables of this hallowed thread.

 

[PosterGuy]

Does it matter which at close range??jj

Ummm...yeah it does.

 

[BooKilla]

Gentlemen, is the AK really superior to the AR? You hear all this talk from contractors who have been there and done that and everyone of of them say they will take an AK over an AR any day of the week. They site less maintenance and higher reliability of the AK and no jams. So what gives, why are we supplying our troop with an inferior weapon? And which one would you choose in a real world situation?

I don't knock AK-47's because they have been battlefield tested, but the AR-15/M16 platform has been the most successful battlefield rifle in the short history of guns. In 1948 the US Army's Operations Research Office started research and in 1957 made the AR-15 after making the AR-10 the year before. It has been around a very long time, but the AK-47 has been around longer. It was made by the Soviet Union in 1946 and I'm sure has been in more wars than any other rifle, ever. If you judge success by the amount of death caused by the rifle, the AK-47 would win hands down. Or the most use in war, the AK-47 wins again. However, I judge success by the quality of the rifle produced. I don't know anyone who would rather have an AK-47 over an AR-15. The AK-47 is cheap and happens to be very reliable. The AR-15 is equally reliable (some will tell you different, but it is true), but most all it is far more accurate. Soldiers want accuracy. The US made a good choice with the 5.56 and the AR-15 in the 50's. It is more expensive to produce, but a higher quality rifle as a result. If it was less money to produce, the poorer countries would choose this rifle every time over the AK-47.

 

[Trlsmn]

The answer is simple, many variations of both!

 

[TNThomas]

I agree with usrifle, check this link out, and the debate will be over once and for all! HAHAHHA

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Hands down, if I was going to be in the woods..or fighting for my life?
I'd grab the AK47.

If I was going for pure accuracy then I'd buy a bolt action rifle..
Don't get me wrong, I respect the AR15. But I have a basic version of the AR15.. most people out there have the same set up as well. Not all of us can afford the new cleaner versions with a gas piston. I'm also thinking of CQC. Not ranged firefights. I want a big'ol slug that will stop a man in his tracks or at least keep him down for a little while.
Yes, Yes.. the AK47 can't hit 100% accurately out to 300 yards.. well.. I'm happy with hitting water jugs at 150 or 200 yards.
Not a headshot weapon in the least.. but like I said, I'm not fixin to take head shots only. I'll take what I can get.

Best of both worlds.. own one of each.. and then two of each..and so on and so on..

lol
=]

 

[Southridge]

I own both and I say the AK due to it's reliability, but I sure would miss my AR
and all of it's coolness factor.
when they designed the AK and variants they got it rite the first time to fire in any condition every time.
and theirs no one I know that hasn't had failures and breakages with the AR
and since Ive been in business I have fixed a lot of broken AR's and when I get in AK it's just for a new finish. so this is a no win argument and it will always come down to personal preference. So I pick both because I can.
because if one lacks the other makes up...

 

[jordanvraptor]

I have both, I can shoot better at longer range with the AR. The AK is fun because its an AK. The AR does quite well at putting down humans. If you need to take down a bear, tiger, moose, or zombie then you better grab the M1A...

 

[Mac_Fan]

I've owned AK's in the past and they can and do jam. Their ergonomics are a nightmare. The AR is the superior weapon platform. Period.

 

[crosse]

i wanted to dig up this video b/c i knew it would help people understand that the ar15 is indeed a rugged rifle.
ar15 sand test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8SSQ_wIG4o
vs
ak47 sand test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo5WhVvtYak

 

[jordanvraptor]

Cool videos but in fairness I think it is an unfair comparison. The dust cover on the AR is not comparable to the safety on the AK. The design of the AR precludes a lot of sand from getting into the lower receiver. Granted the AK design leaves that slot exposed when the weapon is off safe. In the AR test the dust cover exposes the bolt carrier group to dirt but not its lower receiver components. To be equal, the AK should have just had dirt shoveled onto it with the weapon on safe, that way only its BCG was exposed to the dirt. It may sound like I'm splitting hairs but I guess I'm just a very technically oriented person. All that being said, I'd choose the AR over the AK due to its superior ergonomics and accuracy. YMMV. Maybe a more realistic test would be to have AR and AK do a rapid fire marathon as if it is a firefight from **** with mags changed out as fast as possible. Start with clean weapons and see which one fails first... I think it would get pretty expensive as it might take thousands of rounds.

Back in my Marine Corps days I personally got to fire an M16A1 on full auto using about 5 round bursts switching out mags as others loaded them so we were never dry. I must have shot over 6-700 rounds like this without additional lubrication even after I had fired it earlier for about 300 rounds. Basically, they had two crates of ammo left and needed to burn it fast so we would make it back to base within our alloted training time. Me and two other volunteers got to burn off these surplus rounds. Pretty fun and we probably burned out the barrels. No oil left on or in the rifle and carbon looked like it was parkerized on. Even had little white areas on the exterior of barrrel. Lots of barrel smoke. Never had one failure to fire. True story, believe it or not. M4 is a different story with its shorter barrel and gas tube but it is much easier to haul around.

 

[smonk]

Great videos. Congrats to the AR crowd! It looks like maybe the AR is better in adverse conditions than we thought!

 

[crosse]

Cool videos but in fairness I think it is an unfair comparison. The dust cover on the AR is not comparable to the safety on the AK. The design of the AR precludes a lot of sand from getting into the lower receiver. Granted the AK design leaves that slot exposed when the weapon is off safe. In the AR test the dust cover exposes the bolt carrier group to dirt but not its lower receiver components. To be equal, the AK should have just had dirt shoveled onto it with the weapon on safe, that way only its BCG was exposed to the dirt. It may sound like I'm splitting hairs but I guess I'm just a very technically oriented person. All that being said, I'd choose the AR over the AK due to its superior ergonomics and accuracy. YMMV. Maybe a more realistic test would be to have AR and AK do a rapid fire marathon as if it is a firefight from **** with mags changed out as fast as possible. Start with clean weapons and see which one fails first... I think it would get pretty expensive as it might take thousands of rounds.

Back in my Marine Corps days I personally got to fire an M16A1 on full auto using about 5 round bursts switching out mags as others loaded them so we were never dry. I must have shot over 6-700 rounds like this without additional lubrication even after I had fired it earlier for about 300 rounds. Basically, they had two crates of ammo left and needed to burn it fast so we would make it back to base within our alloted training time. Me and two other volunteers got to burn off these surplus rounds. Pretty fun and we probably burned out the barrels. No oil left on or in the rifle and carbon looked like it was parkerized on. Even had little white areas on the exterior of barrrel. Lots of barrel smoke. Never had one failure to fire. True story, believe it or not. M4 is a different story with its shorter barrel and gas tube but it is much easier to haul around.

to help paraphrase for our A.D.D. forum members:
US Marine and the AR15?

haha
I agree the AK is a formidable weapon, but the AR15 doesn't have as many particulars as people make them out to have and is still in my mind the intermediate caliber rifle to have. And the AK47 does not have God like infallibility. all of you who believe it does are sacrilegious heathens.

 

[56kninja]

Those guys had a rather biased test.

They use the dirt cover for the AR, but they don't use the safety for the AK? (Which would block that gap)

That said, AK is not godly, but it is extremely reliable. I've handled an AR much longer than an AK, and I never have seen that malfunction (except user error)

 

[ORBrit]

The dust cover on the AR was left open, but obviously with the AK safety off, there's a big gaping hole!
Not the best test, but still impressed with the AR performance in sand regardless.

 

[dario541]

If I could afford them, both would be welcome in my "battery".

 

[pogi]

I'll take an AK any old day. 7.62x39, 5.45x39, 5.56x45....doesn't matter as long as it is an AK.

 

[Miso Beno]

Those guys had a rather biased test.

They use the dirt cover for the AR, but they don't use the safety for the AK? (Which would block that gap)

That said, AK is not godly, but it is extremely reliable. I've handled an AR much longer than an AK, and I never have seen that malfunction (except user error)

You must have missed the one where they do the AR with the dust cover open.

At those pretty princess AR-15s sure as heck cant handle something like GETTING RUN OVER. Oh Wait.

 

[raindog]

First, +1 to "each has strengths and weaknesses".

As for reliability...yes, the AK is brutally simple and it's proven itself to be the reliability champ. However, the AR has performed fine in the field. But let's be honest - it's a design that was band-aided with a bolt-assist. No other military rifle has one. Why is that? The AR to me seems like a design that has been patched up...but I'd be hard pressed to look at numbers and say it's an unreliable system.

I stand by the old statement that "only accurate rifles are interesting". The AK is an "accurate rifle" by some standards...most of the ones I've seen shoot 4MOA or so (yes, I'm talking about civilian AKs in the states, not some mujahadeen leftover). That is certainly good enough for an infidel at 100Y. Most common soldier WWI/WWII-era bolt-action rifles are around 3MOA and they certainly worked fine in battle.

However, it's not in the same league as the AR. No one's ever won a match at Camp Perry with an AK ;-) Do they even make "match barrels" for an AK? It's not a platform designed for fine accuracy. "Good enough" accuracy, yes, but to my way of thinking, a rifle can never be "too accurate".

AKs are somewhat limited by their crappy round. Sorry, but it's true. You get ~1400 ft lbs of energy, which is about 300 more than you get with .223. The .223 has a much better trajectory, though. Of course, you get TWICE that with .308 The 7.62x39 is roughly equivalent to the .30-30, which was cutting edge about 100 years ago. It's fine for third-world human-wave spray-and-pray, or bubba plinking, but once you get past 200 or 300 yards, the AK is done.

I'd say the AR has a crappy round as well. .223 is nice for varmints but it's not as good as its predecessor (.308). I certainly wouldn't want to be hit by one, but then I wouldn't want to be hit by .22LR, either. I suspect when history is written 50 years from now, they'll look back and see that the US military over-corrected from .308's perceived drawbacks to the .223, and later settled on something in the 6.5 range.

I personally do NOT like the M4, because it's too loud and runs too hot.

The idea that the AR15/M16 is the "most battle tested rifle in history" is a bit debatable...the M1 Garand, the Kar 98K, etc. all would be in the running. Heck, more Mosin-Nagants have seen action than ARs ;-)

And finally, +1 to the M1A. A true battle rifle as opposed to an assault carbine. Superb accuracy and a much more lethal round (.308). Granted, it weighs more. The FAL is also a fine instrument.

AK, AR, FAL, M1A...they all have their strengths/weaknesses.